High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
DOI 10.1007/s10734-007-9087-z
A follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical training
on teaching in higher education
Liisa Postareff Æ Sari Lindblom-Ylänne Æ Anne Nevgi
Published online: 13 August 2007
Ó Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract The present follow-up study examines the effect of university teachers’ pedagogical training on approaches to teaching and self-efficacy beliefs measured by
Approaches to Teaching Inventory and an additional part measuring motivational strategies. The effect of pedagogical training on teaching is analysed among 35 teachers who
had not participated in pedagogical courses after the first measurement in 2004 as well as
among 45 teachers who had acquired more pedagogical training after the first measurement. The results showed that there were more positive changes in the measured scales
among teachers who had acquired more credits of pedagogical courses since the year 2004
than among teachers who had not acquired more credits. The results of the first and second
measurements are compared.
Keywords Approaches to teaching Conceptions of teaching Pedagogical training Self-efficacy beliefs Teaching experience
Introduction
In most European countries, teachers in higher education do not need a certificate of
teaching competencies. However, the quality of university teaching has been discussed in
recent years, and the need to improve university teachers’ teaching skills and pedagogical
thinking is now acknowledged to be essential. Many countries have made decisions about
the compulsory pedagogical training of university teachers (Gibbs and Coffey 2004;
Sonesson and Lindberg Sand 2006; van Keulen 2006). However, in Finland the training is
not compulsory, but it is common that new teachers take some pedagogical courses.
According to the strategy of the University of Helsinki (Strategic plan for the years
L. Postareff (&) S. Lindblom-Ylänne A. Nevgi
Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education, Department of Education,
University of Helsinki, P.O.Box 9, Helsinki 00014, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]
123
30
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
2007–2009, University of Helsinki 2006) the aim of teacher training at the University of
Helsinki should be to change teachers’ approaches to teaching to be more student-centred
and less teacher-centred.
From teacher-centred to student-centred approaches to teaching
The way academic teachers approach their teaching has been studied since the early 1990s.
These studies have identified a range of different approaches to teaching, which vary from
teacher-centred approaches to student-centred approaches. Teacher-centred teaching is
described as a way of teaching in which students are considered to be more or less as
passive recipients of information which is transmitted from the teachers to the students.
Thus, it is argued that knowledge is constructed by the teacher and the students are
expected to learn factual knowledge. On the other hand, student-centred teaching is
described as a way of teaching which sees teaching as facilitating students’ learning
processes. Transmission of knowledge and course contents may be a component, but the
aim is to promote students’ own knowledge production processes (e.g., Trigwell and
Prosser 1996; Biggs 1999; Prosser and Trigwell 1999; Trigwell et al. 1999; Vermunt and
Verloop 1999; Kember and Kwan 2000).
However, teaching in higher education is a complex phenomenon and a strong opposite
positioning of the two approaches might easily lead to a simplified view of the phenomenon. Approaches to teaching are, however, contextual and relational in a way that they
have been shown to vary from one teaching context to another (Samuelowicz and Bain
1992; Prosser and Trigwell 1999; Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006), although some
researchers have argued that the approaches are stable (Kember and Kwan 2000). More
specifically, the student-centred approach has been found to be more sensitive to contextual
effects (Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006). Moreover, most teachers are found to apply
simultaneously elements of both approaches in their teaching while a minority of teachers
approach teaching purely in either student-or teacher-centred terms (Postareff et al.
in press). The simple ‘‘either/or’’ relationship between the two approaches could be better
described as an ‘‘and’’relationship (Åkerlind 2003; see also Postareff et al. in press).
While teachers approach teaching in diverse ways, they also hold different conceptions
of teaching. Teachers’ conceptions of teaching have been shown to affect the way teachers
approach their teaching. Teachers who conceive teaching as transmitting knowledge are
more likely to adopt a teacher-centred approach to teaching, while those who conceive
teaching as facilitative are found to use more student-centred approaches (Samuelowicz
and Bain 1992; Prosser et al. 1994; Kember 1997; Kember and Kwan 2000; Eley 2006).
