


































Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

16 
 

Original Paper 

Educating Doctoral Students in Kinesiology to Teach 

Effectively 

Angela Lumpkin
1*

 & Rebecca M. Achen
2 

1
 Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, United States 

of America 

2
 School of Kinesiology and Recreation, Illinois State University, Normal, United States of America 

*
 Angela Lumpkin, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, Texas Tech University, 

Lubbock, United States of America 

 

Received: November 25, 2020   Accepted: December 8, 2020   Online Published: January 12, 2021 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v4n1p16            URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v4n1p16 

 

Abstract 

Doctoral program graduates, including in kinesiology, may be inadequately prepared to become 

effective teachers. The purpose of this study was to examine the required courses in research and 

teaching for kinesiology doctoral students and the related skills and abilities most important for 

doctoral students to develop to be successful in their first faculty positions. Through a survey, faculty 

coordinators of graduate programs in kinesiology were asked to identify required courses, the relative 

importance of skills and abilities in research and teaching, and the preparation levels of doctoral 

program graduates in research and teaching. Respondents rated courses, skills, abilities, and 

preparation in research consistently higher than courses associated with teaching. The authors 

proposed recommendations for preparing a more qualified cadre of kinesiology doctoral program 

graduates.  

Keywords  

doctoral students, research and teaching preparation, effective teaching, kinesiology 

 

1. Introduction 

The Ph.D. is a research-focused degree, with its historical emphasis on developing students’ abilities to 

discover and contribute to the creation of new knowledge. Following years of dedicated study and 

research as doctoral students, graduates often desire careers in similar, research-intensive universities. 

Most doctoral graduates, however, are much more likely to obtain faculty positions in comprehensive 

universities, liberal arts institutions, and two-year colleges in which the primary mission is teaching. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Barney (2019), Bergner, Lin, and Tepalagui (2015), Bok (2013), and Brightman (2009) argue that 

doctoral faculty emphasizing research and the reality of college teaching becoming doctoral program 

graduates’ central job responsibility perpetuate a disconnect between expectations and what faculty will 

do throughout their careers. Marx, Garcia, Butterfield, Kappen, and Baldwin (2016) even accuses 

doctoral programs in business of “malpractice” (p. 501) for perpetuating the practice of emphasizing 

research while ignoring instructional preparation. 

Doctoral faculty is most institutions typically expect doctoral students to learn disciplinary content and 

develop research and scholarly abilities to the exclusion of developing and practicing instructional 

design and delivery skills. For example, in a comprehensive assessment of the preparation of doctoral 

program graduates in business, Bonner, Stone, Mittal, Phillips, and Utecht (2020) argue that doctoral 

students need “to develop competencies to become effective teachers” (p. 338). Rousseau (2016) 

agrees, “…doctoral students will benefit from a structured and supportive environment in which to 

learn and practice effective approaches to teaching” (p. 525). 

In addition to a prioritization of research in doctoral programs, some doctoral students may doubt their 

abilities to become successful researchers and teachers, question their decisions to pursue a doctoral 

degree, or lack self-efficacy (i.e., a belief in personal capabilities to achieve or perform) (Foot, Crowe, 

Tollafield, & Allen, 2014). This may contribute to only about 50% of doctoral students across all 

disciplines completing their degrees (Gardner, 2009). Possibly to address this significant drop-out of 

students, doctoral faculty may need to re-conceptualize their doctoral programs through increased 

socialization and personalized mentoring, improved preparation to teach, and expanded emphasis on 

the effectiveness of graduate students’ ability to teach. 

1.1 Socialization and Mentoring 

Socialization, which is behaving and mixing in socially acceptable ways, can counteract a lack of 

self-efficacy and negative perceptions and contribute to positive experiences for students who 

successfully transition from prior academic studies, full-time employment, or other life circumstances. 

Austin (2002) offers four recommendations for how doctoral programs could increase completion rates 

through a socialization process: providing opportunities for students to think more deeply about 

teaching; supporting them with mentoring, advising, and periodic feedback; facilitating peer 

relationships and peer mentoring; and encouraging doctoral students to engage in self-reflection to 

enhance their growth.  

Boyce, Napper-Owen, Lund, and Almarode (2019) advocate that faculty mentoring and positive 

advising relationships increase academic and social integration of doctoral students. Faculty mentoring 

and advising are especially important since many new doctoral students in the sub-fields of kinesiology 

report they lack a comprehensive understanding of program requirements, time to degree completion, 

and responsibilities of becoming a faculty member. In describing earning doctoral degrees specific to 

kinesiology doctoral programs, Lee and Curtner-Smith (2011), Richards, Sinelnikov, and Starck (2018), 

Russell, Gaudreault, and Richards (2016), and Ward (2016) underscore the value of socialization of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

students for doctoral studies. 

