Trigwell Prosser & Waterhouse - Teachers and Students Approaches To Learning (1999)

Relations between Teachers' Approaches to Teaching and Students' Approaches to Learning
Author(s): Keith Trigwell, Michael Prosser and Fiona Waterhouse

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Higher Education, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Jan., 1999), pp. 57-70
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448046 .
Accessed: 15/11/2012 04:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.202 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:59:46 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Higher Education 37: 57-70, 1999.
C? 1999 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
57
Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students'

approaches to learning
KEITHTRIGWELL1,MICHAELPROSSER2& FIONAWATERHOUSE2
1Universityof Technology,P.O. Box 123, Broadway,Sydney,NSW2007, Australia;
2La TrobeUniversity,Australia
Abstract. This paperreportson an empirical study which shows that qualitativelydifferent
approachesto teachingareassociatedwith qualitativelydifferentapproachesto learning.More
specifically, the results indicate that in the classes where teachers describe their approach
to teaching as having a focus on what they do and on transmittingknowledge, students are
more likely to reportthat they adopt a surface approachto the learningof that subject. Conversely, but less strongly,in the classes where studentsreportadopting significantlydeeper
approachesto learning, teaching staff reportadopting approachesto teaching that are more
orientedtowards studentsand to changing the studentsconceptions. The study made use of
a teaching approachinventoryderived from interviews with academic staff, and a modified
approachto learning questionnaire.These conclusions are derived from a factor and cluster
analysisof 48 classes (involving 46 science teachersand 3956 science students)in Australian
universities.The results complete a chain of relationsfrom teacher thinkingto the outcomes
of studentlearning.Previous studies have shown relationsbetween teachers' conceptions of
teaching and learningand their approachesto teaching. Numerous studies have shown correlationsbetween students'deeperapproachesto learningandhigherqualitylearningoutcomes.
The resultsreportedhere link these two sets of studies. They also highlightthe importance,in
attemptsto improvethe qualityof studentlearning,of discouragingteacher-focusedtransmission teaching and encouraginghigher quality,conceptualchange/student-focusedapproaches
to teaching.
Introduction
This paper reportsthe results of a quantitativestudy aimed at investigating
the relations between a teacher's approachto teaching and the approaches
to learningof the studentsin the class of that teacher.The study builds on
the substantialbody of qualitativeresearchwhich has characterisedstudents'
qualitativelydifferentapproachesto learningand the more recent qualitative
research on variationin teachers' approachesto teaching. It reveals links
between the ways teachers approachteaching, and the ways their students
approachlearning.
Studies in the seventies on approachesto student learning (Martonand
Siljo 1976; Biggs 1978; Entwistle and Ramsden 1983) reportedthe differences between deep approachesand surface approachesto learning.Studies
then and since have consistently shown that deeper approachesto learning
58
KEITHTRIGWELLET AL.
are related to higher quality learning outcomes (Marton and Siilj 1997;
van Rossum and Schenk 1984; Trigwell and Prosser 1991; Ramsden 1992;
Prosserand Millar 1989).
Related studies also suggest that students' awareness of their learning
environment is related to the approach to learning they adopt. That is,
approachesto learning are relational.Ramsden (1992) reportson studies of
the relationsbetween students'perceptionsof theirlearningenvironmentand
their approachto learning.They show that studentswho perceive the nature
of the assessmentas encouragingmemorisationand recall, and who perceive
the workloaddemandsof a subjectas high, are more likely to adopta surface
approach.A deep approachis found to be associatedwith perceptionsof high
quality teaching, some independencein choosing what is to be learned, and
a clear awarenessof the goals and standardsrequiredin the subject(Trigwell
and Prosser 1991; Prosserand Trigwell 1998).
Studies relatinghigh quality teaching to studentlearningoutcomes have,
to date, been based on students' perceptions of the quality of teaching.
There have been no reports of relations between teachers' reports of their
approachesto teaching and their studentsapproachesto learningor learning
outcome.
In a phenomenographicstudy Trigwell, Prosserand Taylor(1994) identified five qualitativelydifferentapproachesto teaching as follows:
ApproachA: A teacher-focusedstrategywith the intention of transmitting
informationto students;
Approach B: A teacher-focused strategy with the intention that students
acquirethe concepts of the discipline;
ApproachC: A teacher/studentinteractionstrategywith the intention that
studentsacquirethe concepts of the discipline;
ApproachD: A student-focusedstrategyaimed at studentsdeveloping their
conceptions;
Approach E: A student-focusedstrategy aimed at students changing their
conceptions.
ApproachE, a conceptualchange/student-focusedapproachis one which has
the studentas the focus of activities. To the teacher adopting this approach
it mattersmore what the studentis doing and learningthan what the teacher
is doing or covering. The teacheris one who encourages self directedlearning, who makes time (in formal "teaching"time) for studentsto interactand
to discuss the problems they encounter,who assesses to reveal conceptual
change (not only to judge and rank students), who provokes debate (and
raises and addressesthe taken-for-grantedissues), who uses a lot of time to
question students' ideas, and to develop a "conversation"with students in
APPROACHESTO TEACHINGAND LEARNING
59
lectures.ApproachA, an informationtransmission/teacher-focused
approach
is one where the transmissionis focused on facts and skills, but not on the
relationshipsbetween them. It is assumed that students do not need to be
active in the teaching-learningprocess. The teacher adoptingthis approach
has their focus on what they do in their teaching, they believe studentshave
little or no priorknowledgeof the subjectthey are teaching,and they do little
more thantransmitto enable the studentsto have a good set of notes.
Using the resultsof the qualitativestudyreferredto above, we have developed an Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Trigwell and Prosser 1996a;
Prosser and Trigwell 1998) which includes as items the characteristics
describedin ApproachesA and E in the previous paragraph.Sample items
from the inventoryare given in the Methods section below.
In the same studywe exploredthe conceptionsof teachingand learningof
science lecturers(Prosser,Trigwell and Taylor 1994). Conceptionsof teaching rangedfrom teachingas transmittingconcepts of the syllabusto teaching
as helping studentschange conceptions.The same staff describeda range of
conceptionsof learningfrom learning as accumulatingmore informationto
satisfy externaldemands,to learningas conceptualchange to satisfy internal
demands. As with approachesto learning these conceptions were constituted as hierarchies,where the more complete conceptionsinclude the more
limiting conceptions,but not vice versa.
The approachadoptedby teachers has been shown to be relatedto their
conceptions of teaching (Trigwell and Prosser 1996b) and also to their
perceptions of their teaching context (Prosser and Trigwell 1997). Those
teachers who conceive of learning as information accumulation to meet
external demands also conceive of teaching as transmittinginformationto
students,and approachtheir teaching in terms of teacher-focusedstrategies.
On the other hand, those teachers who conceive of learning as developing
and changingstudents'conceptions,conceive of teachingin termsof helping
studentsto develop and change theirconceptionsand approachtheirteaching
in a student-focusedway (Prosserand Trigwell 1998).
The relations between the results of the studies described above are
summarisedin Figure 1.
This project was aimed at investigatingthe missing link in the diagram:
between teachers' approachto teaching and students' approachto learning.
More specifically it was to explore quantitatively,the extent to which an
informationtransmission/teacher-focused
approachto teaching is associated
with a surfaceapproachto learning,and a conceptualchange/student-focused
approachto teachingis associatedwith a deep approachto learning.
Two recentlyreportedqualitativestudies identify some relationsbetween
teacher teaching and student learning. Patrick (1992) distinguished three
60
KEITHTRIGWELL
ETAL.
Figure 1. Established links between teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning and
students'learningoutcomes.
broadgroupsof secondaryschool historyteacherswhen she focused on how

they speak of, and teach their subject. The first group focused on content,
on presentationand on technique, while seeing the studentsrelation to the
subject matter as being unproblematic.This approach is very similar to
the informationtransmission/teacher-focused
approachdescribedabove. The
second groupof teacherssaw theirrole as helping studentsto "see the structure of", "recognise","understand"and "see points of view in" the history
they were studying. They saw the learning of history as problematic,hence
their need to be involved, but saw the way in which studentsmight learn it
as unproblematicjust as historicalknowledge was unproblematic.The third
group of history teachers did see historical knowledge as problematicand
their focus was on the way the material was approachedby students, the
way they were relating aspects to one anotherand the questions they were
asking and discussing. The teachersattemptedto get the studentsto "think",
"change","connect",and "grow".This approachis similarto the conceptual
change/student-focusedapproachdescribedabove.
In commentingon this study,Martonand Booth (1997) describehow the
approachadopted by students in the classes of these teachers is consistent
with the approachesto teaching adoptedby the teachers.
When asked in an experimentalsituation at the end of the two years
covered by the study to read an historicalpassage, and when asked about
the argumentsandthe contentit contained,therewas a remarkablematch
between the ways in which the teachersand their studentsfaced it when
viewed as an historian's account of some piece of history - whether
they saw it as unproblematicor as argumentationwith respect to culture,
perspective,argumentand the role of the historian.(Martonand Booth,
p. 177)
61
In a similarstudyof how highereducationteachersconceive of andconstitute what it is that students will be asked to learn, Martin and Ramsden
(1998) reportrelations between how the teachers describe their approach,
and how studentsrespondto thatapproach.Fromtheirsampleof six teachers
they reportfour qualitativelydifferentways in which the students'object of
studyin creativewritingwas constitutedby the teachers.In threecase studies
they link teachers' approachwith students' responses. The approachof one
teacherwas on asking studentsto read, and the focus of the teaching was on
the established literature.There was no reference to the way writing made
readersfeel and studentsof this teacher reportedan approachbased on the
literaryand analyticalnatureof the subject.A second teacherfocused on the
skills and the craftof writingand requiredstudentsto write to achieve these
outcomes. Students'responsesindicatedthatthe focus of theirapproachwas
on the skills and craft of writing.The thirdteacher focused her teaching on
what the writermight have to say, and carriedout that teachingby requiring
studentsto reflecton what they have to say. Studentsof this teacherdescribe
how they learnedto thinkas well as to write in these classes.
As in Patrick'sstudy,thereis a matchbetween the approachtakenby the
teacherand the approachadoptedby students.However,the extent to which
the studentresponsereportedin these studiesreflectthe responseof the whole
group,or even the majorityof students,is not known.
In quantitativestudies,KemberandGow (Gow andKember1993; Kember
and Gow 1994) reportfinding a correlationbetween teachers' conceptions
of/orientationsto teachingand students'approachesto learningat the departmental level. In departmentswith a greater propensity towards learning
facilitation,studentswere more likely to be adoptinga deep approach.This
study suggests a connection between teaching and learning at the departmental level and does include high proportionsof students. However, the
results could be relatedto disciplinarydifferences, so it does not allow us to
say anythingaboutthe relationsbetween approachesadoptedby an individual
teacherand her/his students.
We are unawareof other relatedquantitativestudies conductedfrom the
perspective adopted in this paper. The following questions raised in the
qualitativestudies remain.Is it the case that one approachto teachingby an
individualteacheris associatedmore with one or other approachto learning
among the majorityof his or her students?If so, given the preferenceamong
teachers for students to adopt deep approaches, is the teaching approach
relatedto deep approachesto learningalso the preferredapproachto teaching? To explore these questionswe surveyedthe studentsand the lecturerin
each of 48 firstyear science classes.
62
KEITHTRIGWELLET AL.
Method
Data were collected from 48 first year University chemistry and physics
classes, comprising a total of 3956 students and 46 teachers. The smallest
class consisted of 33 students and the largest class had 243 students. Two
teacherstaughttwo classes each.
The teacherscompleted the Approachesto TeachingInventory(Trigwell
and Prosser 1996a; Prosser and Trigwell 1998) and the studentscompleted
a version of the Study Process Questionnaire(Biggs 1987) which had been
modified to suit the specific context of the study. Both teachersand students
were asked to complete the questionnairesin relationto the particularlecture
topic being taughtto the students.
The Approachesto Teaching Inventorycontains two scales, representing
two fundamentallydifferentapproachesto teaching identifiedin a phenomenographic study of university science teachers approaches to teaching
(Trigwell,Prosserand Taylor 1994). The two scales are:
InformationTransmission/Teacher-Focused
Approach
This approach is one in which the teacher adopts a teacher-focused
strategy,with the intention of transmittingto the students information
about the discipline. In this transmission,the focus is on facts and skills,
but not on the relationships between them. The prior knowledge of
studentsis not consideredto be importantand it is assumedthat students
do not need to be active in the teaching-learningprocess. (Trigwell and
Prosser 1996a, p. 80)
ConceptualChange/Student-Focused
Approach
This approachis one in which teachersadopt a student-focusedstrategy
to help their students change their world views or conceptions of the
phenomena they are studying. Students are seen to have to construct
their own knowledge, and so the teacher has to focus on what the
studentsare doing in the teaching-learningsituation.A student-focused
strategyis assumedto be necessarybecause it is the studentswho have to
re-constructtheirknowledge to producea new world view or conception.
The teacherunderstandsthat he/she cannottransmita new world view or
conceptionto the students.(Trigwelland Prosser 1996a, p. 80)
The two scales contain two sub-scales - intention and strategy sub-scales.
An intention and strategy item from each scale, the number of items in
each scale, and the associated Cronbach alpha reliabilities, are shown in
Table 1.
TOTEACHING
ANDLEARNING
APPROACHES
63
Table1. Examples of items from the Approachesto TeachingInventory

