Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 409–424 | Cite as

Development and Use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory

Article

Abstract

This paper describes how research into approaches to university teaching, from a relational perspective, has been used to develop an inventory to measure the key aspects of the variation in approaches to teaching. The Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) is one of several that derive from the research perspective applied by Marton and colleagues in Europe (Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N. (eds.) (1997). The Experience of Learning, 2nd edn., Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh) to student learning. A feature of these inventories is that they measure the response of a group to a particular context, rather than more general characteristics of individuals in that group. Studies using these inventories have consistently shown relations between students' approaches to learning and the quality of their learning outcome. The question of interest to many university teachers is whether there are relations between the way teachers approach their teaching and ways their students approach their learning. This question was answered in a study published in 1999 that used the ATI to show that teacher-focused approaches to teaching were associated with students' reproducing orientations. Subsequent research revealed that in subjects where teachers adopted more student-focused approaches to teaching, their students adopted a deeper approach to learning. Some recent research using the inventory is reviewed along with an analysis of the validity of the ATI. The current version of the inventory is reproduced in this paper.

approaches to teaching relational perspective phenomenography higher education student learning teaching inventory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ballantyne, R., Bain, J., and Packer, J. (1999). Researching university teaching in Aus-tralia: Themes and issues in academics’ reflections. Stud. Higher Educ.24: 237–257.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.48: 266–279.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying,Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University,SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
  5. Burroughs-Lange, S. G. (1996). University lecturers’ concept of their role. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 15: 29–49.Google Scholar
  6. Dunkin, M. J., and Precians, R. P. (1992). Award-winning university teachers’ conceptions of teaching. Higher Educ.24: 483–502.Google Scholar
  7. Entwistle, N. J., and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning,Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  8. Entwistle, N. J., and Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching and pref-erences for contrasting academic environments, Higher Educ.19: 169–194.Google Scholar
  9. Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Stud. Higher Educ.8: 151–163.Google Scholar
  10. Gibbs, G., and Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teach-ing skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learn. Higher Educ.5: 87–100.Google Scholar
  11. Gow, L., and Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.63: 20–33.Google Scholar
  12. Kane, R., Sandretto, S., and Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of re-search on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Rev. Educ. Res.72: 177–228.Google Scholar
  13. Kember, D., Kwan, K.-P., and Ledesma, J. (2001). Conceptions of good teaching and how they influence the way adults and school leavers are taught. Int. J. Lifelong Educ.20: 393–404.Google Scholar
  14. Hativa, N. (2000). Becoming a better teacher: A case of changing the pedagogical knowledge and beliefs of law professors. Instr. Sci.28: 491–523.Google Scholar
  15. McLean, M., and Blackwell, R. (1997). Opportunity knocks? Professionalism and excellence in university teaching. Teach. Teach Theor. Pract.3: 85–99.Google Scholar
  16. Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Lueckenhausen, G., and Ramsden, P. (2001). Us-ing phenomenography and metaphor to explore academics’ understanding of subject matter and teaching. In Rust, C. (ed.), Improving Student Learning: Improving stu-dent learning strategically,Oxford Centre for Staff Development, Oxford, pp. 325–336.Google Scholar
  17. Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husén and T. N. Postlethwaite (eds), The In-ternational Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd edn, Vol 8, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 4424–4429.Google Scholar
  18. Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N. (eds.) (1997). The Experience of Learning, 2nd edn., Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  19. Marton, F., and S¨alj¨o, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process I and II, Br. J. Educ. Psychol.46: 4–11, 115–127.Google Scholar
  20. Marton, F., and S¨alj¨o, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N. (eds.), The Experience of Learning, 2nd edn., Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  21. Menges, R. J., and Rando, W. C. (1989). What are your assumptions? Improving instruction by examining theories. Coll. Teach.37: pp54–60.Google Scholar
  22. Mertz, N., and McNeely, S. (1990). How professors’ “learn” to teach: Teacher cognitions, teaching paradigms and teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Meyer, J. H. F., and Muller, M. W. (1990). Evaluating the quality of student learn-ing.I—An unfolding analysis of the association between perceptions of learning con-text and approaches to studying at an individual level, Stud. Higher Educ.15: 131–154.Google Scholar
  24. Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult and Higher Education, Krieger Publishing, Malabar, Florida.Google Scholar
  25. Preacher, K. J., and MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift's electric factor analysis machine. Understand. Stat.2: 13–43.Google Scholar
  26. Prosser, M., and Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education, SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
  27. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Stud. Higher Educ.16: 129–150.Google Scholar
  28. Ramsden, P. (1997). The context of learning in academic departments. In Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N. (eds.), The Experience of Learning, 2nd edn., Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  29. Reinsmith, W. A. (1992). Archetypal Forms of Teaching: A Continuum, Greenwood Press, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Samuelowicz, K., and Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Educ.41: 299–325.Google Scholar
  31. Scott, S. M., Chovanec, D. M., and Young, B. (1994). Philosophy-in-action in university teach-ing.Can. J. Higher Educ.24: 1–25.Google Scholar
  32. Trigwell, K. (2002). Approaches to teaching design subjects: A quantitative analysis. Art, De-sign Commun. Higher Educ.1: 69–80.Google Scholar
  33. Trigwell, K., and Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learn-ing Outcomes. (Special edition on student learning) Higher Educ.22: 251–266.Google Scholar
  34. Trigwell, K., and Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in science teachers’ approach to teaching. Higher Educ.32: 77–87.Google Scholar
  35. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., Martin, E., and Ramsden, P. (2000). Discipline differ-ences in relations between learning, teaching and ways of leading teaching depart-ments.In Rust, C. (ed.), Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning Through the Disciplines, Oxford Centre for Staff Development, Oxford, pp. 502–509.Google Scholar
  36. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., and Martin, E. (1998). Improving student learning through a focus on the teaching context. In Rust, C. (ed.), Improving Student Learning, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford, pp. 97–103.Google Scholar
  37. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., and Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teach-ing first year university science. Higher Educ.27: 75–84.Google Scholar
  38. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., and Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ ap-proaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Educ.37: 57–70.Google Scholar
  39. van Rossum, E. J., and Schenk, S. M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.54: 73–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for the Advancement of University LearningUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.University of SydneyNew South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations