Impact of a spanish higher education teacher development programme on approaches to teachingPsychometric properties of the s-ati-20 scale

  1. José L. González-Geraldo 1
  2. Fuensanta Monroy 2
  3. Benito Del Rincón Igea 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
    info

    Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

    Ciudad Real, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05r78ng12

  2. 2 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

Journal:
Educación XX1: Revista de la Facultad de Educación

ISSN: 1139-613X,  2174-5374

Year of publication: 2021

Volume: 24

Issue: 1

Pages: 213-232

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5944/EDUCXX1.26725 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Educación XX1: Revista de la Facultad de Educación

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

The quality of teacher training at universities has been a never-ending debate among authorities and academics because of its impact on student learning. Learning to teach at the Higher Education level is not a straightforward path, and there are often few opportunities to learn how to teach at this level prior to taking on a teaching position. Universities should monitor the extent to which teachers accomplish their teaching duties and endeavour to improve their teaching skills and aptitudes, as well as their attitudes towards and commitment to students. Following the Students’ Approaches to Learning (SAL) line of research, this study addressed teacher training by analyzing the impact of a brief teaching development programme on teachers’ approaches to teaching using a Spanish 20-item questionnaire (S-ATI-20), which is an updated and validated version of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI), and qualitative data. A pre-experimental design (pretest-posttest) with no control group was used. Data from 85 teachers were collected during three consecutive academic years: 2014-2015 (n = 48), 2015-2016 (n = 22) and 2016-2017 (n = 15). Findings showed that short development programmes can have a positive effect on teaching approaches; in addition, results supported a two-factor structure of the S-ATI-20, which implies that teachers may be Conceptual Change/Student-Focused (CCSF) or Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused (ITTF) while teaching. Finally, the theoretical discussion of the impact on teaching approaches gives us ground to (re)think the relation between different ways of handling teaching duties: Are approaches really on a bipolar continuum? Shall we think of approaches in terms of a matrioshka model?

Bibliographic References

  • Aksoy, E., Akbas, U., & Seferoglu, G. (2018). Adaptation of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory into Turkish and Analysis of Turkish Academics’ Approaches to Their Own Teaching. Egitim ve bilim-education and science, 43, 81–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/ EB.2018.7253
  • Baume, D. (2006). Towards the end of the last non-professions? International Journal for Academic Development, 11(1), 57–60.
  • Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381–394.
  • Biggs, J. (1987). Student Approaches to learning and studying. Australian Council for Educational Research.
  • Biggs, J. (1987). Study Process Questionnaire Manual. Australian Council for Educational Research.
  • Biggs, J. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. McGraw Hill Education.
  • Biggs, J., 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.
  • Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality in learning at university (3rd ed.). Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
  • Bucharest Communiqué (2012). Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area. https://bit.ly/3fIH30m
  • Cano, F., & Berbén, A.B.G. (2009). University students’ achievement goals and approaches to learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 131–153.
  • Cao, Y., Postareff, L., Lindblom, S., & Toom, A. (2018). Teacher educators’ approaches to teaching and the nexus with self-efficacy and burnout: examples from two teachers’ universities in China. Journal of Education for Teaching, 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.14 50954
  • Cassidy, R. & Ahmad, A. (2019). Evidence for conceptual change in approaches to teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, (early access) http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.168 0537
  • Chalmers, D. & Gardiner, D. (2015). An evaluation framework for identifying the effectiveness and impact of academic teacher development programmes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 81–91.
  • Christie, J. (2015). A study to understand the relationship between student’s perception of academic environment, student learning approaches and student learning outcomes among MBA students of Gujarat. Paripex – Indian Jorunal of Research, 4(6), 263–
  • Del Rincón, B. (Coord.) (2006). Primer intercambio de experiencias ECTS. Universidad Castilla La Mancha.
  • Del Rincón, B. (Coord.) (2009). ¿Qué es una enseñanza ECTS? Universidad Castilla La Mancha.
  • Duff, A. & McKinstry, S. (2007). Students’ approaches to learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(2), 183–214.
  • Entwistle, N.J., Hanley, M., & Hounsell, D. (1979). Identifying distinctive approaches to studying. Higher Education, 8, 365–380.
  • Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. Croom Helm.
  • George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  • Goh, P.S.C., Wong, D.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. http:// dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n1.6
  • 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.
  • González-Geraldo, J. L. (2015). Publicar ya no es suficiente: los peligros del panóptico digital en un mundo académico excesivamente transparente. In J.L. González-Geraldo (Coord.), Educación, Desarrollo y Cohesión Social (pp. 413–418). Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.
  • González-Geraldo, J.L., Del Rincón, B., y 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), 277–293.
  • González-Geraldo, J. L. y Del Rincón, B. (2013). Aprendiendo el lenguaje de nuestros alumnos: de las competencias al aprendizaje. Cadernos de Pedagogia no ensino superior, 24, 25–41.
  • González-Geraldo, J.L. & Monroy, F. (2017). Impact of a teacher development programme on approaches to teaching in Higher Education. 3er International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAD 17). http://dx.doi. org/10.4995/HEAd17.2017.5052
  • Gow, L. & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20–33.
  • Harland, T. (2010). Pre-service Teacher Education for University Lectures: The academic apprentice. Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 27(3), 269–276. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/02607470120091597
  • Harshman, J. & Stains, M. (2017). A review and evaluation of the internal structure and consistency of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. International Journal of Science Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0 9500693.2017.1310411
  • Ibrahim, A., Clark, K., Reese, R., & Shingles, R. (2020). The effects of a teaching development institute for early career researchers on their intended teaching strategies, course design, beliefs about instructors’ and students’ knowledge, and instructional self-efficacy: The case of the Teaching Institute at Johns Hopkins University, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.stueduc.2020.100836
  • Jiménez, D., González, J.J., & Tornel, M. (2020). Active methodologies in the university and their relationship with teaching approaches. Profesorado. Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado, 24(1), 76–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v24i1.8173
  • Jiménez, D., Tornel, M., González, J.J., y Sancho, P. (2019). Perfil del profesorado universitario que emplea un enfoque docente centrado en el alumnado. Psychology, Society, & Education, 11(1), 125–135. http:// dx.doi.org/10.25115/psye.v10i1.2125
  • Justicia, F., Pichardo, M.C., Cano, F., & Berbén, A.B.G. (2008). The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F): Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses at item level. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 3, 355–372.
  • Kember, D. & Kwan, K.P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469–490.
  • Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Parpala, A., & Postareff, L. (2018). What constitutes the Surface approach to learning in the light of new empirical evidence? Studies in Higher Education, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.14 82267
  • Marton, F. (1976). What does it take to learn? Some implications of an alternative view of learning. In N.J. Entwistle (Ed.), Strategies for Research and Development in Higher Education (pp. 32–43). Swets and Zeitlinger.
  • Merino, C. y Kumar, R. (2013). Validación structural del R-SPQ-2F: Un análisis factorial confirmatorio. Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria, 7(1), 111–127.
  • 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(3), 633–649.
  • Monroy, F., González-Geraldo, J.L., & Hernández Pina, F. (2015). A psychometric analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) and a proposal for a Spanish version (S-ATI-20). Anales de Psicología, 31(1), 172–183.
  • Monroy, F. & González-Geraldo, J.L. (2017). Measuring learning: discrepancies between conceptions of and approaches to learning. Educational Studies, 1–18. 10.1080/03055698.2017.1345677
  • Monroy, F., Hernández Pina, F., & Martínez Clares, P. (2014). Enfoques de enseñanza de estudiantes en formación pedagógica. Un estudio exploratorio. [Approaches to teaching of trainee teachers. An exploratory analysis]. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 25(3), 90–105.
  • Montenegro, H. y González, C. (2013). Análisis factorial confirmatorio del cuestionario “Enfoques de Docencia Universitaria” (Approaches to teaching inventory, ATI-R). Estudios Pedagógicos, 39(2), 213–230.
  • Parsons, D. J., Hill, I., Holland, J., & Willis, D. (2012). Impact of teaching development programmes in higher education. Higher Education Academy (HEA).
  • Parsons, D.J., Hughes, J., & Walsh, K. (2010). Initial Training and Professional Development of Teachers and Trainers beyond Upper-secondary Education. Publications Office of the European Union, Cedefop.
  • Paüler-Kuppinger, L. & Jucks, R. (2018). Out-of-Class Instruction in Higher Education. Impact of Approaches to Teaching and Discipline. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(2), 199–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe. v7n2p199
  • Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 405–419.
  • Prebble, T., Hargraves, H., Leach, L., Naidoo, K., Suddaby, G., & Zepke, N. (2004). Impact of student support services and academic development programmes on student outcomes in undergraduate tertiary study: A synthesis of the research. A Report to the Ministry of Education.
  • Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics´ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4(3), 217–231.
  • Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in Higher Education. Routledge.
  • Richardson, J.T.E. (2015). Approaches to learning or levels of processing: What did Marton and Säljö (1976a) really say? The legacy of the work of the Göteborg group in the 1970s. Interchange, 46, 239–269.
  • Rosewell, K. & Ashwin, P. (2018). Academics´ perceptions of what it means to be an academic. Studies in Higher Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1499717
  • Soler-Contreras, M.G., Cárdenas- Salgado, F.A., Hernández-Pina, F., y Monroy, F. (2017). Enfoques de aprendizaje y enfoques de enseñanza: origen y evolución. Educación y Educadores, 20(1), 65–88.
  • Stewart, M. (2014). Making sense of a teaching programme for university academics: Exploring the longer- term effects. Teacning and Teacher Education, 38, 89–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.006
  • Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F., & Straus, M. A. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of family measurement techniques. Sage.
  • Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1996). 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. Education 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., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70.
  • Yerevan Communiqué (2015). EHEA Ministerial Conference https://bit. ly/30pLwyD
  • Wolf, E.J., Harrington, K.M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M.W. (2013). Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
  • Zabalza, M. A. (2009). Ser profesor universitario hoy. La cuestión universitaria, 5, 68–80.
Data source: Dialnet