Teachers’ conceptions of teaching do not necessarily develop with increased teaching
experience (Norton et al. 2005; Richardson 2005). However, teachers should be helped to
apply student-centred approaches instead of teacher-centred approaches (Trigwell and
Prosser 1996; Samuelowicz and Bain 2001) because the student-centred approach to
teaching is likely to have a positive effect on student learning (Trigwell et al. 1999). There
is some evidence that pedagogical training organised for university teachers enhances the
adoption of more student-centred approaches (Gibbs and Coffey 2004; Postareff et al.
2007). Some researchers emphasise that a change in conceptions of teaching is considered
to be a prerequisite to a change in teaching practices (e.g., Ho et al. 2001; Oosterheert and
Vermunt 2003). However, the opposite effects have also been reported (Guskey 2000), so
that changes in teaching practices are seen to occur before changes in conceptions. Conceptions of teaching change slowly, and hence, teachers should be made aware of the
123
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
31
possible delay in more sophisticated conceptions (see e.g., Oosterheert and Vermunt 2003).
However, there is still little evidence that conceptions of teaching and approaches to
teaching change as a result of formal training. In general, researchers hold different views
of the effectiveness of training of university teachers.
Research on the effect of pedagogical training on university teachers’ teaching
Studies on the effect of pedagogical training of university teachers on teaching present
different views of the effectiveness of pedagogical training. Norton et al. (2005) found no
differences in teaching beliefs and intentions between teachers who had participated in a
pedagogical programme and teachers who had no training. However, more positive results
of the effectiveness of pedagogical training have also been presented. Gibbs and Coffey
(2004) showed, by using the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Prosser and Trigwell
1999) that by the end of the 4–18 month training programs teachers became less teachercentred and more student-centred. Similarly, Coffey and Gibbs (2000) found positive
effects of pedagogical training on academics’ teaching. After completing two- and threesemester long training programmes teachers showed significant improvements in scores
measuring learning, enthusiasm and organisation. However, Postareff et al. (2007) showed
that approaches to teaching change slowly. The results of a cross-sectional study implied
that an intensive pedagogical training is needed until positive changes on approaches to
teaching emerge.
Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers
A teacher’s efficacy belief is a judgment about his/her capabilities to get students engaged
in the learning process to achieve the desired learning outcomes (Tschannen-Moran and
Hoy 2001). Bandura defines self-efficacy as ‘‘generative capability in which cognitive,
social, emotional, and behavioural sub skills must be organised and effectively orchestrated to serve innumerable purposes’’. Perceived self-efficacy is a belief that one can
perform using one’s skills and abilities adequately in a certain circumstance (Bandura
2000, pp. 36–37). In the present study, self-efficacy beliefs are determined as a teacher’s
beliefs regarding his/her ability to perform academic tasks (see Lindblom-Ylänne and
Nevgi 2003; Trigwell et al. 2004). Teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs are likely to
engage in a wide range of more productive teaching practices than teachers with low
self-efficacy (Gordon and Debus 2002). Moreover, novice teachers have been shown
to score lower in teacher self-efficacy than career teachers (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy
2007). However, the research focusing on university teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs is
scarce. Bailey (1999) conducted research that focused on academics’ motivation and
self-efficacy concerning research and teaching. He found that gaining higher research
qualifications increased academics’ motivation and self-efficacy for doing research, but not
with teaching. The low success in research was correlated with higher motivation in
teaching.
The present study reports on a longitudinal follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical
training. The results of the present study are compared to the results of the previous study,
which was conducted in 2003. The study analysed the effect of pedagogical training on
approaches to teaching and on self-efficacy beliefs with 200 teachers. In the cross-sectional
study the participants were divided into four groups, depending on how much pedagogical
123
32
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
training for university teachers they had. Differences between the four groups on scales
measuring the approaches to teaching and teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs were analysed.
The aim of the present study is twofold. First, the aim is to analyse the long-term effect of
pedagogical training on conceptual change/student-focused (CCSF) and information
transmission/teacher-focused (ITTF) approaches to teaching and on self-efficacy beliefs
among teachers who have not participated in pedagogical courses after the previous study
(Postareff et al. 2007) conducted two years ago. Second, the study aims to explore, by
using a longitudinal setting, the effect of pedagogical training on teaching among teachers
who have now more pedagogical training than in the previous study. The results of the
previous and the present study are compared.
