Studies in Higher Education

ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

Changing approaches to teaching: A relational

perspective

Keith Trigwell & Michael Prosser

To cite this article: Keith Trigwell & Michael Prosser (1996) Changing approaches to
teaching: A relational perspective, Studies in Higher Education, 21:3, 275-284, DOI:
10.1080/03075079612331381211

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079612331381211

Published online: 05 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1708

Citing articles: 152 View citing articles

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20
Studies in Higher Education Volume 21, No. 3, 1996 275

Changing Approaches to Teaching:

a relational perspective
KEITH TRIGWELL
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

MICHAEL PROSSER
La Trobe University, Australia

ABSTRACT Studies of student learning have shown that students' conceptions of learning are
strongly correlated with their approaches to study. Students who consider learning in quantitative
terms are likely to find it very difficult to adopt a deep approach to learning. This study looks at the
parallel situation for teachers. It looks at the conceptions of teaching and learning of a group of first
year science lecturers, and how those conceptions relate to their approaches to teaching. The results
also parallel those found for students. Strong relations are found between conceptions of teaching and
approaches to teaching. Relations between conceptions of teaching and conceptions of learning were
not so strong, but lecturers with highly developed conceptions of teaching differentiated between
teaching and learning in quite different ways to those with less well-developed conceptions. The
implications of these results for the practice and development of teaching in higher education are
discussed.

Introduction
Much of the research and development designed to help improve higher education teaching
has focused on the things that teachers do: their teaching strategies (Brown et aL, 1982;
Dunkin, 1983; Dunkin & B a m e s , 1986). T h e conceptions associated with particular ap-
proaches or strategies have rarely been the focus of research and/or development activities,
although Ramsden (1992) and McKenzie & Scott (1993) have begun to address such issues.
The research on student learning has shown the importance of shifting the focus from
learning approaches to learning conceptions in developing and improving the outcomes of
student learning. Marton & S/ili6 (1984) reported an association between students' concep-
tions of learning and their approaches to learning. Numerous qualitative and quantitative
studies have demonstrated assocations between approaches to learning and students' learning
outcomes (Biggs, 1993).
If these studies of the learning of students are any indication, investigations into the
relations between conceptions and approaches in teaching will greatly enhance our under-
standing of ways of improving teaching (and student learning). From his study of the
conceptions of learning of adult students, S~ilj6 reported that learning was seen in five
qualitatively different ways: (1) learning as a quantitative increase in knowledge; (2) learning
as memorising; (3) learning as the acquisition of facts, methods, etc. which can be retained
and used when necessary; (4) learning as the abstraction of meaning; and (5) learning as an

0307-5079/96/030275-10 © 1996 Society for Research into Higher Education

276 K. Trigwell & M. Prosser

interpretive process aimed at understanding reality (S~ilj6, 1979; Marton & S~ilj6, 1984).
Marton et al. (1993) have since found a sixth: learning as changing as a person.
Conceptions 1-3 are limiting. Without the ability to conceive of learning as being more
than a quantitative increase in knowledge, or memorising, students will have extreme
difficulty in adopting practices that lead to high quality learning. The results from the work
of M a r t o n & S/11j6 (1984) suggest that students who conceive of learning in a topic as a
quantitative increase in knowledge, or as memorising, are unlikely to be those who adopt a
deep approach to the learning of that topic. Conversely, students who conceive of learning as
the abstraction of meaning, or an interpretive process aimed at understanding reality, are
more likely m be those who adopt a deep approach to learning of that topic. Conceptions of
learning may be a factor that limits the approaches students can adopt to leaming. Other
factors include the students' perceptions of their learning context (Ramsden, 1992). Research
has also shown that deep approaches to learning are associated with higher quality learning
outcomes (van Rossum & Schenk, 1984; Prosser & Millar, 1989; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991).
Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that the ways students conceive of learning may have
important implications not only for their approaches to leaming, but also for the quality of
their learning outcome.
Studies of similar relations in teaching between teachers' conceptions of teaching and
approaches to teaching have not previously been reported. Several investigations have been
conducted into conceptions of university teaching in the last 5 years (Dall'Alba, 1990;
Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Kember & Gow, 1994) but none have differentiated between
approaches to and conceptions of teaching. Trigwell & Prosser (1996) have investigated the
congruence between intention and strategy of university science teachers' approaches to
teaching in their first year science courses. Our study drew upon the results from previous
phenomenographic studies which identified qualitatively different approaches to teaching.
The results confirmed the proposed relationship between intention and strategy, and showed
that a student-focused strategy was associated with a conceptual change intention, while a
teacher-focused strategy was associated with an information transfer intention. We conclude
that the traditional form of academic development focusing on teaching strategies (for
example, activity-based strategies) is unlikely to be successfffl without an ongoing focus on
the intentions which are associated with the strategy.
The results of these earlier studies have prompted this research. If teachers' conceptions
of teaching and/or learning are related to their approaches to teaching, the task of improving
teaching may be significantly more difficult than anticipated.
This paper describes research into relations between conceptions of teaching and
learning, and approaches to teaching, of first year university science teachers. It is one
component of a broader investigation into relations between teaching contexts, teachers'
conceptions and approaches, and links with student learning approaches and outcomes. In
the following section, we review the results ofphenomenographic studies aimed at identifying
the ranges of conceptions of teaching and learning and approaches to teaching adopted by
first year university science teachers. Subsequent sections report the correlations between
these categories of description, the consequences of such relations for teaching development
and student learning, and the development of programmes designed to improve teaching
which are based on these results.