Socialization helps students conceptualize and prepare for potential academic careers and associated 

faculty roles. Ideally, doctoral students will receive regular and substantive mentoring, advising, and 

feedback, opportunities for peer interactions, diverse and developmentally oriented teaching 

opportunities, guidance about faculty responsibilities, and encouragement for guided reflection (Austin, 

2002). Writing reflective personal journals, keeping activity logs, and participating in ongoing 

dialogues with peers and faculty mentors can help doctoral students navigate challenging transitions 

into and through new learning environments (Brightman, 2009; Foot et al., 2014).  

1.2 Inadequate Preparation to Teach 

Boyce, Lund, Napper-Owen, and Almarode (2019) report that doctoral students in kinesiology feel 

prepared to teach, perceive they can create inclusive classroom environments, and believe they can 

articulate a teaching philosophy. These doctoral students’ perceptions appear to contradict other research 

that suggests doctoral student preparation on how to teach effectively is lacking (Bergner et al., 2015; 

Brightman, 2009; Brightman & Nargundkar, 2013; Marx et al., 2016).  

Inadequate preparation for teaching responsibilities is not unique in the sub-fields in kinesiology. When 

asked about their level of preparedness, graduate students in sociology identified several challenges they 

encounter—lack of confidence in feeling qualified to teach including insecurity about their teaching 

skills; time required to respond to emails, complete grading of tests and assignments, and create course 

materials; inability to deal with student issues and problems, such as when students challenge grades, 

claim illegitimate excused absences, cheat on tests, and plagiarize assignments; and lack of support 

from faculty mentors (Smollin & Arluke, 2014). Dunn, Hooks, and Kohlbeck (2016) report that 60% of 

former doctoral students in accounting receive no pedagogical training in their doctoral programs. Based 

on their investigation of the teaching preparation of graduate students in economics, Walstad and Becker 

(2003) report a major gap between teaching demands on these students and their teaching preparation 

with about 40% receiving no training prior to teaching their own courses.  

Sometimes doctoral students get “mixed messages” (p. 104) when faculty expect quality teaching, yet 

advise doctoral students to spend less time on teaching and more time engaged in research (Austin, 

2002). When examining STEM disciplines with long hours dedicated to research in labs, Stowell, 

Churchill, Hund, Kelsey, Redmond, Seiter, and Barger (2017) identify that research commitments 

serve as a barrier to increasing the amount of time doctoral students could spend studying about and 

practicing effective teaching.  

Doctoral curricula offer expansive disciplinary content, yet many programs do not require dedicated 

courses, seminars, or other learning experiences about how to teach. Graduate faculty may devote 

insufficient time to mentoring their students in instructional design and delivery skills. Teacher training 

in doctoral programs, suggest Brightman and Nargundkar (2013), may not exist because of faculty’s 

traditional opinions—believing teaching strategies are discipline-specific, improving teaching is 

unnecessary, perceiving that “good teachers are born, not made” (p. 299), and devaluing the importance 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

19 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

of effective teaching, while overvaluing research. Brightman (2009) and Marx et al. (2016) argue the 

lack of a faculty champion to develop and implement a teaching course or program is the reason 

doctoral programs in business schools do not offer significant pedagogical preparation in teaching. 

1.3 Quality of Instruction 

Quality of instruction is central to undergraduate student retention and graduation from college. When 

graduate students teach economics courses and this instruction is not done well, it “can hurt a department 

by increasing student complaints, decreasing majors, and negatively affecting the employment potential 

of graduate students” (Walstad & Becker, 2003, p. 451). When taught by effective teachers—faculty and 

graduate students—with pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, undergraduate 

students learn more and develop essential life skills prior to graduation (Gyurko, MacCormack, Bless, & 

Jodl, 2016). Stowell et al. (2017) advocate that when doctoral program graduates in STEM disciplines 

learn best practices in teaching and learning, they are more likely to become better faculty and 

educators, can communicate information more effectively, become better scientists, and are more 

competitive for academic positions. Stowell et al. (2017) also claim, “…putting highly trained graduate 

student instructors into the classroom to implement these practices will increase the quality of 

undergraduate education” (p. 318).  

Barney (2019) identifies three ways the teaching abilities of doctoral students can improve: 1) having a 

teaching mentor who helps them improve their teaching skills; 2) conducting several direct observations 

of excellent teachers in action; and 3) participating in at least one teaching workshop each semester. 

Similar to Barney’s (2019) description of the absence of teaching business management students how to 

teach, Lund, Napper-Owen, and Boyce (2019) agree about the lack of preparation of doctoral students 

in kinesiology. Brightman and Nargundkar (2013) suggest requiring all doctoral students to study 

pedagogical literature, learn about classroom management, student motivation, course organization, 

active learning strategies, assessment and grading, technology, and student evaluation, complete peer and 

faculty teaching observations, and develop a teaching philosophy. Bonner et al. (2020) recommends that 

doctoral students need to develop competence in their content, instructional design, courses 

administrative skills, and instruction delivery. We agree with Brightman and Nargundkar (2013) and 

Bonner et al. (2020)—doctoral students can and should be better prepared to teach. 

1.4 Purpose and Research Questions 

More information is needed about if and how PhD students are prepared to teach. The purpose of this 

investigation is to examine the status of teaching preparation of doctoral students in the United States in 

one broad discipline—kinesiology. We sought to answer these four research questions:  

a) What are the required courses in research and teaching for kinesiology doctoral students? 

b) What skills and abilities are most important for doctoral students to develop to be successful in 

their first faculty positions?  

c) Do program coordinators feel doctoral program graduates are well prepared in research skills 

and teaching skills for a variety of faculty positions?  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

d) What resources do programs provide students who teach during their graduate programs?  

 

2. Method 

This study used survey methodology to explore the research questions. Cross-sectional survey 

methodology using a questionnaire was an appropriate method for this research because it allows the 

researcher to explore relationships between variables and collect descriptive data when variables cannot 

be manipulated (Gratton & Jones, 2014). Additionally, a questionnaire is ideal when the data that need 

to be collected are relatively simple and researchers are looking to describe what is (Gratton & Jones, 

2014). Participants were recruited from faculty coordinators in graduate programs in kinesiology. The 

website of the National Academy of Kinesiology (NAK) provides an inclusive list of 38 doctoral 

programs, with 89 doctoral program areas that focus on the study of physical activity. The names and 

email addresses of faculty coordinators for each of the NAK doctoral program areas were collected 

from institutional websites and entered into a database. While not all doctoral programs are members of 

NAK, the membership includes programs that clearly identified themselves as fitting within the field of 

kinesiology. After receiving approval from the institutional review board at the first author’s institution, 

a 13-item questionnaire (available from the authors upon request) was sent to each faculty coordinator. 

Because some coordinators oversaw multiple programs, a total of 84 email messages were sent. A 

reminder email was sent one week after the initial email, and a second reminder was sent another week 

later. Seventeen individuals responded yielding a 20% response rate. Because the survey was 

anonymous, and the population was small, we did not request demographic information or university 

names from faculty coordinators. 

The questionnaire was created specifically for this study. While it is generally better to use existing 

scales to collect data (Gratton & Jones, 2014), a review of the literature did not result in existing scales 

or questions to answer the research questions. Thus, to enhance validity of the survey, a subset of six 

program coordinators was randomly chosen from the database and asked to participate in 

semi-structured interviews to help create questions and answer responses. Asking your population to 

participate in survey creation and review your survey prior to data collection is a way to improve face 

validity (Gratton & Jones, 2014). One coordinator agreed to participate. Follow-up emails did not yield 

additional willing participants. The low response rate precipitated the need to review program websites 

for doctoral programs to aid question and response option creation and improve face validity. These 

sources of information were used to design the questionnaire to help ensure the questions being asked 

measured what was intended. The first author, who has 46 of years of teaching experience in higher 

education, did a final review of the survey prior to sending it out, as a way to improve content validity 

through expert review (Gratton & Jones, 2014).  

The Qualtrics questionnaire included questions about required doctoral courses (e.g., experimental 

design, grant writing, research methods, statistics, college teaching, teaching effectiveness, and 

teaching practicum), development of research-related and teaching-related skills and abilities of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

21 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

doctoral students, and how doctoral programs prepared graduates for their careers. Likert-type 

questions were used to investigate the perspectives of coordinators in relation to the preparedness of 

their students and importance of different skills and abilities to their success. Likert-type questions are 

effective for assessing attitudes, opinions, and beliefs because they allow respondents to indicate the 

response to which they agree or disagree with a statement (Gratton & Jones, 2014). Because the 

population from which to draw the sample was small, sending the survey out for a pilot to test 

reliability was unrealistic. 

Data were downloaded from Qualtrics into SPSS Version 24 for analysis. Descriptive statistics were 

run. The McNemar test for differences in proportions was used to examine differences in percentages 

for required courses because the same participants were evaluating the courses and thus responses were 

likely to be related. This test is similar to the chi-square test, except it does not require data to be 

independent, and it is a non-parametric test (Adedokun & Burgess, 2012). Since the same participants 

answered questions on the importance and achievement of skills and abilities, paired t-tests were run to 

compare the means of the skills and preparedness of student outcomes to determine if means on these 

dependent variables differed significantly from each other. Due to the small sample sizes, confidence 

intervals were large; however, the sizeable discrepancies between preparation in teaching and research 

are still meaningful and significant, even at the closest ends of the confidence intervals. To protect 

against drawing inaccurate conclusions because of small sample size, we chose to use a p value of .01, 

instead of .05, to reduce Type I error.  

 

3. Result 

All 17 (100%) graduate coordinators who responded reported their programs prepared graduates for 

faculty positions in higher education, although one (5.9%) added its graduates also were prepared to 

work in schools for children and adolescents. A total of 13 (76.5%) respondents indicated their doctoral 

students took the same courses regardless of the type of institution (i.e., a teaching or research focus) in 

which they planned to seek faculty positions.  

3.1 RQ1: What Are the Required Courses in Research and Teaching for Kinesiology Doctoral 

Students?  

Research methods (15; 88.2%) and statistics (14; 82.4%) were the two types of courses most frequently 

required for every doctoral student. Experimental design (8; 47.1%), grant writing (4; 23.5%), teaching 

practicum or experience (4; 23.5%), college teaching (3; 17.6%), and teaching effectiveness (3; 17.6%) 

were required. McNemar’s test was run for each pairing of courses to determine if there were statistical 

differences in percentages. Differences between college teaching, teaching effectiveness, and teaching 

practicum and research methods and statistics as required courses were significant at the p < .01 level. 

Differences between grant writing and research methods and statistics were also significant at the p 

< .01 level. Table 1 provides greater specificity about the required courses including types of courses 

and number of credit hours for each.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

22 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 1. Number of Required Credit Hours for Selected Courses taken by Doctoral Students  

 
No Required 

Credit Hours  

Less than 3 Credit 

Hours  

3 Credit 

Hours  

More than 3 

Credit Hours  

College Teaching 52.9% (9) 11.8% (2) 5.9% (1) 0% (0) 

Experimental Design 35.3% (6) 35.3% (6) 11.8% (2) 0% (0) 

Grant Writing  47.1% (8) 0% (0) 23.5% (4) 0% (0) 

Research Methods  0% (0) 0% (0) 47.1% (8) 29.4% (5) 

Statistics 5.9% (1) 0% (0) 11.8% (2) 70.6% (12) 

Teaching Effectiveness  35.3% (6) 5.9% (1) 11.8% (2) 0% (0) 

Teaching Practicum or 

Experience  
41.2% (7) 5.9% (1) 11.8% (2) 0% (0) 

 

3.2 RQ2: What Skills and Abilities Are Most Important for Doctoral Students to Develop to Be 

Successful in their First Faculty Positions?  

Graduate program coordinators rated the importance of skills and abilities needed for doctoral 

graduates to be successful in their first faculty positions. Paired t-tests were run to determine 

differences in means on variables in the same sample, comparing each skill and ability to one another. 

As shown in Table 2, there were multiple significant differences, most notably when comparing both 

attaining advanced disciplinary knowledge and collaborating on an independent research project with 

other skills and abilities.  

 

Table 2. Importance of Skills and Abilities Needed for Success in First Faculty Position  

Skills and Abilities M (SD) MDiff t df p 

Attain advanced disciplinary knowledge 4.88 (.34)     

    Gain experience teaching college courses in 

the discipline 
 0.57 2.76 15 .01 

    Plan and develop courses  0.69 3.47 15 .003 

    Facilitate active student learning activities  0.69 3.15 15 .007 

     Conduct high-level statistical analyses  1.25 5.00 15 < .001 

Design and implement independent research  4.88 (.34)     



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

23 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

   Gain experience teaching college courses in 

the discipline 
 0.57 2.76 15 .01 

     Plan and develop courses  0.69 3.47 15 .003 

     Facilitate active student learning  0.69 3.15 15 .007 

    Conduct high-level statistical analyses  1.25 5.00 15 < .001 

Collaborate on research projects 4.63 (.50)     

      Conduct high-level statistical analyses  1.00 4.47 15 < .001 

      Facilitate active student learning   0.44 2.41 15 .03 

      Plan and develop courses  0.44 2.78 15 .01 

Conduct basic statistical analyses 4.56 (.63)     

Write and submit grants 4.38 (.89)     

Gain experience teaching college courses in the 

discipline 
4.31 (.70)     

Plan and develop courses 4.19 (.75)     

Facilitate active student learning activities 4.19 (.75)     

Conduct high-level statistical analyses 3.63 (1.03)     

   Conduct basic statistical analyses  -0.93 3.76 15 .002 

   Write and submit grants  -0.75 3.87 15 .002 

   Gain experience teaching college courses in 

the discipline 
 -0.69 2.42 15 .03 

    Plan and develop courses  -0.56 2.52 15 .02 

    Facilitate active student learning activities   -0.56 2.33 15 .03 

 

3.3 RQ3: Do Program Coordinators Feel Doctoral Program Graduates Are Well Prepared in 

Research Skills and in Teaching Skills for a Variety of Faculty Positions?  

Graduate program coordinators indicated on a five-point Likert-type scale of 1 strongly disagree to 5 

strongly agree that doctoral students were well prepared to design and implement research projects 

after graduation (M = 4.25, SD = 1.342), design and deliver undergraduate courses in the discipline 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

24 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

after graduation (M = 4.00, SD = 0.730), and facilitate active student learning activities in 

undergraduate courses in the discipline after graduation (M = 3.38, SD = 0.806). Paired t-tests indicated 

there was a significant difference in their confidence that graduates could design and deliver 

undergraduate courses and facilitate active student learning activities in undergraduate courses (t(15) = 

3.10, p = .007).   

3.4 RQ4: What Resources Do Programs Provide Students Who Teach during Ttheir Graduate 

Programs?  

Table 3 lists the instructional resources provided and evaluation methods used when programs assigned 

doctoral students to teach undergraduate courses in the discipline. Sample syllabi were the most 

common teaching resource provided to graduate student teachers, and over half of the institutions 

responding formally evaluated graduate students’ teaching.  

 

Table 3. Resources Provided to and Required Evaluation of Graduate Student Instructors 

Resources and Evaluation Methods % (#) 

Sample syllabus 82.4% (14) 

Reference librarian assistance 58.8% (10) 

Formal written evaluation by mentor or supervisor 58.8% (10) 

Required attendance at a one-day graduate student teaching workshop 47.1% (8) 

Optional attendance at teaching excellence center instructional sessions 47.1% (8) 

Instructional aids provided by the textbook publisher 47.1% (8) 

Periodic mentoring meetings including some discussion about teaching 47.1% (8) 

Casual observation by mentor or another a faculty member 29.4% (5) 

Faculty mentor 23.5% (4) 

Required attendance at teaching excellence center instructional sessions 11.8% (2) 

Only if student evaluations indicated a problem in doctoral students’ teaching 11.8% (2) 

Student feedback 5.9% (1) 

Required a graduate teaching certification or teaching portfolio 5.9% (1) 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

25 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4. Discussion 

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the status of teaching preparation of doctoral students 

in kinesiology programs in the United States. Doctoral programs identified by the NAK prepare 

graduates for faculty positions with similar types of courses required for all doctoral students. The first 

research question asks, “What are the required courses in research and teaching for kinesiology 

doctoral students?” As expected, this study found that research methods and statistics, in support of the 

research emphasis of Ph.D. programs, were the most frequently required, with courses associated with 

developing teaching skills required significantly less often. Research methods and statistics are 

foundational courses for all students, with experimental design and grant writing courses required by 

fewer programs. Courses associated with teaching usually are not required, which supports the 

conclusions of Austin (2002) and Golde and Dore (2001). 

The second research question asks, “What skills and abilities are most important for doctoral students 

to develop to be successful in their first faculty positions?” Faculty program coordinators believe that 

developing and expanding research skills from collaborating on projects to becoming an independent 

researcher far surpassed in importance all of the teaching-enhancement learning experiences. Doctoral 

programs emphasize attaining advanced disciplinary knowledge, conducting independent and 

collaborative research projects and statistical analyses, and learning grant writing.  

Graduate faculty coordinators confirm their students are better prepared to design and implement 

research projects after graduation than design and deliver undergraduate courses. This supports how 

Austin (2002) and Golde and Dore (2001) describe most doctoral programs nationally. Since 

research-related activities eclipse teaching development and experience, are doctoral faculty preparing 

their graduates more effectively for research-focused rather than for teaching-focused institutions? 

There are only 38 doctoral institutions in the NAK compared with over 2400 4-year, degree-granting 

institutions in the United States with most of these institutions offering at least a bachelor’s degree in a 

discipline related to kinesiology. Therefore, it seems preparing doctoral students to teach effectively is 

a worthwhile, and even essential, undertaking.  

The third research question asks, “Do program coordinators feel doctoral program graduates are well 

prepared in research skills and in teaching skills for a variety of faculty positions?” Faculty 

coordinators report their doctoral students possess solid research skills, yet they are much less prepared 

to design and deliver and facilitate active student learning in undergraduate courses. Study findings 

support Bok (2013), Grasgreen (2010), and Robinson and Hope (2013) who suggest the importance of 

preparing the future professoriate for their primary responsibility of teaching. Something other than 

“here is a copy of the syllabus and good luck” seems essential. These findings also are similar to the 

perceptions of doctoral students from a variety of disciplines in a study by Heflinger and Doykos (2016). 

They report that about one-third of students feel unprepared to teach, while about 90% feel prepared for 

writing and presenting their scholarly work. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

26 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The fourth research question asks, “What resources do programs provide students who teach during 

their graduate programs?” While some institutions provide mentoring or evaluating of teaching of 

doctoral students, the most common resource given these students when assigned to teach a course is a 

sample syllabus. While research skills and abilities are essential for discovering and expanding 

knowledge in the discipline (Golde & Dore, 2001; Russell et al., 2016), developing the teaching skills 

and abilities of doctoral graduates ought not to be overlooked (Bergner et al., 2015; Gyurko et al., 2016; 

Stowell et al., 2017). Given the popularity of kinesiology undergraduate programs in which most 

graduates of NAK-member institutions will teach, improved preparation of doctoral students in 

instructional courses and experiences seems extremely important (Richards et al., 2018; Robinson & 

Hope, 2013). 

Although students may perceive they are prepared to teach (Boyce, Lund et al., 2019), there is a 

significant difference between teaching and effective teaching, and our current study suggests formal 

teacher preparation is lacking. Building on the importance of learning to teach effectively, doctoral 

programs owe their students greater preparation, especially since most graduates will obtain faculty 

positions at teaching-focused institutions.  

Brightman (2009) describes two programs he considers exemplars for teacher training for doctoral 

students, and we endorse both of these. The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at 

Georgia Tech University began its doctoral seminar on teaching in 1990 (see 

http://www.me.gatech.edu/graduate/phd/practicum for more information). Doctoral students find a 

faculty member who is willing to team-teach an undergraduate course with them. As teaching interns, 

doctoral students help design syllabi, grade homework, prepare exams, conduct recitations, and teach 

classes while receiving feedback from the faculty member. The teaching interns report how helpful this 

experience is in developing confidence in a classroom environment and obtaining jobs after graduating. 

Brightman (2009) advocates for the course outline for the Robinson College of Business at Georgia 

State University’s model for doctoral teaching training. This model offers a 15-week list of topics and 

assignments applicable to any discipline.  

The Center for Teaching and Learning (CLT) at the University of Pennsylvania offers a CLT Teaching 

Certificate (see https://www.sas.upenn.edu/ctl/grad/certificate.html for more information). To earn this 

certificate, doctoral students complete four components: 1) pedagogical discussion and training through 

attendance at five teaching workshops; 2) teaching experience through serving as a teaching assistant or 

instructor; 3) observation and review conducted by a CLT staff member; and 4) development of a 

teaching philosophy.  

Doctoral students prefer having mentors committed to helping them throughout every phase of their 

doctoral programs (Gardner, 2009; Stowell et al., 2017). In our research, less than one quarter of the 

doctoral programs provide mentors to doctoral students for their teaching. One helpful approach could 

be institutions offering or requiring doctoral students to obtain teaching certifications (Grasgreen, 2010; 

Robinson & Hope, 2013).   



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

27 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Marx et al. (2016) recommends four approaches to doctoral teaching preparation for business schools: 

a) The University of Michigan offers a three-year Teaching Development Program. It includes 

classroom observations, classroom culture seminars, two, second-year courses focusing on 

developing teaching competences, and a full third-year teaching assignment with observations 

and feedback culminating in development of a teaching portfolio. 

b) Boston College’s Organizational Studies Department provides a 13-week teaching practicum 

course combining first- and second-year doctoral students. In addition to required reading and 

writing assignments, students present 15-minute lectures on learning from feedback received. 

Completion of journal entries for each class and submission of a teaching portfolio also are 

required.  

c) Saint Louis University requires its doctoral students to complete a certification program 

offered by the institution’s center for teaching excellence. Attending at least 10, 2-hour 

effective teaching seminars, developing a teaching portfolio, receiving feedback on 

video-taped class lectures, and faculty mentoring are program requirements. Departments are 

encouraged to develop and require students’ participation in discipline-specific seminars.  

d) The University of Massachusetts requires its doctoral students to complete an intensive 

six-day teaching seminar that includes one full day of sessions after the first year, four full 

days after the second year (which precede independently teaching two semesters of a course), 

and one full day for third-year students for reflections on their teaching experiences and 

development of a teaching portfolio.   

The Association of College and University Educators (ACUE) responded to educational research over 

the past four decades affirming teachers are the most essential factor affecting student learning (Gyurko 

et al., 2016). ACUE, in collaboration with the American Council on Education, offers a Certificate in 

Effective College Instruction. Participants can earn online certificates independently or in cooperation 

with an institution’s teaching and learning center. Delivered through 28 modules, doctoral students can 

earn this certificate concurrently with other instructional and research requirements, so as not to 

elongate their programs. Earning this Certificate in Effective College Instruction ensures teachers have 

the core competencies of instructional practice including how to design an effective course and class, 

establish a productive learning environment, incorporate active learning techniques, promote 

higher-order thinking, and assess instruction and learning. While teachers become more competent, 

confident, and satisfied, greater student success and enjoyment of learning are anticipated benefits. 

Since these certification programs are open to doctoral students in all academic disciplines, kinesiology 

students could be encouraged to take advantage of these learning opportunities.  

Certification programs and centers for teaching excellence exist because doctoral students and the 

institutions hiring them support completion of teacher-training coursework (Brightman & Nargundkar, 

2013). Doctoral students should be encouraged to attend teaching effectiveness workshops offered by 

campus teaching and learning centers during their programs of study. Lund et al. (2019) state that 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

28 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

kinesiology doctoral students can benefit from mentoring programs addressing research, teaching, and 

service to optimally prepare them for careers in higher education. They emphasize, “Developing good 

teaching skills is an important part of doctoral training and not be neglected” (p. 345). Silverman (2003) 

adds, “By helping students become competent teachers, we can help them adjust to their new positions, 

feel good about their teaching, and have a better chance of managing their various roles… Helping our 

students learn to help their students learn will give each new faculty member some of the skills that are 

needed to be successful” (p. 79). 

The most important implication for practice from our research is institutions need to better prepare 

doctoral graduates to teach and help them avoid many frustrations common to inadequately prepared 

teachers. Another implication for practice comes from Barkley and Major (2016, 2018) and Barkley, 

Major, & Cross (2014) who advocate the importance of all teachers learning about the sequence and 

inter-connectivity of curricular design, instructional delivery, and assessment. While doctoral program 

faculty may be concerned that investing time in better preparing graduate students to teach effectively, 

Shortlidge and Eddy (2018) found there was no negative impact on research preparedness or publication 

numbers when PhD students were provided training on effective teaching.  

 

5. Limitations and Future Research 

This study provides an initial evaluation of the teaching and research preparation of Ph.D. students; 

however, one of its main limitations was the low response rate. While we were able to gather data from 

20% of faculty program coordinators, which is adequate in survey research, the variability in 

programming across institutions might necessitate a larger sample size for definitive conclusions. 

Additionally, while every effort was made to establish validity and reliability, a lack of response during 

survey development may have resulted in leaving out potential question responses. Finally, this study 

focused on perceptions faculty program coordinators had in terms of their students’ skills, abilities, and 

readiness. Future research should create an instrument to give to doctoral program candidates in 

kinesiology and other disciplines to evaluate their readiness and explore areas in which they feel 

underprepared. Additionally, future qualitative research could be conducted to understand why all 

disciplinary programs are more focused on research and how program coordinators feel about effective 

doctoral education and preparation. 

 

6. Conclusion 

The Ph.D. remains a research-focused degree as this study confirms. Attaining advanced disciplinary 

knowledge and conducting and collaborating on research projects are much more frequently required in 

doctoral programs than are planning and developing courses, gaining teaching experience, and 

facilitating active learning in courses taught. Graduate faculty coordinators believe their doctoral 

students are much better prepared to design and implement research projects at a higher level of 

competence than they are competent to design and deliver undergraduate courses in their discipline.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

29 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Emphasizing research skills and abilities should not mean neglecting preparing doctoral students to 

develop their pedagogical skills and become effective teachers. Graduate faculty in kinesiology have 

the opportunity to revise how they prepare their students for the job market, most often in colleges 

where faculty have significant teaching responsibilities. Ensuring doctoral students know about and 

have access to college teaching courses, teaching workshops, a teaching mentor, and teacher 

certification programs can help them realize the importance of developing and enhancing their 

instructional abilities in preparation for academic careers.  

Accountability for student learning is the new currency in higher education, with the associated 

expectation that doctoral program graduates need to learn how to teach effectively during their doctoral 

programs. Faculty are encouraged to mentor doctoral students not only in research skills but also in 

pedagogical skills. Helping graduates develop their pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content 

knowledge, such as through the required completion of a college teaching course or certification 

program, is the optimal way to improve teaching in all disciplines.  

 

References 

Adedokun, O. A., & Burgess, W. D. (2012). Analysis of paired dichotomous data: A gentle 

introduction to the McNemar test in SPSS. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 8(17), 

125-131.  

Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the 

academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 94-122. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777132 

Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2016). Learning assessment techniques: A handbook for college faculty. 

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2018). Interactive lecturing: A handbook for college faculty. San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. P. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for 

college faculty (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Barney, C. E. (2019). The absence of teaching how to teach during the business management PhD 

programme: A call to action. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(1), 

121-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1372300 

Bergner, J., Lin, L., & Tepalagui, N. K. (2015). Teacher training for Ph.D. students: Recommendations 

for content and delivery. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 9(1), 

61-69.  

Bok, D. (2013, November 11). We must prepare doctoral students for the complicated art of teaching. 

The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from 

http://www.chronicle.com/article/We-Must-Prepare-PhD-Students/142893 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777132
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1372300


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

30 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Bonner, R. L., Stone, C. B., Mittal, S., Phillips, W., & Utecht, R. L. (2020). Preparing academics to teach: 

Example of a structured method of preparing doctoral students in business programs to teach. 