Methodology
Pedagogical courses at the University of Helsinki
At the University of Helsinki teachers participate in pedagogical courses on a voluntary
basis. The teachers are highly motivated and there are hardly any drop-outs. The aim is to
take all the teachers who are inclined to participate in pedagogical courses. The majority of
pedagogical courses at the University of Helsinki are organised by the Centre for Research
and Development of Higher Education. However, the four campuses of the university have
their own development units which organise their own basic teacher-training courses. The
Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education is, however, responsible for
the design of all courses (Lindblom-Ylänne and Hämäläinen 2004). The participants of the
present study have participated in pedagogical courses organised by three development
units.
The university offers three levels of pedagogical courses, which build on each other.
The aim of the short courses on learning and instruction in higher education (approximately 10–12 ECTS) is to give teachers the basic skills to plan, instruct and assess teaching
and learning in their courses. In addition, the aim is to help university teachers become
aware of and capable of using student-centred ways of teaching. The courses may be
considered as basic teacher-training courses because they focus on general theoretical
principles of learning and instruction. The basic courses which are organised by three
development units last from 4 to 6 months.
After completing the basic course the teachers can apply for the next one-year course
(30 ECTS), organised by the Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education,
which aims to affect teachers’ underlying conceptions of teaching and learning and their
pedagogical thinking. Furthermore, the aim is to deepen teachers’ understanding of theoretical principles of learning and instruction in higher education. Teachers reflect on their
learning during the course in their portfolios. In addition, a short practicum is also included
in this course. During the practicum the teachers observe each others teaching and evaluate
it. Moreover, an expert in the field of university pedagogy observes each teacher’s teaching
and gives individual feedback.
After taking both the short course of 10–12 ECTS and the 30 ECTS course, a teacher
can apply for a 70 ECTS course. In this course, which last for 2 years, teachers participate
in a practicum both in their own work and in other institutions. They also conduct research
concerning teaching in higher education, usually in their own discipline. Pedagogical
courses at the University of Helsinki are separate; a teacher may select only the first
shortest course and it is not compulsory to continue to the next two courses.
123
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
33
Participants
The participants of the previous study (Postareff et al. 2007) were 200 academics, of which
197 came from different disciplines at the University of Helsinki and three teachers from
the Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration. Of the 200 participants of
the previous study, the inventory concerning the follow-up study was mailed to 135
teachers. The contact information of the 65 teachers who did not receive the inventory had
changed and new contact information was not available or they no longer held a teaching
vacancy at the university. Of the 135 teachers, 80 participated in the follow-up study; the
percentage of response was 59.
The teachers of the present study, as well as of the previous study (Postareff et al. 2007)
represented all ten faculties of the University of Helsinki. In addition, the two teachers
from the Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration represented commercial sciences. Each of the faculties comprises several disciplines. About 54% of the
teachers represented hard sciences and 46% soft sciences. The division of the disciplines
into ‘‘hard’’ and ‘‘soft’’ sciences is made on the basis of disciplines’ cultural and epistemological differences (Biglan 1973; Becher 1989).
The teachers’ ages varied from 26 to 62 years (mean age 41 years). One teacher did not
report his/her age. Of the 80 participants 27.5% were male and 72.5% female. The
teachers’ teaching experience varied from a few months to 35 years, and half of the
teachers had less than 8 (Md) years teaching experience. Three teachers did not report how
much teaching experience they had. The structure of teachers’ age, gender, teaching
experience and disciplines were similar in the previous study, so the sample of the present
study is not biased when compared to the sample of the previous study (Postareff et al.
2007).
Most of the participants taught students who study for a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree,
but some teachers taught also doctoral students. The contexts of teaching varied greatly in
both the previous and the present study. Class sizes varied from a few students to over one
hundred. Moreover, teaching methods varied from demonstrations, personal instruction
and discussions with small groups to lecturing to large audiences.
Inventory
The Inventory used in the previous and the present study consists of two parts. The
Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Prosser and Trigwell 1999), measures the conceptual
change/student-focused approach (CCSF) and the information transmission/teacherfocused approach (ITTF) to teaching with 16 items. The second part of the inventory
(Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006; Trigwell et al. 2004) explores teachers’ motivational
aspects to teaching and regulation strategies they use. From the second part, a four-item
scale measuring self-efficacy beliefs was analysed. The self-efficacy scale is adapted for
teaching from Pintrich’s (1998) motivation model for learning (see Trigwell et al. 2004).
