Kane

Reviewv of EducationalResearch

*, ';

-

1

iSummer 2002, VoL 72, No. 2, pp. 177-228

Telling Half the Story: A iCritical Review of Research on thle Teaching Beliefs, and Practices of University Academnics I

'

2-

.Ruth Kane, Susan Sandretto ChrisHeath i University of Otago .

A criticalreviewvofresearchon teachingbeliefs andpracticesofuniversityacademics revealed that the espoused theories of action of academics have not been distinguishedfromtheir theories-in-use in some studies.,It is our contention that research that examines only what university teachers say about theirpracticeand does notdirectlyobservewhattheydo is at riskof telling,half the story. Our review revealed seieral unsupported claim' about universityl academics' teachingpratice, raisedconcerns about datagathdringand analysis methods, and fouind that research on primary and secondary teachers -beliefs has been used infrequently to inform researchin teiliary settings. The. review identifies implicationsfor understandinguniversity.academics'development as teachersand provides directionforfitrther research., KEywoRDs:

espoused theories, higher education, teachers' beliefs, teaching

practice.

Researchers acknowledge the complexity involved in teaching and in leaming to teach effectively (e.g., Ballantyne, Bain, & Packer, 1999; Calderhead, 1996; Clark &Peterson, 1986). At the primary and secondarylevels, the difficult and complicated process of learning to teach has been well studied (e.g., Ethell, 1997; Etiheli '& McMeniman, 2000; Kagan, 1992b; Wideeh, Mayer-Smith, & Moon,' 1998).Emerging from this research is an'understanding of the central role that teachbers' personal beliefs and theories play in teaching pradtice (Bullough, 1997a; Cark, & Peterson,' 1986; Ethell, 1997;Kagan, 1992b; Pajares, 1992' Richardson, 1996;'Trumbull, 1990). In the past decade, a body of literature has emerged at the tertiary level ihat examines the beiiefs of university teachers (e.g.,Burrouglis-Lange, 1996; Dall'Alba, 1991; Dunkin & Precians, '1992; Menges & Rando,' 1989; Pratt, 1992; Samuelowicz & Bain,,1992,Trigwell, Prosser, &Taylor, 1994). Studies arising from this research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics are the primary focus of the present review. Our interest in' this area developed as we began our background reading for a research project exploring the beliefs and practices of excellenifteachers at'our university. We became aware of some studies that made claims about teaching practice based only on information gathered about teachers' beliefs without observations of 177

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath

practice. As we began to question the literature, we widened our search in an effort to understand the complex field. We found ample discussion of the relationship between teachers' beliefs (espoused theories of action) and teachers' practices (theories in use) in the primary and secondary teacher education literature (for reviews, see Kagan, 1992a; Pajares, 1992; Wideen et al., 1998); however, we found few similar studies at the tertiary level (for a review, see Kember,,1997). While trying to clarify our thinking on the issues that were arising from our readings of the studies, we realized that there was no comprehensive critical analysis of current studies on university academics' teaching beliefs and practices. The review begins with a background section that uses research on the teaching beliefs and practices of primary and secondary teachers to lay the foundation for examining studies of university academics. In this background section, we briefly examine the research on teacher cognition, highlight findings from the research on the beliefs and practices of primary and secondary teachers, and examine problems with' the terminology used in some studies. With this foundation, we build a case for the application of findings fromn research in primary and secondary settings to teachers at the tertiary level (i.e., instructors, lecturers, and professors). The next section of the review describes the theoretical framework we have used, theories of action. In the Method section, we describe how we searched for and selected studies for the review. Then we review research that has sought to understand the beliefs that university academics hold about teaching in order to better understand their teaching practices and improve the practices of others. Our critical analysis of the 'literature on tertiary teaching revealed some studies that (a) assume teachers' practice from reports of teachers' beliefs, (b) are based on unstated research designs, and (c) miss opportunities to apply their findings to the development of teachers. .The review concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings for understanding the development of academics as teachers, the professional development of academics, and future research in the area of university teaching. Background- Research on Primary and Secondary Teachers Since the 1970s, a portion of the research aimed at improving teaching has focused on teacher cognition (Calderhead, 1996; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Dann, 1990). Such research has predominantly been conducted with primary and secondary school teachers. This research "has helped to identify. the nature and complexity of the teacher's work, and helped to provide ways of thinking about the processes of change and support" (Calderhead, 1996, p. 721). Shavelson and Stem (1981) explained that research on teacher cognition made the "basic assumption ... that teachers' thoughts, judgements and decisions guide their teaching behavior" (p.470). Teacher cognition includes the knowledge, beliefs, and thinking of teachers (Calderhead, 1996). Kagan (1990) noted that the term teachercognition is somewhat ambiguous, because researchers invoke the term to refer to different products, including teachers' interactive thoughts during instruction; thoughts during lesson planning; implicit beliefs about students, classrooms, and learning; reflections about their own teaching performance; automatized routines and activities that form their instructional repertoire; and self-, awareness of procedures they use to solve classroom problems. (p. 420) 178

Telling Halfthe Story Studies on teacher cognitionwhave investigated teachers' judgments, decision making, planning, and thought processes (Calderhead, 1996; Clark,& Peterson, 1986; Shavelson & Stem, 1981). This review, however, is primarily focused on the area of teacher cognition research that has investigated the knowledge, beliefs, and conceptions of teachers that underpin their teaching practice. Researchon Teacher Knowledge Researchers and reviewers have distinguished between teacher knowledge and teacher beliefs (Calderhead, 1996; Fenstermacher, 1994; Richardson, 1996; Thompson, 1992). Teacher knowledge has been defined as the "factual propositions and the understandings that inform skillful action" (Calderhead, 1996, p. 715). Different categories of teacher knowledge have been identified or described, including subject or content knowledge (Grossman, 1990; Ormrod & Cole, 1996; Shulman, 1987), pedagogical content knowledge (Gudmundsdottir, 1991; Ormrod & Cole, 1996; Shulmani, 1987), ciaft knowledge (Calderhead, 1996; Fenstermacher, 1994; Leinhardt, 1990); and (personal) practical knowledge (Clandinin &,Connelly, 1987,1991; Connelly '& Clandinin, 1990; Elbaz, 1981, 1983; Johnston, 1992; Tamir,'1991).' We use the term (personal) practicalknowledge to describe the 'work by Clandinin' and Connelly (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987, 1991; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990) and Elbaz (1981, 1983) in an inclusive fashion. Elbaz (1983) defined practical knowledge as the context-specific knowledge teachers accumulate with practice, which "encompasses firsthand experience of students' learning styles, interests, needs, strengths and difficulties, and a repertoire of instructional techniques and classroom management skills" (p. 5). The work of Clandinin and Connelly has focused on the personal aspect of practical knowledge (e.g., Clandinin & Connelly, 1987). They defined personal pracdcal knowledge as a combination of the teacher's past experiences, present context, and future plans that is "found in the teacher's practice" (Connelly& Clandinin, 2000, p,. 1). Craft knowledge has been defined as including "the wealth of teaching informadon that very skilled pracddoners have about their own practice. . . [which] includes deep, sensitive,' ocation-specific knowledge of teaching ... and

...

fragmentary,

superstitious and often inaccurate;opinions" (Leinhardt, 1990, p. 18). Craft knowledge is the knowledge that teachers have constructed about teaching as a result of their teaching experience or practice (Calderhead, 1996; Fenstermacher, 1994). Research on TeacherBeliefs Studies have examined teacher beliefs about learners and learning, teaching, subject matter, learning to teach, and self and the teaching role (Calderhead, 1996). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined a belief as a representation of the information someone holds about an object, or a "person's understanding of himself and his environment", (p. 131). This object can "be a person, a group of people, an institudon, a behavior, a policy, an event, etc., and the associated attribute may be any object, trait, property, quality, characteristic, outcome, or event" (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 12). While Rokeach (1972) defined a belief as "any simple proposition, conscious or unconscious, inferredfrom what a person says or does, capable of being preceded by the phrase 'I believe that. . .' "(p. 113), Rokeach (1972) described an attitude as "an organization of beliefs" (p.112), and Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined abeliefsys.tem as a hierarchy of beliefs according to strength about a particular object. 179

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath

Block and Hazelip (1995) explained that beliefs vary in strength and kind, and over time form a system or network. The ease with which a teacher can change his or her beliefs is related to the strength of those beliefs. The stronger the belief, the more resistant it becomes to change. Several researchers (e.g., Kagan, 1992a; Pajares, 1992) have,supported Block and Hazelip's claim that "teacher beliefs and belief systems are grounded in their personal experiences and, hence, are highly resistant to change" (1995, p. 27). Thompson's (1992) review of the beliefs and conceptions of primary and secondary mathematics teachers noted that "thoughtful analyses of the nature of the relationship between beliefs and practice suggest that belief systems are dynamic, permeable mental structures, susceptible to change in light of experience" (p. 149). 1 Researchers studying teachers' beliefs at the primary and secondary levels have used a number of definitions: "the highly personal ways in which a teacher understands classrooms, students, the nature of learning, the teacher's role in the classroom, and the goals of education',' (Kagan, 1990, p. 423); "psychologically held understandings, premises or propositions about the world that are felt to be true" (Richardson, 1996, p. 103); and "generally refer[ring] to suppositions, commitments and ideologies" (Calderhead, 1996, p. 715). Findings from research into primary, secondary, and preservice teachers' beliefs appear to have reached consensus on several issues: Students enter teacher education programs with preexisting beliefs based on their experience as students in schools, referred to by Lortie (1975) as their "apprenticeship of observation" (reinforced by the research and reviews offBullough, 1997 a, 1997b; Ethell, 1997; Fang, 1996; Pajares, 1992; and Richardson, 1996). * These beliefs are robust and resistant to change (Block &I-Iazelip, 1995; Clark, 1988; Kagan, 1992a; Richardson, 1996). * The beliefs act as filters allowing in or filtering out new knowledge that is deemed compatible or incompatible with current beliefs (Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992; Weinstein, 1990). • Beliefs exist,in a tacit or implicit form and are difficult to articulate (Clark, 1988; Ethell, 1997; Nespor, 1987; Trumbull, 1990). It would be reasonable to expect that these findings may have relevance to teachers at tertiary levels. Unfortunately, it appears that tertiary researchers have not taken full advantage of these findings. Less than half of the tertiary studies we critiqued referred to findings on primary and/or secondary teacher beliefs. Entwistle, Skinner, Entwistle, and Orr (2000) noted this omission in their recent work: "The two literatures have previously not cross-referenced each other" (p. 5). And Entwistle and Walker (2000) explained that "while teaching in higher education is bound to have distinctive characteristics, it also has elements in common with more general ways of describing teaching. Consequently, we can draw on research on school teaching" (p. 343). Confusing Terminology

The literature on teacher knowledge and beliefs from the primary and secondary levels has developed a number of different terms. Kagan (1990) highlighted this problem by noting: "Terms such as teacher cognition, self-reflection, knowledge and belief can each be used to refer to different phenomena. Variation in the defin180

Telling Halfthe Story

ition of a term can range from the superficial and idiosyncratic to the profound and theoretical" (p.456).. The use of these varying terms makes it difficult to investigate this area of teacher cognition research. Pajares (1992) addressed this difficulty in. his review:

They travel in disguise and often under aliasA-attitudes, values, judgements, axioms, opinions, ideology, perceptions, conceptions, conceptual systems, preconceptions, dispositions, implicit theories, explicit theories, personal theories, internal mental processes, action strategies, rules of practice, practical principles, perspectives, repertories of understanding, and social strategy, to name but a few that can be found in the literature. (p. 309) Several reviewers have noted the lack of consistency in the terminology used to describe primiary and secondary preservice teachers'-beliefs (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Ethell, 1997; Kagan, 1990, 1992a; Marland, 1987; Pajares, 1992). Kagan (1992a) noted "even the term 'teacher belief is not used consistently,'with some researchers referring instead to teachers' 'principles of practice,' 'personal epistemologies,' 'perspectives,' 'practical knowledge' or 'orientations'- " (p. 66). Clandinin and Connelly (1987) referred to this lack of agreement in terminology among researchers as "simply different words naming the same thing" (p. 488). The study of teachers' beliefs at the tertiary level has also resulted in the proliferation of a number of similar terms. Perhaps this is 'due to the number of different perspectives that have been used to examine how tertiary teachers view teaching. For example, researchers have asked participating teachers: * "What is your view of teaching?" (Gow & Kernber, 1993, p. 23). * "What are the most important things you can, do to enhance students' learnl ing?" (Dunkin & Precians, 1992, p. 487). * "What does a good teacher teaching ,in this course do?" (Martin & Balla ""What would you describe as your main role as a lecturer?" (Murray & MacDonald, 1997). * "What do you mean by teaching (learning) in this subject?" (Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994).

