Abstract:

At universities, lectures and lecture-style courses still constitute an important part of teaching. However, there are large differences in teaching styles between different departments, subjects and instructors. Didactic methods, the amount of different didactic methods used in teaching and their adaptive use have an impact on teaching quality and the learning outcomes of students (e.g. Hattie, 2009; Perry & Smart, 2007). Furthermore, research shows that instructors with a student oriented teaching approach use a more diverse set of didactic methods, compared to instructors with a content oriented teaching approach (Coffey and Gibbs, 2002). The aim of the present study was to identify the main didactic methods which are currently used at German universities, their relationship to different departments and subjects and their dependence on general teaching orientations (student vs. content oriented). Finally, it was researched whether they are connected to social and personal competencies students should develop or expand from the point of view of their lecturers.

The following sample of departments and subjects was included: theology, legal sciences, mathematics, psychology, business sciences, agriculture, forestry, biology, health sciences, medicine, constructional engineering, and electrical engineering. An online questionnaire (self-rating) measured general teaching orientations, more specific didactic methods and the intended social and personal competencies students should acquire. The instructors were recruited by phone calls. Data from N = 560 instructors (professors and assistant professors) at 62 different German universities were collected.

Overall, the most frequent used didactic methods were ‘lecture’, ‘script’, ‘asking questions’, ‘synopsis’ and ‘breaks’. The results show significant differences in the use of didactic methods between departments and subjects. For example, instructors in psychology and theology stress more (than others) group work, brainstorming and discussions, while instructors in legal sciences especially use leading texts, case studies and individual work. In mathematics, instructors often write on the board and use simulations. General teaching orientations and the number of used didactic method were related: Instructors with a student oriented teaching approach used more and different didactic methods (r = .40) whereas instructors with a content oriented approach used fewer (r = -.36). These correlations were higher within social sciences (e.g. in psychology) and lower within natural sciences and technology (e.g. in electrical engineering). Instructors usually know various didactic methods, but many do apply only very few methods in practice. Instructors in social sciences used more didactic methods compared to instructors in natural sciences (d = 1.25).

The most important intended social and personal skills for over 85% of the participating instructors were ‘communication skills’, ‘willingness to learn‘ and to have a great ‘power of endurance‘. Across all competences, the results show significant differences between natural sciences and humanities (d = 0.7).

The study gives some hints for teacher consultations: Instructors know different methods but many do not regularly use them, e.g. because they do not know how to implement them or do not see the opportunities of using a variety of different methods. There are different cultures of teaching depending on department and subject.

Keywords:

Didactic methods at universities, teaching quality, university instructors, competences, teaching orientation.