Higher Education

, Volume 60, Issue 2, pp 187–204 | Cite as

Instructional development for teachers in higher education: impact on teaching approach



Although instructional development for teachers has become an important topic in higher education, little is known about the impact it has on daily teaching practice. The lack of systematic programme evaluation is an ongoing concern. In this study we investigate by use of a quasi-experimental design, the impact of an instructional development program for beginning university teachers on their teaching approach. Quantitative pre-test as well as post-test data were assembled from 20 experimental teachers and 20 control teachers. At the post-test qualitative data were gathered too: 17 teachers of the experimental group and 12 teachers of the control group were interviewed. Paired t-tests and analysis of covariance with the pre-test scores as a covariate showed some effect of instructional development on teaching approach. The analysis of the qualitative data sustained this result. Our results reveal the influence of instructional development on teachers’ teaching approach being slightly different for teachers belonging to distinct disciplines. Several interpretations and perspectives for further research are discussed.


Higher education Impact Instructional development Instructional training Teaching approach 


  1. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ professional development: A solitary or collegial (ad)venture. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eison, J., & Stevens, E. (1995). Faculty development workshops and institutes. In W. A. Wright & Associates (Eds.), Teaching improvement practices. Boston, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  6. Entwistle, N. J. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In J. J. F. Forest (Ed.), University teaching: International perspectives (pp. 73–112). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  7. Entwistle, N. J. (2005). Enhancing teaching-learning environments in undergraduate courses in electronic engineering: An introduction to the ETL project. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 42, 1–7.Google Scholar
  8. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2000). Training to teach in higher education: A research agenda. Teacher development, 4(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Gilbert, A., & Gibbs, G. (1999). A proposal for an international collaborative research programme to identify the impact of initial training on university teachers. Research and Development in Higher Education, 21, 131–143.Google Scholar
  12. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh. Analyzing and understanding data (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  13. Ho, A. S. P. (1998). Changing teachers’ conceptions of teaching as an approach to enhancing teaching and learning in tertiary education. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  14. Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42, 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kekale, J. (1999). ‘Preferred’ patterns of academic leadership in different disciplinary (sub)cultures. Higher Education, 37, 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in higher education, 27(4), 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG higher education conference.Google Scholar
  21. Postareff, L., Katajavuori, N., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Trigwell, K. (2008). Consonance and dissonance in descriptions of teaching of university teachers. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 557–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ramsden, P. (1997). The context of learning in academic departments. In F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell, & N. J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (2nd ed., pp. 198–216). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rust, C. (1998). The impact of educational development workshops on teachers’ practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 3(1), 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Singer, E. (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research in Higher Education, 37, 659–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stes, A. (Ed.) (2008). The impact of instructional development in higher education on teachers' teaching behaviour. In: The impact of instructional development in higher education: effects on teachers and students ( pp. 103­-123). Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
  28. Stes, A., Clement, M., & Nelissen, C. (2002). Educational innovation and faculty’s professional development: A two-way link. Paper presented at the ICED-conference, Perth.Google Scholar
  29. Stes, A., Clement, M., & Van Petegem, P. (2007). The effectiveness of a faculty training program: Long term and institutional impact. International Journal for Academic Development, 12(2), 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stes, A., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2008a). Een Nederlandstalige versie van de ATI: een valide instrument om onderwijsaanpak te meten? [A Dutch version of the ATI: A valid instrument to measure teaching approach in higher education?]. Pedagogische Studiën, 85, 95–106.Google Scholar
  31. Stes, A., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2008b). Student-focused approaches to teaching in relation to context and teacher characteristics. Higher Education, 55(3), 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stes, A., Min-Leliveld, M., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). The impact of instructional development in higher education: The state-of-the-art of the research. Educational Research Review. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.07.001.
  33. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in science teachers’ approach to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 409–425.Google Scholar
  35. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised approaches to teaching inventory. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Weitzman, E., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Willcoxson, L. (1998). The impact of academics’ learning and teaching preferences on their teaching practices: A pilot study. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A. Iron-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 173–209). Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
  40. Ylijoki, O. H. (2000). Disciplinary cultures and the moral order of studying. A case-study of four Finnish university departments. Higher Education, 39, 339–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Stes
    • 1
    • 2
  • Liesje Coertjens
    • 1
  • Peter Van Petegem
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Education and Information SciencesUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Centre of Excellence in Higher Education (ECHO)University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations