Higher Education

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 255–267

Student-focused approaches to teaching in relation to context and teacher characteristics

Article

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to gain more insight into the relationship between teachers’ approaches to teaching on the one hand, and the characteristics of context and teacher demographics on the other. Data were collected from 50 teaching staff at the University of Antwerp and from three sources: a Dutch translation of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI), information given by the participants, and information obtained through the personnel department of the university. Only the conceptual change/student-focused scale of the ATI had good reliability and was used for further analysis. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no relationship between teachers’ approaches to teaching and the context variables of expert level of students, teaching discipline and the number of students in the classroom. Neither was a relationship found between the teachers’ conceptual change/student-focused approach and the teacher characteristics of gender, academic status, teaching experience, age and intention to participate in teacher training. Several interpretations of these data and perspectives for further research are discussed.

Keywords

Approaches to teaching Context variables Teacher characteristics 

References

  1. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (second edition). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services Ltd.Google Scholar
  5. Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh. Analyzing and understanding data (third edition). New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  7. Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Keselman, H. J., Huberty, C. J., Lix, L. M., Olejnik, S., Cribbie, R., Donahue, B., Kowalchuk, R. K., Lowman, L. L., Petoskey, M. D., Keselman, J. C., & Levin, J. R. (1998). Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68, 350–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lacey, C., & Saleh, A. (1998). Teaching nine to five: A study of the teaching styles of male and female professors. A paper presented at the Women in Educational Leadership Annual Conference, October 11–12, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). Professionalizing teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and ‘teaching scholarship’. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ramsden, P. (2003). Variation in the experience of leadership of teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning – I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.Google Scholar
  14. Nevgi, A., Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2004). The effect of discipline on motivational and self-efficacy beliefs and on approaches to teaching of Finnish and English university teachers. A paper presented at the EARLI SIG Higher Education Conference, June 18–21, 2004.Google Scholar
  15. Nichols, J., & Miller, R. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (in press). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  17. Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). The ‘how’ and ‘what’ of learning physics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 513–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2003). Dissonance in experience of teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 25–35.Google Scholar
  21. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teaching in higher education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Singer, E. (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research in Higher Education, 37, 659–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and the quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265–275.Google Scholar
  24. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in science teachers’ approach to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 409–425.Google Scholar
  26. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., & Martin, E. (1998). Improving student learning through a focus on the teaching context. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.Google Scholar
  27. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Rossum, E. J., & Schenk, S. M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Education and Information Sciences, Centre of Excellence in Higher Education (ECHO)University of AntwerpAntwerpenBelgium
  2. 2.Institute for Education and Information SciencesUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpenBelgium

Personalised recommendations