Journal of Management Education, 44(4), 435-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920907132 

Boyce, B. A., Lund, J. L., Napper-Owen, G., & Almarode, D. (2019). Doctoral students’ perspectives 

on their training as teachers in higher education. Quest, 71(3), 289-298. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2019.1618066 

Boyce, B. A., Napper-Owen, G., Lund, J. L., & Almarode, D. (2019). Doctoral students’ perspectives 

on their doctoral programs and departments. Quest, 71(3), 299-310. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2019.1618070 

Brightman, H. J. (2009). The need for teaching doctoral students how to teach. International Journal of 

Doctoral Studies, 4, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.28945/42 

Brightman, H. J., & Nargundkar, S. (2013). Implementing comprehensive teacher training in business 

doctoral programs. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 11, 297-304. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12013 

Dunn, K. A., Hooks, K. L., & Kohlbeck, M. J. (2016). Preparing future accounting faculty members to 

teach. Issues in Accounting Education, 31(2), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace-50989 

Foot, R., Crowe, A. R., Tollafield, K. A., & Allen, C. E. (2014). Exploring doctoral student identity 

development using a self-study approach. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 2(1), 103-118. 

https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.2.1.103 

Gardner, S. K. (2009). The development of doctoral students: Phases of challenge and support. ASHE 

Higher Education Report, 34(6), 1-127. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.v34:6 

Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students 

reveal about doctoral education. Retrieved from www.phd-survey.org 

Grasgreen, A. (2010). Preparing professors to teach—Doctoral student interest and enrollments in 

teacher certificate programs are rising, as programs evolve (and emerge) and job market worsens. 

Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/10/15/mit  

Gratton, C., & Jones, I. (2014). Research methods for sports studies. New York: Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315796222 

Gyurko, J., MacCormack, P., Bless, M. M., & Jodl, J. (2016). Why colleges and universities need to 

invest in quality teaching more than ever. Retrieved from 

http://acue.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/White-Paper-201611114-Web.pdf 

Heflinger, C. A., & Doykos, B. (2016). Paving the pathway: Exploring student perceptions of 

professional development preparation in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 41(4), 

343-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-016-9356-9 

Lee, H. M., & Curtner-Smith, M. (2011). Impact of occupational socialization on the perspectives and 

practices of sport pedagogy doctoral students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 

296-313. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.30.3.296 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920907132
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2019.1618066
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2019.1618070
https://doi.org/10.28945/42
https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12013
https://doi.org/10.2308/iace-50989
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.2.1.103
https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.v34:6
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315796222
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-016-9356-9
https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.30.3.296


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021 

31 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Lund, J. L., Napper-Owen, G., & Boyce, B. A. (2019). Recommendations for thematic issue on 

kinesiology doctoral students’ perspectives. Quest, 7(3), 342-346. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2019.1618079 

Marx, R. D., Garcia, J. E., Butterfield, D. A., Kappen, J. A., & Baldwin, T. T. (2016). Isn’t it time we 

did something about the lack of teaching preparation in business doctoral programs? Journal of 

Management Education, 40(5), 489-515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562915616430 

National Academy of Kinesiology. (2018). Retrieved from 

http://www.nationalacademyofkinesiology.org/About-NAK  

Richards, K. A. R., Sinelnikov, O. A., & Starck, J. (2018). Practical strategies for enhancing doctoral 

students’ preparedness to teach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 89(2), 

26-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2017.1404508 

Robinson, T. E., & Hope, W. C. (2013). Teaching in higher education: Is there a need for training in 

pedagogy in graduate degree programs? Research in Higher Education Journal, 21, 1-11.  

Rousseau, D. M. (2016). Yes! Rejoinder to “isn’t it time we did something about the lack of teaching 

preparation in business doctoral programs?” Journal of Management Education, 40(5), 524-527. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916643993 

Russell, J., Gaudreault, K. L., & Richards, K. A. (2016). Doctoral student socialization: Developing 

stewards of the physical education profession. Quest, 68, 439-456. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1234963 

Shortlidge, E. E., & Eddy, S. L. (2018). The trade-off between graduate student research and teaching: 

A myth? PloS One, 13(6), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199576 

Silverman, S. (2003). The role of teaching in the preparation of future faculty. Quest, 55, 72-81. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2003.10491790 

Smollin, L. M., & Arluke, A. (2014). Rites of pedagogical passage: How graduate student instructors 

negotiate the challenges of first-time teaching. Teaching Sociology, 42(1), 28-39. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X13502181 

Stowell, S. M. L., Churchill, A. C., Hund, A. K., Kelsey, K. C., Redmond, M. D., Seiter, S. A., & 

Barger, N. N. (2017). Transforming graduate training in STEM education. Bulletin of the 

Ecological Society of America, 96, 317-323. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9623-96.2.317 

Walstad, W. B., & Becker, W. E. (2003). The instructional use and teaching preparation of graduate 

students in U.S. PhD-granting economics departments. American Economic Review, 93, 449-454. 

https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321947506 

Ward, P. (2016). Policies, agenda and practices influencing doctoral education in physical education 

teacher education. Quest, 68, 420-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1234964 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2019.1618079
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562915616430
https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2017.1404508
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916643993
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1234963
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199576
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2003.10491790
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X13502181
https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9623-96.2.317
https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321947506
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1234964