(ITTF)approach(8 items, a = 0.67)
Intentionitem: I feel it is importantto presenta lot of facts in the classes so thatstudents
know what they have to learnfor this subject
I design my teachingin this subjectwith the assumptionthatmost of the
Strategyitem:
studentshave very little useful knowledge of the topics to be covered.
ConceptualChange/Student-Focused
(CCSF) approach(8 items, a = 0.68)
Intentionitem: I feel a lot of teaching time in this subject should be used to question
students'ideas
We take time out in classes so that students can discuss among themStrategyitem:
selves the difficultiesthat they encounterstudyingthis subject.
The Study Process Questionnaire(SPQ) used containstwo scales: a Deep

Approachto Learningscale, and a SurfaceApproachto Learningscale, each
with intention and strategy sub-scales. The items were modified to reflect
the particularcontext of this study - first year university science teaching.
So, for example, an item that read "In reading new materialI find that I'm
continuallyremindedof materialI alreadyknow and see the latterin a new
light (Item 11)" in the original SPQ, was changed for this study to read "In
reading new materialfor this topic I find that I'm continually remindedof
materialI alreadyknow, and see the latterin a new light (Item 8)" in order
to focus the respondents'attentionon the subject/topicto which this study
referred.
The analysis was conductedin two phases, using the class as the unit of
analysis:
* A principalcomponentsfactoranalysis, followed by varimaxrotationto
look at the structuralrelationshipbetween combinationsof variables;
* A clusteranalysis,followed by between groupcontrastsamongresultant
clustersto look at subgroupsof teachersand students.
Factoranalysis looks at the relationsbetween variablesand groups of variables. Clusteranalysis, on the other hand,looks at clustersof relatedunits of
analysis (in this case, classes). So while factoranalyses allow us to focus on
how individualvariablesare relatedto one another,cluster analyses allow us
to focus on individualclasses and how they are clustered.
64
ETAL.
KEITHTRIGWELL
Table2. Principalcomponentsfactor analysisof the teacher'sapproachto

to learningvariables
teachingandstudents'approach
variables
Approach
Factors
2
1
Students'DeepApproachto Learning(classmean)
Students'SurfaceApproachto Learning(classmean)
Teacher's
CCSFApproachto Teaching
ITTFApproachto Teaching
Teacher's
-76
69
-38
97
66
n = 48, decimalpointsremoved,loadingsbetween-0.30 and0.30 deleted