,I

* What were your "aims in teaching"? (Johnston, 1996, p. 216). * What about "the nature of teaching excellence"? (Andrews, Garrison, & Magnusson, 1996, p. 86). The vanrety of approaches has resulted in a number of different theories and terms used to describe teachers' beliefs and conceptions at the tertiary level. Marland (1987) noted that "the terminological babel in research on teacher thinking is causing confusion and impeding productive dialogue" at the primary and secondary levels (p. 503). We would argue that the lack of a common terminology at the tertiary leyel is in danger of causing the same confusion. Why Study the Beliefs Academics Have About Teaching? At research universities, academics are expected to produce and to disseminate knowledge. For.academnics trained as researchers, this means that they are often well prepared for the research role. In'contrast, many academics have had little or no formal teacher education to prepare them for the teaching role. As staff deyelopers and 181

Kane, Sandretto, and Heath teacher educators, we are concerned with supporting new academics on their journey to becoming excellent teachers. To do this we need to understand how adults, and in particular university academics, learn to teach. Putnam and Borko (1997) advocate that "teachers should be treated as active learners who construct their own understandings" (p. 1225). They explain that current learning theories are now constructivist in nature and view learners as active participants in the learning process, in which they "construct new knowledge and understandings based on what they already know and believe" (p. 1225, italics added). Thus, for "professional development experiences to be successful in supporting meaningful change, they must take into account and address teachers' knowledge and beliefs" (Putnam & Borko, 1997, p. 1281). Other researchers have echoed this view: "Fundamental changes to the quality of university teaching ... are unlikely to happen without changes to professors' conceptions of teaching" (McAlpine & Weston, 2000, p. 377). Research into teachers' beliefs serves to emphasize the impor, tant role that teachers' beliefs play in the development of teaching practice. We argue that an understanding of uniyersity teaching is incomplete without a consideration of teachers' beliefs about teaching and a systematic examination of the relationship between those beliefs and teachers' practices. A Theoretical Framework: Theories of Action .Argyris and Schon (1974) and later Argyris, Putnam, and McLain Smith (1985) provided the definitions and terms used in much of the literature on theories of action. Gow,IKember, and Sivan (1992);McLean and Blackwell (1997); and Menges and Rando (1989), among others, have embraced this framework and employed it in their research. Theories of action are based on a view of humans as agents acting purposefully on their environment. Humans leam from their actions and use this learning to plan further actions. As a result of the complexity of the world, humans have created models of their environment, along with a variety of theories on how to act according to those models, in order to create actions that achieve certain desired outcomes. Because it would be impossible to develop a theory that deals with each and every possible situation, "agents learn a repertoire of concepts, schemas, and strategies, and they learn programs for drawing from their repertoire to design representations and acdon forunique situations" (Argyris et al., 1985, p. 81). Argyris et al. (1985) explain that these design programs are theories ofaction. They distinguish between two types of action theories: espoused theories of action and theories-in-use. Argyris et al. (1985) explain that when asked about their behavior in a certain situation, most people respond with their espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory that encompasses their aims and intentions. However, theories-inuse actually determine their actions. These two theories may or may not be compatible, and the individual may or may not be aware of this. Thompson has signaled the need to examnine theories-in-use as well as espoused theories: Any serious attempt to characterize a teacher's conception of the discipline he or she teaches should not be limited to an analysis of the teacher's professed views. It should also include an examination of the instruction setting, the practices 'characteristic of that teacher, and the relationship between the teacher's professed views and actual practice. (1992, p. 134) 182

'Telling Halfthe Story

Theories-in-use exist predominantly as tacit knowledge, that is, knowledge we hold but cannot articulateieasily (Argyris & Sch6n, 1974; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1992; Polanyi, 1966). Polanyi (1966) described tacitknowledge as "a certain knowledge that [one] cannot; tell", (p. 8). In spite' of the tacit nature of theories-in-use,' Argyris et al. (1985) argue that an individual can construct his or her theory-in-use from observations and examinations of practice. If theory-in-use is tacit knowledge, and the teacher is possibly unaware of it and typically unable to explain it, the quesi tion arises: Why Make-that theory explicit? If the agent is performing ineffectively and does not know why .'. . explicitly stating his [sic] theory-in-use allows conscious criticism . .. he may not be

willing to beh'ave differently until he has examined his theory-in-use explicitly and compared it with alternatives. (Argyris & Schon, 1974, pp. 14-15)

There are multiple methods that can be used by researchers to gain access to both the espoused theories of action and the theories-in-use of teachers. Marland explained that "implicit theories cannot be studied until they are first made explicit ... asking teachers to articulate their implicit theories inevitably involves them in a process of discoyery.,... Finding appropriate and valid ways of making implicit theories explicit is therefore a major methodological challenge" (.1995,v p. '133). Methods such as concept maps (Kagan, 1990; Morine-Dershimer, 1993), repertory grids (Munby, 1982, 1984), interviews (Samuelowicz-& Bain, 1992), metaphors (Bullough & Stokes, 1994), autobiography'(Trumbull, 1990), narrative (Beattie, 1995; Elbaz, 1991), and life history (Fang, 1996) have all been adopted by' researchers studying the beliefs and conceptions,.or the espoused theories of action, of teachers. Direct observation (Tiompson, 1992), stimulated recall interviews (Calderhead, 1981; Meade & McMeniman, 1992), think aloud protocols, (Clark & Peterson,1986; Fang, 1996),joumal keeping (Fang, 1996), retrospective interviews (Fang, 1996), and document analysis (Freeman, 1991; Pratt, 1992) have been used to access the thinking in action or the theories-in-use of teachers. One way in'which researchers have made explicit and examined teachers' theories-in-use is through engaging them in strategies of reflective-practice. "Reflection is an active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed formi of knowledge in light of the grounds supporting it and future conclusions to which it tends" (Dewey, 1933, as cited in Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000, p. 39).Reflection is considered to be a critical component of the development of teaching expertise at all levels. Wildman,MNiles, Magliaro, and McLaughlin (1990) argued that "growth is unlikely without systematic reflection" (p. 161), and McLean and Blackwell (1997) proposed that "excellence in teaching resides in a reflective, selfcritical, theoretically informed 'approach" (p. 85). Andrews et al. (1996) found in their interviews probing teaching excellence at the tertiary level that '"the general concept . -,expressed was that excellent teachers use self-reflection to develop a model (eitherformal or informal) for teaching within a particular context; they then attempt to 'live the model,' and be authentic to and congruent with their model" (p. 87). McAlpine and Weston's (2000) work with exemplary university teachers described "reflection as a'mechanism for the improvement and development of teaching" (p. 382). Rando and Menges (1991) suggest that'"every [university] teacher has a professional obligation toformulateand articulate a rationale for his or her instructional *. '

183

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath

world" (p. 13). Acknowledging the aforementioned distinctions between espoused theories of action and theories-in-use, it follows that it is important to examine both theories of action of any particular tertiary teacher. We suggest that a great deal can be learned about teaching at the tertiary level by examining the coherence of teachers' theories of action and exploring the factors that encourage or discourage agreement. These questions expose a vast sea of uncharted research. Where there is disagreement, there is an opportunity for university academics, researchers, and staff developers to reflect on the disjuncture between teachers' espoused theories of action and theories-in-use in the interests of improving teaching at the tertiary level (e.g., Sandretto, Ethell, & Heath, 2002). It is our contention that research that examines only teachers' espoused theories of action is at risk of telling only half the story. Method Selection fStidiesfor Review

This review draws attention to the need for research that examines the important relationship between espoused theories of action and theories-in-use. In order to study this relationship between what teachers say they wish to achieve and what they do in the university classroom, we conducted a search to find studies that examine the beliefs that university academics hold about their teaching and the implications of these beliefs for their teaching practice. We searched the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Current Contents, Web of Science, Periodicals Contents Index, ProQuest Education Complete, PsycINFO, Inside Web and Expanded Academic databases, and internet search engines for research in the areas of beliefs, conceptions, personal practical knowledge, orientations to teaching, subjective theories, espoused theories of action, theories-in-use, and attitudes that tertiary academics hold about teaching. Studies were also gleaned from bibliographies and higher education conferences. In addition, weliased with the university's education librarian. Every attempt was made to be as thorough as possible. The.various literature searches unearthed 71 studies that were reviewed and critiqued by all three authors. Fifty papers were included in the review. The criteria for selection of studies for this review were that the research investigated the beliefs and conceptions of university teachers and that it Was reported in English. Studies that we found that did not directly examine university academics' teaching beliefs were excluded from the review. Among the 21 rejected studies were some that examined university teachers' conceptions, beliefs, or attitudes about related aspects, such as student learning (Bruce & Gerber, 1994; Warkentin, Bates, & Rea, 1993), academic work (Kreber, 2000), and lecturing (De Neve, 1991). Other researchers compared teachers' concepts of good teaching with students' conceptions of teaching (Reid & Johnston, 1999), compared history and science lecturers' and students' conceptions of understanding (Newton, Newton, & Oberski, 1998), examined the conceptions that teachers in adult education held about the development of skill in their work (Larsson, 1986), investigated the personal theories of teaching of community college faculty (Hughes, 1993), studied faculty beliefs about mathematics learning and teaching as compared with their awareness of National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards (LaBerge, Sons, & Zollman, 1999; LaBerge, Zollman, & Sons, 1997), and compared the beliefs and conceptions 184

Telling Halfthe Story that student teachers held with findings from the literature on university teachers (Entwistle & Walker, 2000). While these studies'do advance our understanding of teacher beliefs in some specific areas, they do not examine the relationship between what university academics espouse about their teaching and their actual teaching practice, and thus were not included in the review. Analysis of Studies Our analysis of the selected studies is underpinned by our own beliefs and experiences as staff developers and teacher educators. Pratt (.1992) stated that the "study and practice of teaching is grounded in our conceptions. There can be no neutral ground from which to understand another person's teaching" (p. 204). We are using theories of action (as described earlier) as the organizing structure for this review.' We acknowledge that "there is no single interpretive truth" (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998, p. 30) and that our framework is but one way of examining this research." We conducted the analysis for this review by critically reading and rereading, the selected studies' To facilitate comparison between the studies, our criticai readinigs were framed by the following questions: ' * What theoretical framework was used? What was the research focus? V * What were the research methods? ,. Were claims made about teaching practice based on a method to gain direct access to that practice?

,

* Did the study draw upon primary and secondary teacher beliefs research? * Were the data gathering and analysis methods clear? * How does', this study inform staff development?, The critical readings were alternaited' with group meetings in which we discussed themes and concerns that were arising, including concerns about'supported and unsupported claims made about teaching practice, concerns about data gathering and analysis methods, and concerns about the application of findings'to'staffdevelopment efforts. An outcorme of the analysis is a table of the'studies selected for the review to assist readers'in following the critiques and arguments in our review. Table 1 contains the following information about each study: author(s), year of publicationi, country of origin', theoretical framework employed, research focus, subjects orpar-, ticipants in the study, data gathering methods, and data analysis methods. It is our intent that Table 1 facilitate comparisons between the studies and highlight areas for future research. Findings: Unsupported and Supported Claims Made About Teaching Practice Studies That Assume Teachers' Practice(Theories-inl- Use) From Teachers' Beliefs (Espoused Theories of Action) Several of the selected studies examined the.espoused theories of tertiary teachers primarily by conducting semistructured interviews in order to explore'their beliefs about teaching and learning (e.g., Dunkin, 1990; Martin & Balla, 1991; van Driel, Verloop, van Werven, & Dekkers, 1997) (see Table 1 for additional studies). Other 185

Kane, Sandretto, and Heath

studies used surveys or questionnaires, in some cases developed from interview data (e.g., Hativa, 1993, 1997; Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Prosser & Trigwell, 1997; Rahilly & Saroyan, 1997; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996b) (see Table I for additional studies). A few studies used repertory grid interviews (Brown, Bell, & McDowell, 1995; Hillier, 1998), and one was a self-study (Gibson, 1998). Some of the researchers extended their findings to explain teacher practice, although their reports reveal that they only investigated teachers' espoused theories of action (Andrews et al., 1996; Ballantyne et al., 1999; Dall'Alba, 1991, 1993; Fox, 1983; Gow & Kember, 1993; Gow et al., 1992; Johnston, 1996; Kember & Kwan, 2000; Kember, Kwan, & Ledesma, 2001; Menges & Rando, 1989; Pratt, 1992; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001; Singer, 1996; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a). While these studies claim to shed light on teaching practice in tertiary settings, they reveal teachers' espoused theories only and, so, in our view, tell only half the story. For example, Fox (1983) asked an unspecified number of newly appointed teachers "What do you mean by teaching-what is actually happening?" (p. 151). He then developed a conceptual model to explain the four theories of teaching that he identified from the discussions. Fox described the theories of transfer, traveling, shaping, and growing. Within his findings, however, Fox did not answer his own question "How then do these theories work out in pracdtice?" (p. 152). In a summary table (p. 163), Fox made an unsupported leap from espoused theories to theories-in-use by relating "standard teaching methods" to his four theories of teaching. However, Fox did not examine how the individual teacher who subscribed to a particular theory actually taught in the classroom, because he did not make use of any of the existing methods to examine teachers' practice (see theFindings: Research Design Concems sechion). Menges and Rando (1989) wrote specifically of theories of action (espoused theories of action and theories-in-use). Their study examined the "implicit theories held by graduate teaching assistants" (GTAs) (p. 55). Twenty GTAs participated in a twofold interview. The first section asked "What do you mean by teaching?" and the second posited a classroom problem: "Can you imagine a time iri one of your classes when you planned a discussion but alrmost no one responded or participated? What did you do? How did you determine the reasons for the situation?" (p. 55). Menges and Rando used this self-reported practice as evidence of the GTAs' theories-in-use. They described teaching conceptions focused on content, process, and motivation.' While self-reported practice may well be a close approximation of teaching practice in some instances, we argue that this is not necessarily always the case. Menges and Rando explained that further "research should include more teachers and should gather classroom behavioral data, for example, using direct observation" (p' 57). Dall'Alba (1991) focused on "teachers' conceptions or ways of understanding teaching" (p. 293). Dall'Alba described seven qualitatively different conceptons of teaching (pp. 294-295): * teaching as presenting information * teaching as transmitting information * teaching as illustrating the application of theory to practice * teaching as developing concepts/principles and their interrelations * teaching as developing the capacity to be expert * teaching as exploring ways of understanding from particular perspectives * teaching as bringing about conceptual change, 186

Telling Half the Story, She explained that the conceptions of teaching were "ordered from less to more complete understandings of teaching". (p. 296). It is not apparent that Dall'Alba examined the teaching practice of any of the participants in the classroom, so we are left to assume that their espoused theories of action are congruent with their theories-inuse. Also, Dall'Alba's assertion that her seven conceptions of teaching "represent some of the variation in conceptions of teaching in higher-education and reflect differences in practice? (p.296) raises the question: What differences in practice did she document?,The answer is not clear from her descriptions. We suggest she was telling half thestory.l Gow et al. (1992) sought "to determine the perceptions of academic staff at apolytechnic in Hong Kong of how they approach their teaching and to infer implications for staff development needs" (p. 136). They conducted semistructured interviews with 39 participants in order to "determine their views on their-teaching practices" (p. 135). Their participantsidentified "the development of problem-solving skills" in their students and "training for specific professions" as goals of higher education (p. 137); yet most of the participants focused on "prepaiation for a 'specific'profession" when describing their own teaching. Gow et al. found that their participants.displayed "a dichotomy between theirbelief of thefunctions of highereducation and, what they do in practice" (p. 144). However, according to the theories of action framework, they did not use a research method that would have gained access to the - . participants' practice and their theories-in-use. In another study, Dall'Alba (1993) described "the ways in which teachers experienced their teaching roles" (p.301). The interview'data provided by the participants' represented their espoused-theories of teaching, that is, the beliefs and conceptions that they could easily articulate when they described their "ways of seeing the content within a course of study" (p.302) and their "ways of seeing the content of a field or discipline" (p. 302). These participants described course content as follows: (a) a body of knowledge and skills to be gained, (b) concepts and principles to which knowledge and skills are linked, and (c) experiences of a' field of study and practice ' (pp. 305-307). Yet, Dall'Alba's findings are based on the' assumption that the teachers 'were reporting their "teaching practice" in the interviews (p. 300). Without the use of a method to gain access' to the participants' teaching practice, we suggest thatDall'Alba does not have the evidence to claim that the articulated beliefs and conceptions accurately describe the participants' teaching practice.' Gow and Kember (1993) initially interviewed 39 randomly selected polytechnic lecturers. They subsequently developed a trial questionnaire based on the constructs that arose from the interviews. The-arialysis of the questionnaire responses identified two conceptions of teaching: learningfacilitation'and knowledge transmission. Lecturers who subscribed to a learning facilitation teaching orientation saw "teaching as a facilitative' pr6cess to help students develop problem solving 'skills and critical' thinking abilities" (p.' 28). On the othet hand, teachers operating under the knowl-edge transmission teaching orientation focused 'on the delivery of content. After a comparison of departmental orientations to teaching with,student orientations to learning (surface, deep, or achieving), Gow and Kember (1993) stated that "this study suggests that the methods of teaching adopted, the learning tasks set, the assessment demands made and the workload specified are strongly influenced by the orientation to teaching", (p. 31). They then added: "The orientation affects the curriculum design, 187

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath

the teaching method employed and the learning tasks specified" (p. 31). While the findings classify teachers as having particular orientations to teaching, the lack of teaching observations, examinations of course materials, and/or some other inquiry into direct teaching practice raises some questions about the legitimacy of claims projected onto teaching practice. Pratt (1992) and his graduate students interviewed 253 people from five countries to understand their "conceptions of teaching." Pratt explained that "because we were unable to observe most of the respondents, we asked them to describe their teaching, and this was used as surrogate evidence of their actions" (p. 206). Pratt and his associates used "the person's recall of activities and repertoire of techniques used in teaching" as a proxy for the actions or teaching practice of the participants (p. 208). For each of the five conceptions of teaching that Pratt elucidated, he characterized the relationships between content, learners, teachers, ideals, and context as the defining elements of each conception. These conceptions were as follows: (a) engineering (delivering content), (b) apprenticeship (modeling ways of being), developmental (cultivating the intellect), (d) nurturing (facilitating personal agency), (e) social reform (seeking a better society) (pp. 210-216). According to Pratt, "for most people, beliefs informed their intentions, which in turn directed the process of teaching (action)" (p. 208). Andrews et al. (1996) sought to elicit the "values, beliefs and characteristics" of teachers. They noted that "it was this secdon of the interviews that seemed to have the mostimpact for the professors" (p. 87). The teachers focused on themes of honesty, integrity, and genuineness. Andrews et al.' noted that these themes drove the teachers' self-reflecdve practice that was described in the second section of the interview. The teachers stressed the importance of respect,for the students, for the material, for the process of teaching, and for themselves as the basis of good teaching. Under the theories of action framework, these interviews provided the researchers with access to the espoused theories of action of their participants. Andrews et al. (1996) did not access the teaching pracdce of the participants in order to elicit their theories-in-use, yet they suggested that "contradicdons between teachers' espoused theories and their theory-in-use must be made apparent" (p. 84). In the secdon of their article that addressed limitations of the study, Andrews et al. (1996) acknowledged that "a third limitation of this study is that in classroom observadons of the teachinglearning process were not conducted" (p. 101). Johnston (1996) interviewed four award-winning university teachers to examine their views on teaching. She noted that areas of research inquiry such as "how the teacher understands his or her ownteaching" (espoused theories of action) and "how that understanding influences his or her teaching practice" (theories-in-use) were central to the field (p.214). The teachers participated in two to three semistructured interviews designed to elicit their thinking on several topics: how they described themselves as teachers,, their aims in teaching, their teaching approaches, their development as teachers, and how teaching fits into their lives as academics (p. 216). Johnston identified the following images of teaching: * teaching as manipulating the environment to bring about changes in the attitudes of students * teaching as encouraging students to interact with the material * teaching as providing a range of explanations : * teaching as showing students the big picture of the subject (pp. 216-217) 188

1-1

'Telling'Halfthe Story

Johnston,reviewed the relevant literature and noted that"'there is a recognition that teaching involves the acting out of personal knowledge, craft knowledge or implicit theories which are often held at the subconscious level; but which' nevertheless influence personal approaches to teaching in very significant ways" (p. 214, italics added). Had Johnson accessed the actual teaching practice of her participants, she would have had an opportunity;to examine this concept through her project. Singer (1996) used a questionnaire based on the three teaching paradigms devel-' oped.by Menges and Rando (1989)-content,-process, -and motivation-to survey 443 full-time faculty. In her discussion and conclusions, Singer claims that "the pattern of findings also validates an explicit connection between the espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty and the instructional behaviors they, use in their teaching practices" (p. 675).' However, in an anonymous survey, teachers~could report what they think, hope, or belieVe they do, rather than necessarily what they do. Singer did not observe any participants teaching to confirm her results, nor did she employ any alternative means to elicit their actuial teaching practice. She did acknowledge anumber of limitations in her study,,for example, the exclusion of student characteristics such as motivation, as well as other variables such as faculty job satisfaction that might account for differences in teaching paradigms. However, the

omission of teaching observations was not acknowledged as problematic. Trigwell and Prosser (1996a) described the results of a study that investigated "relations between conceptions of teaching and learning, and approaches to teaching" (p. 276). The researchers used transcripts-from interviews with 24 university physics and chemistry lecturers from an earlier study to conduct their analysis (Trigwell et al., 1994). They reported five approaches to teaching: -

* a teacher-focused strategy with the intention of transmitting information to students * a teacher-focused .strategy with the intention that students acquire the concepts of the discipline ' * a tea6her/student interactdon strategy w;ith the in"tention that students acquire the concepts of the discipline * a student-focused strategy aimed at students developing their conceptions ., a studeit-focused strategy aimed at stude'nts changing their conceptions (Trigwell & Prosser,41996a, p. 277)

'

'

I

Also, the researchers reported six conceptions that described teaching as: * transmitting concepts of the syllabus * transmitting the teachers' knowledge ll * helping students to acquire concepts of the syllabus S knowledge teachers' acquire to * helping students * teaching students to develop conceptions X * helping students to change conceptions (p. 277) '

'

'

t

In this analysis of the transcripts, Trigwell Tand Prosser found "consistency in teachers' conceptions and approaches" (1996b, p. 281). It is not clear, however, how "the distribution-of individual transcripts after they have been allocated to the high-, est possible level":(p. 279) resulted in "a large and statistically significant relation-~ ship between'conceptions of teaching and approaches to teaching" (p. 279). Kember and Kwan (2000) have also raised concerns in regard to this study. They noted that 189

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath

"we feel that some caution should be attached to this claim as the authors define neither construct and the labels used to identify the conceptions of teaching are very close to the intention component of the approaches" (p.472). Kember and Kwan added that "unless the evidence for categorising conceptions and approaches came from quite discrete parts of the transcripts, which is not specified in the paper, the claim to have established a conception/approach relationship should be treated with a degree of scepticism" (p.472). Had Trigwell and Prosser added another source of evidence for their participants' practice, it would have gone a long way in supporting their findings. Hativa (1997) conducted a survey of faculty in a private research university to elicit their "attitudes toward teaching and their teaching practices" (p. 1). Hativa explained the rationale behind the choice of the questionnaire method: 'Teaching thinking, perceptions and beliefs are tacit and not directly observable. Thus, they can only be studied through getting teachers' oral or written responses to related questions" (p.5). She reported that 115 of the 500 respondents surveyed placed an emphasis on "conveying the basic body of Xnowledge in the domain" and "conveying the structure and organization of knowledge, and the 'tools' of the domain" (p. 15). The most common teaching practice reported was that of lectures, which "usually include students' questions [but not] discussions" (p. 16). We propose that an instrument that provided options for the staff to choose from limited the potential to fully describe their beliefs about teaching. In addition, another-source of information derived from the participants' teaching practices might have created a more detailed picture of the complexity of teaching in the university she studied. Hativa did acknowledge the low response rate as a limitation. Ballantyne et al. (1999) interviewed tertiary teachers nominated as having "exemplary or noteworthy teaching practice" in order to encourage the participants to "describe and analyze their teaching practice and to articulate their understanding of what constitutes effective teaching and learhing in their own context" (p. 239). In addition, open-ended questionnaires were distributed to 20 students who had recently attended the participants' classes to obtain the students' perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of the teaching interaction (see Ballantyne, Bain, & Packer, 1997, for published narratives). Their participants described beliefs on the importance of: * creating and maintaining student interest * caring for students * pitching at the students' level * relevance to students' everyday experiences * starting from a practice base * teaching for learning * managing discomfort * interacting with students to ensure understanding and learning * fostering generic and lifelong learning skills (1997, pp. xxi-xxvii). Ballantyne et al. made deductions about the teaching practice of their participants, although they did not access their teaching practice directly; "these academics' self analyses and stories reveal strong coherence between their educational beliefs and practices" (Ballantyne et al., 1999, p. 238). In addition, they emphasized the need for "exploration of the links between beliefs and practice" (Ballantyne et al., 1999, p. 255). Yet, according to the theories of acdon framework, the study can only report 190

Telling Halfthe Story coherence between espoused theories and self-reported practices. The authors may have used the students'. input to address this weakness, but this connection is not made clear.

Kember and Kwan (2000) sought to "examine the relationship between lecturers' approaches to teaching and their conceptions of good.teaching" (p. 469). They conducted semistructured interviews with. 17 lecturers from three departments. An initial investigation of the methods or techniques used by the paiticipants reVealed ihat they "'did not seem to be determined by any fundamental beliefs about teaching"(p. 475). This initial finding is out of step with a great deal of research that has shown the essential role of beliefs in underpinning teaching;practices. However, Kember and Kwan then reported that a "deeper examination of the transcripts" resulted in the description of two approaches: content centered&andlearning centered (p. 475). They described a one-dimensional motivation component (named motivator) and a five-dimensional strategy component (named instruction, focus, assessment, accommodation for student characteristics, and-source of experience/knowledge) to categorize the lecturers' approaches. The researchers described conceptions of teaching that fell into the two broad categories of teaching as trdnsmission of knowledge and teaching as learningfacilitation. In: order to examine the relationship between approaches and conceptions of teaching, Kember and Kwan used cross tabulation. They found "a high level of correspondence" of 89.5%. From this finding the researchers concluded that "approaches to teaching are strongly influenced by the lecturer's conceptions of teaching". (p. 489). Had Kember and Kwan pursued their "open naturalistic approach" to include observations of their subjects' teaching prac-, tices, the additional information would have served to strengthen their findings.. Recently, Samuelowicz and Bain (2001) revisited their 1992 study (see next section). They again conducted semistructured interviews with academics in a range of disciplines. The interviews sought to reveal the participants' beliefs about teaching, knowledge, student learning, and links between teaching and learning. The. researchers used the participants' descriptions of "characteristic instances and concrete teaching situations" as a proxy for theirteachingpractice (p.304). Theyfound some overlap with their previouis findings, and made some additions. The analysis identified seven ways in which participants understood teaching:i * imparting information X * transmitting structured knowledge * providing and facilitating understanding * helping students develop expertise * preventing mrisunderstandings * negotiating meaning * encouraging knowledge creation (p. 306)

-

The imparting information, transmittingstructuredkn'owledge, and encouraging knowledge creation concepts were similar to their- 1992 findings; however, the names were altered to allow for a more precise characterization of teaching orientation (p. 308). In addition, Samuelowicz andBain supplemented their findings with two illustrative stories to provide "a contextualized sense of an individual academic's beliefs and practices" (p. 312). They noted that the stories "also illustrate how closely coupled an academic's beliefs and practices tend to be, although that is not the focus of this article" (p.312). Samuelowicz andBain (2001) recommended that 191

Kane, Sandretto, and Heath

further research in this area examine "the coupling between belief and practice ... with a variety of methods" (p.322). In theirsecond investigation of the ways in which academics conceptualize teaching, Samuelowicz and Bain did not take advantage of their own insight into gaps in this research area. Kember et al. (2001) interviewed 17 lecturers from three different departments in one university to examine their conceptions of good teaching, their perceptions of adult and full-time students, and the actual strategies and methods they used in their teaching practice with the two groups of students. They did not make use of any methods to directly observe the teaching practice of their participants. As did Kember and Kwan (2000), they found two main conceptions of good teaching, teaching as transmission of knowledge and teaching as learningfacilitation, and identified two subcategories in each. The authors made distinctions between two levels of conceptions in the first category: teachingas passinginformation and teachingas making it easierfor students to understand. Kember et al. found teaching as meeting students' learningneeds and teaching asfacilitatingstudents to become independent learnersin the second category. Using a cross tabulation between the teaching conceptions and the claimed teaching practice of the,participants, the authors found "a high level of correspondence between a lecturer's conception of teaching and the way in which the teaching accommodated the differing characteristics of adult and other students" (p. 403). Kember et al. missed an opportunity to examine the relationship between the participants' conceptions of good teaching and their claimed educational pracdce. They acknowledged: "The study does not reveal how the constructs might be related" (p. 403). The use of methods to, directly observe the teaching practice of the participants might have shed some light on the effect of teaching conceptions on teaching practice at the university level. Studies That Do Not Report Teaching PracticeBased on Espoused Theories of Action While we have idenutified thus far studies of tertiary teachers' beliefs that we believe tell only half the story, other studies of tertiary teachers' beliefs that had not accessed teaching practice directly were careful not to make claims regarding teaching practice. For example, Dunkin and Precians (1992) did not watch the participants teach to compare their espoused theories of action with their theories-in-action. However, they acknowledged this shortcoming by noting: Although important questions have been asked about the relationship between teacher thought and behavior, it was not within the purpose or resources of this study to investigate that association by complementing the interviews with observations of the award winners in actual teaching situations. Rather, the present study is thought of as providing a basis for further study that might include the thought-behaviour nexus. (p.486) Trigwell et al.. (1994) reported the teaching approaches, which consisted of intentions and teaching strategies, of 24 university physical science teachers. These approaches arose from a phenomenographic analysis of interviews. The researchers did not fall prey to our, critique conceming a lack of additional sources of information on the teaching practices of their participants, as reflected in thefollowing statement: "In this study, it is our intention to look at the teacher's experience of teaching, not at the observed behaviour of teachers" (Trigwell et al., 1994, p. 76). Rahilly and 192

Telling Halfthe Story Saroyan (1997) used a critical incidents questionnaire (CIQ) to characterize 102 inexperienced, experienced, and award winnin'g university professors' "concerns and ... thinking associated with memorable teaching incidents" (p. 3). They acknowledged that the CIQ was "retrospective in nature and [did] not capture think. ing in action" (theories-in-use) (p.4). Willcoxson (1998) interviewed 15 teachers and 23 of the participants? students to examine "the relationship between academics' personal experience of being taught and perceptions of teaching and also-the experiences of.students being taught in lectures by that teacher" (p. 60). Willcoxson did not access the teaching practice of;the lecturers in question; however, student interviews report the participants' teaching practice as experienced by the students. Pratt, Kelly, and Wong (1999) used questi6nnaires to "identify conceptions of 'effective teaching' held by.Hong Kong Chi-, nese university students andHong Kong Chinese and western expatriate university teachers" (p. 241). They conducted their study with a view to influencing the construction of more culturally sensitive instruments for the evaluation of teaching. Pratt et al. were "convinced that conceptions of effective teaching are deeply rooted in specific cultural values and social norms" as,a result of their findings (p. 257). Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) found that f'some preliminary observations suggest the possibility that academnic teachers 'might have both 'ideal' and 'working' conceptions of teaching" (p. 110). Their participants described teaching as (a) sup, porting learning, (b) an activity aimed at changing students' conceptions or understanding of the world, (c) facilitating understanding, (d) transmission of knowledge and attitudes toward knowledge within the framework of an academic discipline, and (e) imparting information. (pp. 98-101). They then suggested the need for further research "to solve one of the mysteries of higher education-the disjunction between the stated aims. . . and educational practice" of tertiary teachers (p.110). Given this insight, perhaps they could have taken the opportunity to make explicit links between the conceptions they found and the teaching practice of their participants (see also ; van Driel et al., 1997). Studies That Examine ConnectionsBetween Espoused Theories of Teaching and Teaching Practice Mertz and McNeely (1990) presented a-study at the tertiary level that incorporated teaching-observations into their research plan. They were i"concerned with finding out how teachers think about teaching, their internal, mental constructs, and at looking at the relationship between teacher thought and behavior" (p. 6, italics added). They observed the teaching of 13 of their 15 participants. They made running notes during the observation to use as data and as a means to focus questioning during the subsequent interviews. Mertz and McNeely described four different paradigms of teaching: transmissionof information, communication with students,' doing the discipline, andpersonaldevelopment'. Martin and Ramsden (1993) conducted a study to investigate "how academic staff understand teaching, and about how their understanding is embodied in their practice", (p. 148). The researchers worked with a group of five university teachers who participated in a course looking at 'practice and research involved in teaching and leaming. The participants discussed their aims, intentions, and teaching -strategies with the researchers before each session they taught. That session was then observed, and the participants and researchers met directly afterward to debrief the session. 193

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath

Martin and Ramsden used the interviews and observations to develop and report case studies detailing the professional development of the participants. The researchers developed a hierarchical model to describe the "expansion of awareness" that the participants underwent (p. 154). Scott, Chovanec, and Young (1994) studied 14 professors to examine "the relationship between their philosophy of teaching and their teaching practice in the classroom" (p. 1). The researchers conducted an interview with each participant before and after a classroom observation. They related their findings to five formal philosophies of education: liberal/perennialism, progressivism, essentialism/behaviorism, humanism, and reconstructionism/critical theory. Scott et al. found that "all participants in the study draw on aspects of more than one philosophical base" (p. 8). The researchers concluded that the "common theme in this research .. . is one of negotiation between what one assumes and believes to be true about teaching and the contextual factors (students, institution, and societal assumptions and beliefs) which serve as enablers or constrainers to playing out these assumptions and beliefs" (p. 23). Saroyan and Snell (1997) conducted a study to examine lecturing styles in light of "current conceptions of teadhing and pedagogical principles" (p. 85). The researchers observed a set of seven 1-hour lectures in the dermatology program of a medical school. They selected "three [lectures] representing the most divergent styles" for their report (p. 90). Saroyan and Snell administered a questionnaire to the lecturers prior to the lecture, videotaped each lecture, and collected student evaluations afterward. The questionnaire aimed to "establish the scope of the instructional plans" (p. 90). The researchers focused on content and pedagogy in their coding of the questionnaire. Saroyan and Snell described what some researchers have termed the conceptions of teaching by relating the aims of the lecturers to previously reported frameworks. For example, the first lecture was described as "content-driven," where "there is little evidence that the concepdon of teaching extends beyond that of 'cultural transmission' (Scardamalia and Bereiter 1989)" (p. 99). The researchers did not make any explicit links between the lecturers' aims or conceptions of teaching and their teaching practices. They did conclude, however, that "a lecture can be as effective as any other instructional strategy so long as it is appropriately suited to the intended learning outcomes and is pedagogically planned and delivered" (p. 102). Gibson (1998) conducted a reflective self-study into her own teaching beliefs and pracdces in order "to assess my instrucdonal approach for effectiveness in its support of culturally relevant pedagogy" (pp. 360-361). By audiotaping her teaching practices, transcribing those audiotapes, and reflecting upon them, Gibson was able to "unravel the tangled web of personal beliefs, cross-cultural perspecdves . . . and traditional education ideologies which informed my teaching practices" (p.361). She found instances of classroom practices in which she did not act in a manner consistent with her espoused beliefs on critical pedagogy and pardcipatory democracy and vowed to "initate, rather than short-circuit" discussions on controversial issues such as racism and end her "compact of silence" (pp. 368-369). Hermes (1999) described an action research project that investigated the subjective theories of a university teacher and students in an advanced literature course. Hermes explained that "university teachers . .. develop subjective theories of their role as academic teachers" (p. 200). The teacher and students "tried .. . to become aware of their own self-concepts, of the roles they played . .. especially with a view 194

Telling Halfthe Story

to active participation, to teacher-student and student-student interaction" (p. '199). Information from student diaries, videotaped sessions, and student interviews demonstrated that the teacher and students had become more cognizant of their subjective theories. Hermes was careful to note: "Action research projects are always case studies. Generalisations can therefore=only be made on a very tentative basis" (p. 204).r Quinlan (1999b) studied the educational beliefs of eight academic historians in an attemptto'situate'those beliefs,in the context ofthe specific discipline, department, and university. The researcher observed departmental meetings, faculty seminars, and classes, and conducted interviews. The resulting departmental case study illustrated commonalities and differences in the participants' educational beliefs through their educational goals, choices, practices, and analysis of student work. The participants' beliefs about their role as teachers varied, including that of (a) inspiring students, (b) stimulating further inquiry, (c) conveying information, and (d) guiding students (p. 453). Martin, Prosser, Trigwell, Ramsden,,and Benjamin (2000) examined the relationship between university teacheis' intentions and their teaching.practice with respect to the "teaching of a particular topic, within a specific context" (p. 387). They interviewed 26 university teachers in four discipline areas. The interviews focused on what the teachers wanted students to learn and how they intended to teach a specific topic or "the object of study." On the basis of these interviews, the researchers constructed a hypothesis "as to how the teacher[s] would approach their teaching" (p. 390).They then conducted two teaching observations' to determine whether the teachers' practice supported or disproved the hypothesis. Martin et al. found that "the results of the observational study showed no observed inconsistency between the teachers' intentions and their practices" (p. 409). Martin'et al. explain that what they are investigating in this case are specific responses to teaching particular topics rather than the participants' "general orientations to teaching" (p. 388). TheyC conclude that there is a need for further investigation of the object of study, thai is, "what is it that teachers want their students to learn and how do they believe their students will come to know this" (p.4 1 1), as an influence on how university academics teach. Hativa,Barak, and Simhi (2001) researched "the beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge of exemplary university teachers regarding effective teaching strategies, the extent to which they use various of these strategies and the relations between their beliefs and knowledge to their classroom practice" (pp. 703-704). To examine this research focus, the authors conducted teacher and student interviews, videotaped classroom sessions, administered a student teaching effectiveness questionnaire, and examined course outlines and exam questions. This study, one of the most thorough we have reviewed in its attempts-to capture the complexity of teaching, proposes explanations for the differences between poor and good teachers: "Maybe one way in which the pedagogical content knowledge . .. differs is in the number of effective classroom strategies with which they :re familiar" (p.722). Hativa, et al. found "that there is a good, but far from perfect, fit between these teachers' beliefs and knowledge conceming effective strategies and their classroom practice" (p.725).' , '

'

.

Summary

''

In this section, we have critically reviewed the selected papers and thereby highlighted the difference between,'comparing espoused beliefs of laction with self195

Kane, Sandretto, and Heath reported practice and comparing espoused beliefs of action with observed practice. It is our contention that the difference is crucial to understanding the link between teachers' espoused beliefs and congruence or lack of congruence with their teaching practice. For example, work by Pratt (1992) and Mertz and McNeely (1990) discussed earlier highlights our concern about drawing conclusions regarding teaching practice based on espoused theories of teaching. As researchers -concerned with improving the teaching practice of university academics, it is imperative that we understand how the links between beliefs and practice are made so thatwe may facilitate the growth and development of novice staff. Pajares (1992), :in'her review of research into primary and secondary teachers' beliefs, cautions that "little will have been accomplished if research into educational beliefs fails to provide insights into the relationship between beliefs ... and teacher practices, teacher knowledge and student outcomes" (p. 327). Findings: Research Design Concerns During careful scrutiny of the literature, we became concerned about the rigor of the research design of several of the studies. We begin with some specific concerns and criticisms with regard to some individual studies at the tertiary level and follow with discussion of general methodological issues to inform future research into university academics' teaching beliefs and practices. Snark Syndrome Fox's (1983) research design has been criticized. Dall'Alba suggests that his findings were "neither derived ... from,'nor supported . . . with, empirical research" (1993, p. 304). Fox (1983) did not describe the process used to select the participants. It is not known how many teachers participated in his study, how the interview data were gathered, or the methodology used to analyze them. In spite of these concerns, Fox's 1983 article was cited by a quarter of the studies we critiqued. Byrne (1993a, 1993b) coined the term snark syndrome to describe this phenomenon. Her term comes from the Lewis Carroll poem The Hunting of the Snark in which the Bellman claims "What I tell you three times is true" (Byrne, 1993a, p. 1). Byrne (1993a, 1993b) explained that the snark syndrome occurs when a reported research finding is repeated again and again until it becomes part of the folklore or "received wisdom" of a field. However, "received wisdom frequently has no actual basis in sound, empirical or qualitative research and objective enquiry" (Byrne, 1993b, p. 18). The 1983 study by Fox has fallen prey to the snark syndrome. The findings have been cited repeatedly, and the deficiencies of the study have been lost in this repetition. ResearcherPerspective" In several studies we examined, the researchers have failed to make explicit the epistemological and theoretical assumptions that have guided the focus of inquiry and the gathering, analysis, and presentation of data. Maykut and Morehouse (1994) drew attention to the importance of this awareness in qualitative study: The qualitative researcher's perspective is perhaps a paradoxical one: it is to be acutely tuned-in to the experiences and meaning systems of others-to indwell-and at the same time to be aware of how one's own biases and preconceptions may be influencing what one is trying to understand. (p. 123) 196

Telling Halfthe Story Dall'Alba (1991), forexample, claimed thatthe conceptions of teaching expressed by the participants in her study were "ordered from less to more complete understandings of teaching" (p. 296), a view informed by her underlying beliefs and assumptions of what makes a good teacher at the tertiary level, but not explicitly stated. Hasselgren andBeach (as cited in Gall,Borg, & Gall, 1996, p.20) raised the issue of reflexivity, defined as a "focus on the researcher's self as an integral constructor of the social reality being studied." Richardson (1999) called for ''a ieflexive approach that takes into account the social relationship between researchers and their informants and the constructed natures of the research,interview" (p. 70). Prosser et al. (1994) also neglected to describe their epistemological and theoretical assumptions in their work. In several reports based on a phenomenographic study (Prosser et.al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, ,1996a; Trigwell et al., 1994), they did not make explicit their own beliefs, theories, or assumptions that may have influenced their analysis. In one description, they explained that initially they treated all of the transcripts "as a whole," and thus "the categories that were developed are consequently relatively 'pure"' (Prosser et al., 1994, p. 220), implying that their own conceptions and experiences did not have an influence on that process.

We raise concerns about th6 work of-Prosser, Trigwell,,and Taylor and others in an effort to' reinforce the importance of researchers being explicit about the assumptions and theories that underpin their work. ForDeniin and Lincoln (1998): There is no clear window into the inner life of an individdal. Any gaze is always filtered through the lenses of language, gender, social class, race and ethnicity. There are no objective observations, only observations socially situated in the worlds of the observer and the observed. (p. 25) Crotty (1998) echoed this need: "At every point in our research. . . we inject a host of assumptions ... without unpacking these assumptions and clarifying them, no one ... .can really divine what our research has been or what ,it is now saying" (p. 17).1

- ethodsfor Examining Teachers' Beliefs. M We wish to signal als'o'a potential problem with the use of surveys, questionnaires, or other multiple-choice-type inventories as methods used'to gather data about teacher conceptions and beliefs. Richardson (1996) noted that these methods are "too constraining" and "often do not validly;represent teachers' beliefs" (p. 107). In addition,' studies that utilize a multiple-choice-type instrument to gather data about teachers' beliefs may fall prey to a self-fulfilling prophecy.Wineburg (1987) explained that the term self-fulfilling prophecy has been in common usage since 1948, when Robert K. Merton used it to explain social behavior. A self-fulfilling prophecy is described as "the false definition of a situation,:which in turn engenders behavior that brings the situation into conformity" (Wineburg,' 1987, p. 28). The concept has been well researched in classrooms, with upwards of 300 to 400 published studies examining the effects of teacher expectations on student achievement (Wineburg, 1987). Here we use it to describe the expectations that the researcher holds for the participant. When the researcher's expectations are built into an instrument used to "study" the participant, the likelihood that the participant will fulfill those expectations cannot be ignored. '

'

