Higher Education 33: 331–349, 1997. 331c 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

The disjunction between lecturers’ conceptions of teaching andtheir claimed educational practice

KATE MURRAY1 & RANALD MACDONALD21Dean, School of Business, University of Derby; 2Associate Head, Curriculum Development,Learning and Teaching Institute, Sheffield Hallam University

Abstract. This article reports a survey of current teaching practice and lecturers’ perceptionsof their role within a Business School. These findings have been placed in a theoretical frame-work. Analysis of the qualitative aspects of the survey showed some interesting variations inconceptions of the role of a lecturer, the purpose of lectures, tutorials and assessment. Theresults also showed inconsistencies which are explored. The main conceptions of teachingheld by respondents describe the role of the lecturer as either imparting knowledge; providingstudent support; enthusing and motivating students; facilitating student learning; or some com-bination of these conceptions. A substantial majority of respondents saw themselves as eitherfacilitators or student supporters. However, the predominant use of lectures and tutorials, withthe purpose of disseminating information and applying or checking knowledge and understand-ing, conflicts with the majority view of the role of the lecturer. This disjunction between statedaims and claimed educational practice has been described as one of the ‘mysteries of highereducation’. Lecturers express attitudes and beliefs about teaching which are not translated intotheir teaching strategies and methods. Possible explanations for this disjunction are explored.

Background

The authors’ experience was of a new university which was experiencingrapid growth in student numbers, particularly at undergraduate level, and asimilarly large growth in staff in the Business School to teach on existing andnewly validated programmes. Research, whilst considered important, was notas prevalent as in the old universities and most staff were, at the time, pri-marily engaged in teaching and course development and administration. TheUniversity’s mission – to encourage life long learning – requires an emphasison the process of learning, as well as the content of material learned. Themotivation for the survey of lecturers was to assess teaching and learningmethods and the impact of the student experience. This was underpinned bythe need for a systematic review of teaching and learning arising partly fromthe exercise of preparing a self-assessment audit for Business and Manage-ment for the Higher Education Funding Council for England – and partly asa result of reviewing student and staff experiences on a number of recentlyestablished degree programmes.

332

Our conceptual framework was influenced by Ramsden (1992), who offeredsix key principles of effective teaching in higher education: clear explanationof complex subject matters; conscientious consideration for students; appro-priate assessment and feedback; clear goals and intellectual challenge; studentindependence, control and active engagement; and learning from students. Itwas also influenced by Marsh’s (1987) factor analysis of the North Americanand Australian literature, which explicitly includes enthusiasm as a separatedimension.

Marton and Saljo’s (1984) views on encouraging either a deep or a sur-face approach to learning were relevant, as was Entwistle and Ramsden’s(1983) strategic approach. Educationalists’ preference for the deep approachcan be summarised by Gibbs’ (1992) statement: ‘a surface approach is dis-astrous’ (p. 3). So, the survey investigated the use of methods recognised asencouraging a deep approach to learning.

The authors had in mind an implicit ideal, based on the final level ofRamsden’s (1992) developmental model of teaching in higher education.Stage 1 sees teaching as effective transmission of up to date information.Stage 2 sees teaching as organising student activity so skills are developed.Finally, Stage 3 sees teaching as making learning possible, embedding suchknowledge and the nature of how it is learned in the process. We wished todiscover the extent to which these approaches existed in the reported practicesof lecturers in the School.

The literature on lecturing staff conceptions of teaching

Research into lecturers’ conceptions of teaching has not been as extensive asresearch into students’ conception of learning. The methodologies employedby the surveys reviewed here have largely been semi-structured interviews,with the exception of Kember and Gow (1994), who have used questionnairesderived from semi-structured interviews, and the theoretical work of Biggsand Moore (1993) and Ramsden (1992).

Kember and Gow (1994) identify two possible orientations or conceptionsof teaching from their studies in Hong Kong – either the transmission ofknowledge or the facilitation of learning. The categories were identified from39 semi-structured interviews which formed the basis for a questionnaire.The results from the survey were based on a factor analysis of a 46 itemquestionnaire, of which there were 170 usable returns. Respondents weregiven the opportunity to agree or not with the categories offered on a fivepoint Likert-type scale. The sample included two different institutions and awide variety of subject areas. Their factor analysis ‘shows the neat separationbetween the two orientations’ (p. 65) into which respondents fall. There are

333

subscales within each of these orientations. Knowledge transmission has foursubscales – training for specific jobs, use of media, imparting information,and knowledge of the subject. The learning facilitation orientation is madeup of five subscales – problem solving, more interactive teaching, facilitativeteaching, pastoral interest, and motivator of students. So the two apparentlysimple descriptive labels refer, in fact, to a complex bundle of characteristics,but Kember and Gow do not define their conceptions in terms of combinationsof characteristics.

Biggs and Moore’s (1993) theoretical rather than empirical work suggestsa hierarchical approach (p. 25), which moves from a quantitative approachof transmitting knowledge, through an institutional approach of effectiveorchestration of validated teaching skills, to a qualitative approach, wherelecturers facilitate an understanding of meaning, a broadening of outlookand a change in the learner. There is a normative view taken, with Biggsand Moore assuming the third level to be ‘superior’ to the lower levels. Thefirst two levels are teacher centred, with the teacher controlling the contentand the use of appropriate teaching skills. Any failure to learn lies firmly onthe shoulders of the learner. The third level is a student centred approach toteaching, where learning is the result of interaction between the parties and theteacher’s role is to ‘engage the student in effective learning activities’ (p. 25).This work is not based on original survey work with staff, but instead infersstaff attitudes and behaviour based on student views. Samuelowicz and Bain(1992) argue that those conceptions are not hierarchically organised becausethe ‘lower level’ conceptions are not included in the ‘higher level’ ones – ratherthey are mutually exclusive. The distinction they make is bipolar between‘quantitative and qualitative learning and the parallel distinction betweenteaching as transmitting information and facilitating learning’ (p. 109). So theconception dictates what is done and, for example, the quantitative approachis unlikely to call for the same skills as the qualitative approach (p. 109).

Ramsden (1992), drawing on the general work of Biggs, Balla, Dall’Albaand Martin, describes three generic ways of understanding the role of theteacher in higher education. It moves from transmitting knowledge to organ-ising student activity and, finally, to making learning possible. He describesthis approach as progressive or hierarchical (p. 116).

Fox’s (1983) results, summarised in Figure 1, and those of Prosser et al.(1994), identify the factors involved in the conceptualisation of teaching. Bothsets of results can be expressed in terms of combinations of characteristicsthat can be organised onto qualitative dimensions. Their work is based onempirical studies – the former with new staff and the latter with first yearUniversity Physical Science teachers. The capital letters following each typerefer to points plotted on the diagram. Fox distinguishes between two ‘simple’

334

Figure 1. Dimensions of teaching (based on Fox, 1993).

theories of teaching – transferring knowledge (A) and shaping studies (B) –and two ‘developed’ theories – travelling through a subject (C) and growingas a learner (D). A ‘building’ theory (E) also emerges as a hybrid of the simpletheories and a possible bridge to the developed theories.

Prosser et al., taking a phenomenological approach, analysed the resultingconceptions of teaching in terms of referential and structural components. Thestructural aspects were information transmission, helping students acquireconcepts, helping students develop conceptions, and helping students changeconceptions. The referential components depend on the source or focus ofknowledge, whether it be syllabus, teacher, or student. They identified a spec-trum of six categories containing different combinations of these structuraland referential aspects (see Table 1). The conceptions were teaching as trans-mitting concepts of the syllabus (A), transmitting the teachers’ knowledge(B), helping students acquire concepts of the syllabus (C), and teaching ashelping students acquire the teachers’ knowledge (D). With their emphasis onthe syllabus, text book, or lecturer as a source of knowledge, these teacherswere concerned with transmitting information to the students. The other twoconceptions were teaching as helping students develop conceptions (E) andhelping students change conceptions (F). In these, the students’ conceptionsof the subject matter were focused on learning, rather than the syllabus or

335

Table 1. Conceptions of teaching (based on Prosser et al., 1994)

How the explanation Focus of teaching (referential)was given (structural) Syllabus/text Teachers’ conceptions Students’ conceptions

concepts

Teacher:Transmitting A Binformation

Helping students C Dacquire concepts

Helping students Edevelop conceptions

Helping students Fchange conceptions

text, and staff were concerned to help students to develop and/or change theirconceptions.

Like Fox (1983) and Prosser et al. (1994), Samuelowicz and Bain (1992)describe their conceptions in terms of combinations of characteristics thatcan be organised into qualitative dimensions but, in their case, there are five,not two. Their empirical work was based in Australia and the UK, with thir-teen lecturers in Science and Social Science. They identified five conceptionsof teaching: imparting information; transmitting information within a disci-pline framework; facilitating understanding; supporting student learning; andchanging student conceptions of the world. These emerged from an analysisof semi-structured interviews which ranged over many educational conceptsconcerned with teaching practice and student learning. From these findings,they proposed five dimensions of conceptions of teaching – for example, thedimension concerned with content can be either teacher controlled or studentcontrolled, or a combination of both. The other four dimensions are the direc-tionality of teaching, students’ existing conceptions, the knowledge gainedor constructed by the student, and the expected learning outcomes. Thesedimensions were derived from further analysis of the global conceptions ofthe thirteen lecturers and were used to recode the original transcripts. A com-plex variety, though limited range, of conceptions of teaching emerges whichis ordered by degree of conception, though the ordering is not hierarchical(see p. 97).

Dunkin (1990) deduced four dimensions of teaching, using content analysisof interviews with 55 new lecturers. They are structuring learning, motivatinglearning, encouraging activity and independence, and establishing interper-sonal relations conducive to learning. Motivating learners and conducive

336

interpersonal relations were least likely to be seen as stand-alone dimen-sions for staff, although Dunkin suggests they may well have been seen asprerequisite conditions by many respondents.

Pratt (1992), based on one of the largest samples (253 adults from a varietyof cultural backgrounds), used a phenomenographic approach to identify fiveconceptions of teaching – the engineering conception, which was concernedwith delivery of content and was teacher dominated; the apprenticeship con-ception, or modelling ways of being, where the dominant element, again,was the teacher and content, but this time they were inseparable; the devel-opmental conception, or cultivating the intellect, is more learner centred andconcerned with facilitating the intellectual development and personal autono-my of students; the nurturing conception, or facilitating personal agency, hasas the dominant element the learners and their self-concept; and finally, thesocial reform concept, or seeking a better society. In this final category, theimportance is with the ideal based on a particular system of beliefs, usuallyderived from an ethical code, a religious doctrine, or a political ideology.Communism and Buddhism appear to have been influential in this group.

The literature on lecturers’ conceptions of teaching shows a very mixed setof findings. Not only is there no general agreement about what the concep-tions of teaching might be, there is no agreement on whether it is possiblefor a person simultaneously to hold several different conceptions of teaching,so that categories overlap. In particular, a number of studies suggest that theconception of teaching may depend on the context of the teaching. For exam-ple, Prosser et al. are very insistent that their findings may only be relevant tofirst year Science teaching. The level of complexity also varies enormously.Clearly, research in this area has yet to mature fully and there is probablya need to debate more extensively the methodologies used. Interpretationand categorisation of semi-structured interviews and responses to qualitativequestions is always difficult, especially in a newly emerging area of research.There may have been a tendency to use work on students’ conceptions oflearning to inform analysis of some of the material gathered about teaching.Furthermore, the authors’ own conceptions of teaching will have influencedtheir analysis.

Methodology

There were three main areas of investigation undertaken in the present study.Firstly, lecturers’ attitudes (Marton, 1988) were investigated. This involveda content analysis of qualitative data, similar to the work of Dunkin (1986),Fox (1983) and Kember and Gow (1994). So, lecturers’ construction of theirworld was investigated, in an attempt to discover and describe the differ-

337

ent ways they relate to various aspects of their world, making implicit andtacit understandings explicit. It concentrated on the role of the lecturer, thepurpose of lectures, tutorials, and assessment, and definitions of good andbad students were elicited to illustrate lecturers’ conceptions of those phe-nomena. Secondly, there was a desire to discover the strategies employed bystaff (Dunkin, 1986, Brown et al., 1982), and so questions about assessmentstrategies, teaching strategies, and staff development were asked. A third areaof investigation was into the teaching methods employed (Gibbs, 1992, andBrown and Atkins, 1988), leading to questions about the teaching aids used inlectures and tutorials, and assessment methods employed. This article reportson the findings of the first part of the project.

A preliminary study which used semi-structured interviews was conductedwith a representative sample of School of Business lecturers (n = 13). Thesample was chosen on the basis of level, experience and discipline of thelecturer. The research team devised the structure of the interviews, with theintention of exploring the teaching methods and strategies currently employedby staff, the reasons for their choices, views on assessment and the lecturers’role, their conceptions of the purpose of lectures, tutorials and assessment, aswell as their views of ‘weak’ and ‘good’ students.

No problems were experienced in gaining access to lecturing staff. Inter-views were conducted by two members of the research team, who weresubsequently able to reflect on the process as well as the content of the inter-views. They lasted for a minimum of forty five minutes and were conducted ina relaxed manner. A qualitative analysis of this data allowed the developmentof categories for the final questionnaire to be identified within the commonthemes of teaching methods adopted in lectures and tutorials, influences onteaching methods used, perceived purposes and types of assessment, use offeedback, and teaching strategies and their review and development. Thequestionnaire was designed to include both open and closed questions, butonly responses to the open questions have been reported here. The preliminarystudy had suggested that a qualitative analysis would add richness to the datacollected and enhance understanding of the preferred styles and approachesadopted by the lecturers. The questionnaire was piloted on four members ofstaff and this resulted in some refinement of the open-ended questions. Thesequestions were piloted again.

Questionnaires were distributed to 80 staff and completed anonymously.39 usable returns represented a 46% response. Ten percent were completedby part-time staff. The response rate was as anticipated from busy peopleand may be biased towards those with more interest in teaching and learning.The qualitative data was transcribed and rigorously analysed through an iter-ative process, with four team members identifying themes and categorising

338

comments within these themes and associated sub-groups of the identifiedthemes. The aim was to bring together and identify patterns of similaritiesand, based on collectively generated criteria, reduce unimportant differencesarising, for example, from terminological or superficial differences, so under-lying commonalities could be identified. The data relating to each questioncould then be coded, entered into a computer, and analysed, in the same wayas quantitative data, enabling frequency counts and cross-tabulations to becalculated.

During analysis of the data, it was found that, in effect, ‘pooled units ofmeaning’ (Pratt, 1992, p. 209) were created. The language of the respondentswas used, because they were informed practitioners reflecting on their pro-fessional practice. The authors did not wish to impose categories and weremindful of the possibility of the influence of their own conceptions of teachingon the analysis. There was a need to return to the original data to ensure thatindividual respondents’ views and understandings were clearly categorised.Some of the findings suggest that it is possible that respondents might nothave had a shared understanding of some of the terms used. This is consistentwith work on professional discourse, where contextual constraints preventany single dominant construction (Martin, 1992).

The findings

The qualitative aspects of the questionnaire survey yielded some interestingresults about conceptions of teaching based on answers to the open questionsabout the role of a lecturer, the purpose of lectures, tutorials and assessment.It was felt necessary to explore a number of different attributes, in orderto develop general notions of teaching held by lecturers. Pratt (1992) definesconceptions as ‘specific meanings attached to phenomena’, which guide inter-pretation and action. The free response section of the questionnaire allowedmultiple responses and these often meant that staff did not fit neatly into anyone category. Dunkin (1990) found the same phenomena. There are a numberof possible explanations for this. It is not unusual for people to have multipleroles, nor for them to behave differently in different situations and to recog-nise this. It is possible that the responses have been influenced by alreadypublished categories describing conceptions of learning (see, for example,Samuelowicz and Bain’s (1992) work). In the following sections, it should beremembered that the sample size was 39.

The role of a lecturer

Answering the question ‘What would you describe as your main role as alecturer?’, 20 staff mentioned their role was to offer students support – for

339

example, ‘counsellor, manager, controller and, if need be, disciplinarian’ or‘advisor, initiator, to explain different areas’. 16 mentioned that their role wasseen as enthusing, encouraging or motivating students. A typical statementwas ‘to create an enjoyable, but productive learning environment’. 19 staffsaw their role as that of a facilitator, and a typical statement was ‘to facil-itate the learning process of students’. 20 staff saw their role as impartingknowledge – for example, ‘imparting knowledge, skills and attitudes’, ‘ableto explain theory clearly’. Only two staff considered their role to be that ofan administrator, although four respondents did not answer the question.

There were multiple responses to this question. Only 11 respondents iden-tified one role for a lecturer, 14 identified two roles, and 10 identified threeroles. The most usual combination was that of facilitator and student sup-porter (10 staff) followed by facilitator and motivator (8 staff) and studentsupporter and knowledge imparter (8 staff).

This question came at the end of the questionnaire and so may have beeninfluenced by responses to earlier questions. In effect, respondents were giv-en the opportunity to sum up their role. This, together with the space (half apage) allowed for the response, may partly account for the multiple respons-es. However, the semi-structured interviews which informed the design ofthe questionnaire had identified that staff felt they were undertaking manycomplex roles.

The purpose of lectures

Free response answers to the question ‘What do you see as the purpose oflectures?’ produced 24 mentions of ‘to disseminate information’, with typicalcomments being ‘to deliver content and direct reading skills’, ‘get basictheories, concepts and information over to a large group’. In addition, 4 staffwere more specific and saw lectures as delivering a syllabus. 9 staff saw thepurpose as providing a framework – for example, ‘provide an overview’ or‘communicating concepts – giving an overview of the subject area’. 10 staffsaw lectures as motivating, with comments such as ‘to encourage students toquestion, challenge or work interactively’ or ‘generate interest’. 6 staff feltlectures were to develop ideas.

The purpose of tutorials

In a free response question ‘What is the purpose of a tutorial?’, 21 respon-dents mentioned applying knowledge – for example, ‘encourage practicalapplication of theoretical knowledge’ or ‘provide a link between theory andpractice’, and 17 mentioned checking knowledge and understanding – forexample ‘reinforce learning’, ‘explain any points not made clear in lectures’.

340

There was some overlap between the two responses and 29 respondents madeone or other of these responses. 16 staff saw the purpose of tutorials asdeveloping skills. Typical comments were ‘develop analytical and learningskills’, ‘encourage creativity’. 12 staff mentioned tutorials as encouraginginteraction – for example ‘create involvement and participation’ or ‘developinterpersonal skills’.

The purpose of assessment

As well as asking about lectures and tutorials, similar questions were askedabout assessment. The free response to the question ‘What to you see as thepurpose of assessment?’ produced a wide range of answers. The questionnairealso asked about feedback and course work and examinations, so that bothformative and summative assessments were captured. 20 staff saw assessmentas checking knowledge and understanding, with a typical response being‘to ascertain the level and depth of understanding’. 19 saw it as evaluatingperformance – for example, ‘to indicate the level of competency’ or ‘to derivegrades for the course’. 19 saw it as evaluating progression – for example,‘to provide a snapshot of students’ progress’ or ‘monitor what has beenachieved’, and 14 saw it as giving feedback – for example, ‘to see if thestudent is benefiting from a course’, or ‘to give students tangible feedback’.Only 10 saw it as achieving learning objectives.

‘Good’ and ‘weak’ students

Staff were asked ‘What would you define as a good student?’ and ‘Whatwould you define as a weak student?’ 27 respondents mentioned that goodstudents wanted to learn – for example, ‘shows interest in the subject’, ‘any-one who wants to be here and wants to learn’, or ‘an attentive student’. 22mentioned having a positive attitude – for example, ‘motivated self-learner’,‘conscientious and enthusiastic’, or ‘hard working and amiable attitude’. 11mentioned a good student was challenging – for example, ‘questions – doesnot take what I say as gospel’, ‘has an enquiring mind’. Intelligence andrelevant skills were identified by 14 staff – for example, ‘able to research’,‘above average intelligence’ or ‘competent at studying’ – and hard workingby 19 staff – for example, ‘a student who is prepared to put in as much hardwork as I do’.

The question about weak students was not answered by 8 of the staff.Those that did respond gave very varied responses and were categorisedinto 7 categories. 16 mentioned students were uninterested – for example,‘lacks enthusiasm’, ‘poor attitude and not industrious’. Lack of motivationwas also identified by 18 staff – for example, ‘unmotivated and lazy’, ‘lazy,

341

narrow minded and unmotivated’. Other categories identified included ‘doesnot participate’, ‘does the minimum’, and ‘irregular attender’.

Discussion and further results

Table 2 compares the findings of this survey with those of other studies’. It ispossible to show from this study that conceptions of teaching are concernedwith four main areas: (a) imparting knowledge, (b) enthusing, encouraging,and motivating students, (c) facilitating student learning, and (d) supportingstudents.

It is interesting to note that the responses to this survey and those of Dunkin,Pratt, and Samuelowicz and Bain do not always fall neatly into one particularcategory. So, there is an overlap between categories, particularly betweenfacilitating learning and motivating students. Thus, a clear classification ofconceptions of learning, as suggested by Kember and Gow, for example,may not be appropriate, even if each descriptor includes a complex bundleof characteristics. Still, Table 2 suggests that it is possible to find a degreeof commonality between the general findings of this and other surveys interms of the main conceptions of teaching. Differences in methodology makedirect comparisons across rows and columns inappropriate. Furthermore,conceptions such as ‘motivating’ can include other categories and might nothave much in common, depending on what students are being motivated todo. Difficulties of comparability of findings also exist. The bottom row inTable 2 highlights the differences in methodology between the studies.

The picture which emerges from this survey of the conception of teachingheld by respondents is that the role of the lecturer is either providing studentsupport, enthusing, and motivating students (perhaps only the ‘good’ ones),facilitating student learning, or being knowledge imparters. A combination ofthese conceptions is also possible. 10 staff presented themselves as being bothfacilitators and student supporters and 29 staff as either facilitators or studentsupporters. However, the reported purpose of lectures and tutorials as dissem-inating information (24 mentions plus 4 mentions of delivering a syllabus,equals 28 in all) and applying or checking knowledge and understanding (21mentions) is not consistent with these conceptions of the role of the lecturer.As no significant correlations were found across the four areas of role oflecturer, purpose of lectures, tutorials, and assessment, and cross-tabulationswere not helpful, the original questionnaires were returned to.

A small group of 8 respondents presented themselves as holding clearlyconsistent views across all categories. These were the ‘knowledge imparters’.What they perceived as their role as a lecturer was matched by what they sawas the purpose of lectures, tutorials and assessment – to impart knowledge.

342

Tabl

e2.

Sur

vey

find

ings

com

pare

dw

ith

thos

eof

othe

rst

udie

s

Thi

ssu

rvey

Fox

Dun

kin

Kem

ber

&Pr

att

Sam

uelo

wic

z&

Ram

sden

Big

gs&

Pro

sser

etal

.

Gow

Bai

nM

oore

1983

1990

1990

1992

1992

1992

1993

1994

Impa

rtkn

owle

dge

Teac

her

&S

truc

turi

ngT

rans

mit

Eng

inee

ring

:Im

part

Teac

hing

asT

rans

mit

Tra

nsm

itco

ncep

ts20

men

tions

subj

ectf

ocus

lear

ning

Del

iver

ing

info

rmat

ion

orte

llin

gor

know

ledg

eof

syll

abus

cont

ent

esta

blis

htr

ansm

issi

onA

A28

men

tion

sA

ppre

ntic

eshi

p:fr

amew

ork

Tra

nsm

itth

eM

odel

ling

way

sTe

ache

r’s

ofbe

ing

know

ledg

eB

Mot

ivat

ing

Teac

her

focu

sM

otiv

atin

gK

now

ledg

eD

evel

opm

enta

l,T

rans

mit

Teac

hing

asO

rche

stra

tion

Hel

pst

uden

ts16

men

tions

&st

uden

tcu

ltiva

ting

the

know

ledg

e,or

gani

sing

ofte

achi

ngac

quir

ech

ange

22m

entio

nsin

telle

ctco

ncep

tst

uden

tact

ivity

skill

sco

ncep

tsof

Ban

dsk

ills

the

syll

abus

C

Faci

litat

ing

Stu

dent

&In

depe

nden

ceFa

cilit

ate

Nur

turi

ngFa

cilit

ate

Teac

hing

asFa

cilit

ate

Hel

pst

uden

ts19

men

tions

subj

ectf

ocus

&ac

tiviti

esfa

cilit

atin

gun

ders

tand

ing

mak

ing

lear

ning

acqu

ire

Teac

her

pers

onal

lear

ning

know

ledg

eC

20m

entio

nsag

ency

poss

ible

D

Stud

ents

uppo

rtS

tude

ntfo

cus

Inte

rper

sona

lL

earn

ing

Supp

ort

Hel

pst

uden

ts20

men

tions

&st

uden

tre

latio

nsst

uden

tde

velo

pfo

cus

chan

gele

arni

ngco

ncep

tions

D15

men

tions

E

Soci

alre

form

–C

hang

eH

elp

stud

ents

seek

ing

ast

uden

tch

ange

bette

rso

ciet

yco

ncep

tions

conc

eptio

nsF

Con

cept

ions

ofT

heor

ies

ofD

imen

sion

sof

Ori

enta

tions

toC

once

ptio

nsof

Con

cept

ions

ofT

heor

ies

ofC

once

ptio

nsof

Con

cept

ions

ofte

achi

ngte

achi

ngte

achi

ngte

achi

ngte

achi

ngte

achi

ngte

achi

ngte

achi

ngte

achi

ngC

onte

ntQ

ualit

ativ

eT

heor

etic

alE

mpi

rica

lA

naly

sis

Phen

omen

ogra

phic

Phe

nom

enog

raph

icT

heor

etic

alT

heor

etic

alPh

enom

enog

raph

ic

343

For example, for one respondent, the role was to ‘impart knowledge’, thepurpose of a lecture to ‘convey basic information’, the purpose of a tutorialto ‘cover more detailed worked examples’, and the purpose of assessment to‘check knowledge’. There was an even smaller group (4 staff) who presentedconsistent facilitation of learning views. For example, for one respondent, therole was to ‘facilitate learning’, the purpose of a lecture to ‘introduce a topic’,the purpose of a tutorial to ‘help understand’, and the purpose of assessmentto ‘provide feedback and check progress’.

10 staff appeared to have mixed, or seemingly confused, conceptions ofteaching, in that they held three conceptions of their role. This could be consis-tent with the hierarchical classification suggested by Biggs. Such a structurewould account for the apparently conflicting conceptions. For example, 5staff were both facilitators and knowledge imparters and, similarly, 5 wereboth motivators and knowledge imparters. Furthermore, these variations inconceptions held may be context specific, so lecturers may have differentconceptions of teaching for differing groups of students working at differentlevels. There may also be a difference between reflecting on the idealised roleof the lecturer and reporting actual practical experience, which could explainthe ‘confusion’.

Staff beliefs about their role did not always appear to match their intentionsor their subsequent actions. For example, one ‘student supporter’ saw thepurpose of lectures as ‘inputting information’ and the purpose of tutorials as‘doing what was learned in lectures’. This suggests that an interesting areafor further research would be to investigate in detail what lecturers mean bysome of the language they used. The shared understanding of the concept of‘student supporter’ may not be very great, but cross-checking other responses,such as methods used, seems to suggest the ‘knowledge imparter’ would havebeen a better descriptor than the claimed ‘student supporter’.

Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) allude to this problem as one of the ‘mys-teries of higher education’ – the disjunction between stated aims and claimededucational practice. This phenomena has been referred to since the 1970s(Marton et al., 1984). In order to investigate this disjunction, it is necessaryto trace how the conceptions of teaching held by staff are translated fromconceptions about their role and the purpose of lectures, tutorials, and assess-ment, into teaching strategies. A further stage would be to investigate theteaching methods and aids utilised to implement these strategies, and resultsof this are to be reported elsewhere. However, with the notable exception ofTrigwell et al., (1995), the previous surveys have not explored beyond con-ceptions into strategies and methods and so have not been able to commenton the ‘mystery’.

344

It is worth noting that Trigwell et al. (1995) did not find inconsistenciesbetween what they call intention and strategy. So, their respondents – firstyear Science teachers in Australia – demonstrated a congruence of relationsbetween intention and strategy. Those who had a conceptual change intentionadopted a student focused strategy and those with an information transferintention chose a teacher focused strategy.

Inconsistencies have been found in this survey. Apart from considerationof coding problems, which may still exist despite using other responses toprovide cross-checks, three possible explanations are offered. A first expla-nation for inconsistent views held by lecturers could be that context mitigatesagainst the use of strategies associated with conceptions. Given that lecturersfrequently refer to shortage of resources, this was investigated. A proxy forthe shortage of resources to undertake their role as they wished was used:namely student numbers. 32 staff claimed the number of students did affectteaching methods used. There was a bimodal distribution of lecture size, 41–80 and above 120. The majority of tutorials were 11–20, with 27% having21–30 students. 17 staff felt that the mode of delivery was affected by largenumbers of students.

Typical comments included ‘many students, videos and slides: few students,role play, computers, brainstorming and case studies’, or ‘larger lectures,more formal presentation’, ‘hard to use interactive/group work with fiftyplus’. Engagement was felt to be affected by 13 staff, with comments such as‘large numbers – less easy to ensure all engaged in discussion’, and ‘in smallgroups, interaction and questions and answers are easier to encourage’. 4 staffthought students could hide, but only 1 member of staff thought there wereassessment implications and less feedback. Further work needs to be doneon the impact of student numbers, especially given the pressure on resourceswhich is leading to higher staff–student ratios. Despite the work of Gibbs(1984), respondents clearly believed that once a group became large enoughto be perceived as a lecture (forty plus), then different strategies and methodsshould be employed. There is little evidence of detailed reflection by staff ofthe impact of the discipline, topic, course objectives, maturity and educationalstage of the students being an important variable to be considered along withthe numbers of students issue, although questions were asked about theseissues.

As a second explanation, Argyris and Schon (1978) make the distinctionbetween espoused theory and theory-in-use. The former is based on what issaid publicly, such as lecturers’ declared beliefs or views of their role. Thelatter is based on values and strategies which are undeclared, but which informaction. Hence, the methods described by lecturers in this study were actuallyquite different from those implied by their statements of the conceptions of

345

their role. This could partly be because they were influenced by what theybelieved they should say, and partly because they responded by saying whatthey would ideally like to do, but were unable to do. A way of closing thisgap could be to encourage systematic reflection on the process of learningand teaching and by encouraging debate on the issues, so a greater awarenessof the difference between espoused theory and theory-in-use is developed.

In a new area of findings that recasts the disjunction, staff were asked toreflect on their role as a teacher and asked how they reviewed their teachingstrategies. Staff were offered four possible methods for reviewing teachingstrategies – namely self-evaluation, student evaluation, peer evaluation, andexternal evaluation – and were invited to comment as to exactly how suchmethods of evaluation were carried out. The vast majority (78%) of respon-dents used personal reflection as a method of self-evaluation. Two thirdsof respondents used self-evaluation in reviewing teaching skills. Twenty-three percent relied on students’ immediate reaction. The sort of commentsmade concerning personal reflection included ‘a sense of exercises that wentwell/badly’, ‘product of experience’, ‘always think through the whole processto see if there is room for improvement’, ‘did the session go well?’, ‘frequentlyfeel “could have done better”’. A small number used tape recordings or videoswhich they reviewed. Given the amount of reflection, it is surprising that thereis little evidence of strategies and methods to facilitate the achievement ofidentified roles, so that the purposes of lectures, tutorials and assessment aredifferently constructed. It would seem that reflection is not as wide-rangingas it could be and may be constrained by artificial barriers which restrict theview of what is possible. Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle encompasses concreteexperience followed by observations and reflections, then the formation ofabstract concepts and generalisations and, finally, testing the implications ofthese concepts and generalisations in new situations. It would seem staff onlygo part way round the learning cycle and do not close the loop, so that even ifthey do reflect on their practice, they do not make the link through planningto changing their practices.

Almost half of the respondents relied on student evaluation to review teach-ing skills. Under student evaluation, 17 relied on questionnaires which wereadministered to students and 19 relied on informal feedback from the students,given in a personal way – for example, ‘ask students what they thought’, ‘dis-cussion with students’, ‘I take note of student reps’ comments and act on themwhen feasible’. Given that questionnaires are routinely administered to elicitstudent feedback on all courses, it would seem that staff choose to rely morethan might be expected on informal verbal feedback from students, ratherthan questionnaires. This could be because they prefer face to face exchangesin which issues can be explored more fully, or because it is less challenging. It

346

could be that focus-group work with students may be preferred by staff to themore formal and regimented questionnaires that are used, although groups ofstudents may be seen as more challenging than individuals providing feed-back.

Peer evaluation was used by 23 of the respondents, of whom 8 relied onpeer discussions – for example, ‘discussion with colleagues on methods used’,‘swapping ideas’, ‘informal conversation with colleagues, not necessarily inthe subject area’. 12 staff used team meetings and made comments such as‘during planning week’, or ‘continuously through Course Team meetings’,while 2 used peer appraisal – for example, ‘at other universities as guestlecturer’, or ‘inviting colleagues to lectures and to comment’.

External evaluation was also used, but was slightly less popular than peerevaluation and considerably less popular than student evaluation or self-evaluation. The main method used in external validation was comments fromexternal examiners (18 mentions). 3 respondents mentioned that student per-formance in assessment could be used to evaluate lecturer effectiveness orperformance. One respondent mentioned employers’ views. Staff are clearlymore comfortable with informal discussions with colleagues, but it is debat-able the amount of change engendered.

These findings suggest considerable reliance on personal reflection. It couldbe that informal sessions to share feelings on ‘How did it go?’ might beuseful. Although peer review was only used by one third of respondents, theimpression of isolated personal reflections suggests some more supportivealternative could be found. The overall impression is one of reflection, butwithin the existing paradigm. The opportunity for ‘double-loop learning’, thatis changing the existing mental model (Argyris and Schon, 1978), does notseem to exist or has not been taken.

A final explanation for the inconsistencies found could be that more staffdevelopment is needed to help staff challenge or operationalise their perceivedrole. When asked how skills or expertise as a teacher were developed, 18 staffsaid through practice and reflection, with typical comments being ‘trial anderror’, ‘learning from experience’, or ‘learning by doing’. 22 had ideas fromcolleagues, with comments such as ‘pinch good ideas from colleagues!’, ‘takeadvice from experienced teachers’, or ‘observation of other colleagues’. Staffdevelopment workshops were identified by 19 staff and 11 developed theirexpertise as a teacher by keeping up to date and made comments such as ‘lookat computer software/multimedia developments’, ‘talking to employers andreading articles’, or ‘continually updating reading’. Gibbs (1995) argues forgreater awareness of the research into student learning and the implications ofthis for staff development. Although staff have not identified the need for helpin operationalising their conceptions of teaching through the development of

347

appropriate teaching strategies, the findings of this survey would suggest thathelp is needed. Given that Trigwell et al. (1995) did not find inconsistenciesbetween conceptions (intentions) and strategies, it would be interesting toknow if the staff in their survey had been given teacher training or offeredhelp at a subject level to move from a knowledge imparting approach to amore student centred approach.

Conclusion

Research to date in the area of conceptions of teaching has used a variety ofmethodologies, making direct comparisons of findings difficult. Methodolog-ical approaches have varied from literature reviews, to theoretical models, tocontent analysis and phenomenography. However, surprisingly, it is still pos-sible to discern a number of common themes. Lecturers in higher educationappear to conceive of teaching as either knowledge imparting, motivating,facilitating, or supporting students. It appears that lecturers often hold morethan one conception, but the extent to which these are part of nested hier-archies (Biggs and Moore) or different conceptions of alternative styles ofteaching (Kember and Gow) is not yet clear.

This survey attempted to investigate both lecturers’ conceptions of teachingand their claimed practices. It was felt that one of the explanations for thedisjunction between the two resulted from the differences between espousedtheory and practice in a constrained environment by individuals with insuffi-cient support or training in their chosen profession. Environmental constraintson the context of teaching, with declining resources, was felt by respondentsto be important. At an individual level, reflections were found to be narrow-ly conceived within individual existing paradigms and the staff were onlygoing part way round the learning cycle and not closing the loop by usingreflection on practice to change that practice. It is suggested that a morecoherent and consistent staff development policy would help staff to developand operationalise their conceptions.

Further research is needed to establish what are the main conceptions heldby lecturers and whether or not these can be changed. If it is found thatconceptions are very firmly held, then it may be that institutions wish eitherto select staff on the basis of an institutionally preferred conception, or todeploy staff to work at a level or in an area best suited to their particularconception. Alternatively, it could be useful to discover how better to matchconceptions with practice, because it is likely that staff unable to implementtheir preferred approach to teaching will feel frustrated. Furthermore, staffmay well work more effectively if there is a coherence between conceptions,strategies, and methods. Research into this would require linkages to be made

348

between staff conceptions, strategies and methods of teaching and the studentexperience, to identify if there was a preferred conception of teaching toenhance the student learning experience.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Kay Greasley and Santosh Janagol for their researchskills, Nicky Golding of De Montford University for her help in constructingthe questionnaire, the University of Derby for funding the project, Dr. GordonBancroft for help with statistics and Prof. Alan Clarke for helpful commentson an earlier draft. The authors also wish to thank the Editor and two refereesfor substantial and detailed comments, which have both helped the authorsand improved the work presented. Usual disclaimers apply.

References

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978). Organisational Learning: A Theory-of-Action Perspective.Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Biggs, J.B., and Moore, P.J. (1993). The Process of Learning, (3rd edition). Englewood Cliffs,NY: Prentice Hall.

Brown, G.A., Bakhtar, M., and Youngman, M.B. (1982). Towards a Typography of LecturingStyles. University of Nottingham.

Brown, G.A., and Atkins, M. (1988). Effective Teaching in Higher Education. London:Methuen.

Dunkin, M.J. (1986). ‘Research on teaching in higher education’, in Wittrock, M. (ed.),Handbook of Research on Teaching, (3rd edition). New York: Macmillan.

Dunkin, M.J. (1990). ‘The induction of academic staff to a university: processes and products’,Higher Education 20, 47–66.

Entwistle, N., and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: CroomHelm.

Entwistle, N., and Tait, H. (1990). ‘Approaches to learning, evaluation of teaching and prefer-ences for contrasting academic environments’, Higher Education 19, 169–194.

Fox, D. (1983). ‘Personal theories of teaching’, Studies in Higher Education 8(2), 151–163.Gibbs, G. (1984). 53 Interesting Things to do in Lectures. Bristol: TEC.Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the Quality of Student Learning. Bristol: TEC.Gibbs, G. (1995). ‘Changing lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning through action

research’, in Brew, A. (ed.), Directions in Staff Development. Buckingham: SRHE andOpen University Press.

Kember, D. and Gow, L. (1994). ‘Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality ofstudent learning’, Journal of Higher Education 65, 59–74.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall.Marsh, H.W. (1987). ‘Students’ evaluations of university teaching: research findings, method-

ological issues and directions for future research’, International Journal of EducationalResearch 11(3) (whole issue).

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in Organisations: Three Perspectives. Oxford University Press.Marton, F. (1988). ‘Describing and improving learning’, in Schmeck, R.R. (ed.), Learning

Strategies and Learning Styles. New York: Plenum.

349

Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G. and Beaty, E. (1993). ‘Conceptions of learning’, InternationalJournal of Educational Research 19(3), 277–300.

Marton, F., and Saljo, R. (1984). ‘Approaches to learning’, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D.J., andEntwistle, N.J. (eds), The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Pratt, D.A. (1992). ‘Conceptions of teaching’, Adult Education Quarterly 42, 203–220.Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., and Taylor, P. (1994). ‘A phenomenographic study of academics’

conceptions of science learning and teaching’, Learning and Instruction 4, 217–231.Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.Saljo, R. (1979). ‘Learning about learning’, Higher Education 8, 443–451.Samuelowicz, K., and Bain, J.D. (1992). ‘Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers’,

Higher Education 24, 93–111.Trigwell, K., and Prosser, M. (1995). ‘Congruence between intention and strategy in university

science teachers’ approaches to teaching’, Higher Education, 1–11.