CCSFConceptual
Change/Student-Focused
ITTFInformation
Transmission/Teacher-Focused
Theprincipalcomponents
explained64%of thevariance
Results
The results of principalcomponents factor and cluster analyses both show
relationsbetween teachers'approachesto teaching and students'approaches
to learning.
Principal componentsfactor analysis
A principalcomponents factor analysis, followed by varimaxrotation,was
conductedto look at the structuralrelationshipsbetween variables.It should
be noted thatwhile the case to variableratiois not large (12:1) it substantially
exceeds the suggested minimum for such analyses (Tabachnickand Fidell
1989). The analysisidentifiedone factorwith an eigen-value greaterthanone
(eigen-value= 1.59) andanotherwith an eigen-valuevery close to one (eigenvalue = 0.98). A scree analysis suggests one or two factors.Table2 shows the
results for two factors.
Factor 1, explaining 39.7% of the variance, shows substantialloadings
on three of the four variables. It shows a substantialnegative loading on
Students'Deep Approachto Learningvariableand substantialpositive loading on Students' Surface Approach to Learning variable and Teachers'
Approachto Teaching variable.
This suggests that an informationtransmission/teacher-focused
approachto
to
teachingis linked to a surfaceand non-deepapproach learningat the class
level. Factor 2, explaining 24.4% of the variance, shows substantialloadings on two of the variables. It shows a negative loading on the Students'
Surface Approach to Learning variable and a substantialpositive loading
on the Teachers' ConceptualChange/Student-FocusedApproachto Teaching variable.This factor suggests that a conceptual change/student-focused
approachto teachingis linked to a non-surfaceapproachto learning.
ANDLEARNING
APPROACHES
TOTEACHING
65
Table3. Summaryforthe Approaches

to Teachingvariablesby
to LearningandApproaches
clustermembership
(n = 48)
variables
Approach
Cluster1 (n = 19) Cluster2 (n = 29)

Mean
SD Mean
SD
Students'DeepApproachto Learning(classmean) -0.57

Students'SurfaceApproach
to Learning(classmean) 0.59
Teacher's
CCSFApproachto Teaching
-0.24
Teacher's
ITTFApproach
0.72
to Teaching
0.99 0.38
0.85 -0.39
1.09 0.16
0.64 -0.47
0.38
0.92
0.92
0.91
Hierarchical
clusteranalysisusingWard'smethod
Contrastsbetweenstandardised
means for all variables,except the CCSF Approachto
differentatthep < 0.001.
Teaching,statistically
Clusteranalysis
As a means of analysinghow, at the class level, individualteachersapproach
their teaching and how their students approach their learning a cluster
analysiswas conductedaimedat identifyingsubgroupsof classes with similar
approachesto teaching and approachesto learning. Standardisedscores on
the four variableswere used in a hierarchicalcluster analysis using Ward's
minimum variance method to identify an appropriatenumber of clusters
(basedupon the increasingvalue of the SquaredEuclideanDistance between
clusters). The analysis indicatedthat the two cluster solution was the most
acceptable.Table 3 shows the results of a between groups contrastanalysis
for each cluster.
The analysis identified statisticallysignificantcontrastson all variables,
with the exception of the Teacher's Conceptual Change/Student-Focused
Approachto Teachingvariable.The firstclusterincludes 19 classes in which
the teachers report adopting more of an informationtransmission/teacherfocused approach to teaching and the students in those classes report
adoptingmore of surface and non-deep approachesto learning.The second
cluster includes 29 classes in which the teachers report adopting more of
a non-informationtransmission/teacher-focusedapproachto teaching and
the studentsreportadoptingmore of a deep and non-surfaceapproachesto
learning.While the conceptualchange/student-focusedcontrastbetween the
clusterswas not statisticallysignificant,it was in the directionconsistentwith
the otherthreevariables.
In summary,it seems that, based on the principal components factor
analysis, an informationtransmission/teacher-focused
approachto teaching
is strongly associated with surface and non-deep approaches to learning
and that a conceptualchange/student-focusedapproachto teaching is asso-
66
KEITHTRIGWELLET AL.
ciated, but less strongly, with a non-surface approach to learning. If we

