Disciplinary Differences and University Teachers’ Perspectives: Possibilities of Applying the Teaching Perspectives Inventory
Abstract
Based on the conceptual and empirical framework of five perspectives on teaching and earlier studies that have suggested a link between teaching perspectives and teachers’ academic disciplines, this paper aimed to examine the differences in the university teachers’ perspectives from various academic disciplines and faculties. This research also aimed to validate the Teaching Perspectives Inventory on a sample of 526 university teachers in Serbia. The results confirmed the differences in the university teachers’ perspectives and led to the conclusion that hard sciences teachers were more teacher-centred, while soft sciences teachers were more student-centred. Additionally, exploratory factor analysis indicated that the slightly modified version of the TPI is applicable and reliable to use in other educational contexts. However, it can be concluded that research on teachers’ perspectives is limited to specific cultural, educational, and research contexts.
Downloads
References
Aškerc Veniger, K. (2016). University teachers’ opinions about higher education pedagogical training courses in Slovenia. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal – CEPS Journal 6(4), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.57
AÅ¡kerc Veniger, K., & KoÄar, S. (2018). The impact of academic discipline on university teaching and pedagogical training courses. Croatian Journal of Education, 20(4), 1261–1298. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v20i4.2718
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. SRHE and Open University Press.
Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213.
Brown, G. T., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2009). Assessment policy and practice effects on New Zealand and Queensland teachers’ conceptions of teaching. Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470802587152
Canto y RodrÃguez, J. E., & Burgos Fajardo, R. J. (2011). Perspectivas acerca de la enseñanza de docentes de Educación Superior [Perspectives on higher education teacher education]. Educación y Ciencia, Cuarta Época, 2(4/39), 7–18.
Cha, E. S., Kim, K. H., & Erlen, J. A. (2007). Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58(4), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04242.x
Chan, C. H. (1994). Operationalization and prediction of conceptions of teaching in adult education ï›Unpublished doctoral dissertationï. University of British Columbia. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0055533
Collins, J. B., & Pratt, D. D. (2011). The teaching perspectives inventory at 10 years and 100,000 respondents: Reliability and validity of a teacher self-report inventory. Adult Education Quarterly, 61(4), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713610392763
Dall'Alba, G. (1991). Foreshadowing conceptions of teaching. In B. Ross (Ed.), Research and development in higher education (Vol 13.) (pp. 293–297). HERDSA.
De Lima, M. P., Rebelo, P. V., & Barreira, C. (2014). Teacher development: Contributions of educational biography and personality. Journal of Adult Development, 21(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-014-9193-y
Deggs, M. D., Machtmes, L. K., & Johnson, E. (2008). The significance of teaching perspectives among academic disciplines. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4(8), 1Ë—8. https://doi.org/10.19030/ctms.v4i8.5559
ENQA. (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). https://enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 212–233). Macmillan.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787404040463
High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education (2013). Report to the European Commission on improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fbd4c2aa-aeb7-41ac-ab4c-a94feea9eb1f
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(2), 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017546216800
Horowitz, M., Yaworsky, W., & Kickham, K. (2019). Anthropology’s science wars: Insights from a new survey. Current Anthropology, 60(5), 674–698. https://doi.org/10.1086/705409
Hubbal, H., Collins, J., & Pratt, D. (2005). Enhancing reflective teaching practices: Implications for faculty development programs. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35(3), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v35i3.183514
Hyndman, B. P. (2014). Exploring the differences in teaching perspectives between Australian pre-service and graduate physical education teachers. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 14(4), 438–445. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2014.04067
Jarvis-Selinger, S., Collins, J. B., & Pratt, D. D. (2007). Do academic origins influence perspectives on teaching? Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 67–81.
Kember, D. A. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026569608656
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2011). Disciplinary differences in student ratings of teaching quality. Research in Higher Education, 52(3), 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9194-z
Kemp, S. J. (2013). Exploring the use of learner-focused teaching approaches in different academic disciplines. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 37(6), 804–818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.684041
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680539
Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and ‘teaching-scholarship’. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000058082
Matofari, F. N., & Edwards, M. C. (2017). Teaching perspectives of faculty members at an 1862 land-grant university: A snapshot of one institution with implications for improving instruction at all. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 5(1), 101–112.
Misieng, J. (2013). Translation, adaptation and invariance testing of the Teaching Perspectives Inventory: Comparing faculty of Malaysia and the United States ï›Unpublished doctoral dissertationï. University of South Florida. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4921
Mladenovici, V., Ilie, M. D., Maricuțoiu, L. P., & Iancu, D. E. (2022). Approaches to teaching in higher education: The perspective of network analysis using the revised approaches to teaching inventory. Higher Education, 84(2), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00766-9
Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070120052071
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0307507022000011525
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701794809
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.013
Potter, M. K., Kustra, E., Ackerson, T., & Prada, L. (2015). The effects of long-term systematic educational development on the beliefs and attitudes of university teachers. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369204200401
Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002(93), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.45
Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Krieger Publishing.
Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. B. (2000). The teaching perspectives inventory (TPI). In T. J. Sork, V. Chapman & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual adult education research (pp. 346–350). The University of British Columbia. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2000/papers/68
Päuler-Kuppinger, L., & Jucks, R. (2017). Perspectives on teaching: Conceptions of teaching and epistemological beliefs of university academics and students in different domains. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417693507
RepubliÄki zavod za statistiku Republike Srbije [Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia]. (2021). Visoko obrazovanje 2020/2021 [Higher education 2020/2021]. RepubliÄki zavod za statistiku Republike Srbije. https://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G2021/Pdf/G20216006.pdf
Rotidi, G., Collins, J., Karalis, T., & Lavidas, K. (2017). Using the Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI) to examine the relationship between teaching perspectives and disciplines in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(5), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1159289
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138620
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004130031247
Stoecker, J. L. (1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 451–464.
Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
Stes, A., & Van Petegem, P. (2014). Profiling approaches to teaching in higher education: A cluster-analytic study. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.729032
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139219
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2020). Exploring university teaching and learning: Experience and context. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v20i4.2718
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching First Year University science. Higher Education, 27(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01383761
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