197

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath For example, Moses and Ramsden (1992) surveyed academic staff members from the College of Advanced Education sector and the Unified National systems "to clarify the diversity of values and work pattems" (p. 103). Their survey included scales on academic motivation, good teaching practices, and commitment to student independence. Moses and Ramsden explained that the good teaching practices scale was "informed by our view as to what constitutes good teaching" (p. 108). They then described in their findings that "in the university sector there is a significant correlation between staff's academic orientations and their good teaching practice-the more staff are oriented towards teaching, the more they report good teaching practices" (p. 107). They also found that "most academics profess to be practising good teaching" (p.106). Why would participants not claim to be good teachers when a survey is clearly looking for those responses? Another exampleis a study that used questionnaires based on initial interview data from a sample of the participants. Findings from the questionnaires revealed a "disjunction between stated aims and claimed educational practice" (Murray &'MacDonald, 1997, p. 331). In seeking to explain this disjunction, Murray and MacDonald acknowledge that the participants could have been influenced by "what they believed they should say" and/or could be "saying what they would ideally like to do" (p. 345). In addition, they noted that "there may also be a difference between reflecting on the idealised role of the lecturer and reporting actual pracdcal experience" (p.343). It is possible that their instrumentprovided their participants with an opportunity to fulfill the researchers' expectations. This could have been checked through an examination of the actual practice of the participants. DataAnalysis Methods Qualitative researchers "have been criticised for being unclear about research methodology" (Maykut &'Morehouse, 1994, p. 146). Several of the research studies we examined are vulnerable to the criticism. For example, Menges and Rando's (1989) description of their data analysis methods consisted of an "inspection 'of responses" that took context and voice inflection into account (p.55). Both the data gathering and data analysis methods of the study by Dunkin (1995) were unclear. He described his "investigations ... [as] an exploration of [the participants'] thoughts about the most important ways in which they might enhance their students' leaming" (p. 24). The participants' "concepts of teaching effectiveness" were revealed through "careful analysis of the responses" (p. 24). Willcoxson's (1998) description of the' method of analyzing the,data was as follows: "in analysing the transcribed interview datait became clear. ." (p. 61). Rahilly and Saroyan (1997) explained the process used to anive at their results as: "basically, the results presented in this section involve reading over the summaries in the same way that one mightlook through a portfolio or a photo album and [walk] away tell[ing] someone what you just saw.' (p. 6). We are unable to evaluate the usefulness of the findings from these studies because we cannot be confident we understand the process used to analyze the data. Value ofMultiple Data Sources Triangulation, the use of multiple data sources and research,methods, Which allows the researcher to view the focus of inquiry from several vantage points, has been called "the heart of qualitative research's validity" (Davidson & Tolich, 1999, 198

Telling Halfthe Story p. 34) . Lincoln and Guba;use the term trustivorthiinessof the research (as cited in Creswell, 1998; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). In determining trustworthiness, one could ask in what ways did the researchers plan "for a rigorous ciedible exploration of [the] focus of inquiry"? (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p. 153). One method recommended by Lincoln and Guba to build trustworthiness is the use of multiple methods of data collection (as cited inMaykut & Morehouse, 1994). Several reviewers in the area of teacher beliefs have noted the importance of using multiplermethods to investigate teacher beliefs (Richardson, 1996; Wideen et al., 1998). Accbrding to Kagan-(1990), "the use of multimethod approaches appears.to be-superior, not simply because they allow triangulation of data but because they are more likely to capture the complex, multifaceted aspects of teaching and learning" (p.459). For Pajares (1992), "additional measures. ... must be included if richer and.more'accurate inferences are to be made" (p. 327). Of the 50 studies critiqued, only 10 utilized multiple data sources to investigate' their focus of inquiry'(Ballantyne,et;al., 1999; Hativa, 1998; Martin et al.,'2000; Martin &Ramsden, .1993; McLean & Blackwell, 1997; Mertz & McNeely, 1990',;Quinlan, 1999a, 1999b; Saroyan & Snell, 1997; Scott et al., 1994). -! Another method recommended by Lincoln aiidGuba to enhance trustworthiness is the building ,of an audit trail (as cited in Maykut & Morehouse; 1994). An audit trail is a collection of documents such as the researcher's journal, original interview transcripts, field notes, coded data, and any other documentation' that would allow the researcher to walk readers through the research step by step so that that they might understand the path followed (Davidson &,Tolichi 1999; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). An audit trail provides the reader with evidence of trustworthiness in that she or he can start with the raw data and continue along the trail to determine for her- or himself if, in fact, the trail leads to the outcomes claimed by the researcher. Some of the researchers we reviewed provided a more complete audit trail than others. For example, Fox's (1983) entire methods section consisted of the following: "For a number of years I haye been,asking newly,appointed polytechnic teachers to tell me what they mean by 'teaching' "(p. 151). From such a minimal description of process, Fox went on to develop his conceptual model of teachinig that is widely cited in contemporary literature. In contrast, Pratt (1992) carefully outlined his methods in sections titled "phenomfenography 'as research imethodology," "'guiding frames of reference," "data collection," and "data analysis." We joinf,with'Maykiit and Morehouse (1994) when they write "by seeking to make the research process transparent to the reader, we increase thelikelihood that'readers will seriously consider our work" (p.146). I,

Implications

' I ImplicationsforVUnderstanding University I : ' t l Academics' Development as Teachers It is common for university academics to have little or no formal preparation for theirroleas teachers (e.g.,Boice,1992). Aspreparation forteaching,'university academics can be said to have completed an "apprenticeship of observation" during their years as undergraduate and graduate students (Lortie, 1975).'Their beliefs and conceptions of go6d teaching are a result-of this apprenticeship and a "trial by fire"' in the lecture theatre, classroom, or laboratory. As demonstrated by this critical review, however, it is still unclear how university academics develop as teacher.s.' 199

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath The theories of action framework provides one avenue to gain a greater understanding of the development of university acadenics as teachers! From the studies reviewed here, it is apparent that university teachers form beliefs or conceptions about university teaching in general, and more specifically about their own aims and intentions in the classroom. In addition, the reviewed studies, together with research involving primary and secondary teachers, reinforce the importance of examining teachers' practice in light of their espoused theories (e.g., Richardson, 1996; Thompson, 1992; Young, 1998). The theories of action framework used in this review offers a way to understand university academics' development as teachers (Argyris & Sch6n, 1974). Argyris and Schon argue that teachers can engage in theory building or theory learning through critical examination of their own theories of action, a process that is typically initiated via experiencing dilemmas or conflicts. According to Argyris and Sch6n, dilemmas consist of conflicts in the relationship between theories of action and the reality of practice. As demonstrated by this review of the literature, where there is no distinction made between teachers' espoused theories and their theories-in-use, there is little opportunity for dilemmas or conflicts to emerge or be identified. This review reinforces the need for research that enables university academics to make explicit their own theories-in-use and to interrogate these in light of espoused theories and intentions. Kugel (1993) proposed a framework for university teacher development and noted that developing university teachers "seldom look at ... their assumptions" (p. 316). And Kember (1997) highlighted the need for research that includes "investigations of the way in which conceptions of teaching change over time" (p. 273). Research that examines both the espoused theories and theories-in-use of university academics as they develop as teachers appears to hold a great deal of potential to shed light 'on this important but infrequently studied area. Implicationsfor the ProfessionalDevelopment of UniversityAcademics An important outcome of any research on university teaching is its application in assisting novice or less experienced teachers in their development. In our critical review of the literature, we found wide variation in the use made of research on teacher beliefs for informing the potential academic development of tertiary teaching staff. Some studies carefully developed the links between their findings and the potential to assist staff development efforts aimed at improving tertiary teaching, while others did not explore the link. A number of studies highlighted the connection between their findings and possibilities for staff development. Martin et al. (2000) explained that teachers' intentions, or orientations toward teaching, and the specific strategies that they employed were driven by "the object of study" or what they wanted students to know (p.4 1 1). And, thus, staff development efforts needed to take a more holistic picture of teaching into account that examined: * the quality of implementation of various strategies * the qualitative variation in the approaches to teaching * the qualitative variation in what it is teachers want their students to learn * how teachers conceive of the nature of the knowledge they wish their students to learn (p. 411) 200

i

I r

* 'Telling

Haifthe Story

Burroughs-Lange (1996) noted that "lecturers mainly have idiosyncratic, intuitively-based knowledge about learning derived from their'experiences with teaching and learning" (p. 47). She explained that her model was grounded in the par-. ticular case study described in her report, and could and should serve as the basis for professional development. She then justified the need for conceptual understanding and change before a lecturer can be expected to improve his or her teaching. Ballantyne et al. (1999) noted that "by examining the beliefs, concerns and approaches of such practitioners, it is hoped that others may be challenged to reflect similarly on their own teaching practice and on the values and beliefs which support it" (p. 238).' They also explained that they were developing the materials they described in their report in order, to use them in staff development. Gow et al. (1992) identified staff development as part of the purpose of their research. They recommended -action research as a vehicle to "focus on the concerns of the participants and,. . . make changes in line with the practitioner's beliefs" (p. 146). Trigwell and Prosser (1996a) took the opportunities for staff development further and used their research to create "teaching developrnent programs" with a "major focus . .. on helping staff examine and change their con6eptions of teaching and learning" (p. 283). While the aforementioned studies did develop links between the teachers' conceptions and staff development, we found laterresearch by Kember and Gow (1994) and Entwistle and Walker (2000) to be.biased in favor of certain teaching orientations. Kember and Gow (1994) took the findings of their 1993 study a step further in their i994 report by comparing their findings with the learning approaches of students, in cou,rses taught by the participants. They administered the Biggs Study Process Questionnaire 'to determine whether students were using a "deep approach," "surface approach," or "achieving approach" to study. Kember and Gow predicted (and fourid) that the knowledge transmission orientation was positively correlated with a surface a'pproach and that the learning facilitation orientation'was positively co*related with deep and achieving approaches. They then restated a sentence from their 1993 article: "This,study suggests that the methods of teaching adopted, the learning tasks set, the. assessmeht deniands made and the workload specified are strongly influenced by the orientation to teaching" (1994, p. 69). They directed staff development toward changing lecturers' conceptions-from knowledge transmission to learning facilitation in',order to promote deep learning and achieving study approaches by students. They notedd Such a change in conceptions would need the adoption' of an alternative .!model of the teaching/learning process ... it is likely that such a shift in paradigmatic beliefs would have to be accompanied by a change in teaching style-away from,a unidirectionallecturing formatiand t6ward a moreinteractive style. (Kember & Gow,1994, p.71) Entwistle and Walker (2000) worked from the assumption that conceptions of teaching identified in the higher education literature formed a "nested hierarchy" (p. 335). They advocated for staff development that would "encourage colleagues to develop more sophisticated' conceptions of learning and teaching" (p. 358). Entwistle and Walker described the-poles of their hierarchy, with "the least developed conception . . .-as teacher-focused and content, oriented, with an emphasis on the reproduction of correctinformation . . [and the most sophisticated] as ... student-focused, learning-oriented, and.concerned with conceptual development" (p. 341). ' ; ' ' 201

