A psychometric analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) and a proposal for a Spanish version (S-ATI-20)

  1. Fuensanta Monroy 1
  2. González Geraldo, José Luis
  3. Hernández Pina, Fuensanta
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

Journal:
Anales de psicología

ISSN: 0212-9728,  1695-2294

Year of publication: 2015

Volume: 31

Issue: 1

Pages: 172-183

Type: Article

DOI: 10.6018/ANALESPS.31.1.190261 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

More publications in: Anales de psicología

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Background: Recent educational research has explored how uni-versity teachers approach their teaching. One of the most widely used in-struments is Trigwell and Prosser´s (2004) Approaches to Teaching Inven-tory (ATI). There is, however, scarce research on the Spanish version of this questionnaire. This paper aimed: 1) to analyse the reliability and struc-tural validity of two existing versions of ATI in Spanish language, and 2) to present a proposal for a new Spanish version of ATI, and to measure its re-liability and validity. Method: The samples comprised university and trainee teachers from two Spanish universities. Results: Reliability coefficients, fac-tor structures, and item loadings of the two existing Spanish versions of ATI were evaluated. Some coincidental outcomes suggested that a revised ATI in Spanish was required, thus a new version (S-ATI-20) was presented and tested on a new sample. Conclusions: The results suggest question-naires should be suitably translated and item wording carefully adapted. Factor analyses moderately support a two-scale model, but a lack of corre-lation between approaches suggests alternative approaches to teaching models might be worth considering. This paper presents preliminary results which should be taken with caution, but S-ATI-20 may serve as a tool for self-reflection in faculty development

Bibliographic References

  • Ato, M., López, J. J., y Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3), 1038-1059.
  • Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
  • Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Buela-Casal, G., Sierra, J.C., Carretero-Dios, H., & De los Santos-Roig, M. (2002). Situación actual de la evaluación psicológica en lengua castellana. Papeles del Psicólogo, 83, 27-33.
  • Cambridge dictionaries online. (2014). Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
  • Congost Mestre, N. (2012). Aspectos socioculturales en la traducción de cuestionarios de salud estadounidenses. Panacea. Revista de Medicina, Lenguaje y Traducción, 13(35), 91-98.
  • Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
  • Furnham, A. (1990). Faking Personality Questionnaires: Fabricating Different Profiles for Different Purposes. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 9(1), 46-55.
  • George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • 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(1), 87-100.
  • Goh, P. S. C., Wong, K.T., & Hamzah, M. S. G. (2014). The Approaches to Teaching Inventory: A Preliminary Validation of the Malaysian Translation. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 16-26.
  • González Geraldo, J. L. (2010). Optimización de procesos educativos en el E.E.E.S. (Doctoral Thesis, Universidad de Castilla La Mancha, Spain), Ediciones de la UCLM, ISBN 978-84-8427-771. Retrieved from https://ruidera.uclm.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10578/1441/TESIS%20FINAL%20ENCUADERNADA.pdf?sequence=1
  • González Geraldo, J. L., Del Rincón, B., & Del Rincón, D. (2011). Estructura latente y consistencia interna del R-SPQ-2F. Reinterpretando los enfoques de aprendizaje en el EEES. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 29(2), 277-294.
  • González Geraldo, J. L., Trevitt, C., Carter, S., & Fazey, J. (2010). Rethinking the Research-Teaching Nexus in Undergraduate Education: Spanish laws pre- and post-Bologna. European Educational Research Journal, 9(1), 81-91.
  • Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20-33.
  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R.., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
  • Hernández Pina, F., Maquilón Sánchez, J. J., & Monroy Hernández, F. (2012). Estudio de los enfoques de enseñanza en profesores de educación primaria. Revista de Curriculum y Formación del Profesorado, 16(1), 61-77.
  • Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics´ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.
  • Kember, D., & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469-490.
  • Kjellgren, K. I., Hendry, G., Hultberg, J., Plos, K., Rydmark, M., Tobin, G., & Säljö, R. (2008). Learning to learn and learning to teach - Introduction to studies in higher education. Medical Teacher, 30, 239-245.
  • Kirton, M. J. (1991). Faking Personality Questionnaires: A Response to Furnham. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 10(4), 315-317.
  • 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(3), 285-298.
  • Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. J. (Eds.) (1984). The experience of learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N.J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36-55). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
  • 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.
  • Monroy Hernández, F. (2013). Enfoques de enseñanza y de aprendizaje de los estudiantes del Máster Universitario en Formación del Profesorado de Educación Secundaria (Doctoral Thesis, Universidad de Murcia, Spain). Retrieved from http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/117259/TFMH.pdf?sequence=1
  • Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2005). Sistema de clasificación del método en los informes de investigación en Psicología. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 5(1), 115-127.
  • O’Connor, B. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32, 396-402.
  • Oliveira Reis, L. (2009). Traducción de los cuestionarios para su uso en investigación multicultural. Actas urológicas españolas, 33(1), 5-7.
  • Pedrosa-de-Jesus, M. H., & da Silva Lopes, B. (2011). The relationship between teaching and learning conceptions, preferred teaching approaches and questioning practices. Research Papers in Education, 26(2), 223-243.
  • 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.
  • 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(1), 37-48.
  • Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to teaching inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 405-419.
  • Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics´ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217-231.
  • Richardson, J. T. E. (2004). Methodological issues in questionnaire-based research on student learning in Higher Education. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 347-358.
  • Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Ferrando, P. J., Paiva, M.O., Lourenço, A., Cerezo, R., & Valle, A. (2013). Approaches to teaching and approaches to studying relationships: A two-level structural equation model for biology achievement in high school. Metacognition and Learning, 8.1, 47-77. Doi: 10.1007/s11409-013-9095-6.
  • Spector, P. (2001). Research methods in industrial and organisational psychology. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viwesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (pp. 10-26). London: Sage.
  • Stes, A., Coertjens, L., & Van Petegrem, P. (2010). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: impact on teaching approach. Higher Education, 60, 187-204.
  • Stes, A., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). Approaches to teaching in higher education: Validation of a Dutch version of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Learning Environment Research, 13, 59-73.
  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996a). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers´ approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77-87.
  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996b). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275-284.
  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409-424.
  • Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 349-360.
  • Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university sciences. Higher Education, 27, 75-84.
  • Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Waterhouse (1999). Relations between teachers´ approaches to teaching and students´ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.
  • Zhang, L. F. (2001). Approaches and Thinking Styles in Teaching. The Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 547-561.
Data source: Dialnet