See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228727679

How Approaches to Teaching Are Affected by Discipline and

Teaching Context

Article  in  Studies in Higher Education · July 2006

DOI: 10.1080/03075070600680539

CITATIONS READS

407 4,233

4 authors, including:

Sari Lindblom-Ylänne Anne Nevgi

University of Helsinki University of Helsinki
108 PUBLICATIONS   4,037 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   2,022 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paul Ashwin
Lancaster University
57 PUBLICATIONS   1,437 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pedagogic Quality and Inequality in University First Degrees View project

Understanding teaching and learning in higher education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anne Nevgi on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Studies in Higher Education
Vol. 31, No. 3, June 2006, pp. 285–298

How approaches to teaching are

affected by discipline and teaching
context
Sari Lindblom-Ylännea*, Keith Trigwellb, Anne Nevgia and
Paul Ashwinc
aUniversity of Helsinki, Finland; bUniversity of Oxford, UK; cLancaster University, UK
Taylor
Studies
10.1080/03075070600680539
CSHE_A_168023.sgm
0307-5079
Original
Society
302006
31
sari.lindblom-ylanne@helsinki.fi
SariLindblom-Ylänne
00000June
and
in
for
Article
Higher
(print)/1470-174X
Francis
Research
2006 Education
Ltd
into Higher
(online)
Education

Two related studies are reported in this article. The first aimed to analyse how academic discipline
is related to university teachers’ approaches to teaching. The second explored the effects of teaching
context on approaches to teaching. The participants of the first study were 204 teachers from
the University of Helsinki and the Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration and
136 teachers from the University of Oxford and Oxford Brookes University who returned university
teaching inventories. Thus, altogether there were 340 teachers from a variety of disciplines in Finland
and the UK. The second study involved only the Finnish sample. The results showed that there was
systematic variation in both student- and teacher-focused dimensions of approaches to teaching
across disciplines and across teaching contexts. These results confirm the relational nature of teach-
ers’ approaches to teaching and illustrate the need, in using inventories such as the Approaches to
Teaching Inventory, to be explicit about the context.

Introduction
A growing body of research on university teachers’ approaches to teaching shows
evidence of variation in the ways teachers approach their teaching. Furthermore,
there is evidence that teachers’ approaches to teaching are connected with their
conceptions of teaching. A majority of researchers distinguish between a teacher- or
content-centred and a student-centred approach to teaching. Teachers whose
approach to teaching in a certain context can be categorised as being teacher-centred
see teaching mainly as the transmission of knowledge. These teachers concentrate on
the content of teaching and on what they do in teaching. Thus, the emphasis is on

*Corresponding author: Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education, Faculty of
Behavioural Sciences, P.O.Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. Email:
sari.lindblom-ylanne@helsinki.fi

ISSN 0307-5079 (print)/ISSN 1470-174X (online)/06/030285–14

© 2006 Society for Research into Higher Education
DOI: 10.1080/03075070600680539
286 S. Lindblom-Ylänne et al.

how to organise, structure and present the course content in a way that is easier for
the students to understand. On the other hand, teachers whose approach to teaching
is categorised as student-centred in a particular context see teaching as facilitating
student learning or students’ knowledge-construction processes or as supporting
students’ conceptual change. These teachers focus on what students do in relation to
their efforts to activate students’ existing conceptions, and on encouraging them to
construct their own knowledge and understandings (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992,
2001; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996; Biggs, 1999; Prosser & Trigwell,
1999; Vermunt & Verloop, 1999; Kember & Kwan, 2002).

Are approaches to teaching stable or dynamic in nature?

Researchers have different views of the stability of approaches to teaching. Kember
and Kwan (2002) see approaches to teaching as relatively stable. Kember (1997)
further argues that enormous efforts are needed in order to change teachers’ under-
lying beliefs. On the contrary, Prosser and Trigwell (Trigwell & Prosser, 1996;
Prosser & Trigwell, 1999), as well as Samuelowicz and Bain (2001), emphasise the
contextual and dynamic nature of approaches to teaching. Thus the same teacher
may sometimes use features typical of student-centred teaching, and sometimes
features typical of teacher-centred teaching, depending on the teaching context. A
limited awareness of student-centred conceptions of teaching may reduce the extent
of this dynamic relationship, and in some cases effectively prevent adoption of
approaches other than those with teacher-centred elements (Prosser & Trigwell,
1999; Åkerlind, 2003). These somewhat contrasting views indicate that there is a
need for further research on the relational nature of the approaches to teaching.

Does discipline have an effect on approaches to teaching?

There is little research on the effect of discipline on approaches to teaching when
approaches are defined as above. Lueddeke (2003) showed that teachers who teach
in the ‘hard’ disciplines, such as the physical sciences, engineering and medicine,
were more likely to apply a teacher-centred approach to teaching, whereas teachers
from ‘soft’ disciplines (such as social sciences and humanities) took a more student-
centred approach to teaching. Trigwell (2002), in a study of design and physical
sciences teachers’ approaches to teaching, showed that design teachers were signifi-
cantly more student-centred than science teachers. However, in that study, no
control was imposed on the teachers’ experience of the teaching context, and it can
be considered to be no more than an indicator of the possibility of disciplinary
difference.
Even though we know little about the relations between disciplines and
approaches to teaching, there are some studies which have focused on the disciplin-
ary differences in the academic culture. The epistemological beliefs and the knowl-
edge structures of different disciplines have been analysed in many studies (Biglan,
1973; Kolb, 1981; Becher, 1987, 1994; Neumann et al., 2002). Furthermore, there
 Approaches to teaching 287

is research on disciplinary ways of thinking and the effect of discipline on teaching,

learning and doing research (Smeby, 1996; Neumann, 2001).
Becher (1989) modified Biglan’s (1973) sixfold classification and identified four
categories of discipline, namely ‘pure hard’ and ‘pure soft’ and ‘applied hard’ and
‘applied soft’, on the basis of cultural and epistemological differences. According to
Neumann et al. (2002), ‘pure hard’ knowledge can be described as cumulative in
nature. Teaching content is linear, straightforward and uncontentious. Instructional
methods are mainly mass lectures and problem-based seminars. The focus of student
learning is on fact retention and on the ability to solve logically structured problems.
‘Pure soft’ knowledge, on the other hand, is holistic and qualitative in nature.
Teaching methods include more face-to-face class meetings and tutorial teaching
including discussions and debates. Creativity in thinking and fluency of expression
are emphasised in student learning. ‘Applied hard’ knowledge is linear in sequence
and based on factual understanding. These sciences are concerned with the mastery
of the physical environment. Teaching methods concentrate on simulations and case
studies in relation to professional settings. As in ‘pure hard’ sciences, students are
expected to learn facts, but in ‘applied hard’ sciences there is more emphasis on prac-
tical competencies and on the ability to apply theoretical ideas to professional
contexts. Finally, in ‘applied soft’ disciplines knowledge is accumulated in a re-itera-
tive process. Teaching methods are close to those of the ‘pure soft’ disciplines. The
emphasis is on personal growth and intellectual breadth.
Becher (1989) developed the concept of academic tribes on the basis of Biglan’s
(1973) and Kolb’s (1981) research. According to Ylijoki (2000), the core of each
discipline can be conceptualised as a moral order which defines the basic beliefs,
values and norms of the local culture. She also found differences in the ways of under-
standing the virtues and vices of studying, and in the social identities that are
constructed in different disciplines. Ylijoki argues that improvement of the quality of
teaching can only be achieved by influencing the cultural basis of the discipline. The
production of knowledge, as well as means for communication, varies in different
disciplines, and students learn tacitly the norms of their disciplinary culture (Parry,
1998; Ylijoki, 2000).

Self-efficacy beliefs of university teachers

Self-efficacy beliefs can be defined as individuals’ beliefs about their performance
capabilities in a particular domain (Bandura, 1982, 1997; Pintrich & McKeachie,
2000; Zimmerman, 2000). The construct of self-efficacy is not considered as a global
personality trait, but includes instead persons’ ‘judgements about their ability to
accomplish certain goals or tasks by their actions in a specific situation’ (Pintrich &
McKeachie, 2000, p. 36). Thus, self-efficacy beliefs are relative and situational in
nature (Bandura, 1997; Pintrich & McKeachie, 2000).
There is plenty of research on the self-efficacy beliefs of school teachers. The work
of Bandura, in particular, is exhaustively detailed and broad (e.g. 1982, 1997).
Research on school teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and the learning outcomes of their
288 S. Lindblom-Ylänne et al.

pupils indicates that pupils of teachers with higher self-efficacy beliefs tend to have
better learning outcomes (Bandura, 1997). There is also evidence that pre-service
teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs are likely to select more efficient teaching prac-
tices, which lead to better learning outcomes, than teachers with low self-efficacy
(Gordon & Debus, 2002).
Research on university teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs is scarce. Bailey (1999) exam-
ined the effects of faculty affiliation, level of appointment, gender, qualifications and
research productivity on staff’s self-efficacy beliefs and their motivation to teach and
to do research. The results showed that the level of appointment and faculty of affil-
iation were related to staff’s self-efficacy beliefs for research and to motivation to do
research, but not to their self-efficacy beliefs for teaching, nor to their motivation to
teach. Even though women teachers were found to be more motivated than men
teachers to teach, no differences were found in women and men teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs for teaching. Furthermore, Bailey showed that low success in research corre-
lated with higher motivation for teaching.
Postareff et al. (2004) showed an effect of pedagogical training on teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs. Teachers who had completed an extensive pedagogical training
course scored the highest on the self-efficacy scale. However, teachers who had
participated in a short course for university teachers scored lower than teachers who
did not have any pedagogical training at all. Thus, it seems to take at least a year for
the positive effects of pedagogical training to emerge. Shorter training periods seem
to make teachers more uncertain about themselves as teachers. These results imply
that self-efficacy beliefs, and approaches to teaching, change slowly.
Two studies are reported here. The first aimed to analyse how discipline is related
to university teachers’ approaches to teaching and to their self-efficacy beliefs. The
second explored the effects of teaching context on approaches to teaching and self-
efficacy beliefs.

Method
Participants
The participants of the first study were 204 teachers from the University of Helsinki
(201) and the Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration (3), and
136 teachers from the Universities of Oxford (72) and Oxford Brookes (64). Thus,
altogether there were 340 teachers (from a variety of disciplines) in two different
national contexts (Finland and UK). The second study involved only the Finnish
sample.
While the University of Helsinki and the University of Oxford are both research-
intensive universities and Oxford Brookes University is a former polytechnic, a compar-
ison of the means of the variables used in the studies between the two Oxford samples
and the UK and Finnish samples showed no statistically significant differences.
The teachers covered a typical range of status and experience and represented a
variety of disciplines. Of the 340 teachers, 303 reported their discipline. Of these, 76
 Approaches to teaching 289

(25%) represented the ‘pure soft’ disciplines, such as history, arts, philosophy and
theology. Ninety-one teachers (30%) represented the ‘applied soft’ disciplines, such
as education, law and social sciences. The ‘pure hard’ disciplines, such as mathemat-
ics, chemistry and physics, were represented by 39 teachers (13%). Ninety-seven
teachers (32%) represented the ‘applied hard’ disciplines, such as medicine,
dentistry, veterinary medicine and pharmacy.
Approximately a quarter of the returns came from teachers attending pedagogical
workshops and seminars, where return rates were about 80%. The remainder were
returned by teachers, who were randomly selected. The return rate from this group
was about 35%.

Materials
The inventory used in this study consists of two parts: the Approaches to Teaching
Inventory (ATI) (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Trigwell & Prosser, 2004) was devel-
oped from the identification of qualitatively different conceptions of, and
approaches to, teaching. It is composed of 16 items, with eight items in the
conceptual change/student-focused (CCSF) approach scale and the other eight
items in the information transmission/teacher-focused (ITTF) approach to teach-
ing scale. The second, and new, part of the inventory was designed by three of the
authors of this article: Trigwell, Ashwin and Lindblom-Ylänne. The aim of this
part is to explore teachers’ motivational aspects to teaching and the regulation
strategies they use. Items from the self-regulation, external regulation and lack of
regulation subscales are derived from the work of Vermunt and colleagues,
whereas items from the self-efficacy and task value subscales are derived from the
work of Pintrich and colleagues—see Table 1 (Pintrich et al., 1989; Lindblom-
Ylänne & Nevgi, 2003; Trigwell et al., 2004). All items in the second part are
measured on a 5-point Likert scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, and
from this part only a four-item scale measuring self-efficacy was used in the analysis
for this study.

Table 1. The self-efficacy items and origins of those items

Teaching items Learning items from Pintrich et al. (1989)

17. I am confident that my knowledge of this
subject matter is not a barrier to teaching
it well.
19. I am confident that students will learn
from me in this course.
21. I am certain that I have the necessary skills
to teach this course.
30. I am confident that my knowledge of
teaching is not a barrier to teaching well.
17. I am confident I can understand the most
complex material presented by the
instructor in this course.
13. I am confident I can learn the basic
concepts taught in this course.
32. I am certain that I can master the skills
being taught in this class.
7. I am certain I can understand the most
difficult material presented in the readings
for this course.
290 S. Lindblom-Ylänne et al.

The full inventory was translated into Finnish by one of the researchers, back-trans-
lated into English by a person not associated with the study, and the English version
checked against the original by another researcher. The original English and back-
translated versions of the inventory were very similar, with only one item being slightly
different, and the difference was considered not to have affected the item meaning.
In the first study, 132 responses from Oxford and 171 responses from Helsinki,
which contained a clear indication of the disciplinary context, were combined. In the
second study, the group of Finnish teachers were given two inventories and they were
asked to select two different kinds of courses or teaching contexts. First, these teach-
ers were asked to answer the items keeping in mind their most usual teaching context
and, second, to answer the same items on a second inventory focusing on another less
usual kind of context. Furthermore, they were asked to name the course in each case
and to report why they considered the selected courses were different. In order to help
the teachers to describe the difference between the courses, they were asked to report
the number of students, the main method of teaching and the study phase of the
students. Of 204 teachers, 22 returned only one questionnaire. Thus, for this study
on the effect of context on approaches to teaching, a total of 182 matched pairs of
completed inventories were available.

Data analyses
The disciplinary differences in teachers’ approaches to teaching were analysed by
applying independent samples t-tests and one-way analyses of variance.
The shift in the conceptual change/student-focused (CCSF) and information
transfer/teacher-focused (ITTF) approaches to teaching from one teaching context to
another was analysed by computing ‘change variables’ for each approach. This was
done by subtracting the teachers’ approach scale scores when they were responding
about a teaching context they sometimes teach (less usual context in Table 2) from the
scores when responding about the most usual teaching context (usual context in
Table 2). In both change variables the magnitude and the direction of the shift from
the most usual to the less usual teaching context was used to create five categories of

Table 2. Categories of the change variables

The direction of change Explanation Difference in scores

Strong negative change
Negative change
No change or minor change
Positive change
Strong positive change
Scores in the less usual context clearly −1.00 or more negative
higher than in the usual context
Scores in the less usual context higher From −0.5 up to −1.0
than in the usual context
Scores in both contexts equal or similar Between −0.5 and 0.5
Scores in the less usual context lower From 0.5 up to 1.0
than in the usual context
Scores in the less usual context clearly 1.00 or greater
lower than in the usual context
 Approaches to teaching 291

change based on Likert scale point changes of greater or less than a half a Likert scale
point. This procedure was used by Eley (1992) in investigating change, with context,
of student approaches to learning. In his study, Eley used one Likert scale point,
but this was considered to be insufficiently discriminating for the present study.
Categorisation on the basis of median split was also considered, but that would have
made it impossible to compare the changes in CCSF and ITTF approaches from one
teaching context to another.
The significance of the changes in the CCSF and ITTF approaches to teaching
from one teaching context to another were tested by the Wilcoxon signed ranks test
(Siegel & Castellan, 1988, pp. 87–95). This test is a nonparametric alternative to the
paired t-test. The test assumes that there is information in the magnitudes of the
differences between paired observations, as well as the signs.

Results
The relations between discipline and approaches to teaching and self-efficacy
For the analysis of the first study, only those inventories returned by teachers who
described a typical or usual teaching context were used. Of a possible 340 teachers,
303 (89%) had given sufficient information on their discipline. First, in order to
compare our results with those found by Lueddeke (2003), the disciplines were
assigned to two categories, namely, ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sciences. An independent
samples t-test showed that the teachers from hard sciences scored significantly higher
on the ITTF approach scale than the teachers from soft sciences (t[300] = 3.58, p <
.001). Another independent samples t-test showed that the teachers from soft
sciences scored significantly higher on the CCSF approach scale than teachers from
hard sciences (t[300] = −4,54, p < .001).
In a second analysis, the disciplines of the 303 responses were assigned to four cate-
gories by applying Biglan’s (1973) ‘pure hard’, ‘pure soft’, ‘applied hard’ and ‘applied
soft’ categories. The frequencies of the four categories of disciplines (and example
disciplines) can be seen in Table 3. The final column of Table 3 also shows the signif-
icance testing of the means of sum scales, measuring approaches to teaching and
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs.

Table 3. Significance testing of means of approaches to teaching and self-efficacy beliefs by

discipline (n = 303)

Pure hard Pure soft Applied hard Applied soft

(e.g. chemistry) (e.g. history) (e.g. medicine) (e.g. education)
(n = 39) (n = 76) (n = 97) (n = 91)
Scale M M M M F (p)

CCSF 3.41 4.01 3.62 3.86 8.45 (0.000)

ITTF 3.04 2.81 3.26 2.97 5.90 (0.001)
Self efficacy 4.24 4.16 3.99 4.14 1.76 (0.154)
292 S. Lindblom-Ylänne et al.

These results show that the means of the ITTF and CCSF approach scales differed
significantly across the disciplinary groups, and that there is no significant variation
in self-efficacy beliefs.
Bonferroni’s post hoc test with its significant difference procedure (α = 0.05) was
used for comparisons of the means of the CCSF approach scale among the four disci-
pline groups. The comparisons showed that responses from the ‘pure hard’ disciplin-
ary group scored significantly lower on the CCSF scale than the responses from ‘pure
soft’ and ‘applied soft’ groups. Moreover, responses from the ‘applied hard’ group
scored significantly lower on the CCSF scale than the responses from the ‘pure soft’
group. The comparisons further showed that the responses from the ‘applied hard’
group scored significantly higher on the ITTF scale than those from the ‘pure soft’
and ‘applied soft’ groups.
On the self-efficacy scale, teachers from ‘pure hard’ sciences scored the highest, but
the differences among the four categories did not reach the significant level. However,
one-way analysis of variance revealed significant differences in the self-efficacy beliefs
of teachers at the faculty level in the Finnish sample (F = (10,193) = 2.86, p = .003)
(see Table 4).
Bonferronis’ post hoc test, with its significant difference procedure (α = 0.05),
showed that the teachers from the Faculty of Sciences scored significantly higher on
the self-efficacy scale than teachers from the Faculties of Law, Social Sciences,
Agriculture and Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine.

The relations between teaching context and approaches to teaching

For the second study, the Finnish teachers completed two inventories. The first
inventory response represents the way the teachers usually teach and the second
inventory response the way they sometimes teach. The effect of teaching context was
analysed at the level of the individual teacher by exploring the shift in approaches to

Table 4. Significance testing of means of self-efficacy beliefs by faculty (n = 194)

Faculty n M

Theology 14 3.93
Law 15 3.84
Medicine 18 4.17
Arts 29 4.09
Sciences 20 4.59
Education 9 4.33
Social Sciences 22 3.94
Agriculture and Forestry 36 3.89
Veterinary Medicine 19 3.92
Pharmacy 9 4.06
School of Economics and Business 3 3.83
Administration
 Approaches to teaching 293

teaching scale scores from one teaching context to another by using the change vari-
ables described in the method section.
The context-specificity of the approaches to teaching was analysed in more detail
by using the two change variables. The teachers’ change scores on both CCSF and
ITTF approaches from the usual teaching context to the context they sometimes
teach varied. The change in the CCSF approach scores varied from −2.25 to 2.25,
and for the ITTF approach from −2.13 to 2.75 on the 1–5 point scale. Negative
values indicate that the scores of the approaches were higher in the teaching context
teachers sometimes teach than in the more usual context. Conversely, positive scores
indicate that the scores of the approaches were lower in the teaching context teachers
sometimes teach than in the more usual context. The correlation between the CCSF
and ITTF approach change variables was statistically significant (r = −.519, p ≤ .001).
Table 5 shows distributions of these change variables.
Table 5 shows that the teachers’ scores on the ITTF approach scale did not
change at all or changed only slightly from one teaching context to another in
59.3% of the cases. In contrast, only 39% of teachers’ scores on the CCSF
approach scale stayed the same or changed only slightly. The table also shows that
40.7% of the teachers had either a clearly higher or higher CCSF approach scale
score when having in mind the less usual teaching context they sometimes teach,
and 20.3% of the teachers had either a clearly lower or lower CCSF approach
scale score when thinking about this less usual teaching context. Similarly, 17.6%
of the teachers had either a clearly higher or higher ITTF approach scale score
when having in mind the teaching context they sometimes teach, and 23.1% of the
teachers had either a clearly lower or lower ITTF approach scale score when
thinking about this less usual teaching context. In all, about one-third of the teach-
ers showed strong positive or negative changes in the CCSF approach scale scores
from one teaching context to another. However, there were fewer teachers who
showed strong changes in the ITTF approach scale scores, with less than one-fifth
of the teachers showing strong positive or negative changes. A more detailed analy-
sis of the change in scores on the ITTF and CCSF approaches scales from one
context to another showed that there was only one teacher whose scores did not
change at all (in either CCSF, ITTF approaches or both) from one teaching
context to another.

Table 5. Percentages of teachers who changed ITTF and CCSF approaches between the most
usual teaching context and the context teachers sometimes teach (n = 182)

Direction of change % ITTF % CCSF

Scores in the less usual context clearly higher than in the usual context 8.8 20.9
Scores in the less usual context higher than in the usual context 8.8 19.8
No change or minor change 59.3 39.0
Scores in the less usual context lower than in the usual context 13.2 8.8
Scores in the less usual context clearly lower than in the usual context 9.9 11.5
294 S. Lindblom-Ylänne et al.

The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used in order to analyse the significance of the
relations between the teaching context and teachers’ approaches to teaching. The
CCSF approach scores in usual and less usual teaching contexts changed significantly
(z = −3.21, p = .001) between two teaching contexts. Sixty-six teachers had higher
scores on the CCSF approach to teaching in the usual teaching context and 106
teachers had higher scores on the CCSF approach to teaching in the less usual teach-
ing context. Ten teachers had no difference in their scores on the CCSF approach to
teaching in two teaching contexts. The sum of the positive ranks (9537.00) was
greater than the sum of negative ranks (5341.00), revealing that the teachers had
higher scores in the CCSF approach to teaching in the less usual teaching context
than in the usual teaching context. Teachers’ ITTF scores did not change signifi-
cantly in the two teaching contexts. Ninety-four teachers had higher scores on the
ITTF approach to teaching in the usual teaching context and 77 teachers had higher
scores on the ITTF approach to teaching in the less usual teaching context. Eleven
teachers did not have any change in their scores on the ITTF approach to teaching.
The results were also analysed using t-tests to gauge the mean difference between
the two teaching contexts for the whole group. They showed that when given a choice
of describing another context that is not their usual context, on average, over all
academic staff, the respondents describe more of a CCSF approach (t[181] = −3.12,
p = .002) in the less usual context, but with no significant change in the ITTF
approach (t[181] = 1.02, p = .311).

Discussion
The results of the two studies showed that there was variation in student- and teacher-
focused approaches across disciplines and across teaching contexts. Thus, the results
empirically confirm the relational origins of teachers’ approach to teaching (Prosser
& Trigwell, 1999). In other words, teachers who experience different contexts may
adopt different approaches to teaching in those different contexts. The strong nega-
tive correlations between the two change variables show that, when CCSF
approaches are increased, the ITTF approaches are reduced, and vice versa.
There was evidence that approaches to teaching were related to teachers’ disci-
pline. Teachers from ‘hard’ disciplines were more likely to report a more teacher-
focused approach to teaching, whereas those teaching ‘soft’ disciplines were more
student-focused. This result is in line with previous research by Lueddeke (2003) and
Trigwell (2002). However, a closer look, using the hard–soft, pure–applied categories
of Becher (1989) and Biglan (1973), did not reveal significant differences in the
approaches to teaching between the ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ groups of either ‘hard’ disci-
plines or ‘soft’ disciplines. This indicates that there were more differences between
approaches to teaching of teachers from ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ disciplines than within these
two groups when divided into ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ subgroups. This quantitatively
derived result is consistent with the qualitative studies of Neumann et al. (2002),
who describe teaching in ‘hard’ disciplines as involving mainly mass lectures and
problem-based seminars, or as focused on simulations and case studies in relation to
 Approaches to teaching 295

professional settings, while in the ‘soft’ disciplines there are more face-to-face class
meetings and tutorial teaching including discussions and debates.
The results from this study showed no significant variation in self-efficacy beliefs of
teachers across the four disciplinary categories. However, comparisons at the faculty
level for the Finnish sample showed that teachers from the Faculty of Sciences
reported the highest self-efficacy scores. In this respect, the results of the present
study differ from the results of Bailey’s study (1999), in which no differences in self-
efficacy beliefs of teachers from different faculties were found. The reasons for the
high self-efficacy beliefs of teachers from the Faculty of Sciences may reside in the
nature of their epistemological beliefs and the cumulative nature of knowledge in
‘pure hard’ disciplines (Neumann et al., 2002). From this it may follow that teachers
from the Faculty of Sciences feel themselves more certain as teachers than teachers
from other faculties, because of the linear and ‘straightforward’ teaching content.
However, more research is needed in order to explain in more depth the effect of
discipline on self-efficacy beliefs of teachers.
The contextual variation in the approaches to teaching seemed interrelated in that
when the scores in the student-focused approach increased, the scores in the teacher-
focused approach decreased and, respectively, when the student-focused scores
decreased, the teacher-focused scores increased. Even though both student- and
teacher-focused approaches varied from one teaching context to another, the student-
focused approach seemed more sensitive to contextual effects.
Interestingly, teachers more often reported higher scores on the CCSF approach
scale in the less usual context than in the usual teaching context. In contrast, teachers
scored higher in the ITTF scale in the usual teaching context more often than in the
less usual context. These results suggest that most academic staff have an awareness
of a more student-focused approach, and, if the context of their ‘less usual teaching’
became the context of their ‘usual teaching’, then student learning might be
improved. In other words, the results point to the possibility that the development of
teachers’ approaches to teaching towards more student-centred approaches may be
triggered by a focus on the courses teachers might see as less mainstream. In the less
usual teaching context teachers are possibly more open to new ideas and new teaching
methods. Furthermore, the class size might be smaller, giving teachers more possibil-
ities for using student-centred teaching methods.
Conversely, lower CCSF approach scores in the less mainstream context might
reflect perceptions of that context being less interesting. Further study of the teachers’
explanations of the choices is needed to clarify this issue.
As evidence shows that teachers’ approaches to teaching are related to the quality
of students’ learning (Trigwell et al., 1999), the results of the present study offer the
possibility that one way of improving student learning is to support teachers in devel-
oping more student-centred approaches to teaching. However, when aiming at a
student-centred approach to teaching in all teaching contexts, rapid changes in the
use of different approaches to teaching cannot be expected. Postareff et al. (2004)
have shown that only after a long process of pedagogical training does the shift in
teaching generally from a teacher-centred to a student-centred approach take place.
296 S. Lindblom-Ylänne et al.

In our sample only one teacher showed no change in her mean scores for ITTF and
CCSF approaches when reporting her approaches to teaching in two different teach-
ing contexts. This provides strong empirical evidence for the view that, rather than
approaches to teaching being stable (Kember & Kwan, 2002), teachers change their
approaches to teaching according to their perceptions of their situation (Samuelowicz
& Bain, 1992, 2001; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999).
In concluding, we note a paradox (and a potential limitation) in relation to the first
of these studies. We aimed in the first study to explore disciplinary differences in
approaches to teaching, and we found meaningful differences. In the second study
our aim was to explore the relational nature of the ATI, and we were able to provide
empirical evidence for the context-specificity of teachers’ approaches to teaching.
This result suggests that the same teacher in different contexts may adopt a different
approach to teaching, and is the reason why Prosser and Trigwell (1999, p. 177)
have argued that, because of the relational nature of approaches to teaching, it may
not be meaningful to look at comparisons of mean scores for the CCSF and ITTF
approach scales across different contexts. We attempted to overcome the problem
this result causes for the first study (analysis of the disciplinary differences in
approaches to teaching) by using teachers’ reports when thinking of their usual, or
‘normal’, teaching context. While analysing ‘normal’ teaching contexts cannot totally
remove the effect of the relational nature of approaches to teaching, it is likely to
‘dampen’ the relational effect. Thus, we have been able to provide evidence for both
the relational nature of the approaches to teaching as well as underlying disciplinary
differences.

References
Åkerlind, G. S. (2003) Growing and developing as a university teacher—variation in meaning,
Studies in Higher Education, 28, 376–390.
Bailey, J. G. (1999) Academics’ motivation and self-efficacy for teaching and research, Higher
Education Research & Development, 18, 343–359.
Bandura, A. (1982) The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy, Journal of
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 13, 195–199.
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control (New York, W. H. Freeman).
Becher, T. (1987) The disciplinary shaping of the profession, in: B. R. Clark (Ed.) The academic
profession (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press), 271–303.
Becher, T. (1989) Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines
(Buckingham, Open University Press).
Becher, T. (1994) The significance of disciplinary differences, Studies in Higher Education, 19,
151–161.
Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for quality learning at university (Buckingham, Open University Press).
Biglan, A. (1973) Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and
output of university departments, Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204–213.
Eley, M. G. (1992) Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students, Higher
Education, 23, 231–254.
Gordon, C. & Debus, R. (2002) Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching effi-
cacy within a preservice teacher education context, British Journal of Educational Psychology,
72, 483–511.
 Approaches to teaching 297

Kember, D. (1997) A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions

of teaching, Learning and Instruction, 7, 255–275.
Kember, D. & Kwan, K. (2002) Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to
conceptions of good teaching, in: N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds) Teacher thinking, beliefs and
knowledge in higher education (Dordrecht, Kluwer), 219–240.
Kolb, D. A. (1981) Learning styles and disciplinary differences, in A. W. Chickering & Associates
(Eds) The modern American college (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass), 232–255.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Nevgi, A. (2003) How pedagogical training and context affect approach
to teaching, paper presented at the 11th European Association for Research on Learning and
Instruction (EARLI) Conference, Padova, Italy, 26–30 August.
Lueddeke, G. (2003) Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: a study of disciplin-
ary variation and ‘teaching-scholarship’, Studies in Higher Education, 28, 213–228.
Neumann, R. (2001) Disciplinary differences and university teaching, Studies in Higher Education,
2, 135–146.
Neumann, R., Parry, S. & Becher, T. (2002) Teaching and learning in their disciplinary context: a
conceptual analysis, Studies in Higher Education, 4, 405–417.
Parry, S. (1998) Disciplinary discourse in doctoral theses, Higher Education, 3, 273–299.
Pintrich, P., Smith, D. A. F. & McKeachie, W. J. (1989) A manual for the use of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Ann Arbor, MI, National Centre for Research
to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan).
Pintrich, P. & Mckeachie, W. (2000) A framework for conceptualizing student motivation and
self-regulated learning in the college classroom, in: P. Pintrich & P. Ruohotie (Eds)
Conative constructs and self-regulated learning (Saarijärvi, Finland, Research Centre for
Vocational Education and The Okka Foundation for Teaching, Education and Personal
Development), 31–50.
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Nevgi, A. (2004) The effect of pedagogical training on teach-
ing in higher education, paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning
and Instruction (EARLI) Higher Education Special Interest Group conference, Stockholm, Sweden,
18–21 June.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in higher
education (Buckingham, Open University Press).
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. & Taylor, P. (1994) A phenomenographic study of academics’ concep-
tions of science learning and teaching, Learning and Instruction, 4, 217–231.
Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J. (1992) Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers, Higher
Education, 24, 93–111.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001) Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning,
Higher Education, 41, 299–325.
Siegel, S. & Castellan, N. J. (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences (2nd edn)
(New York, McGraw-Hill).
Smeby, J. (1996) Disciplinary differences in university teaching, Studies in Higher Education, 1,
69–79.
Trigwell, K. (2002) Approaches to teaching design subjects: a quantitative analysis, Art, Design
and Communication in Higher Education, 1, 69–80.
Trigwell, K., Ashwin, P., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Nevgi, A. (2004) Variation in approaches to
university teaching: the role of regulation and motivation, paper presented at the European
Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) Higher Education Special Interest
Group conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 18–21 June.
Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1996) Changing approaches to teaching: a relational perspective,
Studies in Higher Education, 21, 275–284.
Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the Approaches to Teaching
Inventory, Educational Psychology Review, 16, 409–424.
 298 S. Lindblom-Ylänne et al.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Waterhouse, F. (1999) Relations between teachers’ approaches to
teaching and students’ approach to learning, Higher Education, 37, 73–83.
Vermunt, J. D. & Verloop, N. (1999) Congruence and friction between learning and teaching,
Learning and Instruction, 9, 257–280.
Ylijoki, O.-H. (2000) Disciplinary cultures and the moral order of studying—a case study of four
Finnish university departments, Higher Education, 39, 339–362.
Zimmerman, B. (2000) Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective, in: M. Boekaerts,
P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds) Handbook of self-regulation (San Diego, CA, Academic
Press), 13–39.

View publication stats