turn away from looking at the associations between variables, and focus
on individual classes, the cluster analysis suggests that in those classes in
which teachersreportadoptingmore of an informationtransmission/teacherfocused approachto teaching, their students report adopting more surface
and non-deep approachesto learning. In contrastin those classes in which
teachersreportadoptingless of an informationtransmission/teacher-focused
approach to teaching their students report adopting more of a deep and
non-surfaceapproachto learning.
Discussion and conclusion
This study is the first study of its type to investigate the teachers' reports
of their approachto teaching ratherthan the students' perceptions of their
teacher's teaching, and to show relations between teacher's approachesto
teaching and students' approachesto learning. The teachers who describe
their teaching as an informationtransmission/teacher-focusedapproachare
more likely to be teaching studentswho reportadopting a surface approach
in that class. What adds to the significance of this result is the association
between this result and the studies of student learning which, over many
years, have consistentlyshown that surfaceapproachesto learningarerelated
to lower quality learning outcomes (Marton and Saljo 1976; van Rossum
and Schenk 1984; Trigwell and Prosser 1991; Ramsden 1992; Prosser and
Millar 1989). Now, it would appearthat there is a relationbetween approach
to teaching and the quality of studentlearning outcomes. There are several
implicationsresultingfrom this observation.
First, extensive research studies have been conducted into students'
perceptionsof the learning environmentfactors associated with approaches
to learning(and learningoutcome) (Entwistle and Ramsden 1983; Ramsden
1992). As noted earlier, students' perceptions that they are experiencing
"goodteaching"is one of the factorsfound by Ramsdenand othersto consistently correlate with a deep approach to learning. In those studies good
teachingis definedas teachingthatinvolves giving helpful feedback,making
an effort to understandthe difficulties students may be having, being good
at explanations,making subjectsinteresting,getting the best out of students,
motivatingstudentsand showing an interestin what the studentshave to say
(Ramsden 1992). Studentswho describe an experienceof good teaching are
also likely to be students who report adopting a deep approach(Trigwell
and Prosser 1991). The results reported here from the teacher's perspectives supportthese previous studies which use evidence collected from the
students'perspective.When teachers,for example, reportthat their focus is
67
on what they do in their teaching, when they believe studentshave little or

no priorknowledge of the subjectthey are teaching,when they do little more
thantransmitfacts so thatstudentswill have a good set of notes, theirstudents
are more likely to adopt a surface approachto learning. Conversely,when
teachersreportthatthey have the studentas the focus of theiractivities,where
it mattersmore to them what the studentis doing and learningthan what the
teacheris doing or covering, where the teacheris one who encourages self
directedlearning,who makes time (in formal "teaching"time) for students
to interact and to discuss the problems they encounter,where the teacher
assesses to revealconceptualchange,wherethe teacherprovokesdebate,uses
a lot of time to question students'ideas and to develop a "conversation"with
studentsin lectures,then their studentsareless likely to be adoptinga surface
approach.
Second, the links describedhere between teaching and learningassist in
the developmentof programsto improve studentlearning.Previousresearch
which indicatesrelationsbetween studentperceptionsof the learningenvironment and approachesto learning was a source of informationin attempts
to improve learning. By focusing on improvingthose aspects of the learning environmentdescribed by students to be related to their approachesto
learning,it is possible to improve the quality of learning.The results from
this study highlight the importancein these attempts(to improvethe quality
of studentlearning)of working with academic staff to encourage adoption
of higher quality approachesto teaching. We have previously noted that in
order to change the way teachers approachtheir teaching (to focus more
on their students ratherthan their own performance)there may also be a
need to change the way they conceive of teaching and learning (Trigwell
1995; Trigwell and Prosser 1996b). As described in the introduction,those
teachers who conceive of learning as information accumulation to meet
external demands also conceive of teaching as transmittinginformationto
students,and approachtheir teaching in terms of teacher-focusedstrategies.
On the other hand, those teachers who conceive of learning as developing
and changingstudents'conceptions,conceive of teachingin termsof helping
studentsto develop and change theirconceptionsand approachtheirteaching
in a student-focusedway. The researchreportedin this paper completes a
chainof relationsbetween teacherthinkingand studentlearningoutcomesby
describingthe missing link between approachesto teaching and approaches
to learning(Figure 1).
And third,the resultsof the study contributeto the debateon what constitutes good universityteaching and how it can be improved.Majoradvances
have been made in recognising and rewardinggood teaching in Universities
in the last ten years. The conclusions in the literatureon this work (reviewed
68
KEITHTRIGWELLET AL.
by Ramsdenet al. 1995) are supportedand extendedby the results reported

