Using active methodologies in the Political Science and International Relations classrooms in Spain: Views from instructors

A change in the roles of professors and students [Up]

Instructors are no longer the “sage on stage” but the “guide on the side”. Their task is meant to be one of “facilitators” who create an appropriate environment to enhance student education. Some even see this shift as going beyond methodology to encompass a moral endeavor where the purpose of the facilitator is to enhance student growth (‍Hansen and Stephen, 2000: 45). For their part, learners are the actors of their own learning process. They are required to shift from a mental experience of knowledge assimilation to one of inquiry (‍Anthony, 1996).

A change in teaching techniques [Up]

Traditional teaching techniques include “lecture, lecture-based recitation questions, reading assignments” (‍Powner and Allendoerfer, 2008: 76) and “closed questions, and practice and application of information already presented” (‍Anthony, 1996: 350) Following Bonwell and Eison’s (‍1991) definition, active learning comprises a broader spectrum of possibilities encompassing “anything” including activity and reflection on learning. This includes problem-solving, investigational work, small group work, collaborative learning, and experiential learning (‍Anthony, 1996). In Political Science and IR simulations, and discussions are widely used too.

Surveys [Up]

We have applied univariate and bivariate analysis considering the variables Hartlaub and Lancaster (‍2008) showed exercise some leverage in explaining instructional choices: gender, years of teaching experience and rank. In addition, we added type of university because, in the Spanish context, private universities emphasize their work in terms of teaching innovation, and we wanted to see if any difference could be found between public and private institutions. When exploring the obstacles professors found when applying active methodologies, we used the questions from Lean et al.’s study (see appendix).

The last question of the survey was an open question that asked respondents why they used active methodologies. Some comments were registered as belonging to more than one category. A code was created whenever there were more than two comments alluding to the same reality. Comments with only one response were ascribed to the category “Other”.

In terms of the creation of the sample, in Spain there are 39 universities with Political Science and/or IR departments (even if for some, IR is merged with other departments). However, not all 39 universities have emails of their professors available online, nor is it possible to tell in joint departments what faculty belong to IR and which to the other discipline. A Google Forms survey was sent to 31 universities^[4]. In addition, it must be highlighted that adjuncts sometimes work in several universities at the same time, so it’s possible that in the email list created for the survey, the same person received the email more than once because of their affiliation with different universities.

The survey was sent to a total of 1078 people, of which twenty-four bounced back because the recipient was unknown. Therefore, the total number of sent and received emails was of 1054. The total number of respondents was 152 which means a turn out rate of 14,42 %. There is probably a self-selection bias. It is likely instructors that enjoy teaching are the ones that have answered the survey.^[5]

Those that responded were 58, 6 % (89) male and 40,8 % (62) female; 44,7 % (67) worked in private universities while 55,3 % (83) were employed by public institutions.^[6] In terms of rank, the following table shows the distribution of the sample:

It can be seen that data does not seem to match since in rank, 11,2 % of respondents report being “private university professor”, whereas the sample roughly divided in half, though it is slightly higher for professors that claim to work in a public institution (55,3 % versus 44,7 %). I believe this is due to the order of the questions since question two asked about the employer (private or public) whereas question three asks about rank. Thus, probably many of those that answered private university for question two (employer) have probably selected adjunct (asociado) or associate (titular) in rank (question 3), instead of private university professor. Given the sheer number of adjuncts in the sample, 44 people (28,9 %), this suggestion seems to bridge the gap between the number difference in both questions.

For the open question, we applied a very simple thematic analysis coding each comment into themes.

Interviews [Up]

Within the scope of available qualitative techniques, in this study, we have conducted interviews. Interviews serve the purpose of comprehending what people say they do. For this reason, our research findings are appropriate to understand theories of action, but cannot make any conclusions on theories in action, that is interviews cannot tell us anything about what professors actually do. While conducting interviews, our intention is to understand why there was an instructional transition for those professors who started off their careers mostly lecturing and later decided to include active learning as an integral part of their mode of instruction.

The panel is composed of knowledgeable informants; that is, scholars of Political Science and IR working in Spanish universities, some of whom not only use active methodologies in their courses, but they have also published scientific articles on active methodologies within the discipline. Informants were obtained through a convenience sample which started with colleagues of the researcher and then used snowballing to reach those professional rank categories where the author had no acquaintances in the upper stages of the professoriate career. The sample comprises twelve interviewees selected according to the independent variables of gender and rank, since Hartlaub and Lancaster (‍2008: 380) have noted these variables have some influence on instructional choices. I also include the years of professional experience.

However, since the situation of the Spanish public system is one of a bottleneck, with professors having an average age of 47,2 (‍Rodríguez, 2018), years of professional experience do not necessarily correlate to rank. There are people with many years of teaching who are still in the early stages of the academic trophic pyramid. By contrast, rank is a variable of special interest for this study because it very much relates to situations of job security and “ownership” of courses. This is key because situational stability helps dictate if professors introduce modes of instruction other than lecturing and, in general, to innovate. It is for these reasons that rank is our selected independent variable, though we do take note of the years of professional experience of each of our interviewees as a guide. We required a minimum threshold of 2 years of teaching experience. This standard was set so the interviewee could at least compare the experience of one academic year without using active methodologies and another using them. This being said, the interviewee with least teaching experience has been in academia for four years.

It must also be noted that the public and private systems have different career paths and, according to ANECA^[9] standards, a different merit accreditation system. On top of this, ten different autonomous communities have their own agencies (Andalucía, Aragón, Canarias, Castilla y León, Cataluña, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Islas Baleares, Madrid and Basque Country), some of which are very important in their territories (Cataluña, Basque Country). Therefore, the professional categories for selecting interviewees follow the career path of the public system established by ANECA, the national entity, as has been shown in table 2.

The twelve people interviewed belong to three state universities (located in Madrid, Barcelona, and Granada) and two private universities (neither in Madrid nor in Barcelona). Except for the category of private university (comprising two instructors), the other ten professors worked in public universities. Out of those twelve professors, ten had extensive experience abroad. Both chairs have been visiting professors in top American or UK universities for, at least, one academic year. Associate professors had predoctoral stays between two and six months —one of twelve months— abroad and multiple visiting scholar positions ranging from two or three weeks to four months. Two interviewees had postdoctoral contracts for two years or more either in the UK or a Scandinavian country. One interviewee studied the PhD in the UK and yet another one had done pre-doctoral stays in the UK and France and several visiting scholar positions in other countries. Lastly, another interviewee started her/his teaching in university, in a Latin American country before deciding to study the PhD.

To fully guarantee the anonymity of our interviewees, we have decided not to disclose the institutional affiliations of each participant since it could be possible to trace respondents’ identities through their rank and university affiliation.

All interviews were conducted by the author and the twelve interviewees contacted decided to participate in this research.^[10]

The open question in the survey has been analyzed using a thematic analysis that followed an inductivist approach based on the themes that emerged from respondent’s answer, while the interviews were also analyzed following a thematic analysis but the approach deductive as it was premised on the following categories:

Ten interviews were conducted in July and August 2021, while the remaining two took place in December 2021 and January 2022. All were carried out through MEET and recorded only via audio. All the material was processed manually without the help of any qualitative software.

The use of active methodologies in class [Up]

Taking the survey results at face value it would seem using active methodologies is mainstream in the Political Science and International Relations classrooms: 73,7 % respondents claim to use active methodologies Very Frequently (25 %) and Frequently (48,7 %) versus 23,7 % that say Occasionally and 3,7 % that respond to as Very Rarely (3 %) or never (0,7 %).

These results should be approached with caution as they are somewhat counter-intuitive to our daily university experience. We hypothesize the following might explain the alleged high use of active methodologies. First, there is probably self-selection bias in the respondent base since it is likely that instructors that enjoy teaching are the ones who have answered the survey. For instance, when conducting the interviews, almost everyone mentioned at some point they enjoy investing time in their students (“The truth is I like students, I like my students, I like devoting time to them”. Civil servant associate, female). Second, as lecturing comes across as a démodé form of instruction, the self-perception one has of their own teaching performance implies there might be a desirability bias.

Lastly, as the interviews show, there might be a misconception of what constitutes active methodologies. Of the twelve professors interviewed, two people (16,7 %) thought active methodologies were exclusively related to student engagement and participation with the course, while 10 (83,3 %) said it was related to a process of students creating their own knowledge or as some sort of co-learning. Only one instructor (3 %) included reflection on the process of learning as a distinct feature of active methodologies. Lastly, one of the interviewees suggested that, in addition to student commitment to the course, a methodology, if it is to be considered active, must be linked to the professional world (non-civil servant associate, male).

In the “engagement” perspective —though not exclusive to it— active methodologies implementation is put into practice without a prior reflection on teaching pedagogy. Active methodologies were included within the repertoire of teaching because it was seen as “enriching”. Surprisingly, one of the instructors did not know what they were about: “[...] it seems to me that they include participation. However, I am no expert in these concepts on teaching and pedagogy. I assume it is something more interactive. I don’t know what the concept means. My answer is, mainly, class debates. I mean to raise questions and present scenarios. This is what I usually do” (Civil servant associate, male)^[11].

Amongst the instructors that inscribed active methodologies as a process of self-construction of knowledge, their underlying conception of education is constructivist, which they understood as a process of co-learning where you learn to learn, and the traditional roles of professor and teacher are reversed: “Active methodologies are a way of reversing the roles. Students are not just listening and absorbing a percentage of what I am saying [...] what is fun and interesting is that active methodologies force you to ‘wake up’ in class and work to activate knowledge. [...] it also sets in motion skills that are not only rational or cognitive, such as artistic or cognitive skills, even surprise” (assistant, female).

Lecturers think that a reversal of the roles implies that students have a say in what or how they are going to be taught:

Interestingly, even as the last two answer state there is a change to a student-centered approach, the professor still holds the upper hand and sets the “menu” that students must choose from. Thus, the so-called change revolves around how a certain content is learned, not about what they learn.

In this constructivist discourse, there is a variant highlighted by an instructor that contends active methodologies are instrumental to equip students with the skills deemed necessary for the professional world:

Despite the underlying constructivist approach to education of most of our interviewees, it has already been stated that reflection is not highlighted as a feature characterizing active methodologies. Thus, including a specific metacognitive activity to reflect on the process of learning is rarely included as part of the teaching practice. It must be clarified that when doing simulations, instructors include a debriefing time at the end, but this is more a way to “close” the class exercise than a constructivist activity to “learn how we’ve learned” kind of scheme.

Most importantly, the application of active methodologies is done in an informal and non-systematic way. Only three (25 %) of the professors interviewed measured learning outcomes of the activities they implement in class. Here, rank is important as those that include scientific measurement of their teaching techniques are an adjunct and both assistants. Two of them measure knowledge before and after the activity while the latter makes the student take a survey. The most common practice instructors is to grade the activity as part of the final course grade. Others take non-systematic feedback from students: “If you mean an evaluation of the methodology of learning [...], I do not use specific measurement indicators, though I could do it. I ground myself on the subjective impression I get from experience: for instance, how, many students participate in a debate in the classroom and the quality of comments and the questions they raise” (Non civil servant associate).

The lack of systematic assessment results from the fact that active learning implementation is a somewhat recent development. Almost half of the survey respondents (46,7 %) declare that they have been implementing them for less than five years, while one third (32,2 %) indicate they have been working with them for the last six to ten years. Only 14,5 % mention their use between eleven and twenty years and a bare 6,6 % for more than 20 years. The findings seem to confirm that the paradigm change is the consequence brought about by the Bologna Process. Our interviews show that professors that have been longer in teaching mention that they started including “intuitively” class dynamics that fostered more student participation but without knowing their attempts were active methodologies (civil servant associate, female).

Gender[Up]

Even though we have no data available to determine whether males or females lecture more, our results show that the difference in the use of active methodologies between men and women is almost insignificant. Males mention that they use them very frequently and frequently in 71,9 % of cases whereas women declare the same thing for 75,8 % of cases. On the other side of the spectrum, those that very rarely or use them, the answers of men (2,7 %) and women (3,4 %) are also very similar. Thus, our findings do not seem to go in the same direction as the literature that pointed out the men lecture more (‍Lammers and Murphy, 2002).

Age[Up]

Consistent with the literature, at the beginning of the professional career, instructors use active methodologies less than when they become more experienced. However, the results obtained in this study show a very high use of this mode of instruction in whatever career stage: Among people aged 20 to 39, 68,2 % affirm they use them frequently or very frequently (68,2 %) versus the cohort between 41—and 50— year-olds (76,8 %) or those above 50 (75 %).

Type of university[Up]

Private universities are known to pride themselves for their student-oriented emphasis. Therefore, according to expectations, results show they use active methodologies more (77,65 % say they use them very frequently or frequently), than in public institutions (69,9 %).

The higher up the rank and the longer the respondent has been in teaching, the more active methodologies are applied. The percentage of chairs and civil servant associates that claim to use active methodologies very frequently or frequently is very high (88,9 %) whereas for non-civil servant associates, assistant professors/private university instructors the number decreases to 70,7 % and 65,9 % for adjuncts. On the other side of the spectrum, amongst those that do not usually use them, it is only 11,1 % among chairs versus almost one third non-civil servant associates, assistant professors/private university instructors (27,6 %) and adjuncts (27,3 %).

Lecturers with more than 25 years of professional experience state that they use them very frequently or frequently (85 %) versus a decreasing percentage for the rest: 79,5 % for those with between 15 and 25 years of professional experience, 66,7 % for people with 10 to 15 years of experience and 60,9 % of those with less than 5 years of experience. In a middle ground lay people with between 5 and 10 years of professional experience (74,4 %).

These findings are consistent with the literature on professoriate development. Following Nyquist and Wulff (‍1996: 20) professors go through a process of evolution in different teacher related dimensions: concerns, discourse, approach to authority and students. Regarding the dimension of teachers concerns, instructors undergo three different stages. In the early days, instructors think about self-survival, and they are worried about whether they are going to be liked by students. From our interviews, we gather they want to know as much as possible of the topic they are going to lecture on. Feeling they “know” enhances their sense of control and security. Since this stage is characterized by self-focus, it’s not possible to go beyond content-grounded and transmission centered classes: “You start off with very dense classes, a lot of content, very prepared. I have evolved towards lighter, less dense, and less structured classes” (chair, male).

The second phase is the skills stage. It is during this stage when instructors focus on teaching methods, what makes for effective teaching, and when they begin to take an interest in assessment and learning. It is then, that instructors start widening their teaching repertoire:

In the outcome stage, the focus of attention is on student learning. We believe only two interviewees can be placed in this category, with both at the highest level of the professional career spectrum (chairs) and with more than 20 years of teaching experience. One of the interviewees explains his conception of engagement has stretched beyond the relationship of the student with the course. Now, he includes the link established with the student as one that must be grounded in empathy and that sees the person holistically, not just the role he plays in class. Nyquist and Wulff label this approach as post-socialized because they understand that a “collaborative effort [is] required for student learning to occur” (‍1996: 20):

The table shows gender differences. Women are latecomers to the use of active methodologies. 53,2 % of women have been using them for less than five years versus 42,7 % of their male counterparts. The trend is the same for those using active methodologies for the last 5 to 10 years: 38,2 % of men versus 22,6 % of women, although it significantly decreases for instructors with between ten and twenty years of professional experience where men account for 14,5 % and women 12,4 % and no gender differences can be found beyond twenty years of teaching experience.

Interestingly, when looking at the intersection between number of years applying active methodologies and titularity of the university, we can see 53,7 % of teachers in public universities have been using active methodologies for less than five years compared to the 41 % pointed out by those in private ones. When looking at the next category, from 5 to 10 years, we see results revolve around one third, not quite reaching it in the case of private universities (29 %) while slightly exceeding it in the case of public institutions (33 %). This small difference is repeated in the next stages, that is, both between 11 and 20 years (11,9 % private versus 16,9 % public) and those using them for more than 20 years (4,5 % private compared to 8,4 % public). In all, the results shed light to the fact that public universities have been using active methodologies for longer. This finding contradicts the assumption of teaching innovation in private institutions.

Although the ten questions are the ones used in Lean et al.’s study (‍2011), we have grouped them into four, not three, different groups:

Institutional factors [Up]

Question seven shows that more than half of the respondents (64,9 %) disagree with the contention that teaching innovation is not a priority in their institution. Just 15,9 % have this perception of their institution. From this result, it can be inferred that universities value teaching innovation. This inference is consistent with other studies that point to the importance universities give to the scholarship of teaching and learning, though it is also highlighted how “this area of work is especially vulnerable in times of trouble” (‍Krain et al., 2015: 148).

Lack of resources [Up]

If the inference that universities value teaching innovation is correct, then it is paradoxical that not even half of the sample (43 %) agree with the assertion that their university provides support, technical or administrative (Q3) to implement new technologies whereas more than one third (34,9 %) disagree. Therefore, even if teaching innovation is valued by universities, the means available for implementation, according to a good number of the faculty, seem to be insufficient.

Factors related to pertinence of active methodologies [Up]

The following questions are grouped according to the pertinence of using active methodologies. Firstly, it is important to highlight that more than half of the sample of Spanish scholars disagrees (57,9 %) with the claim that active methodologies consume too much class time (Q4). This contrasts with Bonwell and Eason’s (‍1991: iv) literature revision in which they point that scholars were concerned of “adequately covering the assigned course content in the limited class time available”.

Question 10 explores respondents’ opinion on whether they find active methodologies pertinent for their course: more than two thirds 76,3 % disagree with the claim they are not pertinent versus just 5,9 % that agree with this view. In addition, professors are acquainted with the availability of active methodologies in their discipline as only 15,9 % consider there are no simulations and/or games (Q6) in their area, whereas 64,9 % disagree.

Lastly, only 5,9 % agree with the affirmation that students do not react positively to these methodologies (Q8), in contrast to 84,1 that disagree.

In brief, professors see the pertinence of using active methodologies, they do not believe they “consume” an excessive amount of class time, and they think that students react positively to this mode of instruction.

Factors related to the professor [Up]

When asked about personal time available for teaching development (Q1), 67,8 % agree with the claim they lack the time needed for this endeavor. In addition, the same percentage (67,8 %) claim they are satisfied with the methodologies they are currently using (Q2) whatever these might be. Just 15,9 % agree with the assertion that they don’t know how to use active methodologies (Q5) and only 6 % agree with the contention that they find it risky to use active methodologies (Q9).

Overall, the results presented on the obstacles to active learning implementation shed light on agreement percentages below 20 % highlighting there are no issues seen as major obstacles, except perhaps the institution’s lack of resources. Lack of personal time for teaching development is mentioned, but it does not seem to affect the implementation of active methodologies that, in this sample, is widespread. Paradoxically, in the interviews a significant number of professors pointed to class size as the major obstacle for a proper implementation. Lack of skill of the instructor to teach himself/herself to apply them properly or student’s insufficient interest were also mentioned as major impediments.

Reasons for using active methodologies [Up]

The last survey question was open, so respondents could answer as they saw fit why they use active methodologies.^[13]

The themes have been ordered according to the number of responses in table 7. It is interesting to see the widespread agreement among more than one third of respondents (56) that active learning methodologies have a capacity to engage students, either by increasing their motivation or their interest either in the course or capturing their attention. The next theme shows that 53 respondents claim students learn more this way.

The rationale underlying this argumentation is that motivated students learn more. These enthusiastic responses of the political science community of Spanish academia contrast with findings in the literature in which professors raised concerns that active learning techniques were inadequate “for achieving higher learning levels with complicated material” (Cooper, 1995; Gerlach, 1994; Lord 2001 quoted in Machemer and Crawford, 2007: 12).

Interestingly, the joined results of several simulations conducted in Spanish universities —both public and private— with individuals in all stages of the bachelor’s degree show that when applying this active methodology, students seemed to find concept application the most difficult to accomplish. It seems that, despite the methodology used — “traditional” or active—, students face similar difficulties in their learning (‍Ferreiro, 2020: 300).

There is also a gap between perception and learning outcomes. Students are as optimistic as their professors about their learning when using active methodologies. However, when actual learning outcomes are measured, the reality is a humbler (ibid.). This is an important feature to highlight so we do not raise unrealistic expectations about the learning potential of these methodologies.

At great distance, we see respondents believing “they have a practical/real world dimension” (15). This feature is also highly valued by students that want their university studies to enhance their employment possibilities (‍Cousinou and Inguanzo, 2020: 265).

We find specially telling themes five (It facilitates better teaching) and seven (I enjoy using them) because we believe they might depict the instructor has a teacher centered conception of learning, although the repertoire includes active methodologies. It is interesting for future research to see whether active methodologies can be used effectively in terms of learning outcomes by professors holding a different conception of learning or, if alternatively, this inconsistency between teaching beliefs and practices has an impact in students’ learning.

Professors presume positive reactions from students when using active methodologies (theme six “Students show positive reactions to active methodologies”), and this is one of the reasons why they are used. However, student culture can be reluctant to change: “Students perceive innovative teaching techniques in a negative light-reacting nervously to new approaches that press for greater critical and analytical thinking or perceiving them as signs of faculty laziness in not providing information in the traditional lecture format” (Whadar, 2012; Innoue, 2012 quoted in ‍Krain et al., 2015: 148). This negative perception may be due to students holding more teacher-oriented conceptions of teaching than professors (‍Pauler-Küpinger and Jucks, 2017). So, if active methodologies are to be implemented effectively, students must be previously prepared. This matter also emerged in the interviews.

None of the respondents mentions problems when students work together. Machemer and Crawford’s study citing Cooper and Gerlarch (1994) and Lord (2001) points to the “problem of students lacking prerequisite skills to work in teams” (‍Machemer and Crawford, 2007:12). On the other hand, Ferreiros’ conclusion (‍2020) on different simulations conducted in different universities and undergraduate years, shows that students enjoy simulations more as freshmen than as juniors and seniors. Working in groups is precisely what older students dislike.

Theme 8 “Student assessment” (2 responses) shows that respondents find active methodologies are a better a way of evaluating students. This particular question was quite generalized in the interviews where instructors disapprove of exams as a mode of assessment, either because it prevents professors from making them work throughout the semester as they “gamble everything in a final exam” (chair, female) or because they are an inadequate way of testing learning. Three different interviewees used the expression to “vomit information” in the exam; a very graphic metaphor of something that is not properly mulled over.

When looking at theme 9, teaching innovation, we hypothesize from our interviews, that the rationale for providing this answer might be linked to the self-image instructors have of their own teaching practice. There is a narrative among instructors, that does not make distinctions in terms of rank or gender, about how their instructional methods had been questioned by superiors or peers: “I did it as labor of love. I invested time and effort, and everyone told me: ‘why do you waste your time with those things?’. Mind me, it was very symbolic when the dean offered a euro to finance my activity” (chair, female). “When I began [...] implementing my way of work [...], I was looked in a VERY WEIRD way” (adjunct, male).

In addition to the open question, the interviews shed further light as to why professors that started off their careers as content-oriented instructors decided to shift to a model of classes that includes active methodologies. All participants, whatever their professional rank or gender share, to varying degrees, a feeling of dissatisfaction with the lecture model that did not work for them when they were students or now as professors. Opinions illustrate a stereotyped, almost caricatured depiction of this mode of instruction ranging from “boring” to “conservative” and “not open to change”: “Most of my professors were just very boring and many were not even up to date with their readings” (Assistant, male).

There is also a sense that Gen Z has decreased attention spans and professors need to adapt: “The model of lecture that works very well needs engaged students [...] actively listening for an hour or an hour and a half. I don’t think that is the average of students today” (Private university professor, female).

Others report to be just more comfortable taking on a guide on the side model: “I am always a companion, never imposing [...]. I have never put myself above students, I have always worked with them in a very collaborative fashion: I am a very close person” (Adjunct, female). “I prefer the term [...] ‘instructor’ you are here to guide, to guide rather than to transmit things” (Private University Professor, male).

This need to depart from a sage on stage type of teaching was more acute in adjuncts and private university professors that also decoupled the concept of expertise from that of learning:

Many of the interviewees admitted, with different self-justifications, that the reason for including active methodologies as part of their teaching repertoire was due to being overwhelmed by lecture preparation and thinking that introducing such activities was a useful way of eating up class time. Several people used the expression “making a virtue out of necessity”:

Only those that had studied their PhD or spend a significant period of their formative years abroad as postdocs started their teaching practice with some previous theoretical knowledge on the matter. These pedagogical notions better equipped them to shift their teaching repertoire when they felt sufficiently prepared: “I had been invited to a seminar on how to do videos and I did not want to look ‘bad’, so I went. I realized there were possibilities for innovation, but it was not until a year or two later that I could make modifications [...]. That course opened my mind” (Assistant, male).

Include teacher training programs as an integral part of the professional career [Up]

The minister of Universities, Joan Subirats, has contended (in February 2022) that Spain must end with the “anomaly” (‍Sánchez Caballero, 2022) of not providing teacher training to future professors and that universities must “stop being the exception” (ibid). Thus, the Future Organic Law of the University System —in effect in 2023— will include teaching courses for assistants during the first of their six years in the post. The form and content of this training is still to be determined, but it will incorporate instruction on teaching methodologies. The innovation units of each university will be responsible for providing this schooling to their staff.

