Teaching in Higher Education

1
Teaching in Higher Education

• Theory Practice

2
Theory and practice

• What is the relationship between theory and
  practice?
• The teaching/research nexus assumptions.
• McLeanTrigwell (2003). Limited uptake of theory
  theory is misunderstood?
• Deep Surface paradigm students and teachers
  approaches to TL.
• Problems with this body of research?
• Assumption that good teaching will lead to better
  student learning (measuring categories not
  change!)
• Approaches/Intentions v actual practices (Murray
  1983).
• What can we learn from different sets of
  findings?

3

• Purpose of improving teaching is to improve
  student learning.
• Popular theory Deep Surface paradigm
  (intention to memorise v intention to understand
  (e.g.Marton Saljo 1976).
• This approach/intention is influenced by
  contextual factors such as gender, culture,
  expectations more immediate teaching
  environment.
• Teachers conceptions of teaching shown to relate
  to deep surface conceptions of learning in
  students (ATI, 1995). Prosser Trigwell, 1999
  Trigwell et al, 2005).
• Teaching as transmission (IT/TF)
• Teaching as transformative (CC/SF).
• Distinction- What can I do for students, v
  What can I get the students to do?

4
ATI (e.g.) items.
from Trigwell, Prosser Ginns (2005).
5
Correlation between teachers' approach to
teaching and students' approach to learning
(Trigwell, et al., 1998).
plt.05, n55.
6
Useful theory?

• Well replicated - strong relationships found.
• But -
• Research tends to look at stated intentions and
  approaches (what is believed/preferred).
• Descriptive/analytic not causal/explanatory.
• Samuelowicz Bain (1992). Found that lecturers
  espoused beliefs about teaching did not transfer
  into practice except when main focus was on
  transmission of information.
• Do changes in approaches to teaching lead to
  changes in approaches to learning?
• What else might be important?

7
Low-Inference Teaching Behaviours (Murray, 1983).

• What do lecturers actually do?
• What practices might be characteristic of the
  more highly rated lecturer?
• Independent observers observe teaching staff on
  frequency of specific behaviours (TBI).
• 55 lecturers grouped Low, Medium or High,
  on basis of previous years student ratings
  (SSS/Student Evaluation of Teaching quaire).
• What behaviours were relevent?
• Do these behaviours tally with approaches to
  learning/teaching research findings?

8
T.B.I. 60 items 8 categories.

• Speech (inc. slowly quickly, monotone, mumbles)
• Non-verbal Behaviour (body language expression
  gestures)
• Explanation (presentation, clarity, key points)
• Organisation (structure of sessions/lectures)
• Interest (lecturers observed enthusiasm
  for/involvement with the subject)
• Task Orientation (clear learning objectives exam
  guidance focussed does not wander off subject)
• Rapport (concerned, sensitive, friendly
  personable).
• Participation (interaction involves students in
  sessions).

9
Findings.
Scale 1 almost never - 5 almost always
10
BEHAVIOUR Lecturer rating F
11
BEHAVIOUR
Lecturer Rating F
12

• This research suggests that highly rated teachers
  display behaviours which are both deep and
  surface.
• But this cannot tell us what their (or students)
  conceptions of learning might be (although
  students taught by highly rated lecturers tended
  to have better exam grades).
• Deep Surface present ideal types real life?
• Assessment patterns strategic learners?
• Practices findings (here!) suggest highest
  ratings awarded to enthusiastic, energetic and
  expressive lecturers teaching v
  personalityscholarship?
• Speak emphatically, show strong interest and
  express important points!
• Interest leads to greater attention and therefore
  helps engage students.
• .

13
Summary

• Limitations of theory but-
• Research findings important and useful for
  highlighting variability within categories.
• Useful in reflexivity developmental exercises
  (peer observations).
• Strivens (2007). Reflexivity is key to improving
  teaching!

14
Useful References

• Murray, G. (1983). Low-Inference Classroom
  Teaching Behaviours Student Ratings of College
  Teaching Effectiveness. In Journal of Educational
  Psychology. 75,1,138-149.
• Trigwell, K. Prosser, M. Ginns, P. (2005).
  Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised
  Approaches to Teaching Inventory. In Higher
  Education, Research Development. 24, 4,
  349-360.
• Strivens, J. (2007). What theory should we use if
  any? Interpreting scholarship on programmes for
  new university teachers. In PRIME. 2, 2, 81-90.
  (http//www.hope.ac.uk/learningandteaching/downloa
  ds/prime/pr2_2.pdf)