Kane, Sandretto, and.Heath

We would argue that different conceptions of teaching and teaching methods or styles are appropriate in different contexts. Several researchers have mentioned the role that context plays in tertiary teaching (Laurillard, 1993; Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Pratt, 1992; Prosser et al., 1994; Quinlan, 1999b; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer, 1996; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996b). Quinlan (1999b) explained that "research on teaching in higher education has largely overlooked the contexts of teaching and learning',' (p.448). This position is supported by Pratt, who stated "there is no single, universal, best perspective on teaching adults" (1998, p. 11). Trigwell et al. (1994) found that "the approach adopted by a teacher in a particular context is a function of both the teacher and the context" (p. 77). Other studies mentioned briefly, or not at all, the implications of their findings'for staff development. While we acknowledge that this may not have been a central purpose of these studies, we suggest that these omissions represent missed opportunities. For example, Moses and Ramsden (1992), Prosser and Trigwell (1997), Samuelowicz and Bain (1992), Saroyan and Snell (1997), Scott et al. (1994), and Singer (1996) missed opportunities to linik the devel6pmentiof teachers' conceptions to teachers' practices for staff development. Dunkin and Precians (1992) noted that "there may be lessons in the above for novices to learn" (p. 501). Fox (1983) made no mention of staff development implications, but rather recognized that some staff members might have differing "perceptions of the process of teaching and learming" and might feel a need to' reconcile those differences (p. 163). He explained that in order to econcile' the differing viewpoints, they "will first have to be recognised and made overt-and then the'y must be examined and discussed rationally and sensitively" (p. 163). Murray and MacDonald (1997) explained that "if it is found that conceptions are very firmly held, then it may be that institutions wish either to select staff on the basis of an institutionally preferred conception, or to deploy staff to work at a level or in an area best suited to their particular con6eption" (p. 347)-a proposal that we find unduly pessimistic. Research on primary and secondary teachers makes it clear that teachers' beliefs are resilient, but not impossible to, change: If a program is to promote growth among novices, it must require them tomake their preexisting personal beliefs explicit; it must challenge the adequacy of those beliefs; and it must,give novices extended opportunities to examine, elaborate, and integrate new information into their existing belief systems. (Kagan, 1992a, p. 77) An alternative to changing teachers' preexisting beliefs that warrants further study is that of building on the beliefs that students (or teachers) bring with them to teacher education' (or staff development) programs (Calderhead & Robson, 1991; Wideen et al., 1998). Martin and Ramsden (1993) concluded from their staff development efforts with a group of university teachers that "the knowledge, skills, and the concepts must be integrated and reintegrated by, each teacher during a slow process of gaining understanding" (p.155). More Tesearchers are highlighting the importance of considering the beliefs and conceptions that university academics,hold about teaching, learning, and students when developing professional development programs (e.g., Burroughs-Lange, 1996; Entwistle & Walker, 2000; Hativa, 2000; Kember & Kwan, 2000; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a). Ho (2000) and Ho, Watkins, and Kelly (2001) have reported on the outcomes of a staff development program using a conceptual change approach. 202

Telling HaIfthe Story

Briefly, Ho et al. (2001) developed a~program that assisted participants in;"reflecting on their espoused conceptions of teaching and their actual teaching practices" (p. 147). The program involved four processes: self-awareness, confrontation, exposure to alternative conceptions, and a commitment building process wherein the participants moved frommunderstanding their current tea6hing conceptions and plractice to planning future practice (see also Ho, 2000). In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the program, Ho et al. (2001) conducted preprogram, immediate postprogram, and delayed postprogram interviews with the 12 'participants; surveyed student perceptions of courses taught by the participants both before and after the program; and assessed students' studying approaches in a course taught by the participants both before and after the program. In addition, there was a control group of four participants who had agreed to be part of the study and completed the full data set but were unable to attend the program itself. I The authors found that the six teachers who showed positive changes in their conceptions of teaching also demonstrated "significant-improvement in their teaching practices as perceived by their students" (p. 163), and three of these teachers were able to "induc[e] a positive change in their students'"studying habits".(p. 163). Ho et' al. concluded that their study "provid[es] evidence that a development in teaching conceptions can lead to improvements in teaching practices and in student learning" (p. 165). We believe that this type of program holds a great'deal of promise in effecting long-term change- in the teaching practices of university academics by assisting them to become aware of their implicit beliefs, directly examining their teaching practice, and supporting their efforts to improve. ImplicationsforFuture Research

Roche and Marsh (2000) note that "there is unanimity among researchers and practitioners that teaching is a comnlex activity consisting of multiple dimensions" (p. 447)i Future research must pay more attention to the complexity of teaching when attempting to further our understanding of university-level teaching. Our-discussion of the studies included in this critical review should serve to emphasize the importance of exarnining'both what teachers say4and what they do in university classrooms. This review reinforces that there are synergies between the interaction of teacher beliefs and teaching practice in university and in primary and secondary school contexts. We argue that Apiayadn research on university teachingcould efitfrom'closerattentiostoth resarch ol eei frm loefr atn tion to theresuearh in primary and secondary settinigs. In addition, there is scope for fuert research that examines the coherence (and contradictions) between learning to teach in formal'preservice primary and secondary programs and learning to teach in situ within the' university context. There are a nuniber of related research questions that deserve further attention: *

How do teachers' beliefs and conceptions.influence the'development 6f university academics as teachers?

-

.

* How do teachers' beliefs and conceptions of teaching and teaching practice change over time?

.

'

X"

'

.

* How do teachers' beliefs and conceptions relate to their teaching practice at 'the university level? X M * If the theories-in-use of experienced university teachers are largely tacit and difficult to articulate, how-can, researchers (and novice university teachers) '

I

203

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath

gain access to these and so make explicit and improve understanding of how university teachers learn to teach? This area holds exciting potential for developing more complex understandings of university academics as teachers, which in turn has implications for the improvement of university-level teaching. Conclusions Research into teachers' beliefs, conceptions, attitudes, orientations, (personal) practical theories, and implicit or subjective theories about teaching is grounded in the understanding that these concepts drive teachers' practices. For example, Pajares (1992) noted that "few would argue [against the assumption] that the beliefs teachers hold influence their perceptions and judgements, which, in turn, affect their behavior in classrooms" (p. 307). Researchers and reviewers in primary, secondary, and tertiary 'teaching have noted the proliferation of terms and theories used to describe teacher beliefs and conceptions (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Ethell, 1997; Kagan, 1990, 1992a; Kember, 1997; Pajares, 1992; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Pajares (1992) charged future researchers with "communicat[ing] ideas and results as clearly aspossible using common terms" (p. 315). Itmaybe time for researchers in the field of teachers' beliefs to agree upon common terminology and definitions to aid further study. In addition, it would appear that sufficient conceptions of teachstated that "there seems to be little value... ing have been identified. Kember (I998) in further exploratory studies to classify academics' conceptions of teaching" (p. 273), and instead advocated for research that explores the relationships between the various categories. Andrews et al. (1996) noted that "excellence in teaching is.complex and difficult to achieve. It is about content expertise and methodological technique, as 'well as about participants in the educational enterprise valuing and achieving quality outcomes" (p. 101). Much of the current research into teachers' beliefs at the tertiary level acknowledges this complexity and makes an attempt to encourage excellence by emphasizing the important role that teachers' beliefs play in the practice of teaching. The research studies we have reviewed have contributed to a growing body of literature that exarnines tertiary teachers' espoused beliefs. We remain unconvinced, however, that the relationship between tertiary teachers' espoused beliefs and their teaching practice has been investigated sufficiently thoroughly to draw any definitive conclusions. Freire (1998), in his discussion of the relationship between teachers and students, noted that "an educational practice in which there is no coherent relationship between what educators say and what they do is a disaster" (p. 55). What is clear is that further research is needed to make explicit the links between tertiary teachers' espoused theories and their teaching practice so that we can understand better how university academics learn to teach and, especially, so that novice teachers may benefit. One promising area that warrants further research is that of self-study (e.g., Gibson, 1998). Scott et al. (1994) also highlighted this need for "further study ... [that] could make more explicit the complexity of teaching particularly for those who espouse alternative philosophies, assumptions and beliefs that guide their teaching practice" (p. 24). In addition, we advocate that future studies 204

Telling Half the Story

be designed to enhance trustworthiness in the findings. iThere is also room for miore explicit links between studies of teachers' espoused theories of action, theories-inuse, and the implications for the development of tertiary teachers. Our own ongoing research aims to address these areas.

'

'',

i' ReferencesAndrews, J., Garrison, D. R.,' & Magnusson, K. (i996). Th"e teachinrg andlearning transaction in higher education: A study of excellent professors and-their'students.' Teaching in HigherEducation, 1, 81-103.

!,

Argyris, C., Putnam,'R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Actinscience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., & Sch6o, D. (1974j. The'ory in practice:'Increasing professionaleffecg, tiveness. San F,rancisco: Jossey-Bass. Ballantyne, R., Bain,' J., & Packer, J. (1997). Reflecting on university teachinfg: Aca-' '

,io

demics' stories. Canberra: Australian Govermnent Publishing Service. Ballantyne,'R., Bain, J., & Packer, J. (1999). Researching university teaching in Aus-tralia- Themes and issues in academics' reflections. Studies in HigherEducation',24,' 237-257.

Beattie, M. (1995). New prospects for teacher education: narrative ways bf knowiiig' teachinr and teacher'learning. EducationalResearch, 37, 53-70.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia,M. (1992). Cognitioni and curriculum. In'P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 517-L542).'NeW York: Macmilian., Block, J. H., & Hazelip, K. (1995). Teachers' beliefs and belief systems. In-L. W. 'Anderson (Ed.', Ir,ternatio'nalencyclopedid of teaching and ieache'reducation (ind' ed., pp. 25-28). New York: Pergamon Press. Boice, R.' (1992). The new faculty membe*: Supporting'andfostering professional' '

development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

'

,

;

Brown, S., Bell, D:, &McDowell,'L. (1995). What makes agoodlecturerinhigher'edu'cation? Outcomes ofa'SCED/SEDA small-grant project. In B. Smithf& S. Brown' (Eds.), Research, teaching and 'learningin highereducdtion (pp.108-116). London: Kogan Page. '

Bruce, C., & Gerber, R. (1994). Toivards university lecturers' conceptions of student

learning. Centre fdr AppliedEnvironmental and Social Educational Research, Queensland University of Technology. Available- http://www2.fit:qut.edu'au/frill/biuce/ highed.htnl.

'

'

Bullough, R. V. Jr. (1997a). Becoming a'teacher: Self and th6'sodial location of teacher education. In B. J.-Biddle, T.L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), Intern`ationalhand-book of teachersand teaching (pp. 79-134). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic. " Bullough, R. V. Jr. (1997b). Practicing theory and theorizing practice in teacher education.'In J.Loughran & T. RIuseli (Eds.), Teaching about teaching. Purpose, pas-sion andpedagogy in teachereducation. London: Falmer Press.' Bullough, R.V. Jr., & Stokes, D. K.(1994). Analyzing personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education as a means for encouraging professional development. American EducationdlResearchJournal, 31, 197-224.

Burroughs-Lange, S. G. (1996). University lecturers' concept of theirrole' HigherEdu' cationResearch and Development, 15; 29-49. Byme,E.M. (1993a). Womenandscience: Thesnarksyndrome.London:FalmerPress. Byrne, E. (1993b, September). Women, science and the snark syndrome: Myths-out,

policy strategies in. Paper presented at the Women's Suffrage Centennial Science Conference, Wellington, New Zealand. Calderhead, J. (1981).:Stimulated recall: A method.for research on: teaching. British '

Journal of EducationalPsychology, 51, 211-217.

'

a

'

I

E

0205

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York:

Macmillan. Calderhead, J., &Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers' early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1-8.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1987). Teachers' personal knowledge: What counts as "personal" in studies of the personal. Journalof CurriculumStudies, 19, 487-5 00.

Clandinin,' D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1991). Narrative and story in practice and research. In D. A. Schon (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies inland on educa-

tionalpractice(pp. 258-281). New York: Teachers College Press. Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teacher thinking. EducationalResearcher, 17(2), 5-12.

Clark, C.M.,.& Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. EducationalResearcher, 19(5), 2-14.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2000). Knowledge, context and identity. In F. M. SConnelly & D. J. Clandinin (Eds.), Shaping aprofessionalidentity: Stories of educationalpractice(pp. 1-5). New York: Teachers College Press. Creswell,'J. W. (1998). Qua'litativeinquiry and researchdesign: Choosingamongfive traditions.London: Sage. Crotty, M. (1998). Thefoundations of social research:Meaning andperspective in the researchprocess.London: Sage. Dall'Alba, G. (1991, July). Foreshadowingconceptions of teaching. Paper presented

at the 16th Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Dall'Alba, G. (1993). The role of teaching in higher education: Enabling students to enter a field of study and practice. LearningandInstnrction, 3, 299-313. Dann, H. D. (1990). Subjective theories: A new approach to psychological research and educational practice. In G. R. Semin & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Everyday understandings: Social and scientific implications (pp. 227-243). London: Sage. Davidson, C., & Tolich, M. (Eds.). (1999). Social science research in New Zealand. Manypaths to understanding.Auckland, New Zealand: Longman.