The proposal has not been without criticism. It has been argued that assistants already have quite an extensive teaching experience which is obvious to anyone aware of the average age professors get their first full-time post in Spanish universities. Although there is widespread agreement in the university community on the need for teacher training, many believe that this kind of program should be implemented during the PhD formative years.

Interviews show that the reason why professors choose to use active methodologies for the first time is their need to shorten lecture, and to consume classroom time. Left to their own devices, instructors try to do things to the best of their ability. Some self-train, but more commonly instructors learn through trial and error. It goes without saying that experimentation without some previous theoretical knowledge on what is to be achieved can result in a poor application of active methodologies and puts student learning at risk. Even if junior faculty are not able to immediately apply to the classroom what they’ve just learned, training is key to provide knowledge on how to proceed for the future when they feel capable of putting into practice what they have learned. Back in 1990, Boyer’s seminal article made a call to make teacher training a necessary requirement for PhD candidates. Let’s follow his advice! Let’s not wait until they hold an assistant position in their late thirties!

Overall, we contend this future law proposal is insufficient. Teaching excellence is not something that you learn once and you are set for life. We do not apply this rationale to research. Quite the contrary, the PhD is the first piece of research one does in a professoriate career. If university professors are both researchers and teachers, the same logic should apply. However, there is no system of incentives to become a better teacher. Investing time in teaching does not increase scholar prestige, nor does it impact salary increase. Certainly, there is improvement in making teacher training compulsory, but teaching excellence cannot be achieved unless there is a valorization of instruction as an integral part of a professoriate career.

Overhauling the current system is a titanic task. Let’s start with short-time measures and enrich the future law by making ANECA require in all different level accreditations (yes, civil servants and chairs too!) that the candidate meets the following requirements:

Lastly, make those units of innovation in universities more than course providers and establish routinized class observations as a way of fostering teaching excellence for all faculty. Right now, we only know what happens in classes through student evaluations. And, no, student evaluations cannot be taken as the measure of teaching distinction, the reasons for which are not pertinent in this article. Suffice it to say there is abundant literature that explains the biases of this evaluation method.

Remove obstacles to implement active learning [Up]

There is sufficient evidence that active methodologies enhance student learning better than lecture, but for this advantage to play out, they need to be properly applied. It has been seen that the obstacles concerning its application go beyond the instructor and should be addressed institutionally. Results shed light to the fact that universities are concerned with teaching innovation, but they do not put the necessary means to live up to their expectations. Professors on their part believe active methodologies are a pertinent mode of instruction and that students mostly react well to them. However, they claim to have no time for teaching development. Rightly so, we believe, if investing time on teaching improvement does not pay off in terms of career advancement.

The call for including the scholarship of teaching and learning as part of a professoriate career cannot become a reality if higher education institutions do not have an incentive to go along this path. Student retention is certainly one of them. Bearing in mind Spain’s low natality rate, it goes without saying that in a not so far away future, Spanish universities will be struggling against each other for students. Offering active methodologies as an integral part of courses might win the hearts of our youngsters.

In addition, it is our contention that ANECA, when validating programs from different universities, should include that institutions provide compulsory teacher training —which most already do on a voluntary basis— and, most importantly, a path of professional advancement grounded on teaching excellence as a basic requirement to meet quality standards.

Rehabilitation of the lecture model [Up]

Given the sheer number of students per course both in public and many private universities, it does not seem reasonable to predict lecturing is going to disappear any time soon. Our interviews show that lecturing’s bad reputation is based on a stereotyped and simplified notion of what this model can do for students. Certainly, lecturing can be performed poorly. Overcoming this deficiency and training scholars to excel in lecturing is a challenge that lies ahead if we want to improve the quality of student learning. What is at stake is sufficiently important not to fall under the spell of obsessively trying to innovate for the sake of it. Rather, good teaching should be grounded on sound scientific knowledge and following García-Pérez (‍2021) on best practice.

To outcast the hegemonic model of instruction with pejorative tags and consider what we do most of the time as long bygone is an unnecessary burden.

For the sake of the future generations, let’s improve our mostly used model and work for a brighter methodological future where blended modes of instruction combining lecturing and active methodologies at a level of tested excellence become the new tide of the day. Let’s join Boyer’s call to action and provide the scholarship of teaching and learning the place it should have in a professoriate career!