Abstract
The Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) is used to examine teachers’ teaching approaches in higher education. Analyses into the validity and reliability of the original English ATI yielded positive results. In this study, we examined the degree to which these positive results can also be found for the Dutch version that we developed. Data were gathered from 377 teachers at the University of Antwerp (Flanders, Belgium) and three Antwerp university colleges. Confirmatory factor analyses and principal factor analyses with oblique rotation support a model with sub-factors belonging to two main factors. Our research supports the reliability and validity of our current Dutch version of the ATI. Consequently, the instrument can be used in educational research or practice to obtain insights into the teaching approach of teachers. Further research into differences in the structure of the ATI when used in different cultures would be valuable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
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.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
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.
Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Benjamin, J. (2000). What university teachers teach and how they teach it. Instructional Science, 28, 387–412.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Eley, M. G. (2006). The approaches to teaching inventory: A critique of its development and applicability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 633–649.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to teaching inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 405–419.
Stes, A., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2008). Student-focused approaches to teaching in relation to context and teacher characteristics. Higher Education, 55, 255–267.
Telli, S., den Brok, P., & Cakiroglu, J. (2007). Students’ perceptions of science teachers’ interpersonal behaviour in secondary schools: Development of a Turkish version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Learning Environments Research, 10, 115–129.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77–87.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 409–425.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Higher Education Research and Development, 24, 349–360.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., & Martin, E. (1998). Improving student learning through a focus on the teaching context. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning (pp. 502–509). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75–84.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Second Dutch Version)
This inventory is designed to explore how you went about teaching a specific course in the previous academic semester. This might mean that your responses to the items would be different if you were to respond to the same items with respect to another course and/or another semester.
Now think about the course on which you are going to concentrate throughout the entire research and how you taught it in the previous semester.
Assess the ‘truth’ of the following statements with respect to you, for the course concerned and with respect to the previous semester. The numbers which accompany each statement have the following meanings:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Was only rarely or never true for me | Was sometimes true for me | Was true for me about half the time | Was frequently true for me | Was always or almost always true for me |
Give only 1 answer per statement: the assessment which is most applicable. Please don’t miss out any of the statements. Do not spend a long time on each: your first reaction is probably the best.
Statement | Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. In this course students had to focus their study on what I provided them. (ITTF strategy) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2. It was important that this course was completely described in terms of specific objectives that related to the assessment. (ITTF intention) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
3. In the classes for this course I tried to develop a conversation with students about the topics we were studying. (CCSF strategy) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
4. It was important to present as much factual knowledge as possible so that students knew what they had to learn for this course. (ITTF intention) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
5. I felt that this course had to be an opportunity for students to reveal their changed conceptual understanding. (CCSF intention) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
6. We took time out in classes so that the students could discuss, among themselves, the difficulties that they encountered. (CCSF strategy) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
7. For this course I concentrated on covering information which is also available from/might also be available from key texts and readings. (ITTF strategy) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
8. I encouraged students to restructure their existing knowledge in terms of the new way of thinking about the subject that they developed. (CCSF intention) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
9. During the classes for this course I used examples to provoke debate. (CCSF strategy) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
10. I structured my classes for this course to help students to pass the assessment. (ITTF strategy) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
11. An important objective of my classes was to have students make good notes. (ITTF intention) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
12. For this course I provided the students with the information they needed to pass the assessment. (ITTF strategy) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
13. I felt that I had to know the answers to any questions that students might put to me about this subject. (ITTF intention) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
14. Teaching time was made available in this course for students to discuss their changing understanding of the subject with each other. (CCSF strategy) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
15. I felt that it was better for students in this course to generate their own notes, rather than always copy mine (diagrams on the board, transparencies, etc.). (CCSF intention) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
16. I felt a lot of teaching time in this course should be used to encourage students to question their assumptions. (CCSF intention) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
17. My teaching focused on the good presentation of information to students. (ITTF strategy) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
18. My teaching was intended to help students develop new ways of thinking. (CCSF intention) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
19. My teaching focused on delivering what I know to the students. (ITTF strategy) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
20. My teaching was intended to help students question their own knowledge and understanding. (CCSF intention) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
21. My teaching was intended to help students find their own learning resources. (CCSF intention) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
22. I presented information to enable students to build up a knowledge base. (ITTF strategy) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stes, A., De Maeyer, S. & Van Petegem, P. Approaches to teaching in higher education: Validation of a Dutch version of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Learning Environ Res 13, 59–73 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-009-9066-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-009-9066-7