Despite evidence supporting certain methods, faculty choices vary widely. Existing models fail to explain why similar conditions lead to different choices. This study explores the intersection of concrete factors and decision-making styles (rational, intuitive, limited rational).
A qualitative survey of 581 faculty members from diverse disciplines (Medicine, Arts, Engineering, etc.) at Istanbul Medeniyet University. Data was analyzed thematically following Braun & Clarke (2006) to identify patterns in pedagogical reasoning.
Four main themes emerged: Course, Student, Teaching Method, and Institutional Factors. Rational styles dominated content decisions, Intuitive styles drove student-centered choices, and Limited Rational styles appeared under structural constraints.
Understanding the "why" behind teaching choices helps in designing better faculty development. It highlights that resource limitations force "good enough" decisions rather than ideal pedagogical ones.
Explore how different teaching contexts trigger specific decision-making styles based on the qualitative analysis of 581 faculty members. Select a factor to see the dominant style.
When faculty focus on concrete, measurable factors like course topics, theoretical requirements, and field specificity, they adopt an analytical approach.
"Since law courses are theoretical, I think it is appropriate to use an explanatory method accompanied by presentations."
46.3% of decisions are driven by content. Theoretical courses often trigger Rational choices, while practical fields require discipline-specific adaptation.
51.1% consider student needs. Responding to student affect and readiness often activates Intuitive decision-making to personalize instruction.
Faculty valuing active engagement tend towards Intuitive styles, reading the room to maximize participation and "keep minds alive."
Workload, time, and physical resources act as barriers. These constraints force a Limited Rational style—choosing the "feasible" over the "ideal."