Perceptions of the content and employability
value of credentialed teaching certificates
Heather Kanukaa and Erika E. Smithb
a

Educational Policy Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada;
Academic Development Centre, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Canada

b

This is a post-print of an accepted manuscript published by Taylor & Francis
in the International Journal for Academic Development on 19 Nov 2018,
available online at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1545130
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to gain a broader understanding of what
department heads and doctoral students believe to be the value of credentialed
teaching certificates. Using a survey methodology with participants (N= 450),
the study focused on the extent to which a credentialed teaching certificate
provides a competitive advantage when seeking employment, as well as the
content (pedagogical knowledge) that is perceived to be important for such
programmes. Using a cross-sectional survey design, results highlight
significant differences between doctoral students and department heads
regarding the content and value of a credentialed teaching certificate in higher
education.

To cite this article:
Kanuka, H., & Smith, E. E. (2018). Perceptions of the content and
employability value of credentialed teaching certificates. International
Journal for Academic Development, 24(1), 73-85.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1545130

2

H. KANUKA AND E. E. SMITH

Introduction
Professionalizing university teaching through postgraduate certificates has
become commonplace in many universities. Ginns, Kitay, and Prosser (2008),
for example, assert that such certificates are ‘increasingly important in raising
the standard of university teaching around the world, usually placing an
emphasis not merely on skill development, but also conceptual and attitudinal
change’ (p. 183). Movement towards the professionalization of teaching has
been underpinned by the assumption that teaching development leads to
student-focused perspectives and, hence, a greater likelihood for effective
teaching and learning practices (Parsons, Hill, Holland, & Willis, 2012).
Jepsen, Varhegyi, and Edwards (2012) argue that while academics are well
prepared for research in their doctoral programmes, opportunities to prepare
them for teaching are often lacking. Additionally, with increasing demands
imposed on graduate teaching assistants, there is a corresponding need to
provide pedagogical training (Chadha, 2015), with some evidence of
differences between academics who participate in pedagogical courses
compared with those who do not (Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne, & Nevgi,
2008). Gibbs and Coffey (2004) also report evidence of positive changes in
academics who have participated in teacher training, noting a ‘contrasting lack
of change, or negative changes, in untrained teachers’ (p. 88).
Context
In Canada, there are no national or provincial frameworks for certification of
higher education teachers (Hunt, Wright, & Gordon, 2008). In an effort to
prepare new academics to teach, many Canadian universities offer graduate
students some form of instructional preparation. Programmes are usually
provided in a voluntary format, often within a series of short workshops,
though increasingly such programmes require submission of a teaching dossier
in order to receive a transcript citation (Kenny, Watson, & Watton, 2014).
While an accredited teaching certificate may be somewhat onerous with
respect to administration and associated costs and may be perceived as an overregulation of teaching, these programmes can provide hiring committees with
some assurance on what the candidate knows about teaching and learning. The
alternative, non-formal teaching programmes provide little assurance that the
participants have learned what was offered in the programme; indeed, in nonformal programmes, records may only reflect whether the programme
participants attended the sessions – and sometimes even this may go
undocumented. While the benefits may provide a seemingly straightforward
justification for accredited teaching programmes, it is unclear whether