Phenomenographic Studies of First Year Science Teaching

Teachers' approaches to teaching and conceptions of teaching and learning in first year
university physics and chemistry courses have been constituted from an analysis of the
 Changing Approaches to Teaching 277

transcripts of the 24 staff interviewed (TrigweU et al., 1994; Prosser et al., 1994). The
categories of description found in those studies are summarised below. Each set of the
categories of description has a logical structure. For the approaches to teaching, analysis was
in terms of the strategies teachers adopt for their teaching and the intention underlying the
strategies.

Approaches to Teaching
Approach A: a teacher-focused strategy v¢ith the intention of transmitting information to
students.
Approach B: a teacher-focused strategy with the intention that students acquire the concepts
of the discipline.
Approach C: a teacher/student interaction strategy with the intention that students acquire
the concepts of the discipline.
Approach D: a student-focused strategy aimed at students developing their conceptions.
Approach E: a student-focused strategy aimed at students changing their conceptions.
For the conceptions of learning and teaching, the logical structure is made up of two
components: what is being focused on and how it is being focused on. So, for example, in
conception of learning A, the 'what' or the focus is on accumulating more information, and
it is being focused on ('how') in terms of the external requirements or demands of the course.

Conceptions of Learning
Conception A: leaming as accumulating more information to satisfy external demands.
Conception B: learning as acquiring concepts to satisfy external demands.
Conception C: learning as acquiring concepts to satisfy internal demands.
Conception D: learning as conceptual development to satisfy internal demands.
Conception E: learning as conceptual change to satisfy internal demands.

Conceptions of Teaching
Conception A: teaching as transmitting concepts of the syllabus.
Conception B: teaching as transmitting the teachers' knowledge.
Conception C: teaching as helping students to acquire concepts of the syllabus.
Conception D: teaching as helping students to acquire teachers' knowledge.
Conception E: teaching as helping students to develop conceptions.
Conception F: teaching as helping students to change conceptions.
The 'what' and 'how' components of each of the conceptions of teaching and learning are
shown in Fig. 1. Conceptions A - F and A - E respectively are constituted from these compo-
nents. Fig. 1 also shows two other features: internal relations between conceptions and the
structure of the hierarchy within the sets of conceptions.
The internal relations between conceptions of teaching and conceptions of learning are
shown by the links 1-4. By internal relations we mean that the 'how' component of the
conceptions of teaching is defined in relation to the 'what' component of the conceptions of
learning. T h a t is, the two sets are defined in relation to each other.
The hierarchical nature of each set of categories of description is also shown in Fig. 1 by
the labels 1-4, with 1 being the least sophisticated, and 4 the most sophisticated. The
hierarchical nature and inclusiveness of the conceptions of teaching are also encapsulated in
278 K. Trigwell & M. Prosser

Teachers' experience of teaching and learning

I
I i
Conceptions of teaching Conceptions of learning
I I
I I I I
What How What How

syllabus ~ transmitting ~ t~ accumulate ~ satisfy

information A~ external
B --C helping students ~ 2 ~B demands
teachers' ~ D~ acquire ~ acquire concepts <"~'~C
knowledge D~ satisfy
~E ~ helping students, 3 developconceptions / ~ internal
students' develop jE demands
knowledge--F~ ~ c h a n g e conceptions/
helping students ~ 4
change
FIG. 1. Internal structure and relations within the teachers' experience of teaching and learning.

the following description focusing on the 'how' component of the categories. Again the
numbers 1-4 refer to the numbers in Fig. 1.

The purposes of teaching are to increase knowledge through the transmission of

information (1) in order to help students acquire the concepts of the discipline (2),
develop their conceptions (3), and change their conceptions (4).

Teachers who work with the most sophisticated conception see all four 'how' components as
a part of their teaching and may describe teaching as in the paragraph above. Those who
work with the most limiting conception may not see beyond the first 'how' component (the
purposes of teaching are to increase knowledge through the transmission of information).
Similarly, the hierarchical nature and inclusiveness of the conceptions of learning are
encapsulated in the following description focusing on the 'what' component of the categories.
The numbers 1-4 again refer to the same numbered links in Fig. 1.

Knowledge is increased through accumulation of information (1) such that students

will acquire the concepts of the discipline (2), develop their conceptions (3)~ and
change their conceptions (4).

The common component of the categories of descriptions of approaches to teaching and

conceptions of learning and teaching is the range of ways of describing the teaching/learning
process. In all three sets, the accumulation or transmission of information forms the focus of
the lowest or A-level. More sophisticated approaches or conceptions share a focus on
conceptual development or conceptual change.
The relations between internal structures of teachers' conceptions of teaching and
conceptions of learning are exemplified in the common structure of the two statements
above, and the links (1-4) shown in Fig. 1.
 Changing Approaches to Teaching 279

Results
External Relations
This study is also about how each of these conceptions of teaching and learning and
approaches to teaching relate to each other. T h e r results are given in Tables I-III. T h e
n u m b e r s in the tables are the distribution of individual transcripts after they have been
allocated to the highest possible level. I n some, the distinction between the categories was n o t
clear, and they have b e e n represented in the tables as an undifferentiated category (for
example, B/C). U s i n g this m e t h o d , all 24 transcripts were classifiable. T h e place of the
undifferentiated categories in the order of the conceptions used in the tables can be d e d u c e d
from Fig. 1.

TABLEI. Relations between conceptions of teaching and approaches to teaching

Approach to teaching
Conception of teaching A A/J3 & B C D E Total
A 6 6
A/B &A/C 2 1 3
B&C 5 1 6
B/D & C/D 1 1 1 3
D 2 2 4
E 1 1
F 1 1
Total 14 5 3 1 1 24
Spearman p = 0.79, p<0.001.

TABLE II. Relations between conceptions of teaching and conceptions of learning

Conceptions of learning

Conception of teaching A A/B & B B/C & C D E Total

A 5 1 6
A/B &A/C 2 1 3
B&C 1 3 2 6
B/D & C/I) 1 1 1 3
D 1 2 1 4
E 1 1
F 1 1
Total 9 6 6 2 1 24
Spearman p = 0.68, p < 0.001.

T a b l e I shows a large and statistically significant relationship between conceptions of

teaching a n d approaches to teaching. T a b l e II also shows a large and statistically significant
relationship between conceptions of teaching and conceptions of learning. Finally, T a b l e III
shows a smaller, b u t statistically significant, relationship between conceptions of learning a n d
approaches to teaching.
280 K. Trigwell & M. Prosser

TABLE IIL Relations between conceptions of learning and approaches to

teaching
Approach to teaching
Conception of learning A A/B & B C D E Total
A 7 1 1 9
AfB&B 3 2 1 6
B/C & C 4 1 1 6
D 1 1 2
E 1 1
Total 14 5 3 1 1 24
Spearman p = 0.45, p < 0.05.

Internal Relations between Conceptions of Teaching and Learning

T h e relationship b e t w e e e n the teachers' conceptions o f teaching a n d their conceptions o f
learning in T a b l e II shows a high and significant correlation. While this result highlights the
essentially external relationship b e t w e e n the two sets of conceptions, it hides an interesting
variation in the way in which staff describe the internal relations.
F i g u r e 1 summarises the internal relations b e t w e e n the ' h o w ' c o m p o n e n t o f conceptions
o f teaching a n d the ' w h a t ' c o m p o n e n t of conceptions of learning. F r o m interviews there is
evidence o f variation in the way individual teachers conceived o f this relationship. T h e y
described the internal relations in one of three ways: b y focusing on only one side o f the
relationship (e.g. teaching), or on b o t h sides in an unrelated way, or on b o t h sides in a related
way. I n the first case they are seeing only one part o f the whole relationship, in the second,
the two parts (teaching and learning) independently, a n d in the third, seeing teaching a n d
learning as two parts o f the same whole.
Quotations illustrating this variation are arranged below, such that the sophistication o f
the relation conceptions increases from first to last. T h e first two quotations c o m e from
transcripts representing conceptions A and B, while the final two quotations c o m e from the
two transcripts representing conceptions E and F. T h e quotations c o m e from lengthy
p h e n o m e n o g r a p h i c interviews in which all the staff interviewed were asked the same core
questions with variation in the follow-up questions. T h e content of these quotations is
consistent with the interviewees' responses to the core questions. I n these extracts,
I = interviewer, L = lecturer.
T h e first type of response came from staff who could describe teaching, b u t some h a d
distinct difficulty in defining learning. In some cases, there was no response to a specific
question on w h a t l e a m i n g m e a n s in first year science, a n d in others a focus on the o u t c o m e s
o f learning or the m e a s u r e m e n t o f learning.

I: W h a t do you m e a n b y learning in this subject?

L : Well, w h a t do I m e a n b y learning? M U M B L E S W h a t do I m e a n i s . . . i s . . . I
s u p p o s e m e a s u r e d , . . , b y . . . b y w h a t the s t u d e n t can do at the e n d o f the
subject.

I: So w h a t do y o u think learning is?

L : Well I d o n ' t t h i n k that is s o m e t h i n g that I can answer at all. W h a t do y o u w a n t
to do? W h a t we could do is say, if the exams a r e n ' t testing whether the students
have learnt, what would? A n d you might be able to extract an answer.
 Changing Approaches to Teaching 281

The second type of response described and clearly differentiated between teaching and
learning, and saw little connection between what the teacher did and what the student did.
I: What do you mean by learning in this course?
L: OK, what I mean by, what I hope the students to learn from this course is first
of all the vocabulary and the basics of chemistry, then, then to be able to use
those basics to solve problems. In addition to that I hope they learn to see that
chemistry is fun, enjoyable and people can be enthusiastic about it.
I: And what do you think teaching is?
L: T o transmit to the students all those things in a palatable manner, in a way that
they are prepared to listen.
Only two members of staff gave the third type of response. They saw teaching and
learning as different processes, but inextricably linked:
I: In a sentence, could you say what learning is, and could you say what teaching
is?
L: Very simple. The process of learning is a process of invention. The process of
teaching is a process of facilitating or coaching or guiding that process of
invention.
I: What do you mean by learning?
L: It's taking in new knowledge, and organising it in a sensible way, and that's what
I hope it is anyway.
I: And what do you think teaching is in this course?
L: Helping students to learn. Setting u p . . . the environment to help them learn,
providing the facilities for learning, encouraging learning.
In summary these results show that teachers with sophisticated conceptions of teaching
and learning see teaching and learning as a whole, while those with less sophisticated
conceptions see only the parts.

Discussion

Conceptual and Theoretical Implications

The results show consistency in teachers' conceptions and approaches. In general they show
that those teachers who conceive of learning as information accumulation to meet external
demands also conceive of teaching as transmitting information to students, and approach
their teaching in terms of teacher-focused strategies. On the other hand, those teachers who
conceive of learning as developing and changing students' conceptions, conceive of teaching
in terms of helping students to develop and change their conceptions and approach their
teaching in a student-focused way.
These results are consistent with the idea that in order to change the way teachers
approach their teaching (to focus more on their students rather than their own performance),
they also need to change the way in which they conceive of learning and teaching. If the
results of student learning research are any guide, it is likely to be very difficult to change
teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning from the information tranmission views to
conceptual change views. Student learning research also suggests that environmental condi-
tions may lead teachers conceiving of teaching as conceptual change to adopt information
transmission approaches. Indeed, Table III shows that a number of teachers with more
sophisticated conceptions of learning (D and B/C & C) adopt lower level approaches to
teaching.
282 K. Trigwell & M. Prosser

T h e interview extracts included at the end of the results section above add interesting
detail to the relations between conceptions of teaching and conceptions of learning. The
relations described in these extracts are, to some extent, consistent with the categories
identified in the SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982). Teachers with the limiting
conceptions seemed to conceive of relations between teaching and learning in a unistructural
way. T h e y could explain what they meant by teaching, but having done that they could not
see the point of explaining what they meant by learning. Higher up the hierarchy, teachers
were able to explain what they meant by teaching and by learning, but explained them
independently of each other. That is, they did not seem to acknowledge that the way they
thought about their teaching should be related to the way they thought about students'
learning. This is essentially a multistructural conception of teaching and learning. Finally,
those teachers with the most sophisticated conceptions were able to explain what teaching
meant to them, and what learning meant to them, but in a way which related the two--a
relational conception of learning and teaching.

Implications for the Practice of Teaching

In earlier works (Prosser & Trigwell, 1993; Trigwell et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996)
we discussed the implications for teaching of the congruence between teaching intentions and
strategies. Similiar implications arise from the results of this study, reinforcing the idea that,
in academic development, the focus should be more on the way academic staff conceive of
teaching and learning, and less on teaching strategies. Conceptualisation is likely to be a
precondition of good teaching, but teaching staff are unlikely to adopt approaches to teaching
which reach beyond the sophistication of their conceptions. If staff reject the higher level
approaches to teaching because of a lack of congruence with their conceptions of teaching
and learning, then hoped for improvements in the quality of student learning are unlikely to
OCCUr.
An illustration of the implications for teaching in the relations between conceptions and
approaches to teaching is given in the extracts from interviews in the following paragraphs.
In their interviews, about one half of the lecturers raised the topic of the use of questions in
teaching (their own questions and those from students) as part of their approach to teaching.
Follow-up interview questions focused on how and why they used questions in their classes.
All those staff whose comments suggest they adopt limiting conceptions of teaching and
learning in their first year teaching saw questions as being irrelevant or superficial in lectures.
Staff who adopt more sophisticated conceptions saw questions as an integral and important
part of helping students learn.
T h e first two quotations on the use of questions come from science staff who adopt
limiting conceptions of teaching in their first year teaching.
It isn't always possible [to ask questions] because when you are conveying a set of
facts then there isn't an opportunity to ask questions other than 'What did I just
say?'
Oh, when I ask a question it's almost always a rhetorical question. Students [like]
to ask a lot of non-rhetorical questions, but I don't like to treat a lecture like a school
class where I want someone in the audience to answer this question.
T h e next two quotations are from staff adopting the more sophisticated conceptions of
teaching, E and F respectively, in their first year teaching.
Yes, I do a lot of questioning. Some of it is directed specifically for an answer there
and then or an exploration there and then. One of the things about my questioning
 Changing Approaches to Teaching 283

is that I ' m not necessarily interested in the person who's got the right answer. I
notice that people are often reluctant to say anything unless they've got the right
answer already, in which case what's the value of that? I ' m much more interested in
directing the questions and engaging with people where they are exploring, and are
prepared to think on the spot.

[I would do a demonstration and] say, 'Look, I ' m going to do this. What's going to
happen?' And then do it. And what happens is different to what most people are
going to guess. So you get them thinking about that and quite often they would get
the answer wrong. I then say, 'Hey, that's homework--go and think about that for
next time'.

Staff who adopt limiting conceptions and low-level approaches to teaching see little or no
value in the use of questions in lectures. This response is entirely consistent with the idea that
it is the transmission of the information that is most important to them. Books on teaching
in higher education in recent years have been recommending, among other things, the use of
more sophisticated questioning to improve student learning, without taking account of these
limiting conceptions. For example, Gibbs & Habeshaw (1989) describe the ineffectiveness of
questions such as ' D o you have any questions?' Instead they advocate that teachers adopt
questioning strategies based upon students discussing the question with each other. While
such suggestions will make sense to staff who adopt sophisticated conceptions, this research
suggests that such advice will not change the practice of the staff with limiting conceptions
of teaching and learning.
Activities aimed at changing approaches to teaching in order to improve student learning
need to take account of these fundamental relationships between approaches to teaching and
conceptions of teaching.

Designing Programmesfor Conceptual Change in Teachers in Higher Education

The quotations collected during the phenomenographic study reported here and elsewhere,
and the results of the analysis of that study have been used in the design and implementation
of teaching development programmes.
Our own teaching development activities (Prosser & Trigwelt, 1995; Trigwell, 1995) are
structured to help the participants examine their own experiences and those of their students.
They also seek to help the participants see variation within the experience as a way of helping
them change their way of seeing teaching. Staff are made aware of the results of the research
through their own experience of analysing the interview data. T h e data have been carefully
selected so that staff are more likely to 'see' what the researchers 'saw'.
A development tool making explicit use of the relations between conceptions of teaching
and approaches to teaching is a series of videos: 'Teaching matters' (McKenzie & Scott,
1993). The videos show staff discussing the connections between their conceptions of
teaching and the short extracts of their classroom approaches to teaching.
These programmes exemplify the message of this research which is that, in designing
programmes for teachers in higher education, a major focus needs to be on helping staff
examine and change their conceptions of teaching and learning.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the funding support from the Australian Research Council for this
284 K. Trigwell & M. Prosser

project, a n d c o m m e n t s f r o m F e r e n c e M a t r o n o n the internal relations b e t w e e n conceptions

o f teaching and learning.

Correspondence: Keith Trigwell, Associate Professor and Director, C e n t r e for Learning and
T e a c h i n g , University o f T e c h n o l o g y , Sydney, P O Box 123, Broadway 2007, Australia. Email:
krt@uts.edu.au

REFERENCES
BIGGS, J.B. (1993) From theory to practice: a cognitive systems approach, Higher Education Research and
Development, 12, pp. 73-85.
BIGGS, J.B. & COLLIS, K.F. (1982) Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO Taxonomy (New York,
Academic Press).
BROWN, G.A., BAKHTER,M. & YOUNGMAN,M.B. (1982) Towards a Typology of Lecturing Styles (Nottingham,
University of Nottingham).
DALL'AL~, G. (1990) Foreshadowing conceptions of teaching, Research and Developmentin HigherEducation,
13, pp. 293-297.
DUNKIN, M.J. (1983) A review of research on lecturing, Higher Education Research and Development, 2, pp.
63-78.
DL~r.~, MJ. & BARNES, J. (1986) Research on teaching in higher education, in: M. WrrixOCK (Ed.)
Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd edn, pp. 754-777 (New York, Macmillan).
GIBBS, G. & HABESHAW,T. (1989) Preparing to Teach (Bristol, Technical and Educational Services Ltd).
KEMBER, D. & GOW, L. (1994) Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning,
ffournal of Higher Education, 65, pp. 59-74.
MARTON,F., DALL'ALBA,G. & BEATY,E. (1993) Conceptions of learning, InternationalJournal of Educational
Research, 19, pp. 277-300.
MARTON, F. & SALJO,R. (1984) Approaches to learning, in: F. MARTON,D. HOLrNSELL& N. J. EI',rlXVISTLE
(Eds) The Experience of Learning, pp. 36-55 (Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press).
MCKENZlE, J. & Scorrr, G. (1993) Teaching matters: making a video on teaching in higher education,
Research and Development in Higher Education, 16, pp. 419-424.
PROSSER, M. & MILLAR, R. (1989) The how and what of learning physics, European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 4, pp. 513-528.
PROSSER,M. & TRIGWELL,K. (1993) Development of an approaches to teaching questionnaire, Research and
Development in Higher Education, 15, pp. 468-473.
PROSSER, M. & TRIGWELL, K. (1995) Using phenomenography in the design of programs for teachers in
higher education, paper presented at the Sixth Conference of the European Association for Research in
Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen, August.
PROSSER, M., TRIGWELL,K. & TAYLOR,P. (1994) A phenomenographic study of academics' conceptions of
science learning and teaching, Learning and Instruction, 4, pp. 217-232.
RAMSDEN, P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London, Routledge).
SALJ0, R. (1979) Learning in the Learner's Perspective. 1. Some Common-sense Conceptions, reports from the
Department of Education, University of Gothenburg (Gothenburg, Department of Education and
Educational Research, University of Gothenburg).
SAMUELOWlCZ,K. & BARN,J.D. (1992) Conceptions of teaching held by teachers, Higher Education, 24, pp.
93-112.
TRIGWELL,K. (1995) Increasing faculty understanding of teaching, in: W. A. WRIGHT(Ed.) SuccessfulFaculty
Development Strategies, pp. 76-100 (New York, Anker).
TRIGWELL, K. & PROSSER,M. (1991) Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning
context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes, Higher Education, 22, pp. 251-266.
TRIGWELL, K. & PROSSER, M. (1996) Congruence between intention and strategy in science teachers'
approach to teaching, Higher Education, 32, pp. 77-87.
TRIGWELL~ K., PROSSER~M. & TAYLOR~P. (1994) Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year
university science, Higher Education, 2% pp. 75-84.
VANROSSUM,E.J. & SCHENK,S.M. (1984) The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and
learning outcome, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, pp. 73-83.