here. A conceptualchange/student-focusedapproachto teaching is a partof
good teaching as that approachis more likely to be associated with higher
qualitylearningoutcomes.
We have made no mention of causality or the direction of causality in
describingthe relationsobservedin this study.The study was not constructed
to yield such informationand in any event, the issue of causalityis problematic. For example,the contextestablishedby a teacherusing a student-focused
approachmay influence studentsto adopt a deep approach,but it is equally
likely, as we have observed,that some tutorsadapttheirapproachto teaching
in respond to the requests of studentsto, for example, go throughproblems
in a transmission/teacher-focused
manner.
While these results are the first to relate approaches to teaching to
approachesto learningin higher education,they need to be interpretedwith
some caution. The sample size was not large, and only one field of study
(physical science) was included. One of the inventoriesused in the study is
still in the early stage of development,andcan be expectedto be substantially
improved with further development. However, coherent and interpretable
relationshipshave been identified. The analysis results, if not statistically
significant,are in a directionconsistentwith the statisticallysignificantrelations. Ourcontinuingstudiesin this areawill have increasedsample sizes, an
expandedrange of fields of study,as well as more refinedinstruments,all of
which might be expected to increasethe effect size of the relationsobserved.
In using Figure 1 as an organisingframeworkfor this study, we have also
identified a new area of research which is the focus of our currentactivities. The outcomes for the studentfrom their approachesto learning(student
learningoutcomes) have been studiedextensively. However,we have found
no researchreportingon the outcomes for teachersfrom their approachesto
teaching.
In conclusion we wish to re-emphasisethe majoroutcomes of the study,
that is that teachers who themselves report adopting more of an information transmission/teacher-focusedapproachto teaching have students who
themselves reportadopting a more surface approachto learning.Without a
result such as this, much of the previous researchfrom the studentlearning
perspectiveon teachingandlearningin highereducationwould be for nought.
Acknowledgments
The authorswish to acknowledgethe supportof the staff and studentswho
participatedin the study, the constructivecomments from the three anony-
TOTEACHING
APPROACHES
ANDLEARNING
69
mous referees, the work of Jason Kelleher,and funding from the Australian
ResearchCouncil.
References
Biggs, J.B. (1978). 'Individualand group differences in study processes', British Journal of
EducationalPsychology48, 266-279.
Biggs, J. (1987). Study Process QuestionnaireManual. Melbourne:AustralianCouncil for
FducationalResearch.
Entwistle, N. and Ramsden, P. (1983). UnderstandingStudent Learning. London: Croom
Helm.
Gow, L. and Kember,D. (1993). 'Conceptionsof teaching and their relationshipto student
learning',BritishJournal of EducationalPsychology 63, 20-33.
Kember,D. and Gow, L. (1994). 'Orientationsto teaching and their effect on the quality of
studentlearning',Journal of Higher Education65, 58-73.
Martin,E. and Ramsden, P. (1998). 'Approachesto teaching creative writing', in Dart, B.
and Boulton-Lewis, G. (eds.), Teachingand Learning in Higher Education.Melbourne:
AustralianCouncil for EducationalResearch,pp. 26-41.
Marton,F. and Booth, S. (1997). Learningand Awareness.LawrenceErlbaum:Mahwah,NJ.
Marton, F. and Salj6, R. (1976). 'On qualitative differences in learning I. Outcome and
process', BritishJournal of EducationalPsychology 46, 4-11.
Marton,F. and SaljS, R. (1997). 'Approachesto learning', in Marton,F. Hounsell, D. and
Entwistle, N.J. (eds.), The Experienceof Learning. Edinburgh:Scottish Academic Press,
pp. 39-58.
Patrick,K. (1992). Teachersand Curriculumat Year12: Constructingan Object of Study.
Paper presented at the joint conference of the Australian Association for Research
in Education and the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Deakin
University,Geelong, Australia(November).
Prosser,M. and Millar, R. (1989). 'The how and what of learning physics', The European
Journalof Psychology of Education4, 513-528.
Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1997). 'Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching', British Journal of Educational Psychology 67,
25-35.
Prosser,M. and Trigwell, K. (1998). UnderstandingLearningand Teaching:The Experience
in Higher Education.Milton Keynes:Open UniversityPress.
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. and Taylor,P. (1994) 'A phenomenographicstudy of academics'
conceptionsof science learningand teaching', Learningand Instruction4, 217-231.
Ramsden,P. (1992). Learningto Teachin Higher Education.London:Routledge.
Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E. and Clarke, S. (1995). Recognising and Rewarding Good Teachingin AustralianHigher Education.Committeefor the Advancementof
UniversityTeaching,AustralianGovernmentPublishingService.
Tabachnick,B. andFidell, L. (1989). Using MultivariateStatistics.Northedge:HarperCollins.
Trigwell, K. (1995). 'Increasingfaculty understandingof teaching', in Wright, W.A. (ed.),
SuccessfulFacultyDevelopmentStrategies.Boston, AnkerPublishingCo, pp. 76-100.
Trigwell,K. andProsser,M. (1991). 'Relatinglearningapproaches,perceptionsof contextand
learningoutcomes', HigherEducation(Special Editionon StudentLearning)22, 251-266.
Trigwell, K. and Prosser,M. (1996a). 'Congruencebetween intentionand strategyin science
teachers'approachto teaching', Higher Education32, 77-87.
70
ETAL.
KEITHTRIGWELL
Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1996b). 'Changing approaches to teaching: A relational

