Skip to main content

Development and Use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  • 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 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.48: 266–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying,Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University,SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham.

  • Burroughs-Lange, S. G. (1996). University lecturers’ concept of their role. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 15: 29–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunkin, M. J., and Precians, R. P. (1992). Award-winning university teachers’ conceptions of teaching. Higher Educ.24: 483–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J., and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning,Croom Helm, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Stud. Higher Educ.8: 151–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gow, L., and Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.63: 20–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • McLean, M., and Blackwell, R. (1997). Opportunity knocks? Professionalism and excellence in university teaching. Teach. Teach Theor. Pract.3: 85–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N. (eds.) (1997). The Experience of Learning, 2nd edn., Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Menges, R. J., and Rando, W. C. (1989). What are your assumptions? Improving instruction by examining theories. Coll. Teach.37: pp54–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult and Higher Education, Krieger Publishing, Malabar, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., and MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift's electric factor analysis machine. Understand. Stat.2: 13–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser, M., and Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education, SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Stud. Higher Educ.16: 129–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Reinsmith, W. A. (1992). Archetypal Forms of Teaching: A Continuum, Greenwood Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelowicz, K., and Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Educ.41: 299–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Trigwell, K. (2002). Approaches to teaching design subjects: A quantitative analysis. Art, De-sign Commun. Higher Educ.1: 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Trigwell, K., and Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in science teachers’ approach to teaching. Higher Educ.32: 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith Trigwell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. Development and Use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Educational Psychology Review 16, 409–424 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0007-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0007-9

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