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 3

credentialed teaching programmes are valued as an asset in Canadian
institutions of higher education.
Literature review
One conclusion that can be made, based on an international review of the
research, is that a key focus of teaching development programmes today is to
foster learning-centred approaches. Studies have shown that knowing how to
use learning-centred approaches effectively is associated with achievement of
student outcomes (Parsons et al., 2012), though different types of teaching
programmes have differential impacts. Intensive and sustained accredited
teaching programmes have been shown to result in an increase in pedagogic
confidence, reflective practice, complex understandings of teaching and
learning, cross-institutional dialogue, as well as awareness of diverse teaching
strategies, test construction, and student assessment (Butcher & Stoncel, 2012;
Ginns et al., 2008; Rust, 2010; Smith, 2004; Veniger, 2016). Research by
Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse (1999), subsequently confirmed by Ho,
Watkins, and Kelly (2001), has also revealed that instructors who know how
to use learning-focused approaches can foster deep approaches to learning,
demonstrating a relationship between approaches to teaching and approaches
to learning. There is also evidence that students who participate in certificate
programmes report having their needs met, viewing the time as a valuable
investment; they further report that such efforts had a positive impact on their
career advancement (Johnson, Yukselturk, & Top, 2014). Within the Canadian
context, where teaching programmes are normally provided at the graduate
level (Kenny et al., 2014), research has revealed that students have a greater
sense of preparedness after completing a teaching certificate programme
(Taylor, Schönwetter, Ellis, & Roberts, 2008).
Other research, however, has pointed to a lack of any ‘real evidence that
graduate certificates have played any discernible part in raising the standards
of teaching in higher education; in fact, there is no real evidence that those
standards have increased at all’ (Onsman, 2011, p. 489). This point is
noteworthy because an overview of the research on teaching programmes in
the UK, which engages with claims that knowing how to effectively use
learning-centred approaches is linked to achievement of student outcomes, also
points to gaps in measuring such impacts, including reliance upon indirect data
(e.g. self-assessments) (Parsons et al., 2012). Onsman further concludes that
development in teaching is bound to take time, and ‘as yet we have no clear
understanding of how much of any development as a teacher is due to training
and how much is simply a function of experience’ (2011, p. 491). Within a
Scandinavian context, Postareff’s (2007) findings on pedagogical training
suggest that shifting conceptions of teaching as they relate to practice is a slow

4

H. KANUKA AND E. E. SMITH

process. In addition to accounting for the time necessary for changes to occur
and the role of experience, recognizing the uniqueness of disciplinary context
is also an important factor (Smith & Kanuka, in press).
While we acknowledge that research in Canada and elsewhere on teaching
programmes is inconclusive with respect to overall impact, nonetheless
credentialed teaching certification can provide formal recognition of what is
taught as well as learned. However, given the uneven evidence in the research
literature, the value of credentialed teaching programmes continues to be
questioned (Onsman, 2011; Stes, De Maeyer, Gijbels, & Van Petegem, 2012).
What remains unclear is whether there is merit in implementing credentialed
teaching programmes at the graduate level; whether, if implemented, they
would be valued as an employability asset in academia; and if so, what content
should be covered in such programmes.
Context
In Canada, graduate students can have opportunities to be employed as
teaching assistants within undergraduate programmes and, as such, are often a
targeted audience for teaching development programmes. PhDs are
increasingly expected to have teaching experience in addition to research
experience before entering the Canadian academic job market. Since teaching
training is not standardized in Canada, graduate students may participate in
teaching development activities before, during, or after their teaching
assignments. Although the majority of those participating in Canadian teaching
programmes are either masters or doctoral students (Kenny et al., 2014), most
are preparing for the transition to full-time academic employment.
Consequently, the doctoral level is often perceived as an ideal time to complete
teaching programmes.
The need for this study arises from evidence suggesting faculty in Canada
believe that if they had received formal pedagogical training they may have
been able to avoid, or at least sidestep, the challenges typically experienced by
new academics (Britnell et al., 2010). However, as noted, a problem with noncredentialed teaching programmes for graduate students in Canada is that there
are few, if any, overarching frameworks or requirements for what is taught as
well as learned and thus vast differences between programmes in the content
covered – problems that might be reduced with credentialed certificates. Such
issues have led to lingering questions about the value of teaching programmes
and whether credentialed teaching certificates truly provide an advantage in
the competitive climate of securing a tenure-track position.
The aim of this research was twofold: (1) to explore the perceived value of
a credentialed teaching certificate for new academic hires, and (2) based on

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 5

issues related to differences in teaching programme content, to explore the
pedagogical knowledge and skills that should be developed in such
programmes. Using a web-based survey, we collected the perspectives of
doctoral students who are the target audience of teaching certificates, as well
as the department heads who chair academic hiring committees in Canadian
research-focused universities.
Methodology and methods
The study employed a cross-sectional survey methodology (Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2011). The survey was designed based on an analysis of the
literature on teaching development programme content within university
certificates. The literature demonstrates five consistent areas in which new
academics do not feel prepared: teaching methods, assessment, large classes,
learning theories, and course management (Arreola, 2007; Smith, Heubel, &
Hansen, 2016). These areas informed the structure of the survey. To encourage
an acceptable participation rate, the survey was limited to 10 questions,
ensuring completion would not take more than five minutes. One question
related to discipline, two items were on the value of a credentialed teaching
certificate for interview selection for instructional and tenure-track academic
positions, and eight questions focused on typical certificate content (see Table
1). Each question contained a closed Likert-style item followed by an openended comment box, and an open-ended comment box was also included at the
close of the survey.
Sample
Two sets of participants were targeted for this study: department heads
(n= 322), who also chair academic hiring committees, and doctoral students
(n= 128), who are the target audience for teaching certificates and typically
seek academic employment. Both groups were identified at Canadian researchintensive universities using a convenience sample targeting participants
meeting the inclusion criteria. For department heads, invitations to participate
in the online survey were emailed to 600 participants at six Canadian researchfocused universities, with a response rate of 54% (n= 322). In order to allow
current and recently completed doctoral students to participate in the survey,
those who held or were transitioning to post-doctoral fellow roles were also
included in the target doctoral audience (for clarity, the term doctoral student
is used for this group). The institutional ethics review board required that
survey invitations be provided to the doctoral students at a Canadian researchintensive university via the Graduate Students’ Association (GSA) to ensure

6

H. KANUKA AND E. E. SMITH

participation was voluntary. Survey invitations for doctoral students were
therefore distributed via an email listserv by a university GSA member.
Table 1. Perceived value of teaching knowledge and skills

Data analysis
Quantitative survey responses were analysed using descriptive and inferential
statistical procedures via SPSS software. Questions with Likert-scales
measured the following values: 1 (strongly agree), 2 (agree), 3 (disagree), and
4 (strongly disagree). Qualitative open-ended survey responses were analysed
using generic qualitative coding techniques (Merriam, 2009). t-Tests were used
to compare differences between the two groups’ means, and effect sizes were
calculated using Cohen’s d, with 0–0.20 considered a weak effect, 0.21–0.50
as a modest effect, 0.51–1.00 as a moderate effect, and >1.00 constituting a
strong effect (Cohen et al., 2011). Data analysis focused on observable
differences, relationships, or themes demonstrated in participant views of the
content and value of credentialed teaching certificates, with comparisons
between department head and doctoral student groups.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 7

Results
Results from the survey demonstrate significant differences between
department heads and doctoral students regarding the perceived value of
attaining credentialed teaching certificates in higher education, with consistent
differences between these groups regarding the value of such certificates for
academic hiring, as well as for the content typically covered within such
teaching development programmes. In the following sections, the quantitative
data show where significant differences between these groups exist. The openended data provide further insights into why perceptions about the value of
teaching certificates may differ.
Quantitative survey results
The survey results indicate that department heads (86.0%, n= 258) and
doctoral students (90.9%, n= 100) agreed or strongly agreed that a credentialed
teaching certificate for an instructional (e.g. non-tenure-track lecturer or
sessional) position has perceived value for interview selection, therefore
providing a competitive advantage for academic employment. With respect to
the value of a credentialed teaching certificate for a tenure-track position,
70.5% (n= 213) of department heads and 83.0% (n= 93) of doctoral students
agreed or strongly agreed that it would positively influence interview selection.
However, when delving further into these results, a t-test demonstrated that
doctoral students (n= 112, M= 1.80, SD = 0.76) place significantly higher
value than department heads (n= 302, M= 2.21, SD=0.79) on a for-credit
(formal, externally recognized) certificate in teaching from a respected
university as positively influencing interview selection for a permanent,
tenure-track position: t(412) = 4.75, d = 0.53, p < 0.001. A t-test also
demonstrated that doctoral students (n= 110, M= 1.54, SD = 0.66) place
significantly higher value than department heads (n= 300, M= 1.78, SD = 0.76)
on a for-credit certificate in teaching as positively influencing interview
selection for an instructional position (e.g. non-tenure-track lecturer,
sessional): t(408) = 2.99, d = 0.34, p = 0.003. These results demonstrate that,
overall, doctoral students place significantly higher value on teaching
certificates than department heads as positively influencing interview
selection, with a larger effect size for tenure-track hiring than for non-tenure
track instructional hiring.
Consistent with their perceptions of the value of teaching certificates for
academic hiring, as compared to department heads, doctoral students also gave
higher ratings of teaching certificate content, indicating higher value for all
variables tested, as shown in Table 1. More specifically, as compared to
department heads, doctoral students place significantly higher value on several
items that comprise teaching certificates, including: knowing how to write

8

H. KANUKA AND E. E. SMITH

course outcomes, how to write a teaching philosophy, and how students learn
based on learning theories (differences significant at p < 0.05); knowing how
to design a course (differences significant at p < 0.005); and knowing how to
use diverse teaching methods (differences significant at p = 0.001).
Open-ended survey results
Open-ended survey responses reveal that department heads often diverged in
their perceptions of teaching certificates, providing some insights into why
department heads’ Likert-ratings were lower overall for these items than
doctoral students. A thematic breakdown of doctoral student perceptions about
the content tended to be consistent. In contrast, department heads’ open-ended
survey comments demonstrated the ways in which their perceptions differed
thematically, highlighting diverging views regarding the value for academic
interview selection, and for developing teaching knowledge and skills through
typical certificate content, such as writing course outcomes and teaching
philosophies, designing a course, and using diverse teaching methods.
Value for academic hiring
Consistent with their quantitative responses, many doctoral students’ openended responses emphasized the value of a teaching certificate and its
importance for developing good teaching skills. One doctoral participant
noted:
I think if we want to see better teaching at our universities, then we need to
start training teachers, not just researchers. Additionally, I think we need to
begin to think about what we are teaching students outside of the content of
the course – the ways we are teaching and the attitude we are modeling are
also teaching students something.
This was reinforced by another doctoral participant who provided this
comment: ‘certification is necessary and long overdue’. While several doctoral
students commented on their value, it is worth noting that some viewed such
certificates as an additional burden:
The training now expected for one to become faculty is getting out of
control. Often a 6 year phd followed by 4–6 years of postdocing and then
a very slim chance at a faculty position. If I were told that a year or twolong teaching certificate were an additional requirement, I might lose my
mind.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 9

Both doctoral students and department heads reinforced the benefits and
challenges of teaching certificates, though department heads outlined
additional challenges and criticisms. Regarding the benefits, several
department heads noted the value in recognition for formal training, including
one participant who stated that ‘coming [from] the UK where I have seen the
benefits of the compulsory training for university level teaching, I strongly
support its introduction in Canada’. Another provided the following illustrative
comment:
A number of recent candidates/hires have come with formal training in
undergraduate instruction and course design. They stand out during the
interview process, where we require a mock lecture to a second-year class
in their area of expertise, as well as a standard research seminar.
Other department heads, however, did not see the value of a certificate, with
one noting: ‘I have worked in Australia, Canada, and Hong Kong. People with
teaching certificates often consider [them to be] busy work. In my experience
they were not better teachers’.
Department heads noted several key challenges, with one articulating the
need for teaching certificates to be nationally transferable, a challenge
highlighted in the Canadian literature:
IF this were developed I would strongly recommend developing a
nationally recognized certificate program that all of the [teaching]
programs across the country support. It is unusual for a PhD student and
post-doc to stay where they train so this MUST be something that is
transferable and recognized by other universities.
Many department heads also raised concerns about credential creep and the
additional burden of teaching certification on graduate students:
I could NOT with any sense of integrity ask graduate students to take on
any more dept or additional course work given the current climate in
which 1) tuition keeps rising; 2) there are limited opportunities for
academic instructional positions, and 3) the competitive nature that
focuses on research.
Other department heads reinforced this research focus in hiring: ‘For research
stream faculty, the for-credit official course would not really be too important’.
Finally, many department head comments emphasized that nothing replaces
teaching experience. One participant, for example, stated that: ‘A certificate is
a plus but, in any decision, actual teaching experience and results such as
student evaluations would be far more important–by at least a factor of ten’.
Hence, while some participants perceived potential benefits in recognizing
formal teaching development and training, numerous department heads

10

H. KANUKA AND E. E. SMITH

emphasized the importance of hands-on teaching experience and echoed
doctoral student concerns that teaching certificates place an additional burden
and reinforces credential creep on those hoping to be hired as an academic.
Teaching certificate content
Doctoral student responses generally valued knowing how to write learning
outcomes. As one stated: ‘it is important I know how to outline these for
students to know, what to expect and how I will assess their learning’.
Alternatively, responses from department heads again diverged. Some
department heads view this as essential knowledge: ‘when we generate
learning outcomes we get better structured courses, and students are more
aware of the expectations’ and it is ‘important to understand the purpose of
learning outcomes and how they can and should connect with course content,
assignments, learning activities, and assessment’. Others view learning
outcomes as ‘useless’ bureaucratic and administrative work, with one
participant stating: ‘understanding learning outcomes, sure, and thinking about
them: but actually “writing” learning outcomes is a job for bureaucrats, not
teachers’. Another department head noted that if learning outcomes are valued
it is ‘only because writing these, while useless, is now mandatory’. Likewise,
conflicting department head views were also present regarding teaching
philosophies, with one participant asserting: ‘this is required for instructors
when they go through the tenure process’. On this topic, another department
head characterized these as ‘full of platitudes and of little interest’, with
another concurring that teaching philosophies have ‘not proved particularly
helpful indicators of teaching ability or quality’, and can even ‘turn off’ hiring
committees.
Regarding the value of knowing how to design a course, one doctoral student
stated: ‘some profs instinctively understand how to do this or just have enough
experience, but a well-designed course makes all the difference for students’.
Some department heads agreed: ‘knowing how to do this facilitates
opportunities for creativity in doing something different or being willing to
engage differently with students’. However, other department heads were
unconvinced about course design being an important aspect of teaching
preparation, with one stating ‘it’s not rocket science’ and another noting that:
‘even knowing this, you need to work with someone with experience, since
there is a big gap between the theory and the implementation’. Another
department head reinforced the importance of effective implementation and
delivery: ‘there are those who design and those who deliver it effectively’,
stating further that simply knowing the buzz-words does not ‘make good
teachers (in fact to the contrary make not so good teachers)!’ Several other
department heads noted the complexities surrounding course design where

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 11

several instructors are involved, with one saying: ‘partial agreement here, often
more than four teachers will be involved in instruction’. Another participant
agreed, explaining that: ‘this rarely happens’ because ‘usually more than [one
instructor] is involved’, and pointing to the complicated nature of course design
processes that often include, for instance, multiple instructors or wider
curriculum committee processes.
Several doctoral students also valued knowing how to use diverse teaching
methods, with one stating that it is ‘probably one, if not the most important
skills’, and another noting: ‘important if you’re actually committed to
understanding and responding to different learning styles’. Alternatively,
several department heads placed disciplinary qualifiers on their agreement:
‘agree, provided the facilitator is an expert in the discipline taught’. Other
department heads questioned whether this was practical, with one noting:
‘most use conventional lectures’, and another stating: ‘large class sizes make
such innovations impractical’.
Summary of results
The survey data demonstrate differences between doctoral students and
department heads regarding the perceived value of teaching certificates for
academic hiring, as well as with regard to the typical content within teaching
certificates aimed at developing pedagogical knowledge and skills. While both
groups provided overall agreement on the value of teaching certificates,
delving into the quantitative results in more detail demonstrates that there are
also significant differences, with doctoral students valuing teaching certificate
content more highly, and valuing certificates significantly more highly for
academic hiring. Participants’ open-ended comments provide some insights
into why these differences exist, indicating that while both doctoral students
and department heads acknowledge the benefits and challenges of teaching
certificates, department heads are more divergent in their views, describing
additional challenges and drawbacks. When compared to department heads,
doctoral students also value particular content typically covered within
teaching certificates more highly, including knowing how to write course
outcomes and a teaching philosophy, how students learn based on learning
theories, as well as how to design a course and how to use diverse teaching
methods. Open-ended survey responses illustrate that department heads are
divided regarding the perceived value of teaching certificate content, with
many emphasizing the importance of bringing teaching theory into practice
through experience.

12

H. KANUKA AND E. E. SMITH

Discussion and implications
The findings of this study demonstrate significant differences between doctoral
students’ and department heads’ perceptions about the value of a credentialed
teaching certificate, providing additional insights while also reinforcing key
findings from other recent research studies. These findings, for example, are
consistent with Jepsen et al.’s (2012) research that found: ‘for new academics,
the findings show that research output was considered the most important
selection [criterion] above teaching experience or teaching qualifications’ (p.
629), also noting that there is not enough time in doctoral programmes to
complete a teaching certificate. Pointing to continued tensions between
teaching and research, this study’s findings are congruent with Norton,
Aiyegbayo, Harrington, Elander, and Reddy’s (2010) study of new academics
completing a postgraduate certificate in teaching and learning, which showed:
‘the conflicting roles of research and teaching were also a major issue facing
these new professionals’ (p. 345). Furthermore, recent research shows that,
contrary to prior assertions, faculty at research-intensive institutions are not
less motivated to teach than faculty at teaching-intensive institutions
(Stupinsky, BrckaLorenz, Yuhas, & Guay, 2018), a finding our results support
with a majority of department chairs (>70%) in research-focused universities
who value teaching certificates for tenure-track hiring.
In this study, both department heads and doctoral students raised concerns
about the time required to complete a teaching programme as an additional
burden. This too has been raised in prior literature as problematic. Onsman
(2011), for example, argues that ‘anything that requires as much time and
commitment as a formal teaching qualification without providing immediate
benefit may be seen as a hindrance to professional development’ (p. 490). On
the other hand, pivotal research by Boice (1992) shows that there is little
evidence that participation in a teaching programme negatively impacts
research productivity. Although participants in Boice’s study initially resisted
being in a teaching programme, after completion the participants reported
benefits such as greater efficiency and a higher level of comfort in their
teaching.
Our survey results show that certain components, such as how to write
learning outcomes, draft a teaching philosophy, design a course, and use
diverse teaching methods, are not generally perceived by department heads to
be of greater importance than other components in a teaching programme: a
significant difference when compared to doctoral student responses. Some
department head responses emphasize the importance of teaching experience
over theory and knowledge that is obtained through a credentialed teaching
certificate. Again, this is a topic covered in the literature as well (e.g., Onsman,
2011; Smith et al., 2016). Yet, arguing that theory has no place in a teaching

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 13

programme seems difficult to defend. As with any discipline within the higher
education sector, theory in education provides essential information on not
only what a teacher is doing, but why education and learning happens. On this
point, Knapper (2010) explains:
When faculty are largely ignorant of this scholarship [on learning theory],
instructional practices and curriculum planning are dominated by
tradition rather than research evidence. As a result, teaching remains
largely didactic, assessment of student work is often trivial, and curricula
are more likely to emphasize content coverage. (p. 229)
While dichotomous arguments are present in both research and professional
contexts, connections between theory and practice are critical within and
beyond teaching certificates (Hubball & Burt, 2006), and a deconstruction of
the word pedagogy reminds us that both are important, as pedagogy is the art
and science of teaching.
Limitations and future research
The impact of the costs associated with the administration, delivery, and
evaluation of a credentialed teaching programme was not included in the
survey. Currently, non-credentialed and voluntary teaching programmes at
Canadian universities are most often offered at no cost to graduate students. In
Canada, all credentialed programmes have tuition costs. Further research on
who should bear the cost of a credentialed teaching programme is needed. A
limitation of this study is that it focuses on participants from research-intensive
universities; further qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research
studies with additional sample sizes and types, and accounting for different
higher education contexts, are needed.
Stupinsky et al.’s (2018) research indicates a connection between teaching
motivations and self-determination theory, providing potential implications for
academic identities related to roles (e.g. teaching or research focused) and
institutional context that should be further investigated. Since other research
demonstrates the importance of disciplinary identity (Smith & Kanuka, in
press), as well as the influence of wider institutional activity systems for
academic induction and personal/professional identity formation (Trowler &
Knight, 2000), future research could examine how emerging versus established
academic identities inform perceptions of teaching development, including
certificates.

14

H. KANUKA AND E. E. SMITH

Conclusion
This study examined whether department heads and doctoral students view
credentialed teaching certificates as valuable. Based on survey data from
participants (N= 450) at Canadian research-focused universities, findings show
high agreement by both department heads and doctoral students on the value
of a credentialed teaching certificate. However, doctoral students placed higher
value on teaching certificates than department heads overall, especially with
regard to tenure-track hiring and content related to course outcomes, teaching
philosophies, learning theories, course design, and diverse teaching methods.
Participant comments yielded insights into these differences, showing that
while both doctoral students and department heads note the benefits and
challenges of such certificates, department heads were more divided than
doctoral students in their responses, emphasizing several additional challenges
and drawbacks. These results illustrate significant differences between
doctoral students and department heads regarding not only the content
comprising teaching certificates but also the employment value of a
credentialed teaching certificate.
This study’s findings also emphasize a need for developing increased
awareness about the importance of connecting educational theory and practice.
Additionally, the survey data illustrate a need to ensure that graduate student
audiences who are increasingly being targeted to undertake the commitment of
completing a teaching certificate clearly understand that, while teaching
certificate programmes may assist in improving pedagogical knowledge and
skills, they may not provide a competitive advantage in securing a tenure-track
position at Canadian research-focused institutions. To balance the benefits and
drawbacks participants noted, the findings suggest a need to provide graduate
students with realistic and evidence-informed expectations about teaching
certificates and future hiring processes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Heather Kanuka is a Professor in the Department of Educational Policy
Studies, University of Alberta. Heather’s research focuses on teaching,
learning, and technologies in higher education. ORCID:
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8266-5633
Erika E. Smith is an Assistant Professor and Faculty Development
Consultant in the Academic Development Centre at Mount Royal University

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 15

in Calgary, Canada. She holds a PhD in Adult, Community, and Higher
Education from the University of Alberta. Erika’s research interests include
undergraduate digital literacies and social media use for learning, faculty
development, and educational technologies. ORCID: https://orcid.org/00000002-6649-9620
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.
Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Britnell, J., Brockerhoff-Macdonald, B., Carter, L., Dawson, D., Doucet, L.,
... Wilson, J. (2010). University faculty engagement in teaching
development activities phase II. Toronto: Higher Education Quality
Council of Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.heqco.ca/en-ca/Research/
ResPub/Pages/University-Faculty-Engagement-in-Teaching-DevelopmentActivities-Phase-II. aspx
Butcher, J., & Stoncel, D. (2012). The impact of a postgraduate certificate in
teaching in higher education on university lecturers appointed for their
professional expertise at a teaching-led university: ‘It’s made me braver’.
International Journal for Academic Development, 17(2), 149–162.
Chadha, D. (2015). Evaluating the impact of the graduate certificate in
academic practice (GCAP) programme. International Journal for Academic
Development, 20(1), 46–57.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in
education (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers
on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to
learning of their students. Active Learning In Higher Education, 5(1), 87–
100.
Ginns, P., Kitay, J., & Prosser, M. (2008). Developing conceptions of
teaching and the scholarship of teaching through a graduate certificate in
higher education. International Journal for Academic Development, 13(3),
175–185.
Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to
improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff
development programme. Higher Education, 42(2), 143–169.
Hubball, H. T., & Burt, H. (2006). The scholarship of teaching and learning:
Theory–practice integration in a faculty certificate program. Innovative
Higher Education, 30(5), 327–344.

16

H. KANUKA AND E. E. SMITH

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.
Jepsen, D. M., Varhegyi, M. M., & Edwards, D. (2012). Academics’ attitudes
towards PhD students’ teaching: Preparing research higher degree students
for an academic career. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 34(6), 629–645.
Johnson, T. E., Yukselturk, E., & Top, E. (2014). Delving into alumni
perceptions about the impact and effectiveness of two certificate programs:
Meeting their mission? Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 360–372.
Kenny, N., Watson, G. P. L., & Watton, C. (2014). Exploring the context of
Canadian graduate student teaching certificates in university teaching. The
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(3), 1–19. Retrieved from
http://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe
Knapper, C. (2010). Changing teaching practice: Barriers and strategies. In J.
Christensen Hughes & E. J. Mighty (Eds.), Taking stock: Research on
teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 229–242). Toronto: McGillQueen’s University Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Norton, L., Aiyegbayo, O., Harrington, K., Elander, J., & Reddy, P. (2010).
New lecturers’ beliefs about learning, teaching and assessment in higher
education: The role of the PGCLTHE programme. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 47(4), 345–356.
Onsman, A. (2011). Proving the pudding: Optimising the structure of
academic development. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 33(5), 485–496.
Parsons, D., Hill, I., Holland, J., & Willis, D. (2012). Impact of teaching
development programmes in higher education. New York, NY: Higher
Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/hea_impact_teaching_developmen
t_prog.pdf
Postareff, L. (2007). Teaching in higher education from content-focused to
learning focused approaches to teaching. Research Report 214. Helsinki:
University of Helsinki, Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/19882/teaching.
pdf?sequence=1
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2008). A follow-up study
of the effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education.
Higher Education, 56(1), 29–43.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 17

Rust, C. (2010). Do initial training courses have an impact on university
teaching? The evidence from two evaluative studies of one course.
Innovations in Education and Training
International, 37(3), 254–262.
Smith, E. E., & Kanuka, H. (in press). Transdisciplinary or pedagogically
distinct? Disciplinary considerations for teaching certificates in higher
education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 30(3). Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
Smith, H. (2004). The impact of staff development programmes and
activities. In D. Baume & P. Kahn (Eds.), Enhancing staff and educational
development (pp. 96–116). London: Routledge.
Smith, L., Heubel, E., & Hansen, B. (2016). Appropriateness of selfperceived teaching proficiency as a measurement of teaching certificate
program effectiveness within post-graduate training programs. Currents in
Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(4), 463–468.
Stes, A., De Maeyer, S., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Instructional
development for teachers in higher education: Effects on students’
perceptions of the teaching–Learning environment. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82(3), 318–419.
Stupinsky, R. H., BrckaLorenz, A., Yuhas, B., & Guay, F. (2018). Faculty
members’ motivation for teaching and best practices: Testing a model on
self-determination theory across institutional types. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 53, 15–26.
Taylor, K. L., Schönwetter, D. J., Ellis, D. E., & Roberts, M. (2008). An
approach to evaluating the impact of two certification in university
teaching programs for graduate students. The Journal of Graduate &
Professional Student Development, 11(1), 78–108.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between
teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning.
Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70.
Trowler, P., & Knight, P. T. (2000). Coming to know in higher education:
Theorising faculty entry to new work contexts. Higher Education Research
& Development, 19(1), 27–42.
Veniger, K. A. (2016). University teachers’ opinions about higher education
pedagogical training courses in Slovenia. CEPS Journal: Center for
Educational Policy Studies Journal, 6(4), 141–161.