perspective',Studies in Higher Education 21, 275-284.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Taylor, P. (1994). 'Qualitativedifferences in approaches to
teaching firstyear universityscience', Higher Education27, 75-84.
Van Rossum, E.J. and Schenk, S.M. (1984). 'The relationshipbetween learning conception,
study strategyand learningoutcome', BritishJournal of EducationalPsychology 54, 7383.

Trigwell Prosser & Waterhouse - Teachers and Students Approaches To Learning (1999)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Trigwell Prosser & Waterhouse - Teachers and Students Approaches To Learning (1999)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Relations between Teachers' Approaches to Teaching and Students' Approaches to Learning

Author(s): Keith Trigwell, Michael Prosser and Fiona Waterhouse

Higher Education 37: 57-70, 1999.

C? 1999 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students'

APPROACHESTO TEACHINGAND LEARNING

broadgroupsof secondaryschool historyteacherswhen she focused on how

APPROACHESTO TEACHINGAND LEARNING

Table1. Examples of items from the Approachesto TeachingInventory

The Study Process Questionnaire(SPQ) used containstwo scales: a Deep

Table2. Principalcomponentsfactor analysisof the teacher'sapproachto

n = 48, decimalpointsremoved,loadingsbetween-0.30 and0.30 deleted

Table3. Summaryforthe Approaches

Cluster1 (n = 19) Cluster2 (n = 29)

Students'DeepApproachto Learning(classmean) -0.57

ciated, but less strongly, with a non-surface approach to learning. If we

APPROACHESTO TEACHINGAND LEARNING

on what they do in their teaching, when they believe studentshave little or

by Ramsdenet al. 1995) are supportedand extendedby the results reported

Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1996b). 'Changing approaches to teaching: A relational

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi