Educational Research

ISSN: 0013-1881 (Print) 1469-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

The influence of teachers’ teaching approaches

on students’ learning approaches: the student
perspective

Simon A.J. Beausaert , M.S.R Segers & Danique P.A. Wiltink

To cite this article: Simon A.J. Beausaert , M.S.R Segers & Danique P.A. Wiltink (2013) The
influence of teachers’ teaching approaches on students’ learning approaches: the student
perspective, Educational Research, 55:1, 1-15, DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2013.767022

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.767022

Published online: 01 Mar 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4595

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rere20
Educational Research, 2013
Vol. 55, No. 1, 1–15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.767022

The influence of teachers’ teaching approaches on students’ learning

approaches: the student perspective
Simon A.J. Beausaerta*, M.S.R. Segersa and Danique P.A. Wiltinkb
a
Department of Educational Development and Research, School of Business and Economics,
Tongersestraat 53, 6211 LM Maastricht, The Netherlands; bSTC-Group, Lloydstraat 300, 3024
EA Rotterdam and Instituut Wiltink, Handelsplein 23, 3071 PR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
(Received 20 December 2011; final version received 9 November 2012)

Background: Research on the relation between teaching and learning approaches has
been mainly conducted in higher education and it is not yet clear to what extent the
results can be generalised when it comes to secondary education.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to research how students in secondary edu-
cation perceive their teachers’ approaches to teaching in different disciplines, and
how this relates to their own learning approaches. Additionally, differences in teach-
ing approaches between mathematics and language teachers were investigated.
Sample: The participants in this study were 128 students randomly selected at two
secondary schools in two different cities in the Netherlands. Both schools are located
in a city with more than 200,000 inhabitants. The students are spread across three
different educational levels: lower secondary vocational education (VMBO, 12–
18 years), higher secondary education (HAVO, 12–18 years) and academically ori-
ented vocational education (VWO, 12–18 years).
Design and methods: In this cross-sectional study, instead of teachers’ self-reporting,
teaching approaches were measured by student perceptions, which were gathered by
means of a questionnaire (N=128). Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted
to identify whether perceived teacher approaches predicted students’ learning
approaches. Finally, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) were carried out to explore differences in how students in mathematics
and Dutch-language courses perceived the teaching approaches of their teachers and
which learning approaches they consequently adopted.
Results: Results indicate that a teacher-centred approach predicts a surface approach
to learning and a student-centred approach predicts a deep approach to learning.
Next, it was found that students in Dutch-language courses perceive their teachers as
more student-centred, and are hence more likely to adopt a deep approach to learn-
ing than students in mathematics courses.
Conclusions: These results suggest that when schools aim to support students in
developing deep-learning approaches, attention on a school level should be paid to
teachers’ approaches to teaching.
Keywords: teaching approaches; learning approaches; secondary education; mathe-
matics; languages.

Introduction
Teaching and learning are two interrelated phenomena. It is argued that the strategies
teachers adopt for their teaching and the underlying intentions, defined as approaches to

*Corresponding author. Email: s.beausaert@maastrichtuniversity.nl

Ó 2013 NFER
2 S.A.J. Beausaert et al.

teaching (Trigwell, Prosser, and Taylor 1994), are related to students’ learning
approaches and subsequently to their learning outcomes. For example, a maths teacher
who is mainly focusing on the memorisation of formulas stimulates students to rely on
rote memory learning. Conversely, a maths teacher who teaches students to grasp fully
the meaning of formulas and their applications promotes the adoption of a deep
approach to learning by his or her students.
In many modern educational settings, there is a strong interest in stimulating stu-
dents to adopt a deep approach to learning. This is largely influenced by the current
dominant theory of learning, constructivism. It includes the notion that ‘the teacher
has to be a facilitator for the learning process; arranging suitable conditions for it and
providing a non-threatening environment that is suitable for dialogue and discussion
between students and enabling them to pose their ideas and defend them freely and
without hesitation’ (Al-Weher 2004, 171). A deep approach to learning is associated
with searching for meaning in the task and the integration of task aspects into a
whole. This kind of learning is driven by the intrinsic motivation to seek meaning
and understanding. This approach to learning reflects how a learning process is
defined within constructivism: an active process of interpreting and constructing indi-
vidual knowledge representations by the student himself (Jonassen 1991). It is argued
that active knowledge construction in authentic contexts contributes to higher-order
thinking, which in turn results in high-quality knowledge acquisition (Spiro et al.
1991; Collins, Brown, and Newman 1989; Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989). More-
over, it is argued that in education, ‘it is not a matter of reaching short-term goals,
but of integrating acquired knowledge and skills with more general goals, such as
understanding the surrounding reality, and adapting to changing circumstances’
(Könings, Brand-Gruwel, and van Merriënboer 2005, 646). In this respect, given the
increased availability of information, students have to navigate their way through
large amounts of material requiring the skills to select, process and organise
information.
Given the aforementioned view on learning, how the learning environment might
support the development of a deep approach to learning is an important question. In this
respect, it has been argued that the way in which teachers teach plays a significant role
in how students approach their learning (e.g. Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999;
Fang 1996). Nevertheless, to date, the evidence on the influence of teachers’ approaches
to teaching on students’ learning approaches is relatively scarce. In general, two
approaches to teaching can be discerned (Postareff and Lindblom-Ylänne 2008): a tea-
cher-centred approach and a student-centred approach. A more student-centred
approach to teaching stimulates students to adopt a deep approach to learning, focusing
on a deeper understanding of the learning content. If a teacher adopts a more teacher-
centred approach, focusing on transmitting knowledge, students are more likely to
employ a surface approach to learning, characterised by a focus on reproduction (e.g.
Entwistle et al. 2000; Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999).
Much research on the relation between teaching and learning approaches has been
conducted in higher education (e.g. Trigwell et al. 1998; Trigwell, Prosser, and Water-
house 1999; Kember and Gow 1994). It is not clear to what extent results from higher
education can be said to apply in general to secondary education. Previous research in
secondary education supports the idea of exploring teaching approaches in secondary
education to enhance pupils’ ability to adopt a deep approach to learning. Cano (2005),
for example, showed that deep approaches to learning are changeable (they change as
pupils advance in their studies) and that a deep approach to learning predicts academic
 Educational Research 3

proficiency in secondary education. This underscores the relevance of validating the

research results on teaching and learning approaches in a secondary education setting.
Moreover, the current studies addressing teaching approaches are mostly based on
teachers’ self-reporting on their teaching approaches. There is no evidence that the tea-
cher’s perception of his or her teaching approaches matches what was experienced by
the students. However, previous research suggests that it is not the learning environment
that influences students’ learning approaches, but the way students perceive the learning
environment. Therefore, it is relevant to measure students’ perceptions of the teachers’
approaches to teaching instead of using teachers’ self-reports (Nijhuis, Segers, and
Gijselaers 2005; Struyven et al. 2006).
In sum, in this study we address teachers’ teaching approaches from a student per-
spective. Teachers’ approaches to teaching are measured by asking students how they
perceive how teachers teach. At the same time, students report on how they approach
their learning. We analyse to what extent students’ learning approaches are predicted by
teachers’ teaching approaches as perceived by the students. Based on previous studies
indicating differences in teaching approaches between disciplines (Lindblom-Ylänne
et al. 2006), this study is conducted in language and mathematics courses in secondary
education to explore differential effects.

Approaches to learning and approaches to teaching

Based on the conceptions of learning described by Marton and Säljö (1976), Entwistle
and Ramsden (1983) and Biggs (1987) conducted further research on the constructs
‘deep- and surface-approach to learning’. A surface approach to learning refers to stu-
dents who do not seek further understanding of the learning material and only rely on
memorisation and reproduction. Students who adopt a surface approach to learning are
driven by the extrinsic motive to obtain a paper qualification or a reward. In contrast,
students with deep approaches to learning are associated with having an interest in the
learning task. They search for meaning in the task and integration of task aspects into a
whole. Students who adopt a deep approach to learning are driven by the intrinsic
motive to attain meaning and understanding (Marton and Säljö 1976; Entwistle and
Ramsden 1983; Biggs 1987).
Marton and Säljö (1976) assumed that the way students enact their learning
approaches depends on the demands of the tasks. This means that approaches to learn-
ing are not stable psychological traits and can be modified by environmental factors like
the learning environment, the teacher and the method of assessment (Biggs 1987;
Kember and Gow 1994; Kember et al. 1997; Scouller 1998).
During the past decade, studies in higher education have been addressing how
teaching approaches influence student-learning approaches (e.g. Trigwell et al. 1998;
Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999; Kember and Gow 1994). One of the first stud-
ies on teaching approaches was a qualitative study with academic science teachers in
their first year of teaching, conducted by Trigwell, Prosser, and Taylor (1994). In
their study, the researchers identified five different approaches to teaching (p. 78): a
teacher-centred strategy with the intention of transmitting information to the students,
a teacher-centred strategy with the intention of having students acquire the concepts
of the discipline, a teacher–student interaction strategy with the intention of having
students acquire the concepts of the discipline, a student-centred strategy with a view to
having students develop their conceptions and a student-centred strategy aiming at
students changing their conceptions.
4 S.A.J. Beausaert et al.