The scales of the both parts of the inventory are measured with a 5-point likert scale.
When answering the inventory, the teachers were asked to select the most typical course
in which they teach. The selected course is not necessarily the same in the previous and in
the present study, but the most typical or common course at the time of filling in the
inventory. The inventory has been originally designed to measure approaches to teaching
from a relational perspective (see Prosser & Trigwell 1999), but in the present study the
inventory was consciously used to measure the approaches in the most typical teaching
123
34
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
context. The teachers were asked to describe the teaching context they thought of when
answering the inventory.
The reliability of all the scales (CCSF, ITTF, self-efficacy) was acceptable in both
measurements. The Cronbach’s Alpha varied between .70 and .77. For the eight-item
CCSF approach scale the Alpha was .77 (N = 189) in the first measurement and .75
(N = 78) in the second measurement. For the eight-item ITTF approach scale the Alpha
was .70 (N = 191) in the first measurement and similarly .70 (N = 76) in the second
measurement. Finally, for the four-item self-efficacy scale the Alpha was .70 (N = 197) in
the first measurement and .72 (N = 79) in the second measurement.
Statistical procedures
A hierarchical multilevel model was applied in analysing the changes on the scales
measuring the CCSF and ITTF approaches to teaching and on self-efficacy beliefs between
the first and the second measurement. This kind of model is used in longitudinal studies in
separating changes within one individual. The model does not compare the whole data
between the measurements as such, but instead compares the measurements at an individual level (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002, pp. 160–202).
Sum scales measuring the CCSF and ITTF approaches to teaching and self-efficacy
beliefs were calculated. A paired sampled t-test was used to compare the mean scores of
each scale of the training groups between the first and the second measurement.
A new variable indicating the relative increase of teaching experience was created.
Every teacher had 2 years more of teaching experience in the present study than in the
previous study which was conducted 2 years earlier. The new variable indicates the relative increase of teaching experience when compared to the amount of experience at the
time of the first measurement. The scatter plot with smooth curve fitted by loess was
applied to visualise the effect of the relative increase in teaching experience on each scale.
One-way analysis of variance was used to analyse the differences between the training
groups in the amount of the relative increase in teaching experience.
The previous study
The results of the present study will be compared to the results of research (Postareff et al.
2007) analysing the effect of pedagogical training on approaches to teaching and on selfefficacy beliefs with 200 teachers. In the cross-sectional study the participants were divided
into four groups, depending on how much pedagogical training for university teachers they
had (see Fig. 1).
Differences between the four groups on scales measuring the CCSF and ITTF
approaches to teaching as well as self-efficacy beliefs were analysed. The effect of
teaching experience was statistically held constant in order to find out the unique effect of
pedagogical training on each scale.
Figure 1 shows that the shapes of the scales measuring the CCSF approach and selfefficacy beliefs were very similar. Teachers who had just begun their studies in pedagogical courses scored even lower on the CCSF approach scale and on the self-efficacy
scale than teachers who had not had any pedagogical training. Only after a year-long
process of pedagogical training (30 ECTS or more), were teachers’ scores on these scales
higher than those of teachers who did not have training at all. The results implied that
123
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
35
Fig. 1 Scores for CCSF approach, ITTF approach and self-efficacy beliefs of the four training groups when
examining the unique effect of the amount of pedagogical training
approaches to teaching and self-efficacy beliefs change slowly and that the effect of
pedagogical training is not linear. However, because of the cross-sectional setting, the
results do not imply a change within a group of teachers, but differences between different
groups.
Possible explanations for the ‘collapse’ in scores measuring the CCSF approach and
self-efficacy beliefs were presented. One explanation concerns the increase of pedagogical
awareness in the beginning of pedagogical courses. The change in teachers’ beliefs about
themselves as teachers might be reflected in as lower scores on the measured scales.
Another explanation concerns the intermediate phase of expertise: those in mid-career
desires to avoid changes or they have a fear of choosing or making commitment (Lueddeke
2003). The development of expertise is not a continuous and uninterrupted process
(Boshuizen 2004).
Results
The hierarchical multilevel model showed that, in general, the individual participants
scored significantly higher on the scales measuring the CCSF approach to teaching
(p = .006) and self-efficacy beliefs (p = .014) in the second measurement than in the first
measurement. When background variables gender, discipline, teaching experience and the
amount of pedagogical training (ECTS) were held constant the significance of the selfefficacy scale became even more favourable (p = .003).
