A case study of faculty perceptions of teaching support and teaching efficacy in China: characteristics and relationships

This study investigated the characteristics of faculty perceptions of teaching support and teaching efficacy and the relationships between them in Shandong, a province in East China. The results from a sample of 2758 faculty members from 25 public institutions of higher education showed high levels...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inHigher education Vol. 76; no. 3; pp. 519 - 536
Main Authors Han, Jiying, Yin, Hongbiao, Wang, Junju
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Dordrecht Springer 01.09.2018
Springer Netherlands
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:This study investigated the characteristics of faculty perceptions of teaching support and teaching efficacy and the relationships between them in Shandong, a province in East China. The results from a sample of 2758 faculty members from 25 public institutions of higher education showed high levels of reported teaching support and teaching efficacy. Faculty members from key institutions scored higher on teaching resources and efficacy for course design but lower on administrative and peer support. Male faculty members scored higher on efficacy for course design, technology usage and classroom management. Teaching assistants scored higher on administrative and peer support but lower on efficacy for course design, instructional strategy, technology usage and classroom management. In addition to the positive relationship between teaching resources, peer support and all teaching efficacy factors, administrative support was negatively related to course design, technology usage, classroom management and learning assessment among faculty of provincial institutions but positively related to course design and technology usage among faculty of vocational institutions. No significant relationship was found between administrative support and teaching efficacy factors among faculty members from key institutions.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Report-2
ISSN:0018-1560
1573-174X
DOI:10.1007/s10734-017-0223-0