Based on these results, several quantitative studies have researched the way teachers
approach their teaching. As a result, instead of distinguishing five different approaches
to teaching, these studies made a distinction between two main approaches: a teacher-
or a content-centred approach, and a student-centred approach to teaching. Teachers
who conceive teaching as transmitting knowledge are more likely to adopt a teacher-
centred approach to teaching. These teachers concentrate on the content of teaching
and how they teach. Students are seen as somewhat passive recipients of that informa-
tion and learning outcomes are expressed in quantities rather than in qualitative terms
without concern for the students’ understanding of knowledge. In contrast to a teacher-
centred approach, there are teachers who view teaching as facilitative and use a stu-
dent-centred approach to teaching. In student-centred teaching, attention may be paid
to the transmission of knowledge, but it will not be the aim in itself. The focus is more
on the students and their learning-process than on the teacher and his or her teaching.
In a student-centred approach, teaching can be seen as interactive, in interaction with
the students’ existing conceptions. A student-centred teacher tries to recognise the stu-
dents’ different needs; the teacher takes these needs as a starting point when planning
the course and uses more diverse teaching methods than teachers who adopt a teacher-
centred approach to teaching (Trigwell and Prosser 1996; Prosser and Trigwell 1999;
Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999; Kember and Kwan 2002; Coffey and Gibbs
2002).
Lindblom-Ylänne et al. (2006) analysed whether teachers use a different approach
to teaching when shifting from one context to another. The following differences in
teaching contexts were taken into account: the course or discipline, the number of stu-
dents, the study stage of students and the main teaching method used. Results indicated
that approaches to teaching varied across different teaching contexts. In addition, teach-
ers with a student-centred approach were described as being most sensitive to contex-
tual influences.
Beside the influence of changing the teaching context, several studies identified
the effect of discipline on teaching approaches. The studies mostly make a distinc-
tion between the disciplines: ‘pure hard’ (e.g. chemistry), ‘applied hard’ (e.g. medi-
cine), ‘pure soft’ (e.g. history) and ‘applied soft’ (e.g. education) (Biglan 1973, 207).
Trigwell (2002) researched approaches to teaching in a study on teachers in design
and physical sciences and found that design teachers were significantly more stu-
dent-centred than physical science teachers. Lueddeke (2003), too, conducted research
on teaching approaches within different disciplines. Based on self-reports of 135
teachers in business, social sciences and technology, it was found that teachers giv-
ing lessons in ‘hard’ disciplines are more likely to adopt a teacher-centred approach
to teaching, while teachers in ‘soft’ disciplines adopt a more student-centred
approach to teaching. These findings are in line with Lindblom-Ylänne et al. (2006),
who researched the relationship between discipline and approaches to teaching. The
concept discipline was categorised into four groups using Biglan’s (1973) and
Becher’s (1989) categorisation. To identify teacher approaches, the Approaches to
Teaching Inventory (ATI; Prosser and Trigwell 1999) was used. This research identi-
fied that teachers who worked in an ‘applied hard’ discipline scored significantly
higher on the teacher-focused scale than teachers who worked in ‘pure soft’ and
‘applied soft’ disciplines. Teachers belonging to a ‘pure hard’ discipline scored sig-
nificantly lower on the student-focused scale than teachers who belonged to a soft
discipline.
 Educational Research 5

The relationship between teaching approaches and learning approaches

Two strands of research can be discerned when measuring the impact of teaching on
learning approaches. Previous research on the relationship between teachers’ teaching
and students’ learning approaches focused on the ‘teaching quality’ in more general
terms. Teaching quality indicates the differences in the quality of teaching that students
directly experience and therefore can be validly commented on by students (Wilson, Liz-
zio, and Ramsden 1997; Fang 1996). The concept ‘teaching quality’ is based on the the-
ory of teaching and learning in an academic setting, which indicates that students’
perceptions of the curriculum, instruction and assessment influence their approaches to
learning and the quality of their learning outcomes (Marton and Säljö 1976; Entwistle
and Ramsden 1983; Ramsden 1992). Based on this theory, several researchers found that
teachers who stimulate students to adopt a deep learning approach give clear and useful
explanations, helpful feedback, motivate students to do their best and show interest in
the students’ opinions and work to make subjects interesting (Ramsden 1992; Wilson,
Lizzio, and Ramsden 1997; Marton, Watkins and Tang 1997; Entwistle et al. 2000).
In addition to studies focusing on teaching quality in general and its relation to stu-
dents’ learning approaches, other studies have focused on teaching approaches. They
measure the way in which teachers approach their teaching in terms of being student-
centred or teacher-centred. A few studies identified the relation between teachers’
approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning (Trigwell et al. 1998; Trig-
well, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999; Kember and Kwan 2002). A study by Kember and
Gow (1994) found, based on a study involving 170 lecturers who filled out the Trial
Questionnaire (Kember and Gow 1994) and the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ;
Biggs 1987) that teachers’ teaching approaches affects the curriculum design, the teach-
ing method employed, the learning tasks specified, the assessment demands and stu-
dents’ approach to learning. More specifically, a distinction was made between a
knowledge-transmission orientation and a learning-facilitation orientation. While the
first led to undesirable learning approaches of students (slowing down deep learning
approaches), the latter encouraged meaningful student learning (not promoting surface
learning approaches). Subsequently, Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse (1999) explored
the influence of teaching approaches to learning approaches based on 3956 first-year
university chemistry and physics students and 46 lecturers. The students completed the
SPQ and the lecturers completed the ATI (Trigwell and Prosser 1996). It was found that
the students of lecturers who described their teaching approaches as teacher-centred and
focus on transmitting knowledge reported a more surface approach to learning. A less
strong but significant finding in this study was that students who adopt a deep approach
to learning have teachers who are more student-oriented.

The present study

This study attempts to understand better how students’ perceptions of their teachers’
approaches to teaching relate to the learning approaches they adopt. It is hypothesised
that a student-centred approach to learning will lead to adopting a deep learning
approach, while a teacher-centred approach to teaching will predict students’ surface
approach to learning.
Additionally, previous research in higher education indicates the relevance of
researching disciplinary differences. It is hypothesised that teachers in the ‘hard’
disciplines, such as mathematics, will use a more teacher-centred approach to learning.
Consequently, their students will adopt a surface approach to learning. In contrast,
6 S.A.J. Beausaert et al.

teachers in the ‘soft’ disciplines, such as Dutch language, will use a student-centred
approach to teaching. As a consequence, their students will show a deep approach to
learning.
In contrast to most of the previous studies on learning approaches that were con-
ducted in higher-education settings, this study was conducted in secondary education.
Based on what is previously discussed, the following research questions are formulated:

(1) Do students’ perceptions of their teachers’ approaches to teaching influence their

approaches to learning?
(2) Does the discipline (Dutch language or Mathematics) have a differential effect
on perceived teaching approaches and adopted learning approaches?

Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 128 students randomly selected at two secondary
schools in two different cities in the Netherlands. The students were randomly selected,
across class groups. Both schools value the autonomy of the students very highly. In
other words, the schools strive to establish a learning environment in which students
develop the ability to regulate their own learning process. Both schools are located in a
city with more than 200,000 residents. To obtain a representative sample of participants,
students from different learning years, gender and educational levels were asked to par-
ticipate in this study (Table 1). A distinction is made between three different educa-
tional levels: lower secondary vocational education (VMBO, 12–18 years old), higher
secondary education (HAVO, 12–18 years) and academically oriented vocational educa-
tion (VWO, 12–18 years). While VMBO prepares for HAVO, HAVO prepares for
higher education. VWO students mostly go to university. Class sizes varied from six to
19 students. All students belonging to the classes in the sample were asked to partici-
pate in this research. One group of students was asked to fill out the questionnaires with
reference to the Dutch language course (‘soft’ science); the other group of students was
instructed to respond to the questionnaire having the mathematics course (‘hard’ sci-
ence) in mind. The response rate was 100%.

Measures
To measure perceived teacher approaches to teaching, the students completed a Dutch
version of Trigwell and Prosser’s ATI (2004). Students’ learning approaches were

Table 1. Demographic distribution of the research sample.

Gender Class Education level

M F 1–2 3–4 5–6 VMBO HAVO VWO

Dutch languages n=62 33 29 19 19 25 12 30 21

Mathematics n=65 26 39 18 19 28 11 51 3
Total sample n=128 55 73 37 38 53 24 81 23
Note. A distinction is made between three different educational levels: VMBO, lower secondary vocational
education (12–18 years old); HAVO, higher secondary education (12–18 years); VWO, academically oriented
vocational education (12–18 years). While VMBO prepares for HAVO, HAVO prepares for higher education.
VWO students mostly go to university.
 Educational Research 7

measured with the translated Revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F; Biggs,
Kember and Leung 2001).

Approaches to Teaching Inventory

The ATI consists of 16 items, which are scored on a five-point Likert scale, where a
score of 1 means ‘this item is not true for me’, and a score of 5 means ‘this item is
always true for me’. The original questionnaire was designed for teachers. Since we are
interested in students’ perceptions of their teachers’ approaches to teaching we trans-
formed the questionnaire and reformulated the questions from the students’ perspective.
Two volunteering English teachers commented on the comprehensibility of the trans-
lated questionnaire for students in secondary education, which did not lead to any
changes.
Because the ATI questionnaire was translated as well as adapted to measure the stu-
dent’s perspective, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted in order to validate the
transformed questionnaire (Gerbing and Hamilton 1996). Suppressing factor loadings
lower than 0.40, the factor analysis indicated a four-component solution. All items tap-
ping the original student-centred scale loaded on one component, while the items tap-
ping on the original teacher-centred scale were divided over three components. By
performing a factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation and forcing the scale to two
factors, the output showed that the item ‘I feel it is important to present a lot of facts to
students, so that they know what they have to learn for this subject’, and the item ‘I
structure this subject to help students to pass the formal assessment items’ of the tea-
cher-focused scale did not load on any factor and were deleted. An example of an item
for both scales and the Cronbach’s alpha reliability are presented in Table 2.

The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire

The students’ learning strategies were measured by using the revised two-factor
R-SPQ-2F (Biggs et al. 2001), which has been validated before in many settings. The
R-SPQ-2F was used to explore whether students adopt a surface or a deep approach to
learning. The questionnaire was translated into Dutch and consists of 20 items, which
are scored on a five-point Likert-scale where a score of 1 means ‘this item is not true
for me’, and a score of 5 means ‘this item is always true for me’. The reliability of the

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, an item example and the Cronbach’s alpha for the different
scales.

Cronbach’s
Mean SD Item example alpha

Deep approach 2.96 0.82 I work hard for my studies because I find 0.87
the material interesting
Surface approach 3.05 0.78 My aim is to pass the course while doing as 0.81
little work as possible
Student-centred 3.20 0.93 During the course my teacher creates 0.87
approach opportunities for students to discuss their
changing understanding of the subject
Teacher-centred 3.59 0.74 During the course my teacher assumes that 0.70
approach most of the students have little useful
knowledge of the topics to be covered
8 S.A.J. Beausaert et al.

R-SPQ-2F was measured with Cronbach’s alpha analysis. An example of an item for
both scales and the Cronbach’s alpha reliability are presented in Table 2.

Procedure
During a three-day visit at the schools, all present teachers who taught Dutch language
and mathematics were asked to invite their students to participate in the research. Next,
the researcher and each teacher agreed on a moment to visit the class. Here the
researcher introduced the students to the research, focusing on the anonymity of the
research; 128 students in nine different classes with two teachers in mathematics and
two Dutch-language teachers completed the questionnaire. Each student was involved
in only one of the two disciplines.

Data analysis
Firstly, a correlation analysis explored the relationship between the perceived teacher
approaches, student- and teacher-centred approaches, and the students’ learning
approaches, deep and surface approaches to learning. Secondly, we conducted hierarchi-
cal regression analyses to identify whether perceived teacher approaches predict stu-
dents’ learning approaches. Thirdly, we used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to explore the difference in how students in mathe-
matics and Dutch-language courses perceive the teaching approach of their teacher and
which learning approaches they consequently adopt.
Preliminary analyses of the data involved inspection of normality and homogeneity
of variance assumptions. Normal plots, box-plots and the calculation of skewness and
kurtosis were used to check the normality of distribution. In order to test the equality of
group variances we calculated the Levene’s statistics. To distinguish between ‘practi-
cally’ significant results and results being ‘statistically’ significant, the effect sizes are
reported and the results of the statistical analyses are considered significant if there is a
p value of <0.05 (Field 2005).

Results
Prior to the statistical analyses, the data were inspected on normality and missing val-
ues. For each variable (Table 3), standardised skewness and kurtosis were computed.
For a normal distribution, the values of each score should be between 3 and 3 (|z|
±<3) (Field 2005). The standardised skewness for the scale ‘teacher-centred approach’
was 5.1 (zskewness= 5.1). As Field (2005) suggests, the mean scores of 10 outliers
were changed into the largest or smallest value in the dataset, plus one unit in order
to decrease the skewness. Consequently, the standardised skewness rose to 3.73
(zskewness=3.73), which is just above the ±3 threshold. Finally, missing value analysis
showed few missing values (<5%). According to the results of the standardised skew-
ness and kurtosis, we accepted a normal distribution of the data.

Do students’ perceptions of their teachers’ approaches to teaching influence their

approaches to learning?
In order to gain insight into the relations between the dependent and independent
variables and the background variables (gender, age, educational level and course), a
 Educational Research 9

correlation analysis was conducted. As expected, the Pearson correlation coefficients

indicated that a student-centred teaching approach was significantly positively related to
a deep-learning approach and significantly negatively to a surface approach to learning.
In contrast, a teacher-centred approach was significantly positively correlated to stu-
dents’ surface approach to learning and significantly negatively to students’ deep
approach to learning. Furthermore, a student-centred approach to teaching was signifi-
cantly negatively related to a teacher-centred approach to teaching and a deep approach

Table 3. Pearson correlations for the different variables in this study and the background
variables (gender, age, educational level and course).

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gender –
2. Age (date of birth) 0.20⁄ –
3. Educational level 0.16 0.22⁄ –
4. Course 0.07 0.15 0.24⁄⁄ –
5. Student-centred 0.24⁄⁄ 0.02 0.10 0.24⁄⁄ –
approach to
teaching
6. Teacher-centred 0.19⁄ 0.13 0.10 0.21⁄ 0.29⁄⁄ –
approach to
teaching
7. Deep approach to 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.30⁄⁄ 0.68⁄⁄ 0.46⁄⁄ –
learning
8. Surface approach to 0.11 0.01 0.08 0.12 0.53⁄⁄ 0.45⁄⁄ 0.66⁄⁄ –
learning
Note: ⁄⁄p<0.01; ⁄p<0.05. Gender: 0=female, 1=male; Educational level: 1=lower secondary vocational educa-
tion (VMBO), 2=higher secondary education (HAVO), 3=academically oriented secondary education (VWO);
Course: 0=Dutch languages (‘soft’ sciences), 1=Maths (‘hard’ sciences).

Table 4. Regression analysis of the background variables and the approaches to teaching on the
approaches to learning.

Deep approach to Surface approach to

learning learning
ß ΔR² ß ΔR²

Step 1
Gender 0.11 0.10
Age 0.03 0.03
Educational level 0.11 0.03
Course 0.32⁄⁄ 0.09
0.10⁄ 0.02
Step 2
Gender 0.10 0.10
Age 0.04 0.05
Educational level 0.05 0.10
Course 0.10 0.11
Student-centred approach to teaching 0.60⁄⁄⁄ 0.46⁄⁄⁄
Teacher-centred approach to teaching 0.25⁄⁄ 0.37⁄⁄⁄
0.44⁄⁄⁄ 0.37⁄⁄⁄
Note: The reported regression coefficients are standardised coefficients. ⁄p<0.05; ⁄⁄
p<0.01; ⁄⁄⁄
p<0.001.
10 S.A.J. Beausaert et al.

to learning correlated significantly negatively to a surface approach to learning. Finally,

two background variables seem to play a role: there is a significant correlation between
gender and both teaching approaches as well as between discipline, teaching approaches
and a deep-learning approach (Table 3).
In order to analyse whether the perceived teacher approach predicts students’ learn-
ing approach, regression analyses were performed, controlling the students’ background
variables. The results indicated that a student-centred approach predicts significantly
positively a deep-learning approach (β=0.60, p<0.001), while it predicts a surface
approach to learning significantly negatively (β= 0.46, p<0.001). Furthermore, the
regression analysis showed that a perceived teacher-centred approach significantly posi-
tively predicts a surface approach to learning (β=0.37, p<0.001), while it predicts a
deep approach to learning significantly negatively (β= 0.25, p<0.01) (Table 4).