Table 1 shows the distribution of the teachers of the present study into the four training
groups in the previous study. It also shows the number of teachers who had participated in
further pedagogical training after the previous study enough to belong to another training
group and the number of teachers who still belonged to the same training group.
123
36
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
Table 1 Division of the participants of the previous and the present study into the four training groups
The previous
study in
2003 (n)
Group1: 0 ECTS
The present study in 2005:
Teachers with further
pedagogical training (n)
The present study in
2005:Teachers with no further
pedagogical training (n)
9
3 (from Group 1 to 2)
Group 2: 1–9 ECTS
24
23 (from Group 2 to 3)
1
Group 3: 10–29 ECTS
32
12 (from Group 3 to 4)
20
Group 4: 30 ECTS or more
15
Total
80
6
7 (70 ECTS)
8
45
35
Teachers with no further pedagogical training
Thirty-five teachers’ training group had not changed since the first measurement. There
were no statistical differences between the first and the second measurement on scales
measuring the CCSF and the ITTF approaches to teaching on the part of any of the groups
(see Table 2). Teachers who had fewer than 30 ECTS (Group 3) in the first and in the
second measurement scored significantly higher in the second measurement than in the first
measurement on the scale measuring self-efficacy beliefs (t[19] = 3,1, p = .006). In
Table 2 the mean scores of each group among teachers with no further pedagogical
trainingof both measurements are reported in order to give a holistic view of the changes.
However, the number of participants in Groups 1, 2 and 4 is rather small, and the results
concerning these groups are not dealt with in depth later in the article.
Teachers with further pedagogical training
Forty-five teachers’ training group had changed since the first measurement (see Table 3).
There were only three teachers who had no pedagogical training in the first measurement,
but in the second measurement had under 10 ECTS (from Group 1 to 2). Teachers who had
under 10 ECTS in the first measurement, but in the second measurement had under 30
ECTS (from Group 2 to 3) scored significantly higher in the second measurement than in
the first measurement on the scales measuring the CCSF approach to teaching
(t[22] = 2,05, p = .05) and self-efficacy beliefs (t[22] = 3,16, p = .005). Teachers who
had under 30 ECTS in the first measurement, but in the second measurement had 30 ECTS
or more (from Group 3 to 4) scored significantly higher in the second measurement than in
the first measurement on the scale measuring the CCSF approach to teaching
Table 2 Means and significant p-values for CCSF approach, ITTF approach and self-efficacy beliefs of the
four training groups in the first and second measurement among teachers whose training group had not
changed (I = first measurement, II = second measurement)
n
CCSF I
CCSF II
ITTF I
ITTF II
Self-efficacy I
Self-efficacy II
Group 1
6
4.09
4.05
3.56
3.33
4.33
4.42
Group 2
1
2.63
2.63
3.75
3.5
4.5
4.5
Group 3
20
3.64
3.89
3.0
3.14
3.75
4.06 (p = .006)
Group 4
8
3.89
3.92
3.53
3.63
4.22
4.41
123
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
37
Table 3 Means and significant p-values for CCSF approach, ITTF approach and self-efficacy beliefs of the
four training groups in the first and second measurement among teachers whose training group had changed
(I = first measurement, II = second measurement)
n
From Group 1 to 2
ITTF I ITTF II
Self-efficacy I Self-efficacy II
3.75
3.58
3.17
3.75
From Group 2 to 3
23 3.67
3.99 (p = .053) 3.48
3.28
3.91
4.2 (p = .005)
From Group 3 to 4
12 3.57
4.03 (p = .054) 3.36
3.49
4.4
4.36
3.99
3.02
4.21
3.68
From Group 4 to 70
ECTS
3
CCSF I CCSF II
7
4.21
4.08
2.93
3.83
(t[11] = 2,15, p = .05). The group which consisted of three teachers was not large
enough for quantitative analyses, but the mean scores of the group are presented to give a
holistic view of the results.
When comparing the first and the second measurement, we can see that the effect of
pedagogical training on the CCSF approach to teaching was not similar (see Fig. 2). The
results of the cross-sectional study implied that at the beginning of the pedagogical training
the scores measuring the CCSF approach to teaching decrease and only after 30 ECTS are
the scores higher than among teachers who do not have pedagogical training or among
those who had only a few ECTS of pedagogical courses. The results of the present longitudinal study, however, implied that the scores increased with all the training groups. An
exception was the new training group of teachers who had completed the 70 ECTS course
of university pedagogy. Their scores on the CCSF approach decreased, but the difference
between the first and the second measurement was not significant.
Fig. 2 Scores for the CCSF approach to teaching of the training groups in the first and second
measurements (scale 1–5)
123
38
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
In the first measurement the scores on the ITTF approach to teaching were similar
among the training groups. Teachers who had 30 ECTS or more scored lowest on this
scale, but the difference was not significant when compared to the other groups. The results
of the longitudinal study showed as well that the scores on the ITTF approach to teaching
were similar among all the training groups between the first and the second measurement
(see Fig. 3). However, the scores did not decrease among those who had completed 30
ECTS or more as in the first measurement.
In the first measurement the results of the cross-sectional study showed that at the
beginning of pedagogical courses the scores measuring the self-efficacy beliefs decrease.
After 10 ECTS the scores increased, but only after 30 ECTS or more were the scores higher
than among teachers who had no pedagogical training (see Fig. 4). The results of the
second longitudinal study showed, however, that after 10 ECTS the scores on this scale
increased. After 30 ECTS the scores slightly decreased and teachers who had completed
the 70 ECTS course scored lowest of all groups on the self-efficacy scale.
The relative increase in the amount of teaching experience did not have an effect on
approaches to teaching. The relative increase in teaching experience was highest among
teachers who had fewer than 30 ECTS (Group 3) in the previous and in the present study
and among teachers who had under 10 ECTS in the previous study, but in the present
study under 30 ECTS (from group 2 to 3). These two groups scored higher on the selfefficacy scale in the second than in the first measurement on a significant level. Hence, the
scores on the self-efficacy scale increased the most among teachers whose relative increase
in teaching experience was highest.
Fig. 3 Scores for the ITTF approach to teaching of the training groups in the first and second measurements
(scale 1–5)
123
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
39
Fig. 4 Scores for self-efficacy beliefs of the training groups in the first and second measurements (scale 1–5)
Discussion
The challenge in measuring change
The setting of the present study was challenging. First, the data split in two because some
teachers had participated in pedagogical training after the first measurement and others had
not. Hence, the number of participants in each group was rather small and not all groups
could be included in the statistical analyses. Second, we wanted to compare the results of
the present study to the results of the previous study (Postareff et al.2007), and the amount
of credits in the previous study had to be taken into account in the comparisons. Hence, it
was not reasonable to compare the whole data of the present study to the whole data of the
previous study, since the results of the previous study were not linear. This setting made it
challenging to find a suitable analysis method. A paired samples t-test turned out to be the
most suitable method when comparing the results of the present and the previous study,
and this model was accompanied by a hierarchical multilevel model which gave us
information of the change between the two measurements at a general and individual level.
Changes among teachers with no further pedagogical training
Among teachers who had not participated in pedagogical courses after the previous study
the scores on the measured scales had remained similar. The only exception was an
increase on the self-efficacy scores among teachers who had from 10 to 29 ECTS (Group
3). Among these teachers the relative increase of teaching experience was highest of the
four groups who had no further pedagogical training. In other words, the self-efficacy
beliefs increased on a statistically significant level among teachers who had the least
123
40
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
teaching experience. This seems logical, since teachers with little teaching experience gain
more trust to complete their teaching tasks when they acquire pedagogical knowledge.
Otherwise, the scores on approaches to teaching and on self-efficacy beliefs remained at
the same level when measured after 2 years among teachers who had not completed further
pedagogical courses. However, the number of participants in three of the groups who had
no further pedagogical training was rather small, and only the group of teachers with 10 to
29 ECTS comprised of 20 teachers.
Changes among teachers with further pedagogical training
Among teachers who had participated in pedagogical courses after the first study there
were more changes in the measured scores. The CCSF approach to teaching had increased
on a significant level among two training groups (from Group 2 to 3 and from Group 3 to
4). In addition, the former group (from Group 2 to 3) scored significantly higher on the
self-efficacy scale in the second measurement than in the first measurement. However,
these teachers’ relative increase in teaching experience was, again, highest of the four
groups who had further pedagogical training. These results imply that when teachers
complete more pedagogical courses, it has the strongest effect on their CCSF approach to
teaching. An increase on the scores measuring the CCSF approach to teaching did not
emerge among teachers who had not participated in pedagogical courses after the first
study. However, an increase on the self-efficacy scores was found among a group of
teachers who had not gained more ECTS as well as among a group of teachers who had
gained more ECTS. Among both of these groups the relative increase in teaching experience was highest of all groups. Hence, it could be argued that whether the teacher has
participated in pedagogical courses after the first study or not, does not have an effect on
the self-efficacy scale, but rather the high relative increase of teaching experience.
There were no statistically significant differences on the scale measuring the ITTF
approach to teaching among any of the groups between the first and the second measurement. Previous studies have proved similarly that the teacher-centred approach to
teaching is more stable than the student-centred approach and it is more difficult to affect
the teacher-centred approach than the student-centred approach (Prosser and Trigwell
1999; Gibbs and Coffey 2004; Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006).
The results of the present study suggest that the length of pedagogical training has an
effect on approaches to teaching. However, it cannot be assumed that the effects are simply
due the length of pedagogical training, but the content and intention of the pedagogical
courses might also have an effect on the results. The 10 ECTS course focuses on general
theoretical principles of learning and instruction, while the 30 ECTS course aims to affect
teachers’ underlying conceptions of teaching and learning. At this point of pedagogical
studies the CCSF scores increased in both studies. During the 70 ECTS course the participants participate in a practicum and conduct a research concerning their own teaching. The
focus is still on conceptions of teaching and learning, but perhaps not to the same extent as
in the 30 ECTS course. At this point of pedagogical studies the CCSF scores declined.
Comparison of the results of the previous and the present study
When comparing the results of the present study to the results of the previous study
(Postareff et al. 2007), some differences can be found (see Figs. 2–4). The collapse of the
123
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
41
scores measuring the CCSF approach to teaching and self-efficacy beliefs did not occur in
the present study. Some possible explanations to this are discussed. First, one explanation
could be that the results of the previous study were taken into account in the pedagogical
courses organised by the Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education. The
teachers have been made aware of the possible collapse and negative effect of the training
at the beginning of the training. Oosterheert and Vermunt (2003) have emphasised that
teachers should be made aware of the possible delay in the development of more
sophisticated conceptions of teaching. Second, the teachers of the present study might have
been more devoted to developing their own teaching since they voluntarily participated in
the follow-up study. Previous research has shown that teachers with a more sophisticated
understanding of teaching and learning are more likely to change their understanding of
teaching and teaching practices (Martin and Lueckenhausen 2005). Teachers who are
motivated to develop pedagogical knowledge have been shown to engage in a sort of
reflection that leads to better teaching. Furthermore, they have a willingness and an ability
to take risks in their actions, to do things differently (McAlpine and Weston 2000). Third,
the differences in the research settings might have had an effect on the differences in the
results of the two studies. The previous study was a cross-sectional study and compared
groups which consisted of different people, while the present study applied a longitudinal
setting comparing groups which consisted of the same people as in the previous study and
measured changes within the same groups.
The group of teachers who had 30 ECTS or more in the previous study but in the present
study had completed 70 ECTS of pedagogical courses (from group 4 to 70 ECTS) scored
lower on the CCSF approach and self-efficacy scales in the present study. This phenomenon is interesting, although the differences between the measurements were not
significant (the group consisted of only seven teachers). The decrease in their scores could
be explained by their increased awareness of their own teaching. In the previous study their
scores were on an extremely high level, and after applying the information gained from the
training to practice and after an intensive pedagogical training of 70 ECTS, their awareness
of teaching might have resulted in a decrease. The scores return to a realistic level after a
‘‘hype’’.
The original scores on the measured scales were somewhat different between the 200
participants of the previous study and the 80 ones who participated in the present study. For
example, the original score on the self-efficacy scale of teachers who had under 30 ECTS
was much lower than the score of the teachers who participated in the present study (see
Fig. 4). The assumption presented earlier that the teachers of the present study would be
more motivated and committed to developing their teaching than the participants of
the previous study might explain these differences. However, as reported earlier, the
teachers of the previous and the present study did not differ from each other in terms
of teacher’s age, gender, teaching experience or discipline.
Pedagogical implications
The study brought some valuable insights for the developers and organisers of pedagogical
courses for university teachers. First, a possible negative effect of pedagogical training on
approaches to teaching and on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs at the beginning of pedagogical courses could be prevented by making teachers aware of this possible collapse.
Second, it is important to acknowledge that the effects of pedagogical training are rather
stable. The results of the present study imply that no increase or decrease in the scores
123
42
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
measuring approaches to teaching and self-efficacy beliefs are expected to occur after the
training if teachers do not continue their studies. Third, teachers should be encouraged to
continue their studies after the basic courses because of the positive effects of the training,
especially on student-centredness. Fourth, it is important to acknowledge that pedagogical
training is more likely to strengthen those teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs who have less
teaching experience than of those who have more teaching experience. Finally, the focus
and intention of pedagogical courses should be on changing teacher’s conceptions of
teaching rather than on changing their teaching techniques.
Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge Docent Erkki Komulainen for his valuable help in the
data analyses.
References
Åkerlind, G. S. (2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher – Variation in meaning. Studies in
Higher Education, 28, 375–390.
Bailey, J. G. (1999). Academics’ motivation and self-efficacy for teaching and research. Higher Education
Research & Development, 18, 343–359.
Bandura, A. (2000). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines.
Buckinghamshire: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of
university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204–213.
Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2004). Does practice make perfect? A slow and discontinuous process. In H. P. A.
Boshuizen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way
from novice to expert (pp. 73–95). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Coffey, M., & Gibbs, G. (2000). Can academics benefit from training? Some preliminary evidence.
Teaching in HigherEducation, 5, 385–389.
Eley, M. E. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of teaching, and the making of specific decisions in planning to
teach. Higher Education, 51, 191–214.
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, 87–100.
Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy
within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Higher Education , 72, 483–511.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
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.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255–275.
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of
good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469–490.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Hämäläinen, K. (2004). The Bologna declaration as a tool to enhance learning and
instruction at the University of Helsinki. International Journal for Academic Development, 9, 153–165.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Nevgi, A. (2003, August). The effect of pedagogical training and teaching experience on approach to teaching. (Paper presented at the 11th EARLI conference, Padua).
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are
affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 285–298.
Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary
variation and ‘teaching-scholarship’. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 213–228.
Martin, E., & Lueckenhausen, G. (2005). How university teaching changes teachers: Affective as well as
cognitive challenges. Higher Education, 49, 389–412.
McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (2000). Reflection: Issues related to improving professors’ teaching and
students’ learning. Instructional Science, 28, 363–385.
123
High Educ (2008) 56:29–43
43
Norton, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers’ beliefs and
intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher education, 50, 537–571.
Oosterheert, I. E., & Vermunt, J. D. (2003). Knowledge construction in learning to teach: The role of
dynamic sources. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 9, 157–173.
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in
higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 557–571.
Postareff, L., Katajavuori, N. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Trigwell, K. (in press). Consonance and dissonance in
descriptions of teaching of university teachers. Studies in Higher Education.
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics’ conceptions of
science teaching and learning. Learning Instruction, 4, 217–231.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in higher
education. Suffolk: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Applications and data analysis
methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher
education. Educational Psychology, 25, 673–680.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher
Education, 24, 93–112.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher
Education, 41, 299–325.
Sonesson, A., & Lindberg Sand, Å. (2006, June). Compulsory higher education teacher training in Sweden –
a nucleus for scholarship of teaching and learning. (Paper presented at the 6th Conference of the
International Consortium for Educational Development, Sheffield).
Strategic plan for the years 2007–2009. University of Helsinki. (2006). Helsinki: Helsinki University
Printing House.
Trigwell, K., Ashwin, P., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Nevgi, A. (2004, June). Variation in approaches to
university teaching: The role of regulation and motivation. (Paper presented at the EARLI SIG Higher
Education Conference, Baltic Sea).
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in
Higher Education, 21, 275–284.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and
students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and
experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944–956.
van Keulen, H. (2006, June). Staff development and basic teacher qualification systems in The Netherlands,
with a focus on Utrecht University. (Paper presented at the 6th Conference of the International
Consortium for Educational Development, Sheffield).
Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning
and Instruction, 9, 257–280.
123