PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

University of Prishtina

Prof. Dr. Naser Zabeli

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Lifespan development encompasses various domains throughout an individual’s life. One of the most significant areas in a person’s development is the profession they practice during their lifetime. In every profession, including the teaching profession at any level, a professional career is among the most important aspects of lifelong development. The professional development (PD) of teachers has been the subject of extensive debate and study. While there is considerable research on PD for pre-university teachers, studies on university teachers are much fewer. Nevertheless, in recent years, interest in the professional development of university teachers has grown and manifests in various ways.

A key distinction between pre-university and university teachers is that academic professional development is usually twofold—comprising research and teaching—and the structures supporting professional development differ across countries. The continuous PD of teachers at all levels, including university educators, is shaped by the rapid and numerous societal changes taking place. Efforts to transform economies, alongside social and cultural shifts and technological innovations, make it imperative to adapt higher education accordingly. Teaching thus becomes a powerful instrument for shaping and transmitting these changes. For this reason, special attention must be paid to the professionalism of university teachers—often referred to as academic professionalism. “Professional development of teachers is studied and presented in different ways in the relevant literature. Yet, at the core of such efforts lies the understanding that professional development is about teachers’ learning—learning how to learn, and transforming their knowledge into practice for the benefit of their students’ growth” (Avalos, 2011, p. 12).

In principle, the primary goal of higher education is to ensure the optimal preparation of future professionals. In recent years, there has been a growing interest and training focus on improving the quality of education, and consequently, on enhancing the pedagogical preparation of university teachers. Most teachers feel encouraged when they perform their duties effectively and achieve their goals; therefore, it is essential that professional development plans include motivational components and provide the necessary training and procedural support (Dută & Foloștină, 2014).

In general, when aiming to promote the improvement of university teaching, one must take into account the teachers’ goals and both their intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Many teachers feel motivated when they perform effectively and achieve their goals; hence, they should be supported through training activities and institutional measures designed to foster their professional development (Dută, 2012).

Although less frequently discussed, some literature attempts to distinguish between pre-university and university teachers—and such a distinction is indeed valuable to address. In an in-depth study, King (2022) identifies several key differences through a literature review:

1. Dual Academic Roles:
   Teachers in higher education are academics often expected to combine research, teaching, and sometimes other professional duties. This means that the development of teaching expertise must be studied and supported in relation to other academic responsibilities. Attention should be given to how these different tasks relate to each other and to the consequences of their combination for academics, such as motivation.
2. Dynamic and Specialized Knowledge:
   The knowledge taught in higher education is often dynamic and highly specialized. Consequently, university teachers have more autonomy in defining curricula and must constantly adapt them to emerging knowledge. This highlights the importance of curriculum design, educational leadership, scholarship of teaching and learning, and research as key academic responsibilities. It also implies the need for expertise in translating disciplinary knowledge into courses and curricula, and in facilitating student learning within specific disciplines. Concepts such as powerful knowledge (Young & Muller, 2010) and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986) are essential theoretical frameworks for exploring these issues.
3. Limited Access to Professional Development:
   Compared to many other educational settings, professional development for higher education teachers is not always widely available or mandatory—especially beyond the early stages of their careers. Moreover, research on teaching expertise in higher education remains scarce (King, 2022).

Various studies indicate that academics are not always well-prepared for their teaching careers. “In many European countries, academics are trained for their roles as researchers but not for their teaching responsibilities. Despite growing evidence of the benefits of professional development programs for higher education teachers, teaching is still seen as an activity that anyone can perform. As a result, only a few European countries have made significant investments in enhancing the teaching skills of their academic staff. In other words, university teacher preparation remains largely unsystematic and ad hoc. While formal degree programs exist to develop and certify competence in research (Master’s/PhD), and in some countries there are clear expectations that academic staff be qualified at that level, the requirement for formal teaching qualifications is not widespread” (European Science Foundation, 2012).

On the other hand, in some universities where research is more developed and teaching less emphasized, academics may find themselves insufficiently prepared for either. Thus, professional development remains a crucial issue, as higher education continues to serve as one of the primary drivers of societal progress. Research, as a vital component of higher education, represents a key pathway to development; at the same time, learning how to teach others and improving classroom instruction are of great societal importance.

Regarding the need to develop academics as university teachers, many countries around the world have already recognized the importance of quality teaching for high-quality education. For instance, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Nordic countries, as well as the United States, Australia, and Canada, have established programs or associations dedicated to the development of teaching and learning in higher education (European Science Foundation, 2012).

In this context, the European Science Foundation (2012) recommends coordinated actions at the European, national, and institutional levels to improve teaching in higher education and elevate the importance of effective teaching. These actions include:

• Defining professional standards for higher education teachers
• Measuring teaching effectiveness and providing constructive feedback to academics
• Creating institutional support structures for educational development at the local level
• Recognizing teaching excellence in hiring and promotion decisions
• Promoting the concept of “scholar teachers”
• Acknowledging research on teaching as a legitimate scholarly activity
• Allocating substantial funding for educational development
• Establishing a European forum within an existing institution to gather and share resources and expertise for educational development across borders (European Science Foundation, 2012, p. 6).

Standards and Pedagogical Competencies of Teachers in Higher Education 

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are under constant pressure to adapt rapidly and efficiently to the growing and changing demands of society and the labor market. A greater emphasis on the quality of learning and teaching has emerged as a result of globalization, the development of the knowledge-based economy, the international coordination of professional qualifications, the acquisition and dissemination of new knowledge, and the increasing demand for universities to assume responsibility for solving various social problems and contributing to the development of democracy and civil society. Therefore, modern university teaching requires support for the professionalization and formal assessment of teaching competencies as necessary university strategies for modernizing the processes of teaching and learning.

Professionalized teaching can more effectively meet the needs of students and high academic standards, and it is a condition for the survival of higher education institutions. This is why an increasing number of institutions now offer shorter or longer training programs for the pedagogical and psychological education of interested teachers. Teaching is still often regarded as secondary to research, which tends to carry more weight in promotion to higher academic ranks; however, this approach does not support the development of teaching competencies in higher education. Educational policies within the European Higher Education Area, however, recognize that the key to successful university education lies in the synergy between research and teaching, both of which must be student-centered and accompanied by strengthened teaching quality (Močinić et al., 2022).

While in pre-university education many countries, including our own, have developed national teaching standards, in higher education this issue has not yet reached a desirable level of establishment. Nevertheless, there are ongoing efforts to develop and harmonize standards for this level of education and to define frameworks with indicators that reflect the competencies required for quality teaching. Such frameworks may be set at the national level or at the level of individual universities. In this regard, the literature provides examples of frameworks developed by various universities.

Teaching standards can serve several important purposes: they can offer professional guidance regarding quality and consistency, provide a common language about teaching and learning to inform policy and institutional planning, serve as a basis for accreditation, recognition, or reward, and act as a guide for professional learning. For example, in the United Kingdom, three sets of standards are used to reflect different roles and career stages of those working in teaching and learning support in higher education. The first targets early-career academics (including teaching assistants); the second, those with substantive teaching responsibilities; and the third, experienced academics engaged in mentoring and leadership. Each standard is based on three areas: professional activities, core knowledge, and professional values, each comprising specific elements. Conceptually, these standards are viewed as:

• A framework to support the professional development of staff engaged in learning support;
• A tool to promote professional approaches that enhance student learning through creativity, innovation, and continuous development;
• A means to demonstrate professionalism to students and other stakeholders; and
• A mechanism to support the sustainability and quality of the student learning experience (HEA, 2006;  Bossu, C.,  Brown, N. and Warren, V., 2018).

In general, professional development for academics should be considered a normal and integral part of academic life for all staff. Consequently, professional development for teaching should be embedded in institutional structures. It should be self-directed and planned within relevant contexts, and staff should be supported in enhancing their understanding of their learning preferences, needs, and styles to make the most of available opportunities for developing their practice. Recognition must be given to the complex nature of professional development, which takes place across multiple learning environments involving diverse formal and informal activities. Equally important is strengthening collaborative practices, encouraging and supporting interaction among academics within departments, across disciplines, between institutions, and among all those involved in teaching and learning (King, 2004).

Changes in higher education have led to transformations in working environments, activities, and expectations placed on academic staff. These shifts have resulted in diversification and the emergence of new roles, requiring a redefinition of traditional academic competencies and the development of new ones. The production and dissemination of knowledge—research and teaching—are no longer the sole professional activities. Traditional competencies required for university work are becoming increasingly complex, with additional demands related to organization, management, and administration, as well as engagement with community services, enabling universities to contribute to economic, cultural, and civic development (Močinić et al., 2022).

The quality of education is directly linked to the quality of teaching, and teacher competence is a decisive factor in implementing educational reforms. Teaching competencies must be reviewed in relation to teachers’ professional development. Teachers are directly responsible for the educational system and therefore need advanced pedagogical competencies.

The new university model transforms the teacher’s role from that of a knowledge transmitter to a facilitator of learning, while students assume a central role in the educational process. This shift requires the integration of a competence-based approach in higher education, recognizing that providing quality education means that higher education teachers must possess personal, instructional, research, and pedagogical skills that enable them to perform their teaching roles effectively.

The development of pedagogical competence within the institutional framework of higher education has multiple dimensions. The first dimension involves individual development, specific to each person along their career path. The second dimension refers to institutional engagement, encompassing programs for continuous teacher education and training, evaluation processes, and the development of cultural contexts that promote quality. The third dimension relates to legal and procedural frameworks, concerning the qualifications and skills of teachers as specified in university statutes and regulations governing professorial positions, doctoral, and postdoctoral programs. The fourth dimension involves the development of national competence-based standards, which should be mandatory for universities (Merkt, 2017).

All these competencies can be grouped into several essential categories: competence in a specific field of knowledge,research competence, competence in curriculum design and implementation, lifelong learning competence, socio-cultural and multicultural competence, emotional competence, information and communication technology (ICT) competence, managerial competence, and ecological competence. These competencies influence the values, behaviors, communication, goals, and practices of the academic process and the professional development of teachers (Smolikevych, 2019)

The Discourse on the Knowledge Bases of University Teachers

The discourse on teaching and the role of teachers across all levels of education—including higher education—has long centered on the question of what constitutes the essential knowledge and competence required for effective teaching practice. In an extensive study, Dijk et al. (2020) highlight two principal perspectives on what defines a good teacher: the teacher’s knowledge base and pedagogical competence. Drawing from an in-depth review of the literature and their own empirical investigation, the authors identify several core professional tasks of university teachers, each representing a foundational dimension of academic practice:

• Teaching and supporting learning – This task concerns how university teachers design and guide learning processes through meaningful student–teacher interactions aimed at achieving specific learning outcomes.
• Educational design – This involves the formulation of learning objectives, content, structure, teaching activities, and instructional materials, as well as their integration into a coherent educational framework.
• Educational leadership and management – This dimension addresses how university teachers exert purposeful influence within educational contexts through formal and informal relationships with others.
• Educational scholarship and research – This refers to the acquisition, application, and dissemination of scholarly knowledge about teaching and learning, thereby fostering a research-informed teaching practice.
• Professional development – This encompasses the continuous engagement of university teachers in activities aimed at improving their teaching competence and overall professional identity.

Within this framework of responsibilities, Dijk et al. (2020) also delineate several dimensions of task-related professional growth, including:

• Enhanced task performance, referring to improvements in the quality and effectiveness of teaching practices;
• Capacity to perform a broader range of professional tasks, indicating adaptive expertise in complex and evolving academic contexts;
• Expansion of spheres of influence, which includes three key domains:
  a. from individual students to colleagues,
  b. from single teaching sessions to entire academic programs, and
  c. from local to international educational contexts.

Collectively, these tasks and developmental dimensions contribute to the advancement of the university teacher’s professional expertise, reinforcing the notion that effective higher education teaching requires an integrated combination of disciplinary knowledge, pedagogical skill, and reflective practice.

Models of Teachers’ Professional Development – The Knowledge Framework

In educational research spanning more than three decades, a dominant discourse has focused on the necessity for teachers to possess a robust and coherent knowledge base. Among the seminal contributions to this discourse is the work of Shulman (1987), who conceptualized a knowledge base for teaching as “a modifiable system of knowledge, skills, understanding, technologies, ethics, and dispositions — collectively and responsibly — as well as a means for representing and communicating it” (p. 4). Shulman emphasized that effective teaching involves the capacity to transform understanding, skills, attitudes, or desired values into pedagogical representations and actions. He stated:

“These are forms of speaking, showing, interpreting, or representing ideas so that the unknown becomes understandable, the unknowing may come to know, and the unskilled may become capable. Thus, teaching necessarily begins with the teacher’s understanding of what is to be learned and how it is to be taught” (p. 7).

Shulman (1987) argued that effective teaching requires the integration of three core types of knowledge: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of learners. Together, these constitute what he termed Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)—the knowledge that teachers must know, be able to do, understand, and articulate in relation to the teaching process. PCK is thus the interpretation and transformation of subject matter knowledge into forms that facilitate student learning.

Shulman (1987) identified several key components of PCK:

• Knowledge of subject matter representations: understanding how to represent content effectively;
• Knowledge of students’ conceptions: understanding learners’ prior knowledge, misconceptions, and the implications for teaching and learning; and
• General pedagogical knowledge: mastery of instructional strategies applicable across content areas.

Additionally, Shulman highlighted other critical elements within the teacher knowledge base:

• Curricular knowledge: familiarity with programmatic structures and sequencing;
• Knowledge of educational contexts: understanding institutional, cultural, and social factors affecting teaching; and
• Knowledge of educational purposes and goals: awareness of the broader aims of education (Shulman, 1987, as cited in Solís, 2009).

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) is a form of expertise unique to teachers. It represents the intersection of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge (knowledge about teaching) and their content knowledge (knowledge about the subject matter). PCK is an integrative framework that enables teachers to convert disciplinary knowledge into meaningful learning experiences. According to Shulman (1986), PCK encompasses those aspects of content that are most appropriate for teaching, including typical topics in the discipline, effective representations, analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations that facilitate student understanding. It also involves understanding which concepts are challenging or easy for learners and the preconceptions that students bring to the classroom (Solís, 2009).

In essence, PCK reflects a teacher’s accumulated professional wisdom, integrating knowledge of pedagogy, learners, subject matter, and curriculum. It should be considered within the context of diverse and adaptive pedagogical practices. Pedagogical Content Knowledge distinguishes teachers from subject matter specialists: it is not merely the quantity or quality of content knowledge that matters, but the organization and application of that knowledge to support learning. While scientists organize knowledge for research purposes, teachers organize knowledge from a teaching perspective to guide learners toward understanding specific concepts.

Later, Shulman and Shulman (2004) emphasized that PCK represents the integration of subject matter knowledge/ Content Knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK). Both domains are essential and deeply interconnected:

• Content Knowledge (CK) refers to understanding the specific discipline, including core concepts, theories, organizational frameworks, evidence-based knowledge, and methodological approaches. Teachers with strong content knowledge are better equipped to guide students in processing and internalizing information. Shulman (1986) noted that content knowledge varies by discipline and must include the foundational concepts and epistemological underpinnings of the field. For example, in science, this encompasses scientific facts, theories, methods, and evidence-based reasoning. In art education, it may include knowledge of art history, major works, artists, historical contexts, and aesthetic and psychological frameworks for evaluating art (Kultsum, 2017).

Shulman (1987) further developed the Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action (PRA), identifying six interrelated processes that support the development of PCK among teachers:

1. Comprehension – understanding the subject matter, students, and learning goals;
2. Transformation – preparation, representation, selection, and adaptation of content for learners;
3. Instruction – implementing pedagogical strategies to facilitate learning;
4. Evaluation – assessing both student learning and instructional effectiveness;
5. Reflection – critically analyzing teaching practices to improve outcomes; and
6. New Comprehension – gaining deeper insights and refining pedagogical approaches through ongoing practice and feedback.

This conceptualization underscores that teachers’ professional knowledge is dynamic, integrative, and essential for effective teaching, shaping not only what students learn but how they learn. By cultivating PCK, educators can bridge the gap between disciplinary expertise and pedagogical practice, ultimately fostering meaningful and transformative learning experiences.

Table 1: Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action

(Shulman, 1987, as cited in Shing et al., 2015, p. 48)

Pedagogical Knowledge (PedK) represents another element within Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK).Pedagogical knowledge is related to teachers’ ability to provide an effective teaching and learning environment for all students. According to Shulman (1987), pedagogical knowledge encompasses understanding, theories, and beliefs regarding the act of teaching and the learning process, which shape a teacher’s approach to delivering subject matter in the classroom. The learning process also involves all activities related to material development, classroom management, mastery of learning, problem-solving, methodology, strategies, and assessment (Kultsum, 2017).

Content Knowledge alone, however, is insufficient. It is widely acknowledged that teachers require content knowledge (e.g., in chemistry, mathematics, physics, art, music, literature, etc.), but they also need knowledge that facilitates the learning of content. Pedagogical knowledge (PedK) refers to a teacher’s deep understanding of the processes, practices, or methods of teaching and learning. This includes, among other aspects, educational goals, values, and general objectives. Such general knowledge is applied to understand how students learn, overall classroom management skills, lesson planning, and student assessment. It encompasses knowledge of techniques or methods used in the classroom, the nature of the target audience, and strategies for evaluating students’ understanding.

A teacher with strong pedagogical knowledge understands how students construct knowledge and acquire skills, as well as how they develop cognitive habits and positive learning dispositions. Accordingly, pedagogical knowledge requires an understanding of cognitive, social, and developmental learning theories, and how these theories are applied to students in classroom settings (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

Technology, Content, and Pedagogy

In the contemporary era, technology has emerged as a significant form of knowledge for teachers. In the literature, this is often referred to as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (originally TPCK, now known as TPACK, or technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge - TPACK), a concept that arises from the interactions among content knowledge, pedagogy, and technology. 

TPACK represents knowledge about the complex interactions among these three factors: content, pedagogy, and technology (Zabeli, 2022). It serves as the foundation for effective technology-enhanced teaching, requiring an understanding of how to represent concepts using:

• Technologies;
• Pedagogical techniques that constructively employ technologies to teach content;
• Knowledge of what makes certain concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help address some of the challenges students face;
• Knowledge of students’ prior understanding and epistemological theories; and
• Knowledge of how technologies can build upon existing knowledge to develop new epistemologies or reinforce prior ones.

TPACK encompasses the understanding of how teaching and learning can change when particular technologies are used in specific ways. This includes recognizing the pedagogical affordances and constraints of a range of technological tools, as they relate to discipline- and developmentally-appropriate designs and pedagogical strategies. Developing TPACK requires a deeper understanding of both the limitations and potentials of technologies and the disciplinary contexts in which they operate. Teachers must master more than the subject matter they teach; they must also understand how the subject (or types of representations) can be transformed through the application of specific technologies. Teachers must comprehend which technologies are most suitable for teaching content in their fields and how content may dictate, or even alter, the use of technology—or vice versa (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

TPACK represents the integration of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Content Knowledge (CK), andPedagogical Knowledge (PK) discussed earlier. It includes: Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK).

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) involves understanding how subject matter can be communicated through various educational technology tools, taking into account which specific edtech tools are most suitable for particular content areas or classes.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) refers to teachers’ understanding of how specific technologies can transform both teaching and learning experiences by introducing new pedagogical opportunities and constraints. Another aspect of TPK involves understanding how such tools can be integrated with pedagogy in ways that are discipline- and developmentally-appropriate.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is the resultant synthesis of these combinations and interests, derived from the three major foundational domains of content, pedagogy, and technology, creating an effective knowledge base for teaching with educational technology (Kurt, 2018).

Professional Development Model of Teachers – Development Phases

The professional development of teachers is also informed by Kugel’s model (1993), which outlines five phases of development, highlighting the focus of each phase along with transitions between them. In Phases 1 and 2, teachers concentrate on their professional identities as academics through disciplinary knowledge, positioning students as ‘others’ within the process. As they progress through Phases 3 and 4, they begin to recognize the importance of students, while the depth of their approach to learning evolves (Marton & Säljö, 1984; Biggs & Tang, 2011). Consequently, teachers can influence motivation by encouraging students to be active and reflective participants (Ashwin, 2015).

Support for progression to Phase 5 involves understanding learning as a socially constructed process in which teachers facilitate dialogue for learning rather than merely transmitting knowledge (Laurillard, 2002), while students become self-regulated (Zimmerman, 2002) and manage their own learning. Although Kugel presents the framework as linear and cumulative, for some teachers grasping learning theories can be highly challenging (Quinn & Vorster, 2015), meaning that transition through these phases is not inevitable for all educators.

Kugel’s developmental phases are particularly useful for understanding different types and paces of teacher growth, allowing future cohorts to be further encouraged to apply these levels in reflecting on their progress, especially when peers have achieved some success. Based on shifts in the conceptualization of teaching, the six approaches within the ‘theory into practice’ framework previously suggested provide a new perspective for addressing the seemingly difficult issue of transforming university teaching practices. They recognize and validate the steps that may occur before practical changes are implemented and observed or assessed. These include: acknowledging that practice is supported by theory; that theory can be used to critique practice, although it may not immediately result in practical change; that development in teaching depends on context and may require planning, negotiation, and time for approval and implementation; and that justifying and evaluating change can be challenging (Hughes et al., 2023).

Table 2: Phases of Teacher Professional Development According to Kugel

Bibliography

Ashwin, P. (2015). Analyzing teaching-learning interactions in higher education: Accounting for structure and agency. Routledge.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education

Bossu, C., Brown, N. and Warren, V. (2018). Professional and Support Staff in Higher Education: An Introduction. In: Bossu, Carina and Brown, Natalie eds. Professional and Support Staff in Higher Education. University Development and Administration. Singapore: Springer, Singapore, pp. 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6858-4_29

Dijk, T., van der Rijst, R., van Tartwijk, J., & van Driel, J. (2020). What makes a good university teacher? A systematic review of teaching competencies and professional development in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 1091–1105. https://doi.org/10

Dută, N. V. &   Foloștină, R. (2014). Continuous training of university teachers – theoretical approaches and practical implications. 5th World Conference on Educational Sciences – WCES. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.  116 3449 – 3453. https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/277811/1.

European Science Foundation (2012). The Professionalisation of Academics as Teachers in Higher Education. http://archives.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/professionalisation_academics.pdf. 

Hughes, G., Smith, L., & Brown, T. (2023). Transforming university teaching practices: Theory and context in professional development. Springer.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

King, H. (2004). Continuing Professional Development in Higher Education: What do academics do? EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 5(4) 1469-3267

Kugel, P. (1993). How professors develop as teachers. Studies in Higher Education, 18(3), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079312331382419

Kultsum, U. (2017). Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): A theoretical framework for teacher knowledge. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(10), 70–75.

Kurt, S. (2018). Integrating technology in education: TPACK framework. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 245–260.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). Routledge Falmer.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36–55). Scottish Academic Press.

Merkt, M. (2017).  The importance of academic teaching competence for the career development of university teachers: A comment from higher education pedagogy. GMS J Med Educ.  34(4). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5654111/.

Močinić, S., Lazarić,L.,  Ivana P., & Carlin, I.P.G.  (  2022). Competencies of University Teachers and Changes for Working in the Knowledge Society. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: INDECS, 20 (24). https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/408296

Quinn, S., & Vorster, J. (2015). The challenges of implementing learning theories in higher education: Reflections on practice. Journal of University Teaching, 12(2), 45–59.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271.

Smolikevych, N. (2019).  The teacher’s main competencies in modern higher education. EUROPEAN HUMANITIES STUDIES: State and Society Issue 3(І).

Solís, M. C. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge: From Shulman to present. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 39(1), 11–30.

Zabeli, N. (2022). Zabeli, N.  (2022). Edukimi inkluziv - teori dhe praktikë bashkëkohore ( Inclusive education – contemporary theory and practice).  Prishtinë: Universiteti i Prishtinës.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102

Note: 

This article is a modified part of the author’s own book titled Teaching in Higher Education, Prishtina, 2024.