Does the discipline (Dutch language or Mathematics) have a differential effect on

perceived teaching approaches and adopted learning approaches?
In order to examine if teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to
learning differ according to the discipline, an ANOVA was conducted. More specifi-
cally, the approaches to teaching were researched in two different disciplines; Dutch
language representing the ‘soft-sciences’ (n=63) and mathematics, representing the
‘hard-sciences’ (n=63). It was found that the mean score for a teacher-centred approach
to teaching was significantly higher in the mathematics courses (F(1,126)=5.66,
p=0.019, η2=0.04). This indicates that students in mathematics courses perceive their
teachers as significantly more teacher-centred than students in language courses. Next,
the mean scores for student-centred approach to teaching (F(1,124)=7.86, p=0.006,
η2=0.06) and deep approach to learning (F(1,121)=11.73, p=0.001, η2=0.09) were found
to be significantly higher in the Dutch-language courses. This means that students in
Dutch-language courses perceive their teachers as significantly more student-centred
than students in the mathematics courses and that student in Dutch-language courses
adopt a more deep approach to learning than students in mathematics courses. However,
we did not find that students in ‘hard’ science adopt a surface approach to learning to a
higher degree than students in ‘soft’ sciences. The results of the ANOVA are shown in
Table 5.
A regression analysis, again controlling for the students’ background variables and
conducted on both samples separately, resulted in the same significant relations as the
regression analysis on the total sample. In both courses, a student-centred approach

Table 5. Means and standard deviations of the domains of study together with univariate
analyses of variance.

Dutch language Mathematics

courses courses
Variable n Mean SD n Mean SD F η2

Teacher-centred approach to teaching 63 3.44 0.79 65 3.74 0.67 5.66⁄ 0.04

Student-centred approach to teaching 63 3.42 0.82 63 2.97 0.97 7.86⁄⁄ 0.06
Surface approach to learning 63 2.96 0.72 65 3.14 0.83 1.75 0.01
Deep approach to learning 62 3.20 0.80 61 2.71 0.78 11.73⁄⁄ 0.09
Note: ⁄p<0.05; ⁄⁄
p<0.01.
 Educational Research 11

predicts significantly positively a deep-learning approach (Dutch languages: β=0.47,

p<0.001; Mathematics: β=0.71, p<0.001), while it predicts a surface approach to
learning significantly negatively (Dutch languages: β= 0.27, p<0.05; Mathematics:
β= 0.51, p<0.001). Next, a perceived teacher-centred approach significantly positively
predicts a surface approach to learning (Dutch languages: β=0.40, p<0.01; Mathematics:
β=0.38, p<0.001), while it predicts a deep approach to learning significantly negatively
(Dutch languages: β= 0.28, p<0.05; Mathematics: β= 0.22, p<0.05).

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was to find out whether students’ perceptions of their teacher’s
teaching influences their learning approaches, within different disciplines in secondary
vocational education by questioning students. Research on the relation between teaching
and learning approaches has been mainly conducted in higher education and it is not
yet clear to what extent the results can be generalised in order for them to apply to sec-
ondary education. Results show that students who describe their teachers as more tea-
cher-centred are more likely to adopt a surface approach to learning. In contrast,
students who describe their teachers as more student-centred are more likely to adopt a
deep approach to learning. In sum, students’ perceptions of their teachers’ teaching pre-
dict their approaches to learning. These results are in line with previous research in
higher education (e.g. Trigwell et al. 1998; Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999)
that evidenced, based on teachers’ self-reports, the same relation between teaching
approaches and learning approaches by students in higher education.
Next, the influence of subject discipline on teachers’ approaches to teaching and its
relation to student learning approaches was researched. It was found that teachers in
‘soft’ sciences make more use of a student-centred approach to teaching than teachers
in the ‘hard’ sciences (Mathematics), while teachers in the hard sciences make more use
of a teacher-centred approach to teaching. Furthermore, it was found that the students
in the soft sciences utilise a more deep approach to learning than students in the hard
sciences. These results are in line with findings of Luddeke (2003) and Lindblom-
Ylänne et al. (2006), who identified a relation between soft sciences and a student-cen-
tred approach to learning and between hard science teachers’ perceptions of their own
teaching and students’ surface learning approaches. However, we did not find students
in hard science adopting a surface approach to learning more than students in soft sci-
ences. This may be explained by recent research by Postareff et al. (2008) on teaching
profiles in higher education. It was found that teachers in hard sciences mainly have
teaching profiles that consist of combinations of student-centred and teacher-centred
approaches to teaching, described as a dissonant teaching profile. Also Prosser et al.
(2003) found that there might be more dissonance in teacher profiles in hard sciences
than teachers in soft sciences. Handling different approaches to teaching as a teacher
may cause various students’ approaches to learning (surface and/or deep approaches).
In contrast, our research results indicate that the mean scores for both teaching
approaches are more adjacent in the Dutch-language group (mean=3.44 and 3.42) than
in the mathematics group (mean=3.74 and 2.97). This suggests that teachers of Dutch
courses show more dissonant teaching approaches than teachers of Mathematics. Future
research using a multi-method approach, combining surveys with interviews, might
research the existence of dissonant teaching approaches for Dutch languages and/or
mathematics teachers in secondary education.
12 S.A.J. Beausaert et al.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

This study has some limitations that need to be taken into account in future research.
First, our data are from a cross-sectional survey, which limits attributions about the
direction of causality between variables. There may be other influencing factors. The
results of the literature review by Baeten et al. (2010) has evidenced that contextual fac-
tors, perceived contextual factors and student factors influence the adoption of a learn-
ing approach by students. In addition to students’ perception of teaching (perceived
contextual factor), which was the focus in this study, they refer to the influence of, for
example: class/group and school/institution characteristics (contextual factor), workload
and relevance to professional practice (perceived contextual factors) and emotions and
self-direction in learning (student factor). We have not controlled for these factors.
However, we did control for two student factors (gender and age) and two contextual
factors (educational level and course), which have been indicated as valid in the afore-
mentioned review. Nevertheless, our findings require further examination in longitudinal
studies and/or experimental studies.
A second issue for future research concerns the distribution of levels of education of
the participants in this study, showing an overrepresentation of HAVO students.
Although there is no evidence that the level of education plays a role, larger sample sizes
for each of the different levels of education would be necessary to confirm this result.
Thirdly, this study is conducted in Mathematics and Dutch language courses, repre-
senting ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sciences. These courses were chosen because they were taught
in every level of secondary education. In order to explore if students in the three differ-
ent levels of secondary education (VMBO, HAVO and VWO) might have different per-
ceptions about their teachers’ teaching, more participants per course are needed. Fourth,
the number of participants (N=128) is a methodological limitation and regression esti-
mates and error-variances can be seen as unstable. For future research, we advise the
enlargement of the sample size in order to explore the robustness of our results. More-
over, as students are nested within classes, large sample sizes would make multilevel
analysis possible.
Finally, as there is evidence that trained teachers are able to shift from a teacher-
centred to a student-centred approach to teaching (Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne, and
Nevgi 2007), future research should investigate the influence of teacher education on
changes in teaching approaches of secondary school teachers and in turn the effect on
students’ learning approaches.

Practical implications
The present study supports the idea that how teachers teach is an important determinant
of how students learn. Therefore, in teacher education more attention should be paid to
teachers’ teaching approaches. Amongst others, Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne, and Nevgi
(2007) researched the effect of pedagogical training and support the view that after a
long training process, teachers show a shift from a teacher-centred to a student-centred
approach. Tillema and Kremer-Hayon (2002) found in their study on self-regulation
beliefs and teacher education practices that if teachers want to change their approach to
teaching, it starts with being aware of their own professional learning and teaching
practice. Similarly, it was argued that the teaching approach of teachers is related to
their personal beliefs of learning and teaching (Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse
1999). Making student teachers aware of their own professional learning and teaching
 Educational Research 13

practice and related personal beliefs gives teacher training programmes a starting point
in order to give feedback on the teaching approach of future teachers (e.g. Schelfhout
et al. 2006).
Additionally, our results indicate disciplinary differences in teaching approaches.
This implies that if schools aim to support students in the development of deep
approaches to learning, attention should be paid to teachers’ approaches on a school
level. If teachers differ in their approach to teaching, this might lead to students adapt-
ing their approach to learning teacher by teacher. This might jeopardise the develop-
ment of a deep approach to learning during the students’ school career.
This study takes a next step in exploring the relation between teaching approaches
and learning approaches by addressing students’ perceptions of the teacher’s approach
to teaching instead of teachers’ self-reports. Future research has much to gain by further
exploring the role of students’ perceptions to understand better the influence of teaching
approaches on student learning.

References
Al-Weher, M. 2004. “The effect of a training course based on constructivism on student teachers’
perceptions of the teaching/learning process.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 32:
169–185.
Baeten, M., E. Kyndt, K. Struyven, and F. Dochy. 2010. “Using student-centred learning
environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging
their effectiveness.” Educational Research Review 5: 243–260.
Becher, T. 1989. Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Biggs, J. 1987. The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. Melbourne: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B., D. Kember, and D. Y. P. Leung. 2001. “The Revised Two-factor Study Process
Questionnaire R-SPQ-2F.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 71: 148–149.
Biglan, A. 1973. “Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and
output of university departments.” Journal of Applied Psychology 57: 204–213.
Brown, J. S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. “Situated cognition and the culture of learning.”
Educational Researcher 18: 32–42.
Cano, F. 2005. “Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through second-
ary education and their influence on academic performance.” British Journal of Psychology of
Education 75: 203–221.
Coffey, M., and G. Gibbs. 2002. “Measuring teachers’ repertoire of teaching methods.”
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 27: 383–390.
Collins, A., J. S. Brown, and S. E. Newman. 1989. “Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts
of reading, writing, and mathematics.” In Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in
honor of Robert Glaser, edited by L. B. Resnick, 453–494. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Entwistle, N., and P. Ramsden. 1983. Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Entwistle, N., D. Skinner, D. Entwistle, and S. Orr. 2000. “Conceptions and beliefs about ‘good
teaching’: An integration of contrasting research areas.” Higher Education Research and
Development 19: 5–26.
Fang, Z. 1996. “A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices.” Educational Research 38:
47–65.
Field, A. 2005. Discovering Statistics using SPSS (and sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll). 2nd ed.
London: Sage Publications.
Gerbing, D. W., and J. G. Hamilton. 1996. “Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor
to confirmatory factor analysis.” Structural Equation Modeling 3: 62–72.
Jonassen, D. H. 1991. “Evaluating constructivistic learning.” Educational Technology 31: 28–33.
Kember, D., M. Charlesworth, H. Davies, J. McKay, and V. Stott. 1997. “Evaluating the
effectiveness of educational innovations: Using the Study Process Questionnaire to show that
meaningful learning occurs.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 2: 141–157.
14 S.A.J. Beausaert et al.

Kember, D., and L. Gow. 1994. “Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of
student learning.” Journal of Higher Education 65: 58–74.
Kember, D., and K. Kwan. 2002. “Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to
conceptions of good teaching.” Instructional Science 28: 469–490.
Könings, K. D., S. Brand-Gruwel, and J. J. G. van Merriënboer. 2005. “Towards more powerful
learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and
students.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 75: 645–660.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., K. Trigwell, A. Nevgi, and P. Aschwin. 2006. “How approaches to teaching
are effected by discipline and teaching context.” Studies in Higher Education 31: 285–298.
Lueddeke, G. R. 2003. “Professionalizing teaching practice in higher education: A study of
disciplinary variation and ‘teaching scholarship’.” Studies in Higher Education 28: 213–228.
Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1976. “On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcome and process.”
British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4–11.
Marton, F., D. Watkins, and C. Tang. 1997. “Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of
learning: An interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong.” Learning and
Instruction 1: 21–48.
Nijhuis, J. F. H., M. S. R. Segers, and W. H. Gijselaers. 2005. “Influence of redesigning a learn-
ing environment on student perceptions and learning strategies.” Learning Environments
Research 8: 67–93.
Postareff, L., and S. Lindblom-Ylänne. 2008. “Variation in teachers; Descriptions of teaching:
Broadening the understanding of teaching in higher education.” Learning and Instruction 18:
109–120.
Postareff, L., S. Lindblom-Ylänne, and A. Nevgi. 2007. “The effect of pedagogical training on
teaching in higher education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 23: 557–571.
Postareff, L., N. Katajavuori, S. Lindblom-Ylänne, and K. Trigwell. 2008. “Consonance and
dissonance in descriptions of teaching of university teachers.” Studies in Higher Education
33: 49–61.
Prosser, M., P. Ramsden, K. Trigwell, and E. Martin. 2003. “Dissonance in experience of teaching
and its relation to the quality of student learning.” Studies in Higher Education 28: 37–48.
Prosser, M., and K. Trigwell. 1999. Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in
higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ramsden, P. 1992. Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Scouller, K. 1998. “The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches:
Multiple question examination versus assignment essay.” Higher Education 4: 453–472.
Schelfhout, W., F. Dochy, S. Janssens, K. Struyven, S. Gielen, and E. Sierens. 2006. “Educating
for learning-focused teaching in teacher training: The need to link learning content with prac-
tice experiences within an inductive approach.” Teaching and Teacher Education 22:
874–897.
Spiro, R. J., P. J. Feltovich, M. J. Jacobson, and R. L. Coulson. 1991. “Cognitive flexibility the-
ory, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acqui-
sition in ill-structured domains.” Educational Technology 31: 24–33.
Struyven, K., F. Dochy, S. Janssens, W. Schelfhout, and S. Gielen. 2006. “On the dynamics of
students’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment.” Learning
and Instruction 16: 279–294.
Trigwell, K. 2002. “Approaches to teaching design subjects: A quantitative analysis.” Art, Design
and Communication in Higher Education 21: 275–284.
Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and P. Taylor. 1994. “Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching
first year university science.” Higher Education 27: 75–84.
Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 1996. “Congruence between intention and strategy in science
teachers’ approach to teaching.” Higher Education 32: 77–87.
Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, P. Ramsden, and E. Martin. 1998. “Improving student learning through
a focus on the teaching context.” In Improving student learning, edited by C. Rust. Oxford:
Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse. 1999. “Relations between teachers’ approaches to
teaching and students’ approaches to learning.” Higher Education 37: 57–70.
Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 2004. “Development and use of the Approaches to Teaching
Inventory.” Educational Psychology Review 16: 409–424.
 Educational Research 15

Tillema, H. H., and L. Kremer-Hayon. 2002. “Practicing what we preach-teacher educators’

dilemma’s in promoting self-regulated learning: A cross case comparison.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 18: 593–607.
Wilson, K., A. Lizzio, and P. Ramsden. 1997. “The development, validation and application of
the Course Experience Questionnaire.” Studies in Higher Education 1: 33–53.