International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/

2018, Volume 30, Number 3, 388-401
ISSN 1812-9129

Transdisciplinary or Pedagogically Distinct?
Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates in Higher Education
Erika E. Smith

Heather Kanuka

Mount Royal University

University of Alberta

This research provides an analysis of disciplines and disciplinary differences regarding the
pedagogical value and content of post-graduate teaching certificates in higher education. Findings
and recommendations are based upon a survey (N = 450) of department heads and doctoral students
at Canadian research-focused universities. Participants were surveyed regarding their perceptions of
the value of a credentialed teaching certificate for new academics seeking employment, as well as
whether they believe the pedagogical knowledge and skills that typically comprise teaching
certificates are valuable. Examining whether a strongly held disciplinary identity in more senior
academics contributes to these differences, the survey results demonstrate significant differences
between disciplines for the overall value and, in some areas, the content of teaching certificates,
especially in department head responses. Relatedly, the open-ended survey comments show a deeply
ingrained disciplinary identity, particularly for those holding the department head roles, which in
turn reflected several participants’ perceptions of disciplinary teaching and learning knowledge and
skills as holding superior value to generic, transdisciplinary programs. Recommendations include a
renewed focus in educational development initiatives on linking transdisciplinary approaches to
specific disciplinary contexts, further connecting overarching pedagogical theories to pedagogical
content knowledge as it is translated in practice.

With a few notable exceptions, centralized centers for
teaching and learning within institutions of higher
education provide teaching development activities in a
transdisciplinary format, often using generic teaching
development approaches. The term transdisciplinary
signifies an approach pertaining to multiple fields and
branches of knowledge, and in higher education it can be
associated with centralized, coordinated pedagogical
programming using an overarching or generic
understanding of teaching and learning. Transdisciplinary
approaches have been criticized as processes “in which
educational developers parachute into disciplines with
their generic canon about student learning, emphasizing
the deep and surface binary, and about reflective practice”
(Manathunga, 2006, p. 24). Generic approaches have also
been identified as problematic because academics have
perceived differences in their focus on teaching and
learning across the disciplines (Gurung, Chick, & Haynie,
2009). Nevertheless, the justification for transdisciplinary
approaches is warranted on the basis that they provide
institutional economies of scale (Jenkins & Burkill, 2004;
Kanuka, Heller, & Jugdev, 2008). Research has shown
that academics can identify over 140 distinct disciplines
(National Forum, 2015). Rowland (2002) asserts further
that as disciplines are increasingly fragmented into “highly
specialized sub-disciplines, so the very idea of the
discipline itself becomes redundant” (p. 61; see also Brew,
2003). Alternatively, it has been argued that there are
opportunities for metadisciplinary awareness through
teaching programs when they are offered in a
transdisciplinary format, which can be achieved through
collegial conversations and collaborations across
disciplines (Chick, Haynie, & Gurung, 2009). Finding a
balance
between
discipline-specific
versus

transdisciplinary teaching knowledge and skills has been
hotly debated in the literature, leaving those who offer
teaching development with few clear ways forward. This
conundrum is further complicated by the fact that
providing comprehensive but individualized teaching
services and programs for more than 140 unique
disciplinary areas would be unfeasible for most, if not all,
institutions of higher education.
While acknowledging the impracticality of providing
pedagogically unique teaching programs exponentially, it is
also widely recognized that academics have a strong
preference for engaging in teaching development activities
in their own discipline. This preference arises from
academics’ tendency to relate to their own pedagogical
content knowledge alongside a distinct disciplinary culture
and discourse, often learned early in a career through
associations in home departments or units, professional
associations, and scholarly fora (National Forum, 2015;
Wareing, 2009). Healy (2005) argues further that, given the
perceived importance of a discipline within academics’
identity, it is reasonable to assume the nature of the teaching
varies between disciplines. Even though it is acknowledged
in the literature that faculty members strongly believe they
have a distinct disciplinary identity and reflect a clear sense
of disciplinary attributes and boundaries, the existence of
such disciplinary boundaries has also been challenged in the
literature. Barnett (1994), for example, argues that
“disciplines are not the harmonious enterprises sometimes
assumed but are, rather, the territories of warring factions,
often leaving a bloody mess in their internecine struggles”
(p. 61). Relatedly, Gibbs (2000) notes that various teaching
activities described as being discipline-specific are, in fact,
applied widely across disciplines – while also
acknowledging that transdisciplinary (or, generic) principles

Smith and Kanuka

of teaching and learning apply with varying significance in
different disciplines. These varying pedagogical differences
are often witnessed within each discipline’s signature
pedagogies (Gurung et al., 2009; Shulman, 2005), which
form a relationship between pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK) and disciplinary ways of thinking in practice.
Given the strong disciplinary identities that exist,
as well as the enduring perceptions amongst academics
that there are important differences between disciplines,
this study aims to gain further insights into disciplinary
considerations within the umbrella of transdisciplinary
teaching programs. In this study, we explore these
disciplinary differences regarding the perceived value
of a transdisciplinary credentialed teaching program for
new academics, such as those typically offered through
an institution’s centralized certificate in teaching.
Specific research objectives include (a) gaining insights
into the perceived value of transdisciplinary teaching
certificates for new academics and (b) perceptions of
transdisciplinary pedagogical knowledge and skills
within different disciplines.
Literature Review
Issues related to disciplinary considerations for
centrally supported institutional activities, including
teaching development programs and initiatives, have
tended to trigger binary positions in the literature.
Research and discourse on this topic vary widely. There
are views, for example, that teaching development is
“best not seen as a generic and practical activity … If it
does, it will inevitably be sucked into the reductive
discourse of culture compliance” (Rowland, 2002, p. 62).
Alternatively, Jenkins and Burkill (2004) assert that most
teaching issues that new and early academics encounter
are generic in nature, though they do acknowledge that a
disciplinary focus can help to head off common
criticisms. Other discourse in the literature expresses
similar sentiments, emphasizing that disciplinary
relevance may address academic preferences to engage
in teaching development within their own disciplinary
context. For example, a recent study by the National
Forum (2015) confirms perceptions of specific
pedagogical approaches as being uniquely connected to
the disciplines, but also highlights the importance of
transdisciplinary skill development, such as critical
reasoning and independent thinking, concluding that
“teaching approaches cited by disciplinary groups as
central to their pedagogy are not exclusive to any
discipline – in other words, people may prefer to talk
with disciplinary colleagues about teaching, even though
colleagues in other disciplines have similar issues” (p.
16). Wareing states that disciplinary division “offers a
partial explanation for challenges made to the validity of
cross-university activities, such as postgraduate
certificates in learning and teaching,” explaining that

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

389

academics working on “transdisciplinary activities
encounter unfamiliar social networks and customs, and
need to develop new skills and bodies of knowledge
before feeling confident and comfortable outside their
original discipline” (2009, pp. 917-918). Such views
demonstrate the need to gain further understanding of
disciplinary perspectives and contexts that could be
integrated into generic educational development
initiatives, such as teaching certificates.
An analysis of current literature on transdisciplinary
approaches to teaching programs suggests that while
there is strong evidence of academics’ preference for
distinct disciplinary approaches within teaching
programs, the pedagogical evidence supporting such
disciplinary divides in teaching is rather thin. For
example, it has been suggested that there is little
evidence in the literature on disciplinary differences with
respect to how students learn in specific disciplines,
including the research on curriculum and learning
theories (Gibbs, 2000; Manathunga, 2006). Wareing
(2009) also provides an overview of the literature,
suggesting there is little evidence to support disciplinary
differences. Rather, academics perceive their discipline
to be “methodologically, pedagogically and conceptually
better than other disciplines … [and] academics construct
‘stories’ to explain the superiority of their own
disciplines over others” (pp. 921-922). These stories,
according to Wareing, construct and maintain
disciplinary distinctiveness and superiority, ultimately
resulting in lower perceived relevance for
transdisciplinary teaching programs.
Much of the literature reviewed argues that
academics perceive there to be differences in the way
teachers teach and learners learn based on the
discipline. For example, Yeo and Boman’s (2017)
recent work calls attention to disciplinary differences in
faculty conceptions of assessment, stating that “a
universal approach to assessment practice is not
realistic…significant variance between disciplinary
approaches should be expected” (p. 3). However, much
of the literature reviewed also argues that because there
is scant evidence of actual (versus perceived)
disciplinary differences, there is, in fact, justification
for transdisciplinary teaching programs. While far less
research on this topic has been conducted with students,
some literature illustrates that students hold similar
disciplinary perspectives. Goldschmidt (2014), for
example, reveals that students appear to have similar
perspectives with respect to their identity and the value
of disciplinary practices. Research by Prior (1998) also
substantiates this perspective, with findings that show
working with students in their own disciplines creates a
sense of belongingness or membership, highlighting the
importance of such disciplinary identities. This
disciplinary identity has also been confirmed in other
recent higher education research (see, for example,

Smith and Kanuka

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

390

Figure 1
Pedagogical content knowledge and signature pedagogies.

Note. This figure illustrates the intersection of disciplinary content and pedagogical knowledge, relating to the elements of
signature pedagogies, as outlined in Shulman (1986; 2005).

Smith, 2016) on undergraduate meaning making
processes in disciplinary contexts.
Our review of the research is consistent with
Lueddeke (2003) in that much of the literature in this
area is normative and descriptive, with fewer studies
than might be expected on academics’ values and
beliefs with respect to teaching practices within
disciplinary contexts. While an extensive review is
beyond the scope of this study, Donald’s (2002) 25
years of research provides noteworthy evidence that
not only shows disciplinary differences in the ways
students and academics think, but also illustrates that
certain teaching and learning practices can hinder or
help student learning within the disciplines. It is also
worth noting that absent in much of the literature
advocating for a transdisciplinary approach to
teaching programs is important seminal research over
several decades conducted by scholars including
Biglan (1973), Kolb (1981), Becher (1989), Healey
(2000), and Donald (2002).
Conceptual Framework
Transdisciplinary teaching programs that reflect an
underpinning assumption that teaching and learning
activities are, carte blanche, generic are at odds with
research showing embedded disciplinary dictums about
the nature of learning, which can ultimately guide
pedagogical approaches. Shulman (1986) has referred

to the intersection of disciplinary content and pedagogy
knowledge as pedagogical content knowledge. The
dichotomy between transdisciplinary and disciplinary
knowledge of pedagogy has been questioned due,
largely, to the work of Shulman (see also Grossman,
1989; Gudmundsdottir, 1988; Wilson, Shulman, &
Richert, 1987). Recognizing the importance of both
pedagogical knowledge and disciplinary (content)
knowledge, Shulman developed a framework for
teacher development by introducing the notion of
pedagogical content knowledge, illustrated in Figure 1.
Extending this work on content knowledge and
disciplinary context for teaching and learning, Shulman
(2005) articulated the idea of signature pedagogies in
the professions (or, disciplines), which involve three
dimensions: a surface structure, reflecting concrete or
operational components of any particular field; a deep
structure that reflects a set of assumptions about the
best way to impart a particular body of knowledge and
skills; and, an implicit structure involving the beliefs,
values, and dispositions of the profession or discipline
(pp. 54-55). Together, pedagogical content knowledge
and signature pedagogies provide a foundation for
investigating implicit and explicit perceptions of
transdisciplinary and discipline-specific considerations
for educational development via programs such as
teaching certificates.
Shulman (1986) has argued that a distinct form of
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) exists and that

Smith and Kanuka

this knowledge builds upon, but is different from,
subject matter knowledge. Shulman defines PCK as
going “beyond knowledge of subject matter per se to
the dimension of subject matter knowledge for
teaching” (emphasis in original, p. 6). In this way,
rather than viewing teaching development from the
perspective of pedagogical knowledge versus content
knowledge, Shulman argues for the integration of these
two knowledge bases. Warning that the contemporary
trend to solely prioritize pedagogy over content has
created a missing paradigm, Shulman’s (1986)
foundational work continues to ring true today in
highlighting a “sharp distinction between knowledge
and pedagogy…[t]he missing paradigm refers to a blind
spot with respect to content” (p. 5) within teaching
research and practice as a gap that must be addressed.
Shulman’s conceptualization of PCK has relevant
and direct implications for teaching programs in higher
education. According to Shulman (1986), those who are
involved in the design, development, and facilitation of
teaching and learning activities need to acquire
knowledge about content, as well as overall program
development. Hence, to facilitate effective classroom
teaching, academics need to understand not only the
pedagogical strategies unique to their disciplines (e.g.,
the subject matter being taught and the culture of their
discipline), but also learning theories, which are
transdisciplinary and relevant to understanding students’
intellectual development. For example, the seminal
research by Perry (1970) and more recent research by
Baxter Magolda (2004) on students’ intellectual
development are applicable across and within the
disciplines. This kind of understanding provides a
foundation for PCK that enables academics to make
ideas more accessible to the students they teach.
If teaching in higher education is to be effective,
academics must struggle with issues of both their
disciplinary ways of knowing and overarching bodies of
pedagogical knowledge. This means that academics need to
develop a repertoire of teaching methods that reflect the
uniqueness of their disciplinary culture, as well as the
broader constructs of the cognitive sciences and educational
research on students’ intellectual development. This
presents an intersection between learning how to facilitate
the students’ intellectual development and understanding the
unique ways of constructing knowledge within and between
the disciplines. It is here that PCK connects to signature
pedagogies that implicitly and/or explicitly build
disciplinary habits of mind by “educating students to
practice the intellectual moves and values of experts in the
field” (Chick et al., 2009, p. 2), therefore creating disciplinespecific strengths while also building metadisciplinary
awareness by fostering linkages and connections within and
between the disciplines.
Related prior research has also revealed some
important insights on the intersection of disciplinary

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

391

content and transdisciplinary pedagogical knowledge.
An overview of this literature reveals both support and
change in instructors as a result of developing
pedagogical content knowledge. Noteworthy in the
empirical research reviewed by Van Driel, Verloop, and
De Vos (1998) is that there might be value to having
disciplinary experts study subject matter from a
transdisciplinary pedagogical perspective. As such, the
constructs put forward by Shulman (1986) and the
related research on PCK and signature pedagogies were
used to frame the research in this study.
Research Design and Methodology
The purpose of this research was to gain further
insights on (a) the perceived value of transdisciplinary
teaching certificates and (b) participants’ perspectives
on transdisciplinary pedagogical knowledge as
compared to discipline-specific content knowledge. The
study utilized a survey methodology via a crosssectional design (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011)
for collecting and analyzing participants’ perceptions
and views of teaching development program content
within post-graduate teaching certificates. Following an
analysis of the literature on teaching development
programs within higher education, the survey was
designed according to five recurring areas of focus for
teaching development of academics across disciplines:
1) varied teaching methods; 2) diverse assessment
strategies; 3) undergraduate class size; 4) philosophies
of teaching and theories of learning; and 5) course
management and instructional design, such as learning
outcomes and syllabi (Arreola, 2007; Hunt, Wright, &
Gordon, 2008; Kenny, Watson, & Watton, 2014; Smith,
Heubel, & Hansen, 2016). The survey was designed to
explore these five areas broadly, with eight specific
questions focused on teaching program content, each of
which was followed by a textual comment box,
therefore capturing participant views through both
closed and open-ended data. A specific survey question
related to discipline was also included, and two survey
questions explored the perceived value of a credentialed
teaching certificate for primarily teaching-focused
(instructional) versus primarily research-focused
(tenure track) academic positions. The survey
concluded with an open-ended comment box to capture
additional unstructured perspectives.
Sample
This study used a convenience sample of two groups of
participants: doctoral students (N = 128), who are the target
audience for taking post-graduate teaching certificates, and
department heads (N = 322), who are responsible for
leading academic hiring in Canada. Department heads from
six of Canada’s U15 universities (research-focused with

Smith and Kanuka

medical faculties) were identified via information listed on
publically available websites. Six hundred participants
meeting the inclusion criteria were emailed invitations to
participate in the online survey for a response rate of 54%
(N = 322). For doctoral students, to ensure participation was
voluntary, institutional research ethics approval required that
survey invitations were provided by a member of the
Graduate Students’ Association (GSA), not a faculty
member. Therefore, a GSA member at Canadian researchintensive university distributed the invitation for doctoral
participants via an email listserv, resulting in 128 usable
doctoral survey responses. To enable current and recently
completed doctoral students to participate, those who held
or were transitioning to post-doctoral fellow positions were
included in the target sample (for clarity, doctoral student is
the term used for this group). Disciplinary sub-groups were
determined according to the Canadian Tri-Agency
framework, which includes the Health Sciences (doctoral
students n = 33, department heads n = 63), Natural Sciences
& Engineering (doctoral students n = 56, department heads
n = 90), and Humanities & Social Sciences (doctoral
students n = 20, department heads n = 133). In a few
instances, responses related to these disciplinary categories
were not provided and therefore could not be quantitatively
analyzed; however, since all of the survey questions
described below contained both a quantitative and
descriptive field (open-ended comment boxes), adjustments
were made by analyzing all open-ended comments.
Data Analysis
To analyze and compare responses of department
head and doctoral student groups according to discipline,
data analysis centered on demonstrable relationships,
differences, patterns, or themes between groups regarding
both the value and content of teaching development within
post-graduate teaching certificates in higher education. For
the open-ended text-based survey items, responses were
analyzed using generic qualitative coding techniques
(Merriam, 2009) inclusive of descriptive, process, in vivo,
pattern, and simultaneous coding, then organized into
theoretical units that emerged from the saturated categories
and themes. For the quantitative survey items, responses
were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical
procedures via SPSS software. Likert-type scales ranging
from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree) were used
to measure participant perceptions. Because there is a
debate in the literature about treatment of Likert-type
scales (e.g., Jamieson, 2004), where the outcome variables
included Likert-type items that are ordinal in nature, both a
parametric (i.e., t-test for comparing doctoral student and
department head groups, and a one-way ANOVA for
comparing across three disciplinary groups) and
corresponding non-parametric test (i.e., Mann-Whitney
and Kruskal-Wallis respectively) were conducted, with the
most conservative results selected (López, Valenzuela,

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

392

Nussbaum, & Tsai, 2015; Polit, 2009). Post-hoc tests were
conducted to determine whether the mean difference for
items between disciplines was significant, with Tamhane’s
T2 selected for post-hoc tests because it is robust to
homogeneity of variances (i.e., it does not assume equal
variances) (Efrosini, Kokaliari, & Roy, 2012, p. 574).
Limitations
Since this research focuses on participants from
research-intensive universities, it is limited by the
nature of the methods and sample utilized. There is a
need for further research on these issues, including
additional quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods
studies using other sample types and sizes across
different higher education contexts.
Results
Survey findings illustrate several significant differences
according to discipline and role (department head or
doctoral student), not only for the content comprising postgraduate teaching certificates, but also for the overall
perceived value of such certificates (for further information
on overall perceived value for academic employment,
please see Kanuka & Smith, 2018). As the following results
show, the quantitative results demonstrate where significant
differences between doctoral student and department head
groups occur according to discipline, with the open-ended
comments providing insights into why these disciplinary
differences exist.
Quantitative Results
To determine whether there were differences between
the three disciplinary categories of Health Sciences,
Humanities & Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences &
Engineering, analysis of doctoral students’ and department
heads’ combined and isolated quantitative responses were
completed as follows.
Disciplinary differences for academic hiring.
Significant differences between disciplines for
combined department head and doctoral student
responses can be explained by examining the isolated
responses of each of these roles. For department
heads, a one-way ANOVA showed significant
differences (p < 0.001) between disciplines (see Q1 in
Table 1), with Health Sciences department heads
placing significantly higher value on a post-graduate
teaching certificate as positively influencing interview
selection for tenure or tenure-track positions.
Tamhane post-hoc tests confirmed significant
differences occurred between department heads, with
those in Health Sciences placing significantly higher
value on Q1 than those in Humanities & Social
Sciences (p < 0.001) and in Natural Sciences &

Smith and Kanuka

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

393

Table 1
Perceived Value of Teaching Certificates for Academic Hiring by Discipline
Discipline
n (%)†,
Mean (SD, total n)
Q1. If an applicant for a tenure or tenure track faculty position in your department has a ‘for credit’ (formal,
externally recognized) Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education from a respected university, it
would positively influence selection for an interview.

Dept. heads
Doctoral students
Dept. heads and doctoral
students combined

Health Sciences
52 (83.9%),
1.81** (0.74, 62)

Natural Sciences &
Engineering
66 (74.1%),
2.21** (0.73, 89)

Humanities & Social
Sciences
84 (64.2%),
2.35** (0.76, 131)

28 (87.5%)
1.72 (0.85, 32)

43 (79.6%)
1.85†† (0.74, 54)

17 (85.0%)
1.85†† (0.67, 20)

80 (85.1%)
1.78*** (0.78, 94)

109 (76.2%)
2.07*** (0.75, 143)

101 (66.9%)
2.29*** (0.77, 151)

Q2. If an applicant for an instructional position (e.g., non-tenure/non-tenure track lecturer, sessional) in your
department has a ‘for credit’ (formal, externally recognized) Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education from a respected university, it would positively influence selection for an interview.

Dept. heads
Doctoral students

Health Sciences
54 (87.1%),
1.57* (0.72, 62)

Natural Sciences &
Engineering
77 (88.5%),
1.71 (0.73, 87)

Humanities & Social
Sciences
111 (85.4%),
1.89* (0.74, 130)

28 (90.3%)
1.48 (0.68, 31)

48 (90.5%)
1.55 (0.67, 53)

19 (95.0%)
1.60 (0.60, 20)

Dept. heads and doctoral
82 (88.2%)
125 (89.2%)
130 (86.7%)
students combined
1.54††† (0.70, 93)
1.65 (0.71, 140)
1.85††† (0.72, 150)
†
Number and percentage of (2) agree and (1) strongly agree survey responses by discipline.
*p < 0.05 and **p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA shows significant differences in department head responses between
disciplinary categories.
††
p < 0.01, t-test shows significant differences between doctoral students and dept. heads in Natural Sciences &
Engineering and Humanities & Social Sciences.
***p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA shows significant differences, with Tamhane confirming significant differences
between all three disciplines for combined responses.
†††
p = 0.003, one-way ANOVA shows significant differences, with Tamhane confirming significant differences
between Health Sciences and Humanities & Social Sciences disciplines for combined responses.

Engineering (p = 0.003) disciplinary groups. Regarding
interview selection for non-tenure track instructional
positions (see Q2 in Table 1), the one-way ANOVA and
Tamhane post-hoc tests both showed significant
differences (p < 0.05), with department heads in the
Health Sciences placing significantly higher agreement
on post-graduate certificates than department heads in the
Humanities & Social Sciences. For doctoral students,
responses for Q1 and Q2 showed no significant
differences between disciplines.
To further analyze whether differences exist
between doctoral students and department heads in each
disciplinary category, a t-test was used to compare

means between these two groups. Regarding hiring for
a tenure or tenure-track position (see Q1 in Table 1), a
t-test comparing roles demonstrated that, as compared
to department heads in those disciplines, doctoral
students in the Natural Sciences & Engineering (t(141)
= 2.86, p = 0.005) and Humanities & Social Sciences
(t(149) = 2.77,
p = 0.006) disciplines placed
significantly higher value on a post-graduate teaching
certificate as positively influencing interview selection.
However, regarding non-tenure track instructional
hiring (see Q2 in Table 1), a t-test demonstrated no
significant differences between doctoral students and
department heads according to discipline for the

Smith and Kanuka

perceived value of a teaching certificate as positively
influencing interview selection.
Disciplinary
consistency
for
teaching
development. Analysis showed few significant
disciplinary differences for department head and
doctoral student responses regarding the value of
developing teaching knowledge and skills via a postgraduate certificate. To analyze department head
perceptions of the value of content that comprises
teaching certificates (for more information, see Table
1A in Appendix A), a one-way ANOVA demonstrated
significant differences for department heads between
disciplines (p ≤ 0.005) for teaching development of
learning outcomes. Tamhane post-hoc tests further
illustrated that department heads in the Health Sciences
placed significantly higher value on teaching
development for writing learning outcomes than those
in Natural Sciences & Engineering (p = 0.025) and
Humanities & Social Sciences (p = 0.004) groups.
Regarding teaching development focused on knowing
how students learn based on learning theories in higher
education, a one-way ANOVA demonstrated significant
differences for department heads between disciplines (p
< 0.05), with Tamhane post-hoc tests showing that
those in the Health Sciences again placed higher value
on this than those in the Natural Sciences &
Engineering (p = 0.025) disciplinary group. For
doctoral student responses, a one-way ANOVA showed
significant differences (p < 0.05) between disciplinary
groups for only one item: knowing how to develop a
syllabus/course outline (for more information, see
Table 2A in Appendix A). A one-way ANOVA showed
significant differences (p < 0.05) between disciplinary
groups, with the more conservative Kruskal-Wallis test
confirming significant differences between mean ranks
(p = 0.040). Here, Tamhane post-hoc tests
demonstrated slightly significant differences (p =
0.057) between two disciplines, illustrating that
doctoral students in the Health Sciences placed
somewhat higher value on teaching development for
syllabi/course outlines as compared to those in the
Natural Sciences & Engineering.
Overall, those in the Health Sciences perceived
teaching certificates to be of greater value for academic
hiring, with doctoral students and department heads
alike in the Health Sciences providing significantly
higher mean values for Q1 and Q2, ultimately
illustrating agreement that teaching certificates would
positively influence interview selection, particularly for
non-tenure track instructional positions. In contrast to
doctoral student responses, department heads in the
Natural Sciences & Engineering and the Humanities &
Social Sciences provided the lowest mean values for
these questions, indicating lower agreement with
teaching certificates as positively influencing interview
selection, especially for tenure-track positions.

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

394

However, unlike the diverging responses apparent for
academic hiring, responses regarding development of
teaching knowledge and skills (see Tables 1A and 2A)
via a post-graduate certificate were more consistent,
with very few significant differences in doctoral student
and department head survey responses according to
discipline. In the few areas where differences did exist,
results reflected similarities to the academic hiring
findings, with those disciplines outside of the Health
Sciences providing lower mean values.
Open-Ended Survey Results
Analysis of the open-ended responses focused on core
themes and patterns emerging from the textual comment
items. Specifically, analysis centered on participant
descriptions of the value and content typically comprising
teaching certificates, as related to the questions posed, as
well as overall participant explanations reflecting
disciplinary context and considerations.
The importance of discipline. Participant
comments lend further insights by describing the reasons
why there are significant disciplinary differences
regarding the overall value of a teaching certificate,
especially for department heads and, in particular, for
academic hiring. As compared to the doctoral students,
department heads provided a larger range of open-ended
comments, with several of their descriptions revealing
deeply ingrained disciplinary perspectives and values.
For instance, one department head noted that the
“credibility of the instructor is also important to the value
of such a certificate. As is knowledge of how to teach in
specific disciplines.” In regard to Engineering courses,
one department head also described the importance of
disciplinary knowledge:
It is most important that the candidate, especially a
sessional, have knowledge of the subject at hand.
The weakness in the universities is that Faculty do
not know how the real world operates….It is not
the lack of ability to design a course - it is the lack
of understanding what the subject matter is.
Echoing this comment, a Humanities and Social Sciences
department head noted that disciplinary expertise takes
priority: “for us there exist credentials already on the
teaching of particular languages. These credentials would
have more relevance than a Cert in Teaching and Learning.”
Even though Health Sciences department heads provided
higher overall quantitative values in several areas, similar
disciplinary qualifications were still identified as important
within the open-ended results, with one participant stating
that “A Masters in Education is a good option as well, but I
don't find it is well regarded in nursing education.” Placing
priority on experience with and knowledge of disciplinary
ways of knowing and being was a recurring theme in

Smith and Kanuka

department head comments, in several cases setting up a
binary between disciplinary versus transdisciplinary
teaching abilities and qualifications.
The theme of prioritizing disciplinary experience
and expertise continued in department head descriptions
of the importance of research in developing disciplinary
skills and knowledge within universities. As one
department head stated, “What we teach is grounded in
our research. If teaching training and pedagogical
theory helps, fine, but that is second to experience and
actual content.” Another department head also
emphasized the importance of both disciplinary
competence and research contributions:
I strongly agree that all those [teaching]
competences are important, but they do not override
a candidate's competence in his/her own discipline
and his/her ability to conduct original research and
publish it in scholarly venues. This is the reason I
did not "strongly" agree in the first two questions.
In all of these examples, what comes to the fore is the
persisting priority of disciplinary and research expertise, as
well as experience with disciplinary knowledge systems and
methods, even if transdisciplinary teaching knowledge and
skills are also viewed as somewhat valuable.
Disciplinary perspectives on teaching development.
Qualitative results also shed insights into why there are
significant disciplinary differences for department head
responses regarding certain topics that typically inform the
knowledge and skills developed in teaching certificates.
With respect to developing abilities to write a syllabus, one
doctoral student emphasized institutional context and
subject area, as follows: “Support for this kind of training
and teaching certification really depends in part on where
you earned your PhD and gained post-doctoral training in
the first place (+/- subject area).” Likewise, a department
head also emphasized disciplinary context and content,
noting that “it doesn't take long to learn how to develop a
syllabus. I[t]'s the discipline that takes the time to learn, the
content: the form is easily acquired.” This perspective was
also reinforced in other department heads’ comments about
learning outcomes, with one participant noting that “[a]fter
all, a big part of identifying learning objectives has to do
with content, not just ‘form.’” Such perspectives were
echoed by another department head, who said that
“Learning outcomes may be defined in a variety of ways
and may be discipline specific, so learning about these in the
type of course/certificate implie[d] by this survey, may not
have a major impact for some disciplines.” These participant
descriptions continue to illustrate the ways in which several
participants, particularly department heads, placed high
value on discipline-specific knowledge and skills.
Another area where the open-ended comments help
to explain the reasons why significant disciplinary
differences occur for department heads is in regard to

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

395

developing an understanding of how students learn
based on learning theories. One department head
described his or her discipline as a “specialist field with
its own literature on best practices, rather different from
more general theory on learning in [post-secondary
education] PSE settings.” Another agreed:
Whilst this is valuable, I have found it critical that
the teaching imparts knowledge at the cutting edge
of the discipline, preferably by a Faculty member
who is an international expert in the discipline
being taught. There is nothing that substitutes for
this in engaging the attention and motivation of the
students in class.
The importance of discipline was reiterated by several
department heads, as illustrated in comments such as
“the discipline matters more to us” and “Again this may
be quite discipline specific, and so learning theories
may not equally apply to all students in all disciplines.”
In this way, discipline-specific knowledge and skills
were often given priority over the development of
teaching knowledge and skills.
Emphasis on disciplinary ways of knowing and
being, as well as discipline-specific teaching
approaches, continued in the department head
comments with respect to developing diverse
instructional and assessment methods, in some cases
contrasting doctoral student responses. For example,
one doctoral student “absolutely” agreed with
development of diverse teaching methods, noting that
“Although some methods work better than others in
specific fields, the goal of all university-level teaching
should be to engage students in the learning process.”
In contrast, several department heads agreed but
provided disciplinary caveats:
Agree, provided the facilitator is an expert in the
discipline taught. Problem based learning by "non
experts" is, in my opinion, futile and an unproven
theory. It is also not supported by recent student
feedback in disciplines such as medicine, where
students are looking to be taught by practicing
physicians and reject non-physicians.
Several other department heads emphasized the
importance of disciplinary teaching and learning
knowledge and skills, demonstrated in comments such
as, “Again, this is very diverse and specific to the course
material/topics to be taught,” and, “Some of these
methods may be irrelevant to certain disciplines.”
Crystalizing many of these recurring sentiments, one
department head put it this way: “One of the great
weaknesses of current workshop and training methods is
that these do not translate into various disciplinary
contexts or into discussions of curriculum.” Providing

Smith and Kanuka

several insights into the reasons why several participants,
particularly department heads, demonstrated differing
views on both the value and content of teaching
certificates, the open-ended results illustrate deeply held
values of and emphasis upon discipline-specific teaching
and learning knowledge and skills.
Results Summary
Results from the survey data demonstrate
differences between participant responses according to
discipline and according to their roles as either a
department head or doctoral student. Quantitative
survey data showed significant differences between
these groups for academic hiring, with department
heads in the Natural Sciences & Engineering and
Humanities & Social Sciences groups indicating lower
agreement with teaching certificates as positively
influencing interview selection, especially for tenuretrack hiring. In terms of teaching certificate content that
informs what knowledge and skills are developed,
while few differences appeared, there were notable
differences between disciplines regarding participants’
perceptions of the value of knowing how to write
learning outcomes and how students learn based on
learning theories (department heads), as well as for
knowing how to create a syllabus/course outline
(doctoral students). Here again, differences occurred
between disciplines outside of the Health Sciences, as
these disciplines provided lower mean values. The
open-ended comment results further illuminate the
reasons why participants, specifically department
heads, showed these differences. Open-ended
comments illustrated thematic perceptions (largely of
department heads) that reflect deeply held disciplinary
values related to teaching and learning knowledge and
skills, ultimately reinforcing the primacy of disciplinary
ways of knowing and being over the transdisciplinary
pedagogical focus of teaching certificates.
Discussion and Recommendations
Given teaching development programs are typically
offered in a transdisciplinary format in institutions of
higher education, many, if not most, disciplinary
narratives, cultures, and pedagogies are only tangentially
situated in the program content. Much of the literature on
transdisciplinary teaching programs provides a
compelling rationale for this practice, specifically,
creating economies of scale with programs that address
many needs across disciplines in higher education.
Perhaps as importantly, research on the intellectual
development of students who enter programs in higher
education is relevant across disciplines. For example,
Baxter Magolda and Terenzini’s (1999) analysis of
trends and implications for learning in the twenty-first

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

396

century revealed that critical and reflective thinking,
complex cognitive thinking, application of knowledge to
practical problems, and self-directed/self-regulated
learning are essential skills for all undergraduates. All
such metacognitive knowledge and skills are necessarily
transdisciplinary. These kinds of metacognitive
knowledge and skills, also referred to as higher-ordered
learning that necessitates meaning construction (Donald,
2002), are premised on learning theories that span the
disciplines. These approaches are empirically and
theoretically informed, though as the results in this study
show, theories tend not to be considered as important as
other content typically provided in teaching programs, as
department heads’ responses across disciplines
(especially in Natural Sciences & Engineering, as shown
in Table 1A) demonstrated. On this front, the findings
indicate that teaching development programs likely need
to provide greater focus on, and explanation of, why
knowledge of learning theories and teaching philosophies
are important, explaining specifically how these theories
apply to practice. For example, learning theories help us
to deeply understand, articulate, and perhaps shift our
teaching and learning paradigms (Barr & Tagg, 1995).
Such findings illustrate a continued need for connecting
theoretical and empirical foundations to our
contemporary disciplinary contexts, not only within the
scholarship of teaching and learning (Kanuka, 2011), but
also within teaching and learning practices.
Recognizing the importance of both PCK and
transdisciplinary knowledge, a key focus for teaching
development programs would be to work closely and
collaboratively with all faculties in a manner that
recognizes the distinctive form of teacherpractitioners’ PCK. In doing so, disciplinary ways of
knowing can be used by faculty to guide their actions in
highly contextualized classroom settings. At the same
time, it is important for those in faculty development
roles to remain cognizant that many, if not most, issues
facing new academics occur across the disciplines.
Wareing (2009) presents compelling literature
illustrating that there exists as many differences within
disciplines as there are across disciplines, with
discourses that not only reinforce boundaries between
disciplines, but also “mythologize the superiority of
one’s own discipline over others” (p. 926). Supporting
this assertion, the findings in this study indicate that
pedagogic issues included in cross-university teaching
programs that apply across all disciplines can be
dismissed by some academics because the constructs
and content terminology are inconsistent with the
perceived importance of disciplinary ways of knowing.
Prior research has shown that while efforts to
connect the disciplines have been initiated, results reveal
that these activities have “had limited effectiveness as a
sole strategy” (Quinnell, Russell, Thompson, Marshall,
& Cowley, 2010, p. 22). Quinnell et al. also assert that

Smith and Kanuka

individual academics need to make meaning of the
transdisciplinary information, arguing “academic staff
are first and foremost disciplinary experts, they are best
placed to comment on which models and practice of
scholarship describe the scholarship of learning and
teaching within the context of their own disciplines”
(2010, p. 21). At the same time, internationally, broader
initiatives aimed at helping to foster teaching and
research discussions between and across disciplines and
institutions, such as the Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education’s recent Focus On: The Post-Graduate
Research (PGR) Student Experience (n.d.) report and
resources for the United Kingdom, point to evidence of
these continued conversations.
Mindful of the benefits of transdisciplinary
approaches, the results from this study indicate that
academics may fail to translate transdisciplinary
knowledge and skills to their own disciplinary contexts
and everyday classroom practices. Indeed, rather than
make meaningful connections with transdisciplinary
theories and constructs of teaching and learning, more
established academics (such as department heads) may
dismiss this information as irrelevant. Based on our
findings, it is misguided to place the sole responsibility
of translating transdisciplinary theory to practice on
academics within their own specific disciplines. In
order to address this issue with current teaching
certificates that, as one department head affirmed, “do
not translate to various disciplinary contexts, or into
discussions of curriculum,” those in centralized centers
for teaching and learning and in specific departments
have an opportunity to work collaboratively to strike a
better balance between transdisciplinary and disciplinespecific teaching development.
The data in this study also support Healey’s (2000)
assertion that there are differing levels of engagement
between the disciplines, recommending that links
between the scholarly literature on learning and
teaching are essential, and concluding that our
understanding of how academics view interfacing with
transdisciplinary programs on teaching and learning is
worthy of further exploration. Quinnell et al. (2010)
describes this as “interfacing with SoTL [scholarship of
teaching and learning] theory and practice” (p. 24). On
this front, findings from this study do support Quinnell
et al.’s advocacy for the development of
epistemological frameworks establishing ways of
knowing for PCK, with results from this study also
underscoring the importance of developing further such
ontological frameworks, to articulate ways of knowing
and being in the disciplines. Specifically, the data from
our study of research-focused universities indicates that
several academics, particularly those in more
established roles, do not view transdisciplinary
pedagogical theories as easily translating to their own
disciplines; as such, linking transdisciplinary content to

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

397

specific disciplines needs to be further built into
teaching development programs up front. Data from
this study indicate that failure to do so can result in a
lack of understanding for how pedagogical theories
apply to practice. In particular, despite the fact that
much has been written on the relationship between
theory and practice in education, the data from this
study indicate that several academics across disciplines
continue to view educational theories as irrelevant
jargon that is disconnected from their everyday
teaching practices. These results indicate that more
work needs to be done to interface between
disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in teaching
development activities.
Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to provide an
analysis of disciplines and disciplinary differences in
perceptions regarding the value and content of postgraduate teaching certificates in higher education.
Findings from this study provide additional insights on
disciplinary differences for the perceived value of
transdisciplinary teaching development for new
academics, as well as differences between disciplines
and roles (department heads and doctoral students)
regarding the perceived value of various knowledge and
skills typically targeted through content within
transdisciplinary teaching certificates. Examining
whether a strongly held disciplinary identity in more
senior academics contributes to these differences, the
quantitative survey research results demonstrate
significant differences between disciplines for the
overall value and, in some areas, the content of teaching
certificates, especially in department head responses.
Relatedly, the open-ended data show a deeply ingrained
disciplinary identity, particularly for those holding
department head roles, which in turn reflect several
participants’ perceptions of disciplinary teaching and
learning knowledge and skills as holding superior value
to generic, transdisciplinary programs. To address these
issues, educational development initiatives must expand
the capacity to link transdisciplinary content to specific
disciplines, further connecting overarching pedagogical
theories to pedagogical content knowledge as it is
translated into practice.
References
Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive
faculty
evaluation
system:
A
guide
to
designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty
evaluation systems (3rd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—
A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12-26.

Smith and Kanuka

Barnett, R. (1994). The limits of competence.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Evolution of a
constructivist conceptualization of epistemological
reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 31-42.
Baxter Magolda, M. and Terenzini, P.T. (1999). Learning
and teaching in the 21st century: Trends and
implications for practice. In C. S. Johnson and E. H.
Cheatham (Eds), Higher education trends for the next
century: A research agenda for student success (pp. 19–
29). Washington, DC: American College Personnel
Association.
Retrieved
from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED430446
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories.
Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter
in different academic areas. Journal of Applied
Psychology 57(3), 195-203.
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships
and their implications for inquiry based teaching and
learning in higher education. Higher Education
Research
and
Development,
22(1),
3–18.
doi:10.1080/0729436032000056571
Chick, N. L., Haynie, A, & Gurung, R. A. (2009). From
generic to signature pedagogies. In R. A. Gurung,
N. L. Chick, & A. Haynie (Eds.), Exploring
signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching
disciplinary habits of mind (pp. 1-18). Sterling,
VA: Stylus Publishing.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011).
Research methods in education. (7th ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Donald, J. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary
perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Efrosini, D., Kokaliari, M. B., & Roy, A. (2012). A
longitudinal study of assessing APA writing
competence at a BSW program. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 32(5), 566-577.
doi:10.1080/08841233.2012.725706
Gurung, R. A., Chick, N. L., & Haynie, A.
(2009). Exploring
signature
pedagogies:
Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of
mind. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Gibbs, G. (2000). Are the pedagogies of the discipline really
different? In C. Rust (Ed.) Proceedings of the 1999 7th
international symposium improving student learning:
improving student learning through the discipline.
Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning
Development, Oxford Brookes University.
Goldschmidt, M. (2014). Teaching writing in the
disciplines: Student perspectives on learning genre.
Teaching and Learning Inquiry 2(2), 25-40.
Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/553991
Grossman, P. (1989). A study of contrast. Sources of
pedagogical content knowledge or secondary
English. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 24-32.

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

398

Gudmundsdottir, S. (1988). Knowledge use among
experienced teacher: Four case studies of high
school teaching. Unpublished dissertation,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of
teaching in higher education: A discipline-based
approach. Higher Education Research and
Development, 19(2), 169-189.
Healy, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching:
Exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of
inquiry-based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.)
Reshaping the university: new relationships
between research, scholarship and teaching (pp.
30-44). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Hunt, G. A., Wright, A., & Gordon, G. (2008). Evolving
expectations for teaching in higher education in
Canada. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching (1),
15-21.
Retrieved
from
http://celt.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/CELT/index
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use
them. Medical Education, 38(12), 1217-1218.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x
Jenkins, A. & Burkill, S. (2004). The generic meets
the
discipline.
Retrieved
from
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/professio
nal/snas
Kanuka, H. (2011). Keeping the scholarship in the
scholarship of teaching and learning. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
5(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050103
Kanuka, H., Heller, B, & Jugdev, K. (2008). The
factor structure of teaching development needs for
distance-delivered
e-learning.
International
Journal for Academic Development, 13(2), 129139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440802076608
Kanuka, H., & Smith, E. E. (2018). Perceptions of the
content and employability value of credentialed
teaching certificates. International Journal for
Academic
Development.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1545130
Kenny, N., Watson, G. P., & Watton. C. (2014). Exploring
the context of Canadian graduate student teaching
certificates in university teaching. Canadian Journal of
Higher Education, 44(3), 1-19. Retrieved from
http://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe
Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary
differences. In A. Chickering (Ed.), The modern
American college. (pp. 232-253) San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass.
López, X., Valenzuela, J., Nussbaum, M., & Tsai, C. C.
(2015). Some recommendations for the reporting of
quantitative studies. Computers & Education, 91, 106110. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.010
Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). Professionalising teaching
practice in higher education: A study of
disciplinary variation and ‘teaching-scholarship.’

Smith and Kanuka

Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 213-228.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000058082
Manathunga, C. (2006). Doing educational development
ambivalently: Applying post-colonial metaphors to
educational development? International Journal for
Academic
Development,
11(1),
19–29.
doi:10.1080/13601440600578771
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to
design and implementation. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
National Forum (2015). Mapping professional
development pathways for those who teach in
Irish higher education: Where are we now and
where do we want to go? Dublin, IE: National
Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education. Retrieved from
https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/publication/m
apping-professional-development-pathways-forthose-who-teach-in-irish-higher-education-whereare-we-now-and-where-do-we-want-to-go/
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical
development in the college years: A scheme. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Polit, D. (2009). Statistics and data analysis for nursing
research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric
account of literate activity in the academy.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (n.d.).
Focus on: The postgraduate research (PGR)
student
experience.
Retrieved
from
https://www.qaa.ac.uk/scotland/focus-on/thepostgraduate-research-(pgr)-student-experience
Quinnell, R., Russell, C., Thompson, R., Marshall, N., &
Cowley, J. (2010). Evidence-based narratives to
reconcile teaching practices in academic disciplines
with the scholarship of teaching and learning. Journal
of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(3),
20-30. Retrieved from http://www.iupui.edu/~josotl
Rowland, S. (2002). Overcoming fragmentation in
professional life: The challenge for academic
development. Higher Education Quarterly, 56(1),
52–64. doi:10.1111/1468-2273.00202
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand:
Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (2005, Summer). Signature pedagogies in
the professions. Daedlus, 143(3), 52-59. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027998
Smith, E. E. (2016). Exploring undergraduate
perceptions of meaning making and social media in
their learning (Doctoral thesis, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Canada). Retrieved from:
http://hdl.handle.net/11205/271
Smith, L., Heubel, E., & Hansen, B. (2016).
Appropriateness of self-perceived teaching proficiency

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

399

as a measurement of teaching certificate program
effectiveness within post-graduate training programs.
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(4),
463-468. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2016.03.001
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998).
Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
35(6), 673-695. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.357
Wareing, S. (2009). Disciplines, discourse, orientalism:
The implications for postgraduate certificates in
learning and teaching in higher education. Studies
in
Higher
Education,
34(8),
917-928.
doi:10.1080/03075070902929519
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E.
(1987). 150 different
ways of knowing:
Representation of knowledge in teaching. In J.
Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking (pp.
104-124). London, UK: Cassell.
Yeo, M., & Boman, J. (2017). Disciplinary approaches to
assessment. Journal of Further and Higher Education,
41, 1-12. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2017.1367371
____________________________
ERIKA E. SMITH is an Assistant Professor and
Faculty Development Consultant in the Academic
Development Centre at Mount Royal University in
Calgary, Canada, and holds a PhD in Adult,
Community, and Higher Education from the University
of Alberta. Her research builds evidence-informed
understandings of undergraduate education, with a
focus on student perceptions and uses of social media in
their learning. She currently holds an Insight
Development Grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada to investigate
undergraduate digital literacies in disciplinary contexts.
Erika's research-informed practice focuses on faculty
development, undergraduate learning, and educational
technologies within higher education settings. (ORCID:
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6649-9620)
HEATHER KANUKA is Full Professor in the Faculty of
Education, University of Alberta, Canada. Heather’s first
faculty appointment was at the University of Calgary where
she was an Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education and
Associate Director, Teaching and Learning Centre. In
2004 Heather was awarded a Canada Research Chair in
Teaching, Learning and Technologies in Higher Education
at Athabasca University. In 2007 Heather moved to the
University of Alberta where she was appointed Academic
Director, Centre for Teaching and Learning. After
completion of her 5-year term, Heather returned to her
current position as Professor in the department of
Educational Policy Studies. Heather’s research focus
revolves around orientations of teaching and technology,
and academic development. (ORCID: http://orcid.org/00000002-8266-5633)

Smith and Kanuka

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

400

Appendix A
Additional Survey Data
Table 1A
Department Heads’ Perceived Value of Teaching Knowledge and Skills

Health Sciences
50 (90.9%),
1.55 (0.77, 55)

Discipline
n (%)†,
Mean (SD, total n)
Natural Sciences &
Engineering
76 (96.2%)
1.44 (0.57, 79)

Humanities &
Social Sciences
107 (98.1%)
1.31 (0.50, 109)

Knowing how to write learning outcomes.

48 (88.9%)
1.52*(0.69, 54)

65 (83.3%)
1.86* (0.75, 78)

86 (80.3%)
1.92* (0.76, 107)

Knowing how students learn (based on
learning theories) in higher education.
Knowing how to design a course (e.g., design,
develop, deliver, evaluate).

50 (89.2%)
1.66** (0.67, 56)
48 (87.2%)
1.60 (0.71, 55)

62 (79.5%)
1.99** (0.73, 78)
77 (97.4%)
1.48 (0.55, 79)

85 (79.4%)
1.94 (0.77, 107)
104 (96.3%)
1.43 (0.63, 108)

Knowing how to write a teaching philosophy
for a dossier/portfolio.

44 (80.0%)
1.86†† (0.78, 55)

56 (71.8%)
2.17†† (0.73, 78)

81 (75.7%)
2.06 (0.71, 107)

Knowing how to successfully facilitate large
classes.

44 (80.0%)
1.78 (0.81, 55)

70 (91.0%)
1.65 (0.64, 77)

99 (91.7%)
1.69 (0.65, 108)

Knowing how to use diverse teaching
methods.

51 (92.7%)
1.53 (0.63, 55)

69 (76.4%)
1.77 (0.66, 79)

98 (90.7%)
1.71 (0.68, 108)

Knowing how to use diverse
assessment/evaluation methods.

47 (87.0%)
1.54 (0.77, 54)

76 (96.2%)
1.72 (0.53, 79)

(91.7%)
1.68 (0.68, 108)

Knowing how to develop a syllabus and/or
course outline.

†

Number and percentage of (2) agree and (1) strongly agree survey responses by discipline.
*significant at p ≤ 0.005 and **significant at p < 0.05.
††
Differences between Health Sciences and Natural Sciences & Engineering were shown to be slightly significant (p
= 0.055 for one-way ANOVA, and p = 0.051 for Kruskal-Wallis), though not shown to be significant in Tamhane
post-hoc tests (p = 0.063).

Smith and Kanuka

Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates

Table 2A
Doctoral Students’ Perceived Value of Teaching Knowledge and Skills
Discipline
n (%)†,
Mean (SD, total n)
Natural Sciences
Health Sciences
& Engineering
29 (100.0%),
42 (98.3%),
1.24* (0.44, 29) 1.53* (0.62, 47)

Humanities &
Social Sciences
17 (100.0%)
1.24 (0.44, 17)

Knowing how students learn (based on learning
theories) in higher education.

27 (93.1%)
1.45 (0.63, 29)
28 (96.6%)
1.69 (0.54, 29)

45 (95.7%)
1.75 (0.61, 47)
43 (93.5%)
1.76 (0.64, 46)

16 (94.1%)
1.53, (0.62, 17)
15 (88.2%)
1.77 (0.66, 17)

Knowing how to design a course (e.g., design,
develop, deliver, evaluate).

26 (100.0%)
1.21 (0.41, 29)

45 (97.8%)
1.35 (0.53, 46)

17 (100.0%)
1.24 (0.44, 17)

Knowing how to write a teaching philosophy
for a dossier/portfolio.
Knowing how to successfully facilitate large
classes.

26 (89.7%)
1.83 (0.81, 29)
27 (93.1%)
1.52 (0.63, 29)

41 (87.2%)
1.85 (0.69, 47)
45 (95.8%)
1.68 (0.56, 47)

16 (94.1%)
1.77 (0.75, 17)
16 (94.2%)
1.65 (0.79, 17)

Knowing how to use diverse teaching methods.

29 (100.0%)
1.38 (0.49, 29)

45 (95.7%)
1.49 (0.59, 47)

16 (94.1%)
1.35 (0.79, 17)

Knowing how to use diverse
assessment/evaluation methods.

29 (100.0%)
1.48 (0.51, 29)

43 (91.1%)
1.70 (0.69, 47)

15 (88.2%)
1.65 (0.86, 17)

Knowing how to develop a syllabus and/or
course outline.
Knowing how to write learning outcomes.

†

Number and percentage of (2) agree and (1) strongly agree survey responses by discipline.
*significant at p < 0.05.

401