FACULTY BELIEFS, INTENTIONS, AND ACTIONS
IN OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY EDUCATION
A dissertation presented to
the faculty of
the College of Education of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Edward C. Kehres
June 2007
This dissertation titled
FACULTY BELIEFS, INTENTIONS, AND ACTIONS IN
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY EDUCATION
by
EDWARD C. KEHRES
has been approved for
the Department of Counseling and Higher Education
and the College of Education by
______________________________________________
Marc Cutright
Associate Professor of Higher Education
______________________________________________
Renée A. Middleton
Dean, College of Education
Abstract
KEHRES, EDWARD C., Ph.D., June 2007, Higher Education
FACULTY BELIEFS, INTENTIONS, AND ACTIONS IN OCCUPATIONAL
THERAPY EDUCATION (112 pp.)
Director of dissertation: Marc Cutright
This study of 236 full-time Occupational Therapy faculty members from
accredited OT programs in the United States identified beliefs, intentions, and actions in
a classroom setting using the Teacher Perspectives Inventory. Occupational Therapy
educators reported the highest mean intention and action scores in the Apprenticeship and
Developmental perspectives and the highest mean belief score in the Nurturing
perspective. The factors years of teaching experience and Carnegie Classification
institutional type were not found to be of significant difference in results, but a significant
difference was found between intentions and actions in each perspective. The most
significant implication for practice was the amount of reported actions in the
Transmission perspective even though faculty reported less intention in the classroom.
Supplemental analyses of master’s and doctoral institutions were completed, indicating a
significant difference between pre- and late-tenure faculty in Transmission beliefs. This
result suggests that a change in beliefs about classroom teaching practices is occurring
from a teacher-centered to student-centered environments.
Approved: _____________________________________________________
Marc Cutright
Associate Professor of Higher Education
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………… 3
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………… 6
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………….8
Chapter 1: Introduction ……………………………………………………….……..9
Statement of the Problem …………………………………………............15
Significance of the Problem ………………………………………………16
Research Questions ...…………………………………………………….16
Delimitations of the Study ……………………………….……………….17
Limitations of the Study. ..………………………………………………...17
Definition of Terms ……………………………………………………….18
Outline of the Study …………………………………………….................19
Chapter 2: Literature Review …………………………………………………....... 21
Introduction ……………………………………………………..................21
Teacher Beliefs …………………………………………………………....24
Teacher Intentions and Actions …………………………………………...28
Teaching Perspectives …………………………………………………….32
Occupational Therapy Education …………………………………………36
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………...38
Chapter 3: Methodology …………………………………………………………...40
Operational Definitions of Variables ..……………………………………40
Identification of the Population …………………………………………..41
Identification of the Instrument …………………………………………..44
Data Collection Procedures ………………………………………………48
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………….….49
Chapter 4: Results ……………………………………………………………….... 53
Demographics of Sample.……………..……………………………….…..53
Item Reliability Analysis ………………………………………….………59
Research Questions ……………………………………………….………60
Supplemental Analysis ………………………………………….………...70
Comparison to Nursing Educators ………………………………….…….83
5
Chapter 5: Discussion, Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ………… 85
Implications for Practice…………………………………………………...90
Directions for Further Research……………………………………………91
References ………………………………………………………………………… 94
Appendix A - Teaching Perspectives Inventory…………………………………. 105
Appendix B – IRB Approval Letter……………………………………………….111
6
List of Tables
Table
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
Page
Carnegie Classification of Occupational Therapy Programs …….. 42
Accreditation Region of Occupational Therapy Programs ………. 43
Gender of Occupational Therapy Faculty ………………………… 44
Teaching Perspectives Inventory …………………………………. 46
Gender of Respondents…………………………………………
54
Highest Degree Achieved – Respondents and Population……… 54
Highest Degree Achieved of Respondents and Carnegie
Classification Crosstabulation…………………………………… 55
Primary Role of Respondents……………………………………. 55
Carnegie Classification – Comparison of Respondents and
Population………………………………………………………… 56
Accreditation Region - Comparison of Respondents and
Population ……………………………………………………..… 56
Years of Teaching Experience of Respondents…………………. 57
Years Practicing of Respondents ………………………………
58
Number and Percentage Time Teaching of Respondents ………… 58
Years of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Classification
Crosstabulation …………………………………………………… 59
Item Reliability Statistics for each Dimension of Each Perspective .60
Teaching Perspective Dimensions of Respondents ……………… 61
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Classification
on Beliefs ………………………………………………………….. 62
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Classification
on Intentions ..…………………………………………………….. 64
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Classification
on Actions …..…………………………………………………….. 66
Difference Between Intentions and Actions ………………………. 67
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Classification
on Intentions Minus Actions ..…………………………………….. 69
Main Effects of Teaching Experience in Doctoral and Master's
Level Carnegie Classification on Transmission Beliefs ………… 71
Transmission Beliefs in Doctoral and Master Level Education …. 72
Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive Demographics ……… 73
Teaching Perspectives Dimensions: Doctoral Extensive and
Doctoral Intensive Faculty ……………………………………….. 74
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on
Beliefs: Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive Faculty …….. 75
Transmission Beliefs in Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral
Intensive Faculty …………………………………………………. 76
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on
Intentions: Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive Faculty ….. 77
7
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
4.29
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on
Actions: Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive Faculty …….. 79
Intentions Minus Actions: Doctoral Extensive an Doctoral
Intensive Faculty ………………………………………………….. 80
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on
Intentions Minus Actions: Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive
Faculty …………………………………………………………….. 82
Teaching Perspective Dimensions: Nursing Educators …………… 83
Nursing Educators Demographics ………………………………… 84
8
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1 – Pratt's General Model of Teaching …………………………… 34
Figure 4.1 – Beliefs in Developmental Perspective ……………………….. 70
9
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Student achievement in higher education appears to be high on the priority list of
many of the stakeholders of higher education institutions, including governing boards,
faculty, administration, community leaders, and students themselves. For example, the
Ohio Board of Regents (OBR) used student achievement, including graduation rates, as a
benchmark for institutional effectiveness and at times provided incentives for high marks
in this area. Studies are frequently completed measuring and describing student
achievement through the use of assessments of development of critical thinking skills and
reflective judgment (King & Kitchener, 1994) and intellectual and ethical development
(Perry, 1999). Until recently, much of the focus of research has been on student
achievement and not on the instructors who teach them.
Faculties in many departments in colleges and universities have rarely had any
formal education relating to teaching methods, classroom management, or evaluation of
students (Kalivoda, Broder & Jackson, 2003). In the United Kingdom, Pirrie (2001) noted
there is a push to follow medicine’s lead to provide evidence for teaching practices in
higher education. Whether legitimate or not, this argument will provide some impetus
for further research into how and why academics teach what they teach. Pirrie (2001)
also noted that evidence-based practice in education is complex, inter-related, and
contextual and is therefore difficult if not impossible to measure and evaluate effectively
and efficiently.
Hativa (1997) noted that tertiary teachers have had no formal training to prepare
them for their role as a teacher and as such have relied on informal ways to improve their
10
teaching skills. Individual faculty members are frequently hired based on their content
knowledge of the subject or the amount of research completed in a field of study and not
on the ability to deliver lectures, to make the subject matter interesting for students, or
use diverse teaching methods. Quinlan (2002) and Lueddeke (2003) noted that most
academics are more committed to their profession than to the profession of teaching and
learning; therefore, they are more apt to focus faculty development towards their
individual professions and not on their conceptions or beliefs of the teaching-learning
process. Schonwetter, Sokal, Friensen, and Taylor (2002) noted that it appears that most
teachers have not developed their own personal philosophy of teaching as many failed to
include their philosophy with a faculty application as requested.
A higher education instructor’s teaching abilities are often evaluated through the
use of student evaluations at the end of a course, self-evaluation through reflection of
teaching or by dean and peer evaluations. Student and dean evaluations are typically
used by universities to evaluate teaching effectiveness and are usually used in promotion
decisions along with service to the university and amount of conducted research. Much of
the feedback academics receive can, but not necessarily will, be used to improve teacher
performance in the classroom. Although not a requirement, the recommendations of
these evaluations can be reviewed by the individual faculty member to encourage
development of improved teaching and evaluation methods of students.
The ability of a university faculty member to self-evaluate their own performance
to improve teaching skills remains questionable (Akerlind, 2003; Cranton & Carusetta,
2004). Studies have been performed using a variety of methods, both qualitative and
quantitative methodologies, to look at effective or exemplary teachers' thoughts, actions,
11
methods and/or beliefs regarding classroom practices. What a teacher believes regarding
the interaction of teaching and learning and the effect on student outcomes has
implications on classroom practices and his/her approach to teaching. Several studies
(Akerlind, 2004; Kember, 1997; Martin, Prosser, Trigwell, Ramsden, & Benjamin, 2000;
Prosser, Ramsden, Trigwell, & Martin, 2003; Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999)
have noted students will take a deep approach to learning when a teacher takes a studentcentered approach to teaching. When teachers used a more teacher-centered approach,
their students tended to use a surface approach to learning.
Trigwell and Prosser (2004) and Kember (1997) reported a positive correlation
between a student-centered approach by the teacher and student learning outcomes.
Norton (2005) noted that the student-centered approach was more in line with learning
facilitation and the teacher-centered approach was more about imparting information to
students. Norton also noted that lecture-style teaching was mainly giving information to
students with less emphasis on student interaction and was less supportive of self-directed
learning. Norton (2005), Trigwell and Prosser (2004), and Kember (1997) supported the
idea that teacher’s taking a student-centered approach improved student outcomes. This
seems to be contrary to Murray and MacDonald (1997) who studied lecturers and their
role in the learning process. In addition to giving students information about a topic, the
authors noted that lecturers in the study also believed their role was to include
motivating, facilitating, and supporting students and that imparting of information was
only part of their beliefs. However, Murray and Macdonald (1997) noted in their
discussion that the teacher’s beliefs do not appear to be evident in their teaching practice
12
possibly due to the objectives or intentions of the course or the education level of the
students that were being taught.
While some research has been completed using direct observation of teaching
practices (Hativa, Barak, & Simhi, 2001; Ho, Watkins, & Kelly, 2001; Martin et al.,
2000), most have been completed using an indirect or self-reported method of data
collection. While Murray and MacDonald (1997) found that lecturers’ beliefs about
educational practice did not reflect their actual practice in the classroom, their intention
did match their actions. For clarity, lecturers’ beliefs included supporting and motivating
students, but their intentions were to provide and impart information. Therefore, their
methods of instruction were more teacher-centered which required students to have
limited interaction and critical appraisal of the content that matched the intention of the
lecturer. Other researchers have noted that the teacher’s self-report of intentions actually
matched their observed practice indicating that there is congruency between self-report
and practice (Trigwell et al., 1999). However, Norton et al. (2005) noted that there is
incongruency between a teacher’s beliefs and his/her intentions due to influences of the
social and academic context.
Even though not discussed directly in the literature, educators in Occupational
Therapy programs appear to be no different than any other profession in that most are,
first and foremost devoted to the profession and secondly to teaching. Advertisements in
Advance (Brown, 2007), the American Journal of Occupational Therapy (Corcoran,
2007) and OT Practice (Collins, 2007) noted that experience in clinical practice,
advanced degrees and research within or related to the profession of occupational therapy
are required for a university appointment with minimal mention of teaching philosophy.
13
Tenure track appointments at most universities desire previous teaching experience, but
most will consider clinical practice or advanced degrees as a part of the content
knowledge required to teach. There is little, if any, training or education in classroom
management, student assessment or evaluation of personal epistemological beliefs
regarding the teaching-learning process (Lieberman, 2005).
Most of this “type” of education comes through trial and error experience,
continuing education coursework on teaching, and/or mentoring from a colleague in a
university setting. Even though some universities have a teaching-learning center on
campus or have access to a mentoring process, few, if any, require mandatory
participation by newly hired faculty (Lieberman, 2005). Although none of the above are
guarantees to improve teaching as it takes an individual to be self-motivated to complete
continuing education about the teaching-learning process and to use that knowledge to
improve his/her pedagogical approaches to teaching. Smyth (2003) and Ho, Watkins,
and Kelly (2001) found that even though conceptual change was difficult in university
teachers, it should be the focus of staff development activities due to the fact that other
research has found that a student-focused approach has improved depth of student
learning and improved student outcomes (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Martin et. al., 2000;
McAlpine & Weston, 2000; Prosser et al., 2003).
The Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI) was developed by Pratt (1992) as a
tool for self assessment of teaching beliefs and behavior as well as a means for staff
development and encouragement of institutional change. Additionally, the author has
reinforced the idea of “pluralism” regarding perspectives on teaching in that none of the
perspectives are considered best and that all have merit based on the situations and other
14
contextual factors of the students. Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy
Education (ACOTE) provides standards that have included words for student
performance such as demonstrate, articulate, and analyze various areas of occupational
therapy practice, but the teaching methods employed to achieve these objectives are
allowed to be devised by the faculty at any given institution (American Occupational
Therapy Association, 2007).
Occupational Therapy educators can use various techniques in classroom
activities including problem-based learning assignments, group projects, and small group
discussion as well as traditional lecture techniques to convey information to students.
Research regarding effectiveness or impact these methods have on student learning is
minimal outside of case studies or descriptive use with the exception of Bondoc (2005)
who described the need to employ evidence-based practices in occupational therapy
education. Descriptions of methods of instruction for occupational therapy and allied
medicine professions vary from traditional lecture techniques (Butler, 1992), to problembased learning (PBL) (McLoda, 2003), mastery learning (Martin, 1977; Wise & Vardi,
2005) and inquiry-based learning (Madill, Amort-Larson, Wilson, Brintnell, Taylor, &
Esmail, 2001). Traditional methods tend to take a teacher-centered, content-driven
approach to student learning whereas PBL, mastery learning, and inquiry-based methods
have taken a student-centered, concept-driven approach to student learning. The use of
PBL as a teaching method encourages the teacher to take the role of facilitator or a
learning process in which they are also a learner. The instructor can be an expert in the
subject, but that is not a requirement. Madill et al. (2001) described an inquiry-based
approach to student learning and found that students in introductory course work
15
displayed no difference in their learning from traditional counterparts, but significantly
improved on a junior-level course requiring critical thinking and problem solving skills.
Occupational Therapy education is a combination of contextual settings requiring
students to learn in classroom and perform in clinical settings. In both situations, the
development of critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and problem-solving skills are
encouraged by faculty through various methods of presentation. Lysaught and Bent
(2005) described four alternative methods of case presentation to students in a classroom
setting including printed text, videotape, live interviews, and CD-ROM movies. The
authors also noted that other than slight advantages and disadvantages, the choice of
presentation does not influence the student’s ability to develop clinical reasoning skills.
Statement of the Problem
Faculty in Occupational Therapy programs have many time demands in addition
to teaching including individual student needs, continuing education requirements, and
classroom/instruction preparation. Due to this time demand and other social and
institutional factors, self-reflection for teacher development may not be a high priority.
Much of the focus of research has been on student achievement and several authors have
noted that an instructor’s intentions and beliefs regarding teaching and learning in higher
education may or may not be reflected in his/her actions in the classroom (Murray &
MacDonald, 1997). Self-reflection assessments can be used to improve teaching/learning,
impact student achievement, and support evidence-based practice in higher education
(Bondoc, 2005; Pratt, 1998). The use of the Teaching Perspectives Inventory as a selfreflection instrument may identify staff development needs on an individual, institutional,
and professional level.
16
Significance of the Problem
Teachers in higher education have been described as being to be loyal first to their
profession and secondarily to the teaching process (Quinlan, 2002; Lueddeke, 2003).
Seemingly contradictory to the teaching mission of most universities, institutions of
higher education provide little education to teachers on the models and methods of
instruction of students (Lieberman, 2005). Research has shown that when a teacher
adopts a student-centered approach to teaching, that students tend to take a deep approach
to learning that resulted in improved student outcomes (Akerlind, 2004; Kember, 1997;
Martin et al., 2000; Prosser et al., 2003; Trigwell et al., 1999). A deep approach to
learning by students has also been associated with improved critical thinking and
problem-solving skills and an indication for life-long learning. One method to achieve a
student-centered approach to teaching is through self-reflective practice to challenge
teachers’ underlying beliefs regarding the teaching-learning process. Pratt (2005) has
noted that one of the major uses for the TPI is to encourage reflection of teaching beliefs,
intentions, and actions taken by teachers when approaching the classroom. Therefore, the
TPI can be used to allow occupational therapy faculty to reflect on his/her classroom
practices to improve student outcomes.
Research Questions
1. What are the teaching beliefs, intentions, and actions of faculty in occupational
therapy education programs?
2. Do demographic factors such as teaching experience and type of institution have
an influence on an occupational therapy educator’s beliefs in a classroom setting?
17
3. Do demographic factors such as teaching experience and type of institution have
an influence on an occupational therapy educator’s intentions in a classroom
setting?
4. Do demographic factors such as teaching experience and type of institution have
an influence on an occupational therapy educator’s actions in a classroom setting?
5. Is there a difference between teaching intentions and reported actions based on
years of teaching experience and type of institution amongst occupational therapy
educators?
Delimitations of the Study
Even though all full-time occupational therapy faculty members currently
practicing in programs throughout the United States were invited to participate in this
study, generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the response rate to the
survey and to occupational therapy educators who are currently employed. The subjects
that respond to the survey may actually skew the actual nature of the true population as
those who do respond may have a greater interest in improving their personal knowledge
of teaching or in the promotion and participation in research.
Limitations of the Study
Limitations to the study include a threat to internal validity including
instrumentation as Pratt (2005) described the use of the TPI as a tool for reflective
practice of teachers for the improvement of teaching in higher education and not a
measurement of actual teaching practice. Trigwell et al. (1999) noted that self-report of
methods is an adequate measure of actual practice. However, this study would be
improved if teachers' actions were confirmed by independent third party observers of
18
teaching practice. Kane et al. (2004) and Ho et al. (2001) noted that reflective practice is
the key to improving university teaching and therefore influencing student outcomes.
Definition of Terms
Occupational Therapy Faculty – the subjects included in this category include full-time
educators who have a university appointment in a currently accredited occupational
therapy program in the United States, not including Puerto Rico. All occupational
therapy accredited programs are required to have a supporting institution of higher
education or medical school as required by ACOTE Standard A.1.5
Teacher Perspective – Pratt (2005) has defined a teacher’s perspective of teaching as a
combination of intentions and actions with an overarching of underlying beliefs about the
epistemology of teaching and learning. Included in a teacher’s perspective are the
following terms as defined by Pratt:
Beliefs – represent the most stable and least flexible aspect of a person’s
perspective on teaching. Beliefs regarding knowledge and learning are, usually, the most
central of all beliefs related to teaching. Our beliefs about knowledge determine what we
will teach and what we will accept as evidence that people have learned (p. 21).
Intentions – are general statements that point toward an overall agenda or sense of
purpose. Intent…is a teacher’s statement of purpose, responsibility, and commitment
directed towards learners, content, context, ideals, or some combination of these (p. 18).
Actions – techniques, then, are activities which engage learners with the content
and which, it is assumed facilitate learning (p. 17).
19
Outline of the Study
In Chapter Two, current research and discussion articles regarding teacher beliefs,
intentions, and actions are reviewed including Trigwell and Martin’s (2004) approaches
to teaching and Pratt’s (2005) teaching perspectives. Many of the studies completed were
designed to identify current practice in higher education teaching and, therefore most
have qualitative, naturalistic, and phenomenological designs regarding exemplary
practice. The experimental and quasi-experimental designs were relating approaches to
teaching and approaches to learning and student outcomes. The majority of the studies
have identified the complex nature of teaching in higher education with intervening
factors including institutional and departmental demands for research, teaching and
service. Additionally, occupational therapy education is reviewed with the majority of
articles reporting methods of presentation with minimal description of teachers' beliefs or
intentions. As noted in the introduction, most faculty members in higher education are
more devoted to their profession than to the teaching and learning process (Lueddeke,
2003; Quinlan, 2002) and occupational therapy educators appear to be similar.
The use of the Teacher Perspectives Inventory (TPI) has been used with over
5,000 teachers as a tool for self-reflection and assistance in defining teaching philosophy
statements. This instrument is described in detail in Chapter Three along with population
identification, data collection and analysis procedures to support answering the research
questions noted above. The TPI is useful in the identification of teacher beliefs,
intentions and reported actions in the classroom as well as demographic data including
the institution and number of years teaching.
20
Chapter Four list the results of the TPI, the influence of the type of institution
and the number of years of teaching experience and whether or not there is a difference
between intentions and actions. Chapter Five is a discussion of the results including
conclusions supporting or not supporting the research questions. Additionally,
recommendations for practice and areas for further study are reported and discussed.
21
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
Introduction
The question of what teachers need to know about teaching is being critiqued and
discussed as whether or not teaching is a profession or a vocation (Winch, 2004). This
appears to be especially true in higher education as most faculties are trained in the
content of their profession and not in educational theory and practice. Schraw and
Olafson (2002) noted that teachers appear to hold three different epistemological views,
realism, contextualism, and relativism that influence his/her teaching. This was
additionally reinforced by McCombs (2002) that noted that the epistemological views of
teaching and learning were influenced by individual teacher preparations and their
willingness to participate in their own professional development. Even though both of
these studies were completed with primary and secondary teachers, there are implications
for teachers in higher education.
Faculties in higher education are evaluated in the three areas of research, teaching,
and service when creating a portfolio for promotion and tenure. Elton (1998) noted
teaching is not given the same contribution to the tenure process as research and further
recommends that the evaluation of teaching needs to have similar standards as for
research. This is most likely due to the different and sometimes competing definitions of
excellent teaching held by the individual, the institution, and the department. These
evaluations of teaching tend to be normative and not additive to the evaluation of
teaching. The quality of teaching tends to be defined in qualitative terms evaluated by
22
subjective measures of student, peer, and administrative assessments. This notion of
inequality between teaching and research is shared by findings of other studies that noted
the difficulty to focus on quality teaching when the emphasis is on the measurement of
completing and publishing research and number of grant dollars brought to the university
or department (Badley, 2002; Schon, 1995; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Wright, 2005).
Boyer (1991) noted that act of teaching needs to be re-evaluated in order that
universities can value the mission of educating students as much as that of research. Part
of the scholarship of research was communicating the process and results through
teaching the newly acquired knowledge (Boyer, 1991). In the United Kingdom, there is a
growing body of interest in the process and conceptualization of teaching in higher
education. Using Boyer’s work, Nicholls (2004) attempted to expand and further define
the scholarship in teaching. These included the acts of discovery, integration,
application, and teaching in which research was integrated with the process of teaching.
Discovery is mainly linked to the research process of traditional inquiry of gaining new
knowledge within the context of the field while integration is the process of fitting the
new knowledge into the existing paradigms or concepts. Application is the actual
practice of the new knowledge of the discovery into “real world” situations and the
scholarship of teaching is the sharing of the knowledge to peers, students, and
practitioners. Schon (1995) advocated for a new institutional epistemology, which
includes reflective practice, that should be given equal weight to that of research in the
tenure process. This process of the scholarship associated with teaching was summed up
by the statement of “Teaching is the highest form of understanding” (as cited in Boyer,
1991, p. 11).
23
Squires (2004) developed a method of evaluating teaching among higher
education faculty based on Boyer's work on the scholarship of teaching. The author
indicated that the structure and framework of teaching is a highly complex and integrated
process. Therefore, evaluation should be used in a cautious manner. The process of
teaching includes the activities of gathering information to provide it to students in a
manageable way taking into account the students’ prior knowledge. Additionally, the
teachers are to provide tasks, activities, or assignments to reinforce the concepts and
provide feedback through teacher and peer evaluation. In addition to evaluating teacher
behaviors in the classroom the author encouraged evaluation of the supportive
environment of learning that assist students in the process of viewing themselves as
learners and not just apprentices for a field of practice. Supporting this notion of
evaluation would elevate teaching and resolve the question of, whether teaching is a
profession or a vocation (Pirrie, 2001).
One of the difficulties in the evaluation of teaching in higher education is the lack
of a unifying theoretical model or models that underpin the conceptions of teaching and
learning. Pirrie (2001) advocates that in order to elevate teaching to a profession,
practitioners need to be able to explain why they are doing what they are doing using
theoretical positions to describe the nature of teaching and learning. Ramsden (2003)
described three potential theories of teaching in post-secondary education that included a
teacher-centered model of information transmission and a student-centered model of
creating environments to encourage conceptual thinking from students. The final theory
described was that of the integration of teaching and learning that includes an
understanding that students have both misunderstandings of previous concepts and
24
concepts that are novel and in need of being interpreted by the teacher in relevant
context. The author noted that evaluation of the process of applying these theories in
practice is that of critical reflection of the intentions, assignments, and outcomes of the
course. This critical reflection needs to include the instructor's epistemological beliefs of
the nature of teaching and learning.
One method of evaluating a faculty member’s epistemological beliefs is to have
them construct a personal teaching philosophy as part of the tenure process in the area of
teaching (Schonwetter et al., 2002). However, Pratt (2005) warned that the evaluation of
philosophical beliefs of teachers could lead to the definition of good and bad teaching and
that the one-size-fits-all is not preferred. Furthermore, the author makes the argument that
teaching is a contextual process and should take into account the intentions and actions of
the instructor as well as his/her beliefs.
Teacher Beliefs
Limited research has been completed regarding the development of university
teachers understanding of the interaction of teaching and learning. Boyer (1991) noted
that teaching is having the ability to bridge the gap between a teacher’s knowledge and
understanding and students’ learning. Much of the current literature has focused on
student learning outcomes and student development of critical thinking and intellectual
development (Perry, 1999; King & Kitchener, 2004). More recently, some researchers
have focused on the environment surrounding the student, including contextual settings,
peer interactions, and teacher conceptions (Hativa, 2000). Although it is not known how
teachers in a university setting develop their conceptions, beliefs, and ideas about the
teaching-learning process, some studies have begun to analyze the characteristics of
25
excellent teachers (Hativa et al., 2001; Martin et al., 2000; Young & Shaw, 1999). What
has become more apparent is that what teachers believe or his/her conceptions of the
teaching-learning process has an influence on student outcomes (Errington, 2004; Gibbs
& Coffey, 2004; Ho et al., 2001; Prosser et al., 2003).
Defining personal epistemic beliefs regarding teaching and learning is a part of
becoming an authentic teacher (Cranton & Carusetta, 2004). An integrating concept of
becoming an authentic teacher is the ability to use critical reflection when evaluating
themselves and others with regards to context. King and Kitchener (2004) used adult
students to describe critical reflection as the key to development of epistemic beliefs in
adulthood, but this could also include teachers, as teachers are adults. This idea of using
critical reflection for epistemic growth of teachers is supported by Boulton-Lewis, Wilss,
and Mutch (1996) in which they reported that teachers as students can use reflection to
assist in understanding. Even though this study used K-12 teachers as subjects during
their Master's program, the authors noted that they had knowledge of learning, but did not
use critical reflection of that knowledge in order to utilize it effectively in teaching.
Using a phenomenological perspective, Cranton and Carusetta (2004) asked eight
university teachers about his/her experience of teaching and the meaning of the studentteacher interaction. During the study, the faculty members were involved in a
collaborative learning environment where the use of reflection regarding the process of
instruction was analyzed. The authors reported results indicating that all participants had
growth toward becoming an authentic teacher and became more student-centered in
his/her approach to teaching.
26
Gibbs and Coffey (2004) used experimental and control groups to measure the
impact of a training module on student satisfaction of their teaching. A total of 22
teachers from eight countries participated in the study which found that after completion
of the program the participants' conceptions of teaching moved from teacher-centered to
student-centered. This study supported conclusions from Ho et al. (2001) and Prosser et
al. (2003), which found improvements in student learning and outcomes as measured by
study habits when their teacher had incorporated a student-centered approach to teaching.
This study was completed to measure the amount of change in teacher beliefs and
practices and the impact on student learning outcomes after completion of a staff
development program. The program was designed to allow self-reflection, challenging
beliefs, and developing alternative conceptions of teaching with further emphasis on
commitment to their new beliefs through the redesign of a current course.
Kember (1997) reviewed the current research and literature regarding teaching
conceptions and found that most of the completed studies could be categorized into two
broad conceptions of teaching of teacher-centered and student-centered approaches.
Additionally, the author noted that there were indicators for a transitory orientation of
teacher-student interaction which connected each of the above orientations. However,
Samuelowicz and Bain (2001) further reviewed results from studies and agreed with
Kember (1997) in that there are two broad categories of teachers’ conceptions, but did
not find support for the transitory category of teacher-student interaction. The authors
used clustering of variables regarding beliefs about teaching and indicated that only two
broad categories remain and that the bridge of teacher-student interaction is about the
“purpose and nature of the interaction, not the interaction per se, that differentiates
27
orientations” (p. 321). This evidence was further supported by Prosser, Martin,
Trigwell, Ramsden, and Lueckenhausen (2005) which found that teachers tended to use
either a student-centered or a teacher-centered approach to teaching and that the approach
used was related to how the teacher understands the subject matter taught in the
classroom. In this phenomenological study of 31 teachers, the authors reported that
teachers who experienced the subject in a holistic and integrated fashion tended to use a
more student focused, conceptual change orientation and teachers who viewed the
content as un-integrated parts tended to use teacher-centered approaches to learning.
Trigwell and Prosser (2004) developed the Approaches to Teaching Inventory
(ATI) to measure teachers’ conceptions that included the transitional category, but noted
that the ATI was designed to measure the extremes of teaching-centered and studentcentered approaches and not that of a transitional category. In addition to developing the
ATI, the authors noted a relationship between a teaching-centered approach and surface
or reproducing orientations of students and student-centered approaches that were
associated with deep approaches to learning and therefore better student outcomes. The
ATI was designed to measure conceptions through identification of teaching practices
and the underlying intentions of what they are teaching.
Kane, Sandretto, and Heath (2002) noted that the review of research completed
regarding teachers’ beliefs and their actions was not completed with research rigor in that
many of the articles used reported teaching actions and not actual observed teaching
practices. The authors reviewed 71 studies regarding teacher beliefs and practices of
which fifty met the criteria set for inclusion into the study. Of the fifty articles reviewed,
only nine included direct observation of teaching practices that included conclusions
28
regarding identification of teaching paradigms (Mertz, McNeely, & Sonja 1990), and
personal philosophies (Scott, Chovanec, &Young, 1994) and two noted good congruency
between espoused beliefs and actual teaching practices (Hativa et al., 2001; Martin et al.,
2000). The recommendations from the review of the current literature by Kane et al.
(2002) concluded that additional research needs to be completed that clearly describes the
relationship between teacher beliefs and classroom practices.
Teachers Intentions and Actions
Course objectives and syllabi are used to inform students of the expectations for
cognitive, kinesthetic, and emotional learning for the course and term. Most syllabi
contain learning assignments, type and format of examinations, and methods of
presentation of the material. Syllabi design can be used as a road map of sorts to allow
students and teachers to see where they are going and what objectives are to be met by
the end of the course. Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives was written to
describe three different domains, cognitive, psychomotor, and affective, that includes a
hierarchy of content areas which are developmental in nature and contain actions or verbs
describing what the student should be able to complete after course completion. Each of
the domains was further described by action verbs to be used by an instructor when
writing the objectives for the syllabus. The cognitive domain contained what the student
should know through definitions, descriptions, and critical thought to be able to problemsolve and analyze concepts and constructs. The psychomotor domain described the
students’ ability to identify, mimic, and perform actions based on identified criteria with
the highest level being adaptation and origination. The affective domain used illustrative
29
verbs to describe the process of how a student feels, values, and responds to complex
interaction of rules, people, and society.
The taxonomies of learning objectives are written by teachers at the level of
expectation of what the student should know, value, and perform at the end of the course
and instruction. Beaudry and Schaub (1998) and Peer (2005) have written examples of
how to construct a learner-centered syllabus designed to describe how students should
learn and not necessarily how the course is taught. Each of the above authors have used
Bloom’s Taxonomy to define the objectives, describe the instructional methods, and
identify the evaluation and grading for the course. Additionally Peer (2005) described
the roles of the teacher and the student and encouraged an environment that allows for
student interaction, participation, and discovery of relational content. A well constructed
and articulated syllabus can give a glimpse of intentions regarding what is to be
accomplished in teaching, but most instructors use the syllabus to define what the student
will know with no relation to what the teacher is trying to accomplish (Pratt, 2005). Pratt
(2005) defined intentions as a part of commitment to teaching that is related to actions in
the classroom and the beliefs of the teacher regarding the interaction of teaching and
learning. He noted, “Intent, then, is the teacher’s statement of purpose, responsibility,
and commitment directed toward learners, content, context, ideas, or some combination
of these” (p. 18).
The relationship between a teachers’ intention and his/her underlying beliefs has
been supported by research, but the role of external influences and level of the student
has only recently surfaced as an area of study. Andrews, Garrison, and Magnusson
(1996) completed a two-phased study that compared the profiles of exemplary teachers to
30
those of novice instructors with one and three years experience. The profiles included
how the professors viewed the importance of student outcomes, teaching methods, and
barriers to achieving the desired outcomes. The authors noted that excellent university
teachers valued a deep approach to teaching and used teaching methods that were
consistent with that approach. In addition to identifying profiles of excellent teachers, the
researchers used the Study Process Questionnaire to quantify a student’s approach to
learning and compared these results to teaching approaches. The findings reported that,
even though a deep approach was intended by teachers, a surface approach to learning
was taken by their students, especially during the first year. The authors concluded that
external variables such as context, institutional influences, and developmental level of the
students could be factors intervening with the results.
Norton et al. (2005) completed a study of 638 university teachers in the United
Kingdom to identify the influences of gender, exposure to formal training, the years of
teaching experience, and the role of the institution and academic department had on the
beliefs and intentions of university teachers. The authors noted results indicated a high
correlation in the subscales relating intentions to beliefs, but also noted that beliefs tended
to lean toward learning facilitation, and intentions were more oriented to transmission of
knowledge. The authors reported that contextual factors had a greater influence on
intentions than on personal beliefs. For example, institutional demands or views of
teaching tended to reinforce knowledge transmission even though the teachers believed in
learning facilitation. The authors also reported that teaching experience, as well as
exposure to formal training experiences, had no significant influence in the development
of teaching conceptions. The role of gender influence was included half way through the
31
study and found that females tended to be more oriented toward learning facilitation
than male counterparts.
The actions or methods used by university teachers have been measured through
direct observation (Murray & MacDonald, 1997), descriptions from excellent university
teachers (Hativa et al., 2001) and self report (Coffey & Gibbs, 2002). Kane, Sandretto,
and Heath (2002) stated in a review of studies regarding faculty beliefs and practice that
most of the reported results were that of self report and not of actual observation of
teaching methods and actions in the classroom. However, Pratt (2005) has noted that
there is a significant relationship between what teachers report and what is actually
practiced. Murray and MacDonald (1997) noted that lecturers’ beliefs regarding
learning, such as supporting and motivating students, did not match actual performance in
the classroom. The authors noted that the apparent discrepancy between a studentcentered teacher belief and a teacher-centered practice could be due to contextual factors
including institutional restraints and the developmental level of the students.
Additionally, the authors noted that teachers report that the approach to teaching varies
depending on the developmental level of the students they are teaching. If the goal of an
undergraduate course is content oriented, then memorization and teacher-centered
practice is used, but when teaching graduate students the goal is more related to changing
students’ conceptions and therefore the methods used become increasingly studentcentered.
Chism (2004) reviewed the current research on effective teaching practices that
included a phenomenological approach of excellent teacher interviews to experimental
studies identifying the relationship between student outcomes and teacher thinking. In the
32
analysis, the author noted that most research agreed that effective teaching is a multidimensional concept that is not easily measured in quantitative terms. Excellent teachers
tend to have a diverse repertoire of teaching methods to be used depending on the
situational context of the content and the learners (Coffey & Gibbs, 2002; Dunkin &
Precians, 1992; Dunkin, 1995) and appear to be acutely aware of teachable moments that
happen in the course of a class (Entwistle & Walker, 2000). Andrews et al. (1996) noted
in the results of a multi-phase study of teachers and students that excellent teachers
tended to prefer a deep approach to learning even if students preferred a surface
approach. Given that the majority of higher education classes are still taught in a lecture
format, several studies have found that if the teacher holds a conception of teaching as
being facilitative tended to take a student-centered approach when teaching (Kember &
Kwan, 2000; Young & Shaw, 1999). Lecturers’ conceptions of good teaching used
various teaching methods such as small group interaction to facilitate a deeper approach
to learning from their students (Butler, 1992). Other learner-centered methods of teaching
included promoting a cooperative, co-learner environment, in which the teacher and the
student learn together (Thompson, Licklider & Jungst, 2003), and providing situations of
apprenticeship in which the student is to model behavior, knowledge, and values related
to professional practice (Dall’alba, 1993).
Teaching Perspectives
Teaching in higher education has become a complex, contextual process
involving the interaction of teachers and learners and intervening factors of institutional
and departmental structures. Personal philosophies regarding teaching and learning are
becoming more a part of the promotion evaluation at many universities (Schonwetter et
33
al., 2002; Pratt, 2005). Teaching perspectives or conceptions is a combination of how
teachers think and what they do, with penetrating epistemic beliefs about learning and
learners (Pratt, 1998). Pratt, Collins, and Selinger (2001) noted that the five teaching
perspectives are similar to the five different views of teaching adults found by Kember’s
(1997) review and analysis of previously completed studies on teachers' conceptions.
The five perspectives described are Transmission, Apprenticeship, Developmental,
Nurturing, and Social Reform. Even though the authors have reinforced the idea that
there is not a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ teaching perspective, Trigwell and Prosser (2004) noted that
these perspectives tend to start with the simple perspective, Transmission, and move to
the complex, Social Reform.
In order to describe each of the perspectives, Pratt (2005) developed a general
model of teaching in which learning occurs in the interaction of the teacher, learner, and
the content or subject that occurs within a specific context through the beliefs and values
of both the teacher and student (Figure 1). The general teaching model has been validated
through interviews with teachers asking them general and direct questions regarding what
they were trying to achieve in the classroom, what they believed about students and
learning, and what methods or actions were taken to achieve these goals. The type of
teaching perspective and learning that occurs depends on the emphasis that is placed on
each of the interactions. For example, in the transmission perspective, the teacher-content
relationship is most important with students’ understanding occurring through the teacher
talking about the content.
34
CONTEXT
LEARNERS
CONTENT
IDEALS
TEACHER
Figure 1 Pratt’s (1998) General Model of Teaching
According to this model of teaching, Pratt described the teacher as central to the
learning process and therefore makes decisions on the delivery method and the emphasis
placed in the context in which the content is obtained. Because the teacher is central to
this process, what the teacher believes about the teaching-learning process, or what the
purpose of the teaching or learning is, and what methods or actions are to be used to
achieve the intended purpose are keys to the overall perspective of the teacher.
In the Transmission perspective, the relationship between the teacher and the
content are emphasized with the student understanding the content through hearing the
teacher describe the content (Pratt, 2005). The goal of this perspective is to transfer
knowledge about the subject or topic to the learner for later recall as the teacher is
considered the expert who has the knowledge to share. Students are typically viewed as
35
traditional “blank chalkboards” or “empty vessels” ready to be filled with the knowledge
of the experts in the field. This perspective is considered to be teacher-centered in that the
key is to give the content to the students in a limited amount of time.
In the Apprenticeship perspective, the teacher performs or interacts with the
content while the student observes and is guided through practice or simulation with the
content. This perspective appears most relevant in the context of supervised clinical
experiences in which students are enculturated into the profession with regards to
applying theory to practice and professional identity (Pratt & Collins, 2001). One of the
difficulties noted by Pratt (2005) is providing authentic classroom experiences for the
students.
A constructivist point of view has been most identified with the Developmental
perspective in that it promotes learning strategies that encourage critical thinking and
problem-solving (Pratt, 2005). In the health professions, problem-based learning (PBL)
assignments would be used as an appropriate teaching method. Students are encouraged
to search, discuss, and solve issues related to the content. When viewing the general
model of teaching, the learners are paramount in the interaction with the content and
support or guidance from the teacher.
The Nurturing perspective is highlighted by the interaction of the teacher and the
students where the teacher promotes a student’s self-concept of a competent learner. This
perspective appears to be most prevalent in higher education in the last 25 years in
western cultures (Pratt, 2005). Pratt (2005) noted that this perspective has roots in
Knowles adult learning theory in that it assumes that student efficacy is within the student
and not with the teacher. Teachers are thought of as caring about the students as much as
36
or more than the content. Pratt and Collins (2001) noted the difficulties using this
perspective as that of setting boundaries and finding a good balance between challenging
students and caring about their self-esteem.
The Social Reform perspective is when the teachers’ beliefs, values and ideals
attempt to influence the learners understanding of the content. Pratt and Collins (2001)
noted this perspective supports the outcome of the educational process as not to
understand the world, but to change it. The teacher challenges the students’ perception of
what is taken for granted and the students’ beliefs and values are challenged to bring
about conceptual change. Pratt (2005) and Pratt and Collins (2001) noted that this
perspective is not pervasive in higher education in North America.
Occupational Therapy Education
Most of the current research literature regarding how and why teachers teach in
higher education has been completed on faculties in the arts and sciences, sciences, or
humanities and not in that of the allied medical or other professions. In a couple of
exceptions, Quinlan (1999; 2002) noted that when engineering teachers’ beliefs were
examined, the beliefs and actions tended to recapitulate the advances in the field. The
author noted that the tendency was to maintain current within the specific discipline to
update knowledge to share with students entering the profession.
Within the context of allied medical and medical education, teaching methods and
ideas have been used in case-studies or descriptive use, but limited experimental research
has been completed with regards to effectiveness of the teaching designs. Problem-based
learning (PBL) has been promoted as a method to improve critical thinking and problemsolving in students (Bruhn, 1992; McLoda, 2003; Vroman & MacRae, 2005). Schaber
37
(2005) noted that a PBL experience had an impact on improving a student's ability to
integrate information from various sources and on improving group interaction skills.
Vroman and MacRae (1999) noted that PBL takes a constructivist point of view as the
students are encouraged to build their own knowledge base. Pratt and Collins (2001)
agreed, from a developmental perspective, PBL could be considered as an appropriate
method as it takes into account a student's prior learning and allows students to construct
their own knowledge. One of the main difficulties noted with PBL assignments is the
perceived ambiguity by students (Hammell et al., 1999) and the expertise level of the
tutor (McLoda, 2003; Pratt et al., 2001). If a tutor is knowledgeable about a topic there is
a tendency to give students more information, therefore, stifling students’ efforts, and if
the tutor is a novice then they may not be able to direct the small group when necessary.
As a subunit of PBL, case studies have been used to improve critical and clinical thinking
in a variety of presentation methods including paper, videotape, and simulated and actual
clients (Lysaght & Bent, 2005; Neistadt, Wright, & Mulligan, 1998; VanLeit, 1994).
Even though all of the authors have suggested the use of case-study presentation as a
useful tool, only Lysaght and Bent (2005) noted that the choice of method did not have a
significant impact on the learning of the students.
Similar to PBL, inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a method employed to rely less on
the structure of small group tutorials and more on the emphasis of a flexible, open, colearner atmosphere that includes multi-disciplinary aspects. Madill et al. (2001)
completed a longitudinal study of students using a control group and noted that the use of
IBL in an introductory course resulted in improved critical thinking strategies in a junior
level assessment course. The use of cooperative learning groups appeared to be
38
associated with the nurturing perspective as it provided a supportive learning
environment to promote peer and teacher interaction and an atmosphere of positive
interdependence (Neistadt, 1999; Nolinske, 1999; Pratt & Collins, 2001). The use of the
apprenticeship perspective can be most identified in the use of practical experiences
required of all professional educational programs (Pratt & Collins, 2001). Peloquin and
Babola (1996) and Rideout (1994) described the use of modeling as a student-centered
approach to teaching in clinical education. Most of the studies mentioned above used
description of the learning environment and not the use of rigorous research methods to
determine if PBL, IBL, or modeling were more effective that traditional dyadic
techniques.
Conclusion
Occupational therapy educators appear to be similar to teachers in higher
education of the professions in that they are more devoted to the profession than that of
teaching. Accreditation standards for educational programs are given at a minimum
regarding the content areas and the demonstrative skill level of graduates, but do not,
explicitly or implicitly, state how to achieve the stated objectives. If student-centered
approaches to teaching improve student outcomes and the ability to improve critical
thinking, then changing the beliefs and conceptions of teachers should be encouraged.
Hooper and Mitcham (2004) conducted a workshop of occupational therapy educators to
analyze a favorite assignment to review from a constructivist point of view. In the review
of the assignment, the authors challenge the participant’s view of learning and learners to
make it more student-centered. Gibbs and Coffey (2004) and Ho et al. (2001) noted that
student satisfaction and outcomes improved as teachers moved from a teacher-centered
39
approach to a student-centered approach and Smyth (2003) noted that the ability to
change approaches appears to be deeply rooted in one’s own belief system.
The use of reflection in the practice of teaching students has a positive impact on
changing the underlying beliefs of the teaching-learning interaction (Kane, Sandretto, &
Heath, 2004; McAlpine & Weston, 2000). Pratt (2005) noted that the use of the Teaching
Perspectives Inventory (TPI) is to be used as a tool to reflect and evaluate the personal
beliefs, intentions, and actions of teachers. Therefore, the use of the TPI can be used as a
reflective tool to identify and enhance occupational therapy educators teaching practices
to be more oriented to student-centered practice and improved student outcomes.
40
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
The descriptive quantitative research method employed in this study was
completion and analysis of an on-line instrument by full-time occupational therapy
faculty members in the United States. The Teachers Perspective Inventory (TPI) was
designed to provide feedback to teachers about individual beliefs, intentions, and actions
in each of the teaching perspectives. According to Pratt (1998), the instrument is
designed to provide feedback to teachers and not to evaluate teaching methods and
actions. The data results were collected by the authors of the TPI to be included in their
database of those who have completed the on-line survey. Data, without identifying
information to ensure confidentiality, was forwarded to this researcher for analysis. After
completion of the TPI, each respondent received individual results and an interpretive
guide to be able to reflect whether the results are indicative of actual practice. Additional
literature was available from the TPI website regarding current research practices and
how to receive additional information.
Operational Definition of the Variables
The type of institutions analyzed in this research study were based on the 2000
Carnegie Classification of Colleges and Universities due to the amount of research
demand placed on faculty in doctoral research universities as compared to Master's and
Baccalaureate granting institutions. Additionally, increased research demands placed on
faculty in doctoral granting institutions may result in less time to teach students in the
classroom (Paul, Liu & Ottenbacher, 2002). Based on Boyer (1991), Schon (1995), and
41
Elton (1998) faculty are evaluated for tenure with an emphasis on research and
minimally on teaching excellence and service to the university.
The years of teaching experience for the purpose of this study was defined by
three categories of up to seven years as pre-tenure, seven to fourteen years as mid-tenure,
and over fourteen years as late-tenure. The majority of studies cited did not indicate that
years of teaching experience was a factor on approaches to, beliefs about, or actions
related to teaching in higher education. However, Coffey and Gibbs (2002) noted the
variation and amount of teaching methods used in the classroom increases based on years
of experience without mention of the actual number of years to achieve an adequate
repertoire to improve student outcomes. Boyer (1991) and others have noted that faculty
in tenure-track positions have an increased focus on research versus teaching excellence
until a tenure position is achieved. In a typical university setting, faculty members in a
tenure-track position need to achieve tenure by year seven from the initial appointment
(Wilson, 2006). Even though Wilson (2006) noted that seven years is the standard, some
universities, such as the University of Michigan, are giving assistant professors additional
time to achieve tenure. Paul et al. (2002) reported that male occupational therapy faculty
members are more likely to achieve tenure than female counterparts.
Identification of the Population
The population included in this study was all of the full-time occupational therapy
practitioners in the United States who are currently employed by an American
Occupational Therapy Council on Education (ACOTE) accredited institutions of higher
education. Each of the subjects was identified through searching web pages of each
accredited program and identifying current faculty members with email addresses.
42
Currently, there are 142 accredited programs across the United States (not including
duplicate programs or Puerto Rico) in every type of Carnegie classification, from public
and private Doctoral Extensive institutions to Master's granting colleges and
Medical/Health colleges, with a total of 1005 full-time faculty members. As of January
2007, every program must graduate entry-level practitioners at the Master's level or
above in order for their students to be eligible to take the national certification test
provided by the National Board for Certification of Occupational Therapist. According to
the standards currently under review, the end result of this requirement is that the
majority of faculty members will need to be educated at the doctoral level by 2012. It was
expected that all of the faculty completing this survey would have a minimum of Master's
or Doctorate degree as this is the current standard for all accredited programs. Based on
the individual search of accredited occupational therapy programs websites the
population of occupational therapy faculty have the following demographic profiles listed
in Table 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2006).
Table 3.1
2000 Carnegie Classification of Occupational Therapy Programs
Frequency
Percent
Doctoral
43
30.3
Masters
75
52.8
Med/Health
24
16.9
142
100.0
Total
43
As noted in Table 3.1, approximately thirty percent of occupational therapy
faculty teach in doctoral granting institutions, while seventeen percent teach in Medical
Colleges or related Health Schools. Over one-half of all faculty teach in colleges or
universities that grant Master’s degrees.
Table 3.2
Accreditation Region of Occupational Therapy Programs
Frequency
Percent
Middle States Commission
33
23.2
New England Association
12
8.5
North Central Association
47
33.1
7
4.7
Southern Association
37
26.1
Western Association
6
4.2
Northwest Commission
Based on the accreditation region from the United States Department of
Education, the majority (82.4%) of accredited occupational therapy programs are located
under the jurisdiction of the Middle States Commission (Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania), North Central Association
(Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota,
Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming) and the Southern Association (Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia). Less than twenty percent the of programs are accredited by
44
the Western Association (California), New England Commission (Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont) and the Northwest
Commission (Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) combined
(United States Department of Education, 2006).
As indicated in Table 3.3, the overwhelming majority of occupational therapy
faculty is female, which is indicative of the entire profession (American Occupational
Therapy Association, 2006).
Table 3.3
Gender of Occupational Therapy Faculty
Frequency
Percent
Female
881
87.6
Male
124
12.4
Identification of the Instrument
The instrument used in the collection of data was the Teacher Perspectives
Inventory that can be accessed through the internet at www.teachingperspectives.com.
Approval to use this instrument was granted by the authors with specific demographic
information to be collected including number of years of teaching, highest degree
obtained, gender, and name of institution. Each subject completed a total of 45 questions
that took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete and was asked to answer a number of
demographic information questions requested from the authors of the instrument.
Fifteen of the questions are related to a teacher's beliefs about the teaching and
learning process and are answered on a ranked scale, 1-5 from strongly disagree to
45
strongly agree for each item. Each item also falls specifically into one of the five areas
of the teaching perspectives, transmission, developmental, apprenticeship, nurturing, or
social reform. In the TPI, each question relates to only one dimension of beliefs,
intentions, or actions and to only one of the five perspectives. Fifteen questions are
directly related to intentions during teaching and fifteen questions are directly related to
actions in the classroom and are ranked 1-5, from never to always, and placed into
categories. Each dimension of beliefs, intensions, and actions in each of the perspectives
has a potential score ranging from three to fifteen. The belief, intention, and action scores
were added in each of the perspectives to attain a cumulative score for each perspective.
Dominant and recessive perspectives were indicated and related to each participant’s
profile of +/- 1 SD of the mean of the five scores.
Table 3.4 indicates the TPI question that is scored for each dimension of the five
perspectives.
46
Table 3.4
Teaching Perspectives Inventory
Dimension
Question #
Transmission
Beliefs
1, 6, 11
Intensions
16, 21, 26
Actions
31, 36, 41
Apprenticeship
Beliefs
2, 7, 12
Intentions
17, 22, 27
Actions
32, 37, 42
Developmental
Beliefs
3, 8, 13
Intentions
18, 23, 28
Actions
33, 38, 43
Nurturing
Beliefs
4, 9, 14
Intentions
19, 24, 29
Actions
34, 39, 44
Social Reform
Beliefs
5, 10, 15
Intentions
20, 25, 30
Actions
35, 40, 45
47
The TPI was originally developed based on qualitative data from interviews of
teachers in Canada, China, Singapore, and the United States using a phenomenological
perspective. Teachers were asked to describe his/her teaching practices, what the student
outcomes for the course were, and which methods were used to achieve the outcomes.
The instrument was designed to operationalize conceptions of teaching, as described by
Pratt (1998), as a method to assist in identification of how a teacher thinks and acts in the
classroom and his/her beliefs about the teaching-learning process. Pratt, Collins, and
Selinger (2001) noted that there appears to be an agreement with Kember’s (1997)
categorization of teaching conceptions after reviewing literature on teachers and his/her
beliefs and actions. Pratt et al. (2001) reinforces the idea that there is not a “best”
teaching perspective, but that all are legitimate forms of teaching adults including those
in higher education.
The original instrument, the Conceptions of Teaching Scale (CTS), was a 75-item,
6-point Likert-scale that was developed and tested by Hian (1994) during a dissertation
study that concluded the CTS had good face, content, and convergent validity with Pratt’s
perspectives. During completion of the study, interviews with the teachers were
completed to validate answers. Additional conclusions of the study included each of the
perspectives are independent of each other and that most teachers had only one dominant
perspective of teaching.
Further refinement of the instrument to its current form, a 45-question, 5-point
Likert scale with each item relating to one of the dimensions of individual perspectives’
(Pratt et al., 2001) was completed in 1997. During the refinement, a group of eighteen
educators were able to identify and properly place each of the 45 items with a reported
48
95% accuracy. Additional testing of the new TPI was completed with more than one
thousand teachers from over 25 diverse departments and areas of instruction with noted
internal consistencies of .81 or greater. In a more recent study, the internal consistencies
for each perspective were noted to be .80 with smaller homogeneous samples and .71
with the overall population of approximately 35,000 respondents (Jarvis-Selinger,
Collins, Pratt, in print). Also, Pratt et al. (2001) noted that when reviewing the descriptive
paragraphs of each of the perspectives, the groups of teachers were able to identify
themselves with moderate to significant correlations with the scores on the TPI. Item
reliability was completed with each of the 45 questions relating to only one of the
dimensions of a teachers perspective. Scoring the TPI results in a range of scores that
indicate dominate and recessive in each perspective that is individually keyed to the
participants profile of +/- 1 SD around the mean of the five scores (Pratt, et al., 2001).
Data Collection Procedures
A total of 1005 individual occupational therapy faculty member were contacted
through email describing the aims of the research project, the type of data to be collected,
and a link to the website to complete the survey instrument. Each faculty member was
sent a total of three requests to complete the TPI, on April 13, May 3, and June 6, 2006.
After completion of the survey, each faculty member received a printed copy of their
individual teaching perspective via an email link that included descriptions of the three
scales of beliefs, intentions, and actions in the classroom. The authors of the TPI agreed
to forward the individual results to the researcher without identifying information in order
to protect confidentiality of the subjects. All of the demographic information collected
remains confidential as guaranteed by the researcher, the authors of the survey, and the
49
website. Data was categorized by scores on the TPI and demographic information listed
above. On July 6, 2006 the authors of the TPI forwarded the results of the study
population to the researcher in an SPSS formatted document for analysis.
Data Analysis
After survey data from the authors of the TPI was received it was entered into
SPSS 14.0 with re-categorization of number of years of teaching experience to early-,
mid-, and late- tenure and re-classification of Carnegie level into doctoral, masters, and
med/health institutions. Data analyses, included descriptive statistics, means, standard
deviations, and range of all three areas of beliefs, intentions, and actions and in all five
dimensions of transmission, developmental, apprenticeship, nurturing, and social reform.
Crosstab analysis using years of teaching experience and classification of Carnegie level
of institution is described.
In answering the remaining research questions, an alpha level of .01 is used to
control the rate of Type I error. Research question two is answered through the use of a 2way ANOVA to determine the relationship between beliefs in each perspective and years
of teaching experience and type of Carnegie institution.
HO1
There is no significant difference of beliefs based on years of
teaching experience and type of institution in the transmission perspective.
HO2
There is no significant difference of beliefs based on years of
teaching experience and type of institution in the developmental perspective.
HO3
There is no significant difference of beliefs based on years of
teaching experience and type of institution in the apprenticeship perspective.
50
HO4
There is no significant difference of beliefs based on years of
teaching experience and type of institution in the nurturing perspective.
HO5
There is no significant difference of beliefs based on years of
teaching experience and type of institution in the social reform perspective.
In answering research question three, using an alpha level of .01, a 2-way
ANOVA is performed to determine the relationship between intentions in each
perspective and years of teaching experience and type of Carnegie institution.
HO6
There is no significant difference of intentions based on years of
teaching experience and type of institution in the transmission perspective.
HO7
There is no significant difference of intentions based on years of
teaching experience and type of institution in the developmental perspective .
HO8
There is no significant difference of intentions based on years of
teaching experience and type of institution in the apprenticeship perspective.
HO9
There is no significant difference of intentions based on years of
teaching experience and type of institution in the nurturing perspective.
HO10 There is no significant difference of intentions based on years of
teaching experience and type of institution in the social reform perspective.
In answering research question four, using an alpha level of .01, a 2-way ANOVA
is performed to determine the relationship between reported actions in each perspective
and years of teaching experience and type of Carnegie institution.
HO11 There is no significant difference of reported actions based on years of teaching
experience and type of institution in the transmission perspective.
51
HO12 There is no significant difference of reported actions based on
years of teaching experience and type of institution in the developmental
perspective.
HO13 There is no significant difference of reported actions based on
years of teaching experience and type of institution in the apprenticeship
perspective.
HO14 There is no significant difference of reported actions based on years of
teaching experience and type of institution in the nurturing perspective.
HO15 There is no significant difference of reported actions based on years
of teaching experience and type of institution in the social reform perspective.
In order to answer research question five, a Paired T-test is performed to analyze
the difference between intentions and actions in each of the five perspectives. Part B of
each of the hypothesis is completed using an alpha level of .01, a 2-way ANOVA is
performed to analyze the difference between intentions and actions in each of the five
perspectives and years of teaching experience and type of Carnegie institution.
HO16a There is no significant difference of the difference between intentions and actions
in the transmission perspective.
HO16b There is no significant difference of the difference between intentions and actions
based on years of teaching experience and type of Carnegie institution in the
transmission perspective.
HO17a There is no significant difference of the difference between intentions and actions
in the developmental perspective.
52
HO17b There is no significant difference of the difference between intentions and
actions based on years of teaching experience and type of Carnegie institution in
the developmental perspective.
HO18a There is no significant difference of the difference between intentions and actions
in the apprenticeship perspective.
HO18b There is no significant difference of the difference between intentions and actions
based on years of teaching experience and type of Carnegie institution in the
apprenticeship perspective.
HO19a There is no significant difference of the difference between intentions and actions
in the nurturing perspective.
HO19b There is no significant difference of the difference between intentions and actions
based on years of teaching experience and type of Carnegie institution in the
nurturing perspective.
HO20a There is no significant difference of the difference between intentions and actions
in the social reform perspective.
HO20b There is no significant difference of the difference between intentions and actions
based on years of teaching experience and type of Carnegie institution in the
social reform perspective.
53
CHAPTER FOUR
Results
Results from the subjects who completed the TPI were analyzed using SPSS 14.0.
Of the 1005 email request sent, a total of 29 were returned for incorrect addresses or
faculty members who longer work at the specific college or university, leaving the total
potential pool of participants at 974. The authors of the TPI forwarded a total of 268
responses for the individuals that indicated who their background was occupational
therapy. In reviewing the data, individuals involved in clinical education, or who had
completed the TPI prior to the request, or did not work at an accredited college or
university, were not included in this study leaving a participant population of 942 . A
total of 236 valid responses are included in this study for a response rate of 25%.
Demographics of Sample
Of the 236 occupational therapy faculty who responded to the request to
complete the TPI were overwhelmingly females who have completed either a Master’s or
a Doctorate degree and have their primary function as teaching. Table 4.1 indicates 87.3
percent of the faculty who responded is female as compared to 87.6 percent in the
population of occupational therapy faculty (American Occupational Therapy Association,
2006).
54
Table 4.1
Gender of Respondents
Frequency
Female
Male
Percent
206
87.3
30
12.7
According to the American Occupational Therapy Association website, 45.4
percent of faculties have earned a Doctorate degree and 49.8 percent have a Master’s
degree (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2006). Compared to the response
sample in this study, 54.2 percent have earned Doctorate degrees and 42.8 percent have a
Master's degree as noted in Table 4.2. This difference between the population and the
respondent sample may be due to higher support of research by doctoral prepared faculty
that may have an impact of skewing the results.
Table 4.2
Highest Degree Achieved – Respondents and Population
Bachelors
Respondents
__________________
Population
__________________
Frequency
Frequency
Percent
Percent
3
1.3
48
4.5
Masters
101
42.8
536
49.8
Doctorate
128
54.2
490
45.4
4
1.7
3
0.3
Other
55
Table 4.3 lists the crosstabulation of respondents highest degree achieved and
the Carnegie Classification of the institution at which they teach.
Table 4.3
Highest Degree Achieved of Respondents and Carnegie Classification Crosstabulation
2000 Carnegie Classification
Education Level
Doctoral
Master
Med/Health
2
1
0
Masters
29
58
14
Doctorate
46
64
18
1
2
1
Bachelors
Other
Table 4.4 lists approximately 80% of faculty reported his/her primary role as
teaching, approximately ten percent as an administrator and five percent as a researcher.
Table 4.4
Primary Role of Respondents
Frequency
Percent
23
9.7
Manager
2
0.8
Other
8
3.4
Practitioner
3
1.3
Researcher
12
5.1
188
79.7
Administrator
Teacher
56
The participants were similar to the total population of faculty based on the 2000
Carnegie Classification of institution and accreditation region as indicated in Tables 4.5
and 4.6, respectively.
Table 4.5
2000 Carnegie Classification – Comparison of Respondents and Population
Doctorate
Masters
Med/Health
Sample
Percent
Population
Percent
78
33.1
359
35.7
125
53.0
481
47.9
33
14.0
165
16.4
Table 4.6
Accreditation Region – Comparison of Respondents and Population
Sample
Percent
Population
Percent
Middle States
51
21.6
230
22.9
New England
25
10.6
83
8.3
North Central
71
30.1
330
32.8
Northwest
14
5.9
57
5.7
Southern
64
27.1
250
24.8
Western
11
4.7
55
5.5
As indicated in Table 4.7, the percentage of subjects that were included in the pretenure and the late tenure categories are similar in size, 37.7 percent and 39 percent
57
respectfully. The middle tenure subjects were less with 22.5 percent of the total sample
size. In review of the data, the range of years of teaching experience was one to 35 years
with no noted effect of outliers on the results.
Table 4.7
Years of Teaching Experience of Respondents
Frequency
Percent
Pre-Tenure
89
37.7
Middle Tenure
53
22.5
Late Tenure
92
39.0
2
0.8
Missing
In occupational therapy, as with many of the health professions, many of faculty
are either currently in practice or have practiced occupational therapy prior to faculty
appointment. Education of occupational therapists is considered a practice area for
occupational therapy and Table 4.8 notes the majority of faculty has been practicing
occupational therapy for greater than fifteen years. What is not known is the area or
combination of areas of practice that have occurred for any of the respondents.
58
Table 4.8
Years Practicing of Respondents
Frequency
Percent
Up to 7 years
40
16.9
8-14 years
39
16.5
153
64.8
2
1.8
Over 15 years
Missing
With the majority of the participants who responded to the survey indicated
his/her primary role as teaching, 54.2 percent of the respondents indicated that forty to
seventy percent of his/her time was spent in the classroom and 31.4 percent spend greater
than eighty percent of the time teaching.
Table 4.9
Time Teaching by Number and Percentage of Respondents
Frequency
30% or less
40-70%
80% or more
Missing
Percent
33
14.0
128
54.2
74
31.4
1
0.4
59
The crosstabulation of years of teaching experience and Carnegie classification
is noted in Table 4.10. Each of the categories indicates the number of subjects included in
the analysis to follow. The small number of subjects indicating teaching in a Med/Health
university, in general, and having middle tenure teaching experience, specifically, was a
concern to determine significance in the analysis of each dimension of the five
perspectives with the independent variables of years of teaching experience and Level of
Carnegie Classification. Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances in each of the
analysis was noted as not significant for each of the dimensions in each of the
perspectives.
Table 4.10
Years Teaching and Carnegie Classification Crosstabulation
2000 Carnegie Classification
Years Teaching
Doctoral
Master
Med/Health
Pre-Tenure
30
46
13
Middle Tenure
16
30
7
Late Tenure
31
48
13
Item Reliability Analysis
Internal consistencies of the three questions related to each dimension in each
perspective were markedly lower than those reported by Jarvis-Selinger et al. (in press),
perhaps due to the small number of items in each set. Table 4.11 indicates the internal
consistency ranges from .308 in Transmission beliefs to .740 in Social Reform Actions
60
for an overall internal consistency of each dimension of each perspective for the
homogeneous sample of .539.
Table 4.11
Item Reliability Analysis for each dimension of each perspective
*Reliability Statistics
Perspective
Beliefs
Intentions
Actions
Transmission
.308
.458
.485
Apprenticeship
.433
.574
.448
Developmental
.404
.593
.644
Nurturing
.494
.675
.628
Social Reform
.562
.633
.740
*Cronbach’s Alpha; 3 Items each
Research Questions
The dimensions of beliefs, intentions, and actions are described for each
perspective through the use of descriptive statistics and listed in Table 4.12. Overall,
occupational therapy educators have the highest mean belief in the Nurturing perspective,
the highest mean intention in the Developmental perspective, the highest mean action in
the Apprenticeship perspective.
61
Table 4.12
Teaching Perspective Dimensions Among Respondents
Dimension
Intentions
Beliefs
Actions
Perspective
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Transmission
11.13
1.697
10.01
1.586
11.87
1.343
Apprenticeship
11.15
2.003
13.13
1.484
12.51
1.301
Developmental
10.89
1.700
13.79
1.259
12.18
1.733
Nurturing
11.69
1.610
12.35
1.795
11.51 1.771
9.62
1.847
10.36
2.000
Social Reform
9.86
2.008
In answering research question two, the dimension of beliefs was analyzed using
a 2-way ANOVA with years of teaching experience and 2000 Carnegie classification as
independent variables in each perspective. No significant difference or interaction was
noted in the analyses using an Alpha level of .01 as noted in Table 4.13. The effect of
years of teaching experience appears to be approaching significance in Transmission
beliefs. Therefore, years of teaching experience and type of Carnegie Institution did not
have a significant influence on reported teacher beliefs in any of the perspectives.
62
Table 4.13
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on Beliefs
Perspective
Effect
df
Years Teaching
2
2.980
.053
Carnegie Level
2
0.100
.905
Interaction
4
1.516
.198
Apprenticeship Years Teaching
2
1.634
.198
Carnegie Level
2
1.855
.159
Interaction
4
0.537
.709
Developmental Years Teaching
2
0.780
.460
Carnegie Level
2
0.069
.933
Interaction
4
1.062
.376
Years Teaching
2
1.730
.180
Carnegie Level
2
0.680
.508
Interaction
4
1.122
.347
Years Teaching
2
1.612
.202
Carnegie Level
2
0.775
.462
Interaction
4
0.814
.517
Transmission
Nurturing
Social Reform
Error df = 225
F
Sig.
63
Research question three and hypothesis HO6-10 were analyzed using a 2-way
ANOVA with years of teaching experience and 2000 Carnegie classification as
independent variables in each perspective. No significant difference or interaction was
noted in any of the analysis between or among the groups using Alpha level of .01 as
noted in Table 4.14.
64
Table 4.14
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on Intentions
Perspective
Effect
df
Years Teaching
2
1.442
.239
Carnegie Level
2
0.309
.735
Interaction
4
1.810
.128
Apprenticeship Years Teaching
2
0.049
.952
Carnegie Level
2
0.269
.764
Interaction
4
1.377
.243
Developmental Years Teaching
2
0.061
.941
Carnegie Level
2
0.371
.690
Interaction
4
0.993
.412
Years Teaching
2
0.229
.796
Carnegie Level
2
0.150
.860
Interaction
4
0.141
.967
Years Teaching
2
0.326
.722
Carnegie Level
2
0.190
.827
Interaction
4
0.936
.444
Transmission
Nurturing
Social Reform
Error df = 225
F
Sig.
65
Research question four and hypothesis HO11-15 were analyzed using a 2-way
ANOVA with years of teaching experience and 2000 Carnegie classification as
independent variables in each perspective. No significant difference or interaction was
noted in the analysis between or among the groups using Alpha level of .01 as noted in
Table 4.15.
66
Table 4.15
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on Actions
Perspective
Effect
df
Years Teaching
2
2.544
.081
Carnegie Level
2
1.326
.268
Interaction
4
0.329
.858
Apprenticeship Years Teaching
2
0.191
.826
Carnegie Level
2
0.300
.741
Interaction
4
0.643
.632
Developmental Years Teaching
2
0.665
.515
Carnegie Level
2
0.039
.961
Interaction
4
1.010
.403
Years Teaching
2
0.163
.850
Carnegie Level
2
0.203
.817
Interaction
4
0.221
.927
Years Teaching
2
0.449
.639
Carnegie Level
2
0.236
.790
Interaction
4
0.847
.497
Transmission
Nurturing
Social Reform
Error df = 225
F
Sig.
67
Research question five was analyzed through the use of Paired T-test for HO16a20a that
notes the difference between intentions and actions in each of the five perspectives
and is displayed in Table 4.16. In each of the perspectives there was a significant
difference between intentions and actions. In the Transmission perspective Occupational
Therapy faculty are using Transmission actions more than intended, were as in the
Apprenticeship, Developmental, Nurturing, and Social Reform perspectives intention was
higher than actions reported. Using Cohen’s Classifications (1988), the Transmission and
Developmental perspectives have a large effect size, Apprenticeship and Nurturing
perspectives have a medium effect size and the Social Reform perspective has a small
effect size.
Table 4.16
Difference between Intentions and Actions
Perspective
I–A
SD
df
Sig.
Effect Size
Transmission
-1.860
1.741
235
.000
1.07
Apprenticeship
0.627
1.443
235
.000
0.435
Developmental
1.597
1.569
235
.000
1.02
Nurturing
0.835
1.633
235
.000
0.511
Social Reform
0.496
1.597
235
.000
0.311
Table 4.17 displays the second part of research question five and HO16b-20b. Using
an alpha level of .01, a 2-way ANOVA is performed to analyze the difference between
intentions and actions in each of the five perspectives and years of teaching experience
68
and type of Carnegie institution. No significant difference was noted between or among
the groups in the analysis.
69
Table 4.17
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on Intentions minus Actions
Perspective
Effect
df
Years Teaching
2
0.281
.756
Carnegie Level
2
1.311
.272
Interaction
4
1.910
.110
Apprenticeship Years Teaching
2
0.177
.838
Carnegie Level
2
0.672
.512
Interaction
4
1.160
.330
Developmental Years Teaching
2
0.787
.456
Carnegie Level
2
0.484
.617
Interaction
4
0.300
.877
Years Teaching
2
0.045
.956
Carnegie Level
2
0.456
.635
Interaction
4
0.229
.922
Years Teaching
2
0.184
.832
Carnegie Level
2
0.379
.685
Interaction
4
0.144
.966
Transmission
Nurturing
Social Reform
Error df = 225
F
Sig.
70
Supplemental Analysis
Despite the fact that there is not a significant difference or interaction in any
analysis of the research questions, there appears to be an interaction occurring when
viewing the graphs. To display this interaction one graph was chosen to visually illustrate
the potential interaction in each of the dimensions of beliefs, intentions and actions.
Estimated Marginal Means of Beliefs in Developmental
2000 Carnegie
Classification
Doctoral
Master
Med/Health
Estimated Marginal Means
11.5
11.25
11
10.75
10.5
Pre-Tenure
Middle Tenure
Late Tenure
Years Teaching
Figure 4.1 Graph of Beliefs in Developmental
71
A variety of ways could be used to explain and analyze the visual interaction of
the graphical representation. One method would be to look at the simple effects of
teaching experience and Carnegie level on each dimension of each perspective or to
combine the Med/Health participants with the Master’s Carnegie level. Combination of
the Med/Health and Master’s participants due to the fact that Med/Health programs could
be either Master’s or Doctorate Level, such at University of Toledo Medical Campus.
Removal of the Med/Health participants in the analysis was chosen for this reason and
that the number of Med/Health participants was low especially in the middle tenure.
Supplemental analyses were completed without these subjects, but the subsequent
findings did not affect the statistical outcome with the exception of the statistical finding
of a significant difference in Transmission beliefs. Table 4.18 displays the analysis of
Transmission beliefs with the removal of the Med/Health category.
Table 4.18
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Doctoral and Master Carnegie Level on Beliefs
Perspective
Transmission
Effect
df
F
Sig.
Years Teaching
2
8.852
.000*
Carnegie Level
1
0.071
.790
Interaction
2
0.659
.519
Error df = 195
*p<.01
Based on the significant result of the main effect of years of teaching on
Transmission beliefs, a Tukey HSD was completed to determine difference among
groups. Table 4.19 indicated the significant difference was between pre-tenure and late
72
tenure subjects in which late tenure subject reported higher beliefs in the Transmission
perspective than teachers with less than seven years experience.
Table 4.19
Transmission Beliefs in Doctoral and Master Level Education
Mean
(I)Years Teaching
(J) Years Teaching
Pre-Tenure
Middle Tenure
Middle Tenure
Difference
SE
Sig.
-0.55
.309
.176
Late Tenure
-1.08
.265
.000*
Late Tenure
-0.53
.306
.199
*p<.01
Additional analyses were completed to determine if there was a difference
between the groups of Occupational Therapy educators in Doctoral Extensive and
Doctoral Intensive Institutions. This was completed due to the potential move towards
emphasis in the conduction of research and therefore spending less time teaching in
Doctoral Extensive Institutions. Table 4.20 described the population of seventy-seven
participants. The number of respondents in each group limited the ability to interpret the
results.
73
Table 4.20
Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive Faculty Respondents – Demographics
Doctoral Extensive
Years Teaching
Up to 7
7-14
15+
22
11
22
Gender
17
27
Up to 7 7-14 15+
8
30% or Less 40-70% 80%+
Time Teaching
Doctoral Intensive
11
5
9
30% or Less 40-70% 80%+
2
14
7
Male
Female
Male
Female
5
50
2
21
Table 4.21 lists the means and standard deviations of the sub-population of each
dimension of each perspective. This sub-respondent category of faculty members had the
highest mean belief in the Nurturing perspective, the highest mean intention in the
Developmental perspective, and the highest mean action in the Apprenticeship
perspective. The lowest mean belief and action was in the Social Reform perspective,
however, the lowest mean intention was reported in the Transmission perspective.
74
Table 4.21
Teaching Perspective Dimensions: Doctoral Extensive and Intensive Institutions
Dimension
Intentions
Beliefs
Actions
Perspective
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Transmission
11.14
1.665
9.90
1.702
12.05
1.494
Apprenticeship
11.13
2.128
13.35
1.458
12.54
1.245
Developmental
10.88
1.450
13.86
1.203
12.19
1.866
Nurturing
11.81
1.495
12.46
1.688
11.53 1.939
9.55
1.932
10.32
1.997
Social Reform
9.92
2.208
Tables 4.22, lists teaching beliefs based on number of years teaching and
Carnegie classification. No significant difference was found in any of the dimensions
with the exception of beliefs in the Transmission perspective.
75
Table 4.22
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on Beliefs
Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive Faculty
Perspective
Effect
df
Years Teaching
2
5.829
.005*
Carnegie Level
1
0.416
.521
Interaction
2
0.142
.868
Apprenticeship Years Teaching
2
1.030
.362
Carnegie Level
1
2.779
.100
Interaction
2
0.097
.908
Developmental Years Teaching
2
0.608
.547
Carnegie Level
1
0.330
.567
Interaction
2
0.115
.892
Years Teaching
2
1.354
.265
Carnegie Level
1
2.112
.151
Interaction
2
0.439
.647
Years Teaching
2
0.290
.749
Carnegie Level
1
1.695
.197
Interaction
2
0.131
.878
Transmission
Nurturing
Social Reform
Error df = 71
*p<.01
F
Sig.
76
A Tukey post hoc test was completed in which noted the significant difference
was between pre- and late tenure faculty where late tenure faculty reported higher beliefs
in the Transmission perspective than pre-tenure faculty. Results are listed in Table 4.23
Table 4.23
Transmission Beliefs in Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive Faculty
Mean
(I)Years Teaching
(J) Years Teaching
Pre-Tenure
Middle Tenure
Middle Tenure
Difference
SE
Sig.
-0.60
.481
.429
Late Tenure
-1.44
.398
.002*
Late Tenure
-0.84
.478
.193
*p<.01
Table 4.24 noted no significant difference between the groups in any of the
perspectives in intentions. Intentions in the Nurturing perspective appeared to be
approaching significance in which faculty at Doctoral Intensive colleges reported more
intention than those at Doctoral Extensive institutions.
77
Table 4.24
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on Intentions
Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive Faculty
Perspective
Effect
df
Years Teaching
2
1.850
.165
Carnegie Level
1
0.006
.939
Interaction
2
1.019
.366
Apprenticeship Years Teaching
2
1.767
.178
Carnegie Level
1
0.122
.728
Interaction
2
0.767
.470
Developmental Years Teaching
2
1.222
.301
Carnegie Level
1
0.659
.420
Interaction
2
0.796
.455
Years Teaching
2
0.215
.807
Carnegie Level
1
3.316
.073
Interaction
2
0.263
.769
Years Teaching
2
1.373
.260
Carnegie Level
1
2.459
.121
Interaction
2
0.245
.783
Transmission
Nurturing
Social Reform
Error df = 71
F
Sig.
78
Table 4.25 indicated no significant difference of years of teaching experience
and Carnegie level on actions in any of the perspectives. However, faculty at Doctoral
Intensive institutions report more use of Nurturing and Developmental perspectives than
faculty at Doctoral Extensive institutions.
79
Table 4.25
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on Actions
Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive Faculty
Perspective
Effect
df
Years Teaching
2
0.168
.846
Carnegie Level
1
0.176
.676
Interaction
2
0.312
.733
Apprenticeship Years Teaching
2
0.713
.493
Carnegie Level
1
0.336
.564
Interaction
2
1.579
.213
Developmental Years Teaching
2
1.199
.307
Carnegie Level
1
4.183
.045
Interaction
2
0.573
.567
Years Teaching
2
0.134
.875
Carnegie Level
1
3.336
.072
Interaction
2
0.198
.821
Years Teaching
2
0.805
.451
Carnegie Level
1
0.643
.425
Interaction
2
0.956
.389
Transmission
Nurturing
Social Reform
Error df = 71
F
Sig.
80
Table 4.26 indicates the difference between intentions and actions in each of the
perspectives. Using Cohen (1988), the Transmission and Developmental perspectives
have a large effect size, Apprenticeship and Nurturing a medium effect size, and a small
effect size for Social Reform. Doctoral Institution faculty reported higher actions than
intentions in the Transmission perspective and had a larger difference and a larger effect
size when compared to the total respondents. When the groups were analyzed separately,
faculty at Doctoral Extensive institutions had a greater difference in mean intention
minus action, -2.23, as compared to faculty at Doctoral Intensive institutions at -1.96. The
remaining perspectives noted a significant difference in which intentions were reported
higher than actions.
Table 4.26
Difference between Intentions and Actions
Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive Faculty
Perspective
I–A
SD
df
Sig.
Effect Size
Transmission
-2.17
1.758
76
.000
1.23
Apprenticeship
0.81
1.469
76
.000
0.551
Developmental
1.69
1.742
76
.000
0.970
Nurturing
0.92
1.554
76
.000
0.592
Social Reform
0.38
1.785
76
.000
0.170
81
Table 4.27 lists the main effects of teaching experience and Carnegie
classification on intentions minus actions. Data analysis noted the only significant
difference was in the Developmental perspective were faculties in Doctoral Intensive
universities report actions in the classroom more than counterparts in Doctoral Extensive
universities.
82
Table 4.27
Main Effects of Teaching Experience and Carnegie Level on Intentions minus Actions
Doctoral Extensive and Doctoral Intensive Faculty
Perspective
Effect
df
Years Teaching
2
1.787
.175
Carnegie Level
1
0.086
.770
Interaction
2
1.435
.245
Apprenticeship Years Teaching
2
2.744
.071
Carnegie Level
1
0.023
.880
Interaction
2
1.369
.261
Developmental Years Teaching
2
0.314
.731
Carnegie Level
1
7.801
.007*
Interaction
2
1.683
.193
Years Teaching
2
0.002
.998
Carnegie Level
1
0.096
.758
Interaction
2
0.411
.664
Years Teaching
2
0.681
.510
Carnegie Level
1
0.515
.476
Interaction
2
1.365
.262
Transmission
Nurturing
Social Reform
Error df = 71
*p<.01
F
Sig.
83
Comparison to Nursing Educators
A comparison group of subjects similar to occupational therapy was requested
from the authors of the TPI. The authors responded with a subject pool of 1096 nursing
educators who indicated years of teaching experience. Table 4.28 indicates the means and
standard deviations each of the dimensions within each perspective.
Table 4.28
Teaching Perspective Dimensions: Nursing Educators
Dimension
Beliefs
Intentions
Actions
Perspective
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Transmission
11.14
1.88
10.09
2.02
11.82
1.55
Apprenticeship
11.66
1.90
13.26
1.48
12.90
1.41
Developmental
10.84
1.84
12.46
1.80
11.76
1.86
Nurturing
12.64
1.49
12.86
1.70
11.83 1.79
9.35
1.82
9.09
2.53
Social Reform
9.50
2.18
A t-test was completed analyzing significance at Alpha .05 between the mean of
Nursing and Occupational Therapy faculty. The analyses resulted in significant
differences in higher means in intentions and actions in the Developmental perspective
and intentions in the Social Reform perspective. Other differences noted between nursing
and occupational therapy were not significant.
84
Table 4.29 list other demographic information shared by the authors of the TPI
including years of teaching experience and percentage of time teaching.
Table 4.29
Demographics of Nursing Educators
Percentage of Time Teaching
Years Teaching
30% or Less
40-70%
80% 0r More
284 - 25.7%
453 – 40.8%
366 – 33.0%
Pre-Tenure
Middle Tenure
779 – 71.1%
119 – 10.8%
Late Tenure
198 – 17.8%
85
CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion, Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The response sample of 25 percent of occupational therapy educators remarkably
resembles the current population of faculty in the demographic areas of gender and
regional accreditation area and similar in the highest level of completed education and
2000 institutional Carnegie level. Due to these factors, it is assumed that the sample is
demographically representative of the population on these variables.
Based on the results of the Teaching Perspectives Inventory, Occupational
Therapy educators reported higher means in intentions and actions in the Apprenticeship
and Developmental perspectives than in the Transmission or Nurturing perspectives. This
result appears to be congruent with the nature of professional education's emphasis on
clinical as well as academic preparation for entry into service delivery. Clinical
education, including Occupational Therapy, encourages students to model and learn from
the behaviors and skills from clinical supervisors and these results indicated that
academic faculty support psychomotor skill development of students for appropriate
clinical performance. Additionally, this result is supported by the descriptions of the
Apprenticeship and Developmental perspectives (Pratt & Collins, 1998). Occupational
Therapy faculties have reported the use of actions in the Apprenticeship perspective that
was used to encourage the development of professional identity and enculturation into the
profession. Using Pratt's general model of teaching, the Apprenticeship perspective has
the students learning by guided practice and observing the teacher interact with the
content. The Developmental perspective is used by occupational therapy faculty to
86
encourage development critical thinking and problem-solving skills required of entrylevel practitioners. Additionally, Pratt (1998) described this perspective from a
constructionist point of view that included the use of teaching methods such as problembased and inquiry-based learning and seeks to allow for student discovery and interaction
with the content with faculty guidance. This conclusion is supported by reports of
educational methods employed by faculty in Occupational Therapy including the use of
PBL, (Bruhn, 1992; McLoda, 2003; Schaber, 2005; Vroman & MacRae, 2005), IBL,
(Madill et al., 2001) case studies (Lysaght & Bent, 2005; Neistadt, Wright, & Mulligan,
1998; VanLeit, 1994).
Occupational Therapy educators' reported highest mean belief is in the Nurturing
perspective. This perspective indicates faculty beliefs are in line with the concept of
caring about students as persons who have the capacity and desire to learn and less about
the content. Pratt and Collins (1998) noted that this perspective has its' roots in Knowles
(1978) adult learning theory, in which teachers promote the self-concept of students as
competent learners. This higher mean belief in the Nurturing perspective is translated into
teaching methods through the use of cooperative groups and learning environments that
support student learning in occupational therapy education (Neistadt, 1999; Nolinske,
1999). Even though Occupational Therapy faculty's highest mean belief was reported in
the Nurturing perspective, the results from the TPI indicated that their intentions and
actions are based in performance of skill development, enhancement of critical thinking
skills, and development of professional behaviors of students.
According to the study results, the Social Reform perspective is not dominant in
the beliefs, intentions, or actions of Occupational Therapy Faculty. This result appears
87
consistent with the description by Pratt and Collins (1998) in that faculty is not
attempting to challenge student values or beliefs about societal issues. Additionally, the
authors noted that this perspective is not pervasive in Western higher education.
In answering research questions 2-5, each dimension of the five perspectives was
analyzed using the independent variables of years of teaching experience and 2000
Carnegie Classification of Colleges and Universities to determine if there were
significant differences in teachers beliefs, intentions, and actions. There was no
significance difference in faculty beliefs, intentions, or actions in any of the perspectives
based on the independent variables of years of teaching experience and Carnegie
classification. Occupational Therapy faculty reported a significant difference between
intentions and actions for each perspective when in the classroom. In the Apprenticeship,
Developmental, Nurturing, and Social Reform perspectives teachers reported intentions
higher than actions in the classroom indicating that they intended to use methods in each
perspective, but was not supported by actions. The one exception to this finding was in
the Transmission perspective in which teachers reported actions higher than intentions
toward teaching students. This finding supported the notion that Occupational Therapy
educators understand that the methods employed in the Transmission perspective was not
what they wanted to use, but tended to resort to those methods when teaching. This result
does not appear to support the use of deep approaches to learning that was indicated by
methods employed by Occupational Therapy faculty through the use of problem-based
and inquiry-based learning (Bruhn, 1992; McLoda, 2003; Schaber, 2005; Vroman &
MacRae, 2005).
88
Based on the graphical representation of the study data, supplemental analyses
were completed with the exclusion of the Med/Health faculty that noted a significant
difference between pre- and late-tenure faculty members in beliefs in the Transmission
perspective. Faculty members who have more than fourteen years teaching experience
had a significantly higher mean in Transmission beliefs than faculty with less than seven
years experience. Support for non-significance of the full study group and significance
with the removal of the Med/Health subjects could be attributed to the use of traditional
methods of teaching in the university, where as the faculty in the Med/Health group
would use methods within the Developmental and Apprenticeship perspectives due the
nature of the learning environment. Also, this result could be due to the changing nature
in professional higher education from content knowledge to application, problem solving,
and critical thinking skill development of students.
Occupational Therapy's change in the assessment of entry-level skill development
of students from content knowledge to application and analysis can be traced by
reviewing the Standards for Accreditation of Occupational Therapy Education in each
revision. Occupational Therapy education mirrored entry-level skill assessment from the
late 1960's, when content knowledge was paramount, to the most recently approved in
1998, which encourages application and analysis of the content knowledge (American
Occupational Therapy Association, 2006). One interesting finding was that late-tenured
faculty had higher mean scores in actions in the Transmission perspective significantly
more than pre-tenured faculty, possibly due to the increased emphasis on studentcentered teaching methods across higher education in which studies have supported
higher student outcomes. Also, these results support research completed by Hooper and
89
Mitcham (2004) who designed a workshop to assist faculty transformation of an
assignment or syllabi to a constructionist point of view, moving from a teacher-centered
to a student-centered environment.
The additional supplemental analysis of the subgroup of 77 teaching at a Doctoral
Extensive or Doctoral Intensive universities requires cautious interpretation of the results
due to the small number of subjects in each group containing the two levels of institutions
and three levels of teaching experience. The results continued to support the significant
difference in beliefs in the Transmission perspective between pre- and late tenure faculty.
Additionally, the analysis of the difference between intentions and actions of faculties at
the two types of institutions noted similar findings to the total subject research with the
exception that faculties at Doctoral Intensive universities have a significantly higher
mean score for actions in the Developmental perspective than faculty at Doctoral
Extensive universities. This finding may indicate that faculties at both types of
universities have similar intentions in the Developmental perspective, but Doctoral
Intensive faculty reported the use of actions significantly more than counterparts at
Doctoral Extensive universities. A possible conclusion from this finding could be that
Doctoral Intensive faculty could have the ability to devote more time to more studentcentered activities than faculty at Doctoral Extensive universities.
Much caution was required when comparing Occupational Therapy Faculty with
Nursing Educators due to factors including the high number of nursing educators in the
pre-tenure category and whether the instruction occurred in the classroom or in a clinical
setting. Occupational Therapy participants were explicitly requested to focus on
classroom experiences and not clinical environments and it was not known which of
90
these environments the Nursing Educators used in responding. Based on the results,
significant differences noted included higher mean scores in Developmental intentions
and actions and higher mean intentions in the Social Reform perspective in Occupational
Therapy faculty. This difference could be attributed to the sequential nature of
occupational therapy education and to the caring required in the nursing profession.
Generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the over-representation of
doctoral prepared faculty responding to the survey and differences in Carnegie
classification from the population of full-time Occupational Therapy faculty. Since a
census of all Occupational Therapy faculty was completed and not a random sample,
participants who responded could misrepresent the population. As a result, the analyses in
this study are skewed toward individuals who are interested in teaching and research
about teaching. Cultural differences could have implications as the TPI was developed
and used mainly in the countries of Eastern Asia, Australia, and the West Coast of
Canada and the United States and the participants in this study included only those
throughout the United States.
Implications for Practice
Based on the results of the TPI, Occupational Therapy faculty intentions do not
match actions in a classroom setting. One finding that supports Occupational Therapy
education was the result that faculty mean intentions and actions are highest in the
Developmental and Apprenticeship perspectives. Most troubling was the result that
faculty use Transmission actions even though it is not intended. This result is supported
through the use of workshops presented to faculty to assist in transforming a syllabus to a
more student-centered approach (Hooper & Mitcham, 2004). Additional faculty
91
development workshops in not only teaching methods, strategies, and intentions should
be conducted, but also in challenging the epistemological beliefs regarding teaching and
learning (Smith, 2003; Ho et al., 2001).
Even though there was limited significance in beliefs, intentions, and actions
based on type of Carnegie classification institution and number of years of teaching
experience, much could be said for the reported high mean scores in the Apprenticeship
and Developmental perspectives of Occupational Therapy faculty. Faculty members are
reporting use of methods that support student-centered learning environments by
indicating higher mean actions in the Developmental and Apprenticeship perspectives.
Research in teaching methods used by Occupational Therapy faculty including PBL, IBL,
and group learning was supported by Pratt and Collins (1998) descriptions as belonging
to these two perspectives. Using these two perspectives in Occupational Therapy
education appears to align with the Standard set by ACOTE and the descriptions of the
perspectives and the most likely applications noted by Pratt and Collins (1998).
Directions for Further Research
Low item reliability noted in Chapter Four that could result in measurement error
could be resolved through the addition of more items for each dimension in each
perspective. Additional research with the TPI should include improved item reliability for
inclusion in academic research and support teaching in Occupational Therapy and
professional higher education. The TPI could be strengthened if the student and/or peer
evaluations of faculties could be included. Additionally, one of the limitations noted from
this research that should be further explored is to encourage and sample more faculties
92
from the Med/Health sector of professional education in order to evaluate similarities
and differences indicated by the TPI.
An interesting application of the results of the TPI would be to determine if there
is a relationship between the type of teaching perspective and student outcomes based on
passing rates of the national registration examination for entry-level therapist. Additional
research should be conducted to include student impressions of teaching and the
relationship to the TPI.
The results of this study could also be utilized for faculty development initiatives
with the focus being on creating assignments, syllabi, and environments that are studentcentered and therefore impact student outcomes. Since university teachers tend to teach
the way they were taught, changing from the traditional methods and beliefs included in
the Transmission perspective to more student-centered practices noted in the
Developmental and Apprenticeship perspectives could be an arduous task (Martin et al,
2000). As noted by Smith (2003) and Ho, Watkins, and Kelly (2001) it is difficult to
change an individuals epistemological beliefs without awareness and the TPI provides the
awareness to educators and possibly the impetus for staff development. The use of the
TPI for staff development is also supported by Bendixen and Rule (2004) who noted that
in order to change personal epistemology requires elements of epistemic doubt, epistemic
volition and available resolution strategies. The TPI can create the premise for
understanding the discrepancy between individual beliefs, intentions, and actions in the
classroom and those described by Occupational Therapy faculty as useful strategies for
student learning.
93
Even though reflective teaching is one of the least used strategies by teachers to
improve university teaching, Kreber (2005) noted that years of teaching experience and
beliefs about teaching may play a role in the extent in which faculty reflect about
teaching in order to improve abilities. The TPI could provide occupational therapy
faculty the means to complete reflective teaching and to determine the congruency
between individual beliefs, intentions, and actions in the classroom. An additional study
would be to determine the relationship between beliefs, intentions, and actions though the
use of MANOVA analysis.
Even though student results from the national certification examination are
provided to each of the accredited programs for program assessment and development,
there is no method for reporting scores from each program to the public. It may be
beneficial to program evaluation at each college or university to identify the teaching
perspectives of faculty to determine if there is a relationship with student outcomes. It
would be hypothesized that faculties having dominant perspectives in the Developmental
or Apprenticeship perspectives would have better student outcomes on the certification
examination due to the student-centeredness of these approaches to teaching than
faculties with dominate Transmission perspective.
94
REFERENCES
Akerlind, G. (2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher - Variation in
meaning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 375-390.
Akerlind, G. (2004). A new dimension to understanding university teaching. Teaching in
Higher Education, 9(3).
American Occupational Therapy Association (2006). OT Programs – Accredited.
Retrieved September 7, 2006 from
http://www.aota.org/nonmembers/area13/links/LINK28.asp
American Occupational Therapy Association (2007). Accreditation council for
occupational therapy education standards and interpretive guidelines. Retrieved
March 7, 2007 from
http://www.aota.org/nonmembers/area13/docs/acotestandards107.pdf
Badley, G. (2002). A really useful link between teaching and research. Teaching in
Higher Education, 7(4), 443-455.
Beaudry, M., & Schaub, T. (1998). The learning-centered syllabus. The Teaching
Professor, 12(2), 1-2.
Bendixen, L., & Rule, D. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A
guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 69-80.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. New York: McKay.
Bondoc, S., (2005). Occupational therapy and evidence-based education. Education
special interest section quarterly, 15(4). American Occupational Therapy
Association, Inc.
95
Boulton-Lewis, G., Wilss, L., & Mutch, S. (1996). Teachers as adult learners: their
knowledge of their own learning and implications for teaching. Higher Education,
32, 89-106.
Boyer, E. (1991). The scholarship of teaching from scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of
the professorate. College Teaching, 39(1), 11-14.
Brown, E. J. (Ed.). (2007). Advance for Occupational Therapy Practitioners. March.
Merion Publications, Inc.
Bruhn, J. (1992). Problem-based learning: An approach toward reforming allied health
education. Journal of Allied Health, Summer, 161-173
Butler, J. (1992). Use of teaching methods within the lecture format. Medical Teacher,
14(1), 11-27.
Chism, N. (2004). Characteristics of effective teaching in higher education: Between
definitional despair and certainty. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching,
15(3), 5-36.
Coffey, M., & Gibbs, G. (2002). Measuring teachers' repertoire of teaching methods.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 383-390.
Collins, L. (Ed.). (2007). OT Practice, March 5. American Occupational Therapy
Association, Inc.
Corcoran, M. A. (Ed.). (2007). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(2).
American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.
Cranton, P., & Carusetta, E. (2004). Perspectives on authenticity in teaching. Adult
Education Quarterly, 55(1), 5-22.
96
Dall'alba, G. (1993). The role of teaching in higher education: Enabling students to enter
a field of study and practice. Learning and Instruction, 3, 299-313.
Dunkin, M. (1995). Concepts of teaching and teaching excellence in higher education.
Higher Education Research & Development, 14(1), 21-33.
Dunkin, M., Precians, R. (1992). Award-winning university teachers' conceptions of
teaching. Higher Education, 24, 483-502.
Elton, L. (1998). Dimensions of excellence in university teaching. International Journal
for Academic Development, 3(1), 1-10.
Entwistle, N., & Walker, P. (2000). Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within
sophisticated conceptions of teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 335-361.
Errington, E. (2004). The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: Some
practices and possibilities for academic developers. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 41(1).
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their
teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their
students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87-100.
Hammel, J., Royeen, C., Bagatell, N., Chandler, B., Jensen, G., Loveland, J., et al.,
(1999). Student perspectives on problem-based learning in an occupational
therapy curriculum: A multiyear qualitative evaluation. American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 53(2), 199-206.
97
Hativa, N. (1997). Teaching in a research university: Professors’ conceptions,
practices, and disciplinary differences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED407919).
Hativa, N. (2000). The tension between professors' and students' perception regarding
the academic environment (No. ED 444431). Israel: Tel Aviv University.
Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge
and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. The Journal of
Higher Education, 72(6), 699-729.
Hian, C. (1994). Operationalization and prediction of conceptions of teaching in adult
education. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving
teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development
programme. Higher Education, 42, 143-169.
Hooper, B., & Mitcham, M. (2004). Teaching to promote graduate, occupational-centered
education. OT Practice, July 12, 13-17.
Kalivoda, P., Broder, J., Jackson, W. (2003). Establishing a teaching academy:
Cultivation of teaching at a research university campus. In C. M. Wehlburg (Ed.).
To improve the academy (pp. 79-91). Bolton, Mass: Anker Publishing.
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of
research on the teaching beliefs of university academics. Review of Educational
Research, 72(2), 177-228.
98
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2004). An investigation into excellent tertiary
teaching: Emphasizing reflective practice. Higher Education, 47, 283-310.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics'
conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2000). Lecturers' approaches to teaching and their relationship
to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469-490.
King, P., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the
development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational
Psychologist, 39, 5-18.
Kreber, C. (2005). Reflection on teaching and the scholarship of teaching: Focus on
science instructors. Higher Education, 50, 323-359.
Lieberman, D. (2005). Beyond faculty development: How centers for teaching and
learning can be laboratories for learning. New directions for higher education,
131 Fall, 87-98.
Lueddeke, G. (2003). Professionalism teaching practice in higher education: a study of
disciplinary variation and 'teaching-scholarship'. Studies in Higher Education,
28(2), 213-228.
Lysaght, R., & Bent, M. (2005). A comparative analysis of case presentation modalities
used in clinical reasoning coursework in occupational therapy. American Journal
of Occupational Therapy, 59(3), 314-324.
Jarvis-Selinger, S., Collins, J., & Pratt, D. (in press). Development and use of the TPI.
Teacher Education Quarterly.
99
Madill, H., Amort-Larson, G., Wilson, S., Brintnell, S., Taylor, E., & Esmail, S. (2001).
Inquiry-based learning: An instructional alternative for occupational therapy
education. Occupational Therapy International, 8(3), 198-209.
Martin, J. A. (1977). Mastery Learning. Journal of Allied Health, Summer, 40-44.
Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Benjamin, J. (2000). What
university teachers teach and how they teach it. Instructional Science, 28, 387412.
McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (2000). Reflection: Issues related to improving professors'
teaching and students' learning. Instructional Science, 28, 363-385.
McCombs, B. (2002). Knowing what teachers know: A response to Schraw and Olafson's
teachers' epistemological world views and educational practices. Issues in
Education, 8(2), 181-187.
McLoda, T. (2003). Problem-based learning in allied health and medicine. The Internet
Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 1(1).
Mertz, N., McNeely, T., & Sonja, R. (1990). How professors "learn" to teach: Teacher
cognitions, teaching paradigms and higher education. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA,
April 16-20.
Murray, K., & MacDonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers' conceptions of
teaching and their claimed practice. Higher Education, 33, 331-349.
Neistadt, M. (1999). Educational interpretation of "cooperative learning as an approach to
pedagogy". American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53(1), 41-43.
100
Neistadt, M., Wright, J., & Mulligan, S. (1998). Clinical reasoning case studies as
teaching tools. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52(2), 125-132.
Nicholls, G. (2004). Scholarship in teaching as a core professional value: what does this
mean to the academic? Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 29-42.
Nolinske, T. M., B. (1999). Cooperative learning as an approach to pedagogy. American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53(1).
Norton, L., Richardson, J., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers'
beliefs and intentions concerning higher education. Higher Education, 50, 537571.
Paul, S., Liu, Y., Ottenbacher, K. (2002). Research Productivity among occupational
therapy faculty members in the United States. American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 56(3), 331-334.
Peer, K. M., M. (2005). The learner-centered syllabus: From theory to practice in allied
health education. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice,
3(2).
Peloquin, S., & Babola, K. (1996). Making a clinical climate in the classroom. American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50(10), 894-898.
Perry, W. (1999). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a
scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pirrie, A. (2001). Evidence-based practice in education: The best medicine? British
Journal of Educational Studies, 49(2), 124-136.
Pratt, D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203-220.
101
Pratt, D. and Associates (2005). Five perspectives of teaching in adult and higher
Education. Malabar, Florida: Krieger
Pratt, D. (2005). Personal philosophies of teaching: A false promise? ACADEME,
Journal of the American Association of University Professors, 91(1).
Pratt, D., Collins, J., & Sellinger, S. (2001). Development and use of the teaching
perspectives inventory (TPI).
Pratt, D., Arseneau, R., & Collins, J. (2001). Reconsidering 'good teaching' across the
continuum of medical education. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health
Professions, 21(2), 70-83.
Prosser, M., Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Lueckenhausen, G. (2005).
Academics' experiences of understanding of their subject matter and the
relationship of this to their experiences of teaching and learning. Instructional
Science, 33, 137-157.
Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2003). Dissonance in experience of
teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher
Education, 28(1), 37-48.
Quinlan, K. (2002). Scholarly dimensions of academics' beliefs about engineering
education. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice., 8(1).
Quinlan, K. (1999). Commonalities and controversy in context: a study of academic
historians' educational beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 447-463.
Ramsden, P. (Ed.). (2003). Theories of teaching in higher education (2nd ed.). London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
102
Rideout, E. (1994). 'Letting go': Rationale and strategies for student-centered
approaches to clinical teaching. Nurse Education Today, 14, 146-151.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. (2001). Revisiting academics' beliefs about teaching and
learning. Higher Education, 41, 299-325.
Schaber, P. (2005). Incorporating problem-based learning and video technology in
teaching group process in an occupational therapy curriculum. Journal of Allied
Health, 34, 110-116.
Schon, D. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27, 26-34.
Schonwetter, D., Sokal, L., Friensen, & Taylor, K. (2002). Teaching philosophies
reconsidered: A conceptual model for the development and evaluation of teaching
philosophy statements. The International Journal for Academic Development,
7(1), 83-97.
Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2002). Teachers' epistemological world views and
educational practices. Issues in Education, 8(2).
Scott, S., Chovanec, D., & Young, B. (1994). Philosophy-in-action in university teaching.
The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 24(3), 1-25.
Smyth, R. (2003). Concepts of change: Enhancing the practice of academic staff
development in higher education. International Journal for Academic
Development, 8(1/2 May/November), 51-60.
Squires, G. (2004). A framework for teaching. British Journal of Educational Studies,
52(4), 342-358.
103
Thompson, J., Licklider, B., & Jungst, S. (2003). Learner-centered teaching:
Postsecondary strategies that promote "thinking like a professional". Theory Into
Practice, 42(2), 133-142.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching
inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409-424.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers'
approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education,
37, 57-70.
United States Department of Education, (2006). Regional accrediting agencies. Retrieved
September 7, 2006 from
http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg7.html#RegionalInstituti
onal.
VanLeit, B. (1994). Using the case method to develop clinical reasoning skills in
problem-based learning. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49(4), 349353.
Vroman, K., & MacRae, N. (1999). How should the effectiveness of problem-based
learning in occupational therapy education be examined? American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 53(5), 533-536.
Wilson, R. (2006). Off the clock. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 21, A8-A11.
Winch, C. (2004). What teachers need to know about teaching? A critical examination of
the occupational knowledge of teachers. British Journal of Educational Studies,
52(2), 180-196.
104
Wise, M., & Vardi, I. (2005). Using mastery learning to develop patient handling skills
in
Occupational therapy students. International Journal of Therapy and
Rehabilitation, 12(7), 287-293.
Wright, M. (2005). Always at odds?: Congruence in faculty beliefs about teaching at a
research university. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(3), 331-353.
Young, S., & Shaw, D. (1999). Profiles of effective college and university teachers. The
Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 670-686.
105
Appendix A
Teaching Perspectives Inventory
106
107
108
109
110
111
Appendix B
IRB Approval Letter
112