De Neve, H. T M. F. (1991). University teachers' thinking about lecturing:, Student evaluation of lecturing as an improvement perspective for the lecturer. HigherEducation, 22, 63-91.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative' research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 1-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dunkin, M. J. (1990). The induction of academic staff to a university: Processes and products. Higher Education, 20, 47-66.

Dunkin, M. (1995). Concepts of teaching and teaching excellence in higher education. HigherEducation Research and Development, 14, 21-33.

Dunkin, M. J., & Precians, R. P. (1992). Award-winning university teachers' concepts of teaching. HigherEducation, 24, 483-502.

Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher's practical knowledge: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 42-71. Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacherthinking:Astudy ofpracticalknowvledge.London: Croom Helm.

Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teachers' knowledge: The evolution of a discourse. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 23, 1-19.

206

-TellingHaif the Story,

Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about "good teaching": An integration of contrasting research areas. HigherEducation Research and Development, 19, '19-26.

I

Entwistle, N., &Walker, P. (2000). Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within /sophisticated conceptions of teaching. InstructionalScience, 28, 335-361. Ethell, R!i G. (1997). Reconcilingpropositionalandproceduralknowledge: Beginning

teachers' knowledge in action. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Griffith'University, !: ' ,, 1 I 4 Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.Ethell, R. G., & McMeniman, M. M. (2000). Unlocking the knowledge in action' of an expert practitioner. Journalof TeacherEducation, 51, 87-101.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational 'Research, 38,'47-65.-

Fenstermacher, G.D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge iin research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond(Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 3-56). Washingt6n, DC: American Educational Research Association. Fishbein, M., &Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief attitude, intentionand behavioi..Reading,MA:' Addison-Wesley. . . I

Fox, D.'(1983).Personal the6ries of teaching. Studies in HigherEducation,8, 151 -163. Freeman, D. (1991). "To make the tacit explicit": Teacher education, emerging discourse, and conceptions of teaching. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 7, 439-454. Freire, P. (1998). Teachersasculturalworkers:ELettersto those who dare teach. BoulA l der, CO: Westview Press. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educationalresearch:An introduction

(6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Gibson, L. S. (1998). Teaching as an encounter with the self: Unraveling the mix of personal beliefs, education ideblogies, and pedagogical practices. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29, 360-371.

Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to stu dent learning. British Journalof Educati6nalPsychology, 63, 20-33.

Gow, L., Kember, D., & Sivan, A.(1992).'Lecturers' views of their teaching practices: Implications for,staff development needs.,HigherEducation Research and Devel-. opment, 11, 135-149.

Grossman, P.L. (1990). A tale of two Hamlets. In The making of a,teacher: Teacher, knowledge and teacher education (pp. 1-18). New York:,Teachers CollegelPress. Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991). Ways of seeing are ways of knowing. The pedagogical content knowledge of an expert English teacher. Journalof C'urriculumStudies, 23,, 409-421. ., Hativa, N. (1993). Attitudes towards instruction of faculty in mathemaiics and te physical sciences.' InternationalJournalof Mathematics Education, Science and. Technology,24, 579-593. Hativa,N. (1997, March). Teaching in a researchuniversity. Professors'conceptions,T practices,,and disciplinarydifferences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Hativa, N. (1998). Lack of clarity in university teaching: A case study. HigherEducation, 36, 353-381.

Hativa,: N. (2000). Becoming a better teacher: A case of changing the pedagogical knowledge and beliefs of law professors. InstructionalScience,,28, 491-523. Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. Journalof Higher Education, 72, 699-729.

Hermes, L. (1999). Learner assessment through subjective theories and action research. Assessment and Evaluation in HigherEducation,24, 197-204. 207

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath

Hillier, Y. (1998). Informal practitioner theory: Eliciting the implicit. Studies in the Education of Adults, 30, 35-52.

Ho, A. S. P. (2000). A conceptual change approach to staff development: A model for programme design.lnternationalJournalforAcademic Development, 5, 30-41.

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.HigherEducation,42,143-169.

Hughes, J. A. (1993). The teaching theories of community college faculty. Community College Journalof Research and Practice, 17, 29-38.

Johnston, S. (1992). Images: A way of understanding the practical knowledge of student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 123-136.

Johnston, S. (1996). What can we learn about teaching from our best university teachers? Teaching in HigherEducation, 1, 213-225.

.

Kagan, D. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks principle. Review of EducationalResearch, 60, 419-469.

Kagan, D. M. (1992a). Implications of research on teacher belief. EducationalPsychologist, 27, 65-90.

Kagan, D. M. (1992b). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of EducationalResearch, 62, 129-169.

Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning andInstruction, 7, 255-275.

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. Journal of HigherEducation, 65, 58-74.

Kember, D., & Kwan', K. (2000). Lecturers' approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. InstnrctionalScience, 28, 469-490. Kember, D., Kwan, K.-P., & Ledesma, J. (2001). Conceptions of good teaching and how they influence the way adults-and school leavers are taught. InternationalJournal of Lifelong Education, 20, 393-404.

Kreber, C. (2000). How university teaching award winners conceptualise academic work: Some further thoughts on the meaning of scholarship. Teaching in Higher Education,5, 61-78.

Kugel, P. (1993). How professors develop as teachers. Studies in HigherEducation, 18, 315-328. LaBerge, V. B., Sons, L. R., & Zollman, A.' (1999). Awareness of NCTM standards, mathematics beliefs, and classroom piactices 'ofmnathematics faculty at the collegiate level. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 21, 30-47.

LaBerge, V. B., Zollman, A., & Sons, L. R. (1997, March). Awareness, beliefs and classroompracticesof mathematicsfaculty at the collegiate level. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Larsson, S. (1986). Learning from experience: Teachers' conceptions of changes in their professional practice. Journalof CurriculumStudies, 19, 35-43. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching. London: Routledge.

Leinhardt, G.(1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. EducationalResearcher, 19(2),18-25.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.' Marland, P. (1987).'Response to Clandinin and Connelly. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 503-505.

i

,

Marland, P. W. (1995). Implicit theories of teaching. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 131-136).

Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

I

Martin, B., & Balla, M. (1991, July). Conceptions of teaching and implicationsfor

-learning. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research Association, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

208

Telling Half the Story

Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K.,, Ramsden, P., & Benjamin, J. (2000). What university teachers teach and how-they teach it. InstructionalScience, 28, 387-412. Martin, E., & Ramsden, P. (1993). An expanding aware6ness: How lecturers change their understanding of teaching. Research and Development in Higher Education, f Ie , 15,148-155.' I, I , Maykut, P., &'Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research:A philosophic " " andpracticalguide. London: Falmer Press.

McAlpine, L., &Weston, C. (2000). Reflection: Issues related to improving professors' teaching and students' learning. InstnrctionalScience, 28, 363-385. McLean, M., &-Blackwell, R. (1997). Opportunity knocks? Professionalism and excellence in uniiversity teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,3, 85-99.

Meade, P., & McMeniman, M. (1992). Stimulated recall-An effective methodology for examining successful teaching inscience. Australian EducationalResearcher, 19(3),1f-1 1.

Menges, R. J., & Rando, W.' C. (1989). What are-your assumptions? Improving instruc1 'tion by examining theories. College Teaching, 37(2),'54-60. Mertz, N., & McNeely, S. (1990, April). How professors "learn" to teach. 'Teacher cognitions, teachingparddigmsand teachereducation. Paper presented at the annual,

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Morine-Dershimer, G. (1993). Tracing conceptual change in preservice teachers. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 9, 15-26.

Moses, I., & Ramsden, P. (1992). Acadernic values and academic practice in the new universities. HigherEducationResearch anud Development,' 11, 1017118.

Munby, H. '(1982). Thle place of teachers' beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision making, and an alternative methodology. InstnrctionalScience, 11,201-225.

Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative approach to the study of a teacher's beliefs. Journal -

of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 27-38.

Murray, K., &,MacDonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers' conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice. HigherEducation, 33, 331-349. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journalof Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.

Newton, D. P.,Newton, L. D., & Oberski, I. (1998). Learning and conceptibns of understanding in history anrd science: Lecturers and new graduates compared. Studies in HigherEducation, 23, 43-58.,

Ormrod, J. E., & Cole, D. B. (1996). Teaching content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: A model from geographic education. Journal of Teacher Editcation, 47, 37-42.

Pajares, M. F. (1992), Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Reviewv of EducationalResearch, 62, 307-332.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacitdimension. New York: Doubleday. Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching.AdultEducation Quarterly, 42, 203-220. Pratt, D. D. (1998). Fiveperspectives on teaching in adultand higher education. Mal-

abar, FL: Krieger. Pratt, D. D., Kelly, M., & Wong, W. S. S. (1999). Chinese conceptions of 'effective teaching' in Hong Kong: Towards culturally sensitive evaluation of teaching. Inter-, national JournalofLifelong Education, 18, 241-258.,

Prosser, M., &Trigwell, K. (1997)L Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. British Journalof EducationalPsychology, 67, ,25-35.

,

"

'

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., &'Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics"' conceptions of science learning.and teaching.'Learningand Instruction, 4, 217-231.

209

Kane, Sandretto, andHeath Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of teachersand teaching (pp. 1223-1296). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic. Quinlan, K. M. (1999a, April). Building bridges: The scholarlydimensions offaculty beliefs about engineering education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Quinlan, K. M. (1999b). Commonalities and controversy in context: A study of academic historians' educational beliefs. Teaching andTeacherEducation,15, 447-463. Rahilly, T. J., & Saroyan, A. (1997, March). Characterizingpoorandexemplaty teaching in highereducation: Implicationsforfacultydevelopment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Rando, W. C., & Menges, R. J. (1991). How practice is shaped by personal theories. New Directionsfor Teaching andLearning, 45, 7-14. Reid, D. J., & Johnston, M. (1999). Improving teaching in higher education: Student and teacher perspectives. EducationalStudies, 25, 269-281. Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of EducationalResearch, 69, 53-82. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbookof researchon teachereducation (pp. 102-119). New York: Simon & Schuster. Roche, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2000). Multiple dimensions of university teacher selfconcept. InstructionalScience, 28, 439-468. Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. HigherEducation, 24, 93-111. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting acadernics' beliefs about teaching and learning. HigherEducation, 41, 299-325. Sandretto, S., Ethell, R., & Heath, C. (2002, April).A teachinginterventionprogramme fornovice lecturers:The value of a personalapproach.Paper presented-at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Saroyan, A., & Snell, L. S. (1997). Variations in lecturing styles. Higher Education, 33, 85-104. Scott, S. M., Chovanec, D. M., & Young, B. (1994). Philosophy-in-action in university teaching. CanadianJournalof HigherEducation, 24(5), 1-25. Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of EducationalResearch, 51, 455-498. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard EducationalReview, 57, 1-22. Singer, E. R. (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research in HigherEducation, 37, 659-679. Tamir, P. (1991). Professional and personal knowledge of teachers and teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 263-268. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning(pp. 127-146). New York: Macmillan. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996a). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in HigherEducation, 21, 275-284. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996b). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers' approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77-87. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to first year university science. HigherEducation, 27, 75-84. Trumbull, D. J. (1990). Evolving conceptions of teaching: Reflections of one teacher. CurriculumInquiry, 20,161-182. 210

Telling Halfthe Story van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., van Werven, H. I., & Dekkers, H. (1997). Teachers' craft knowledge and curriculum innovation in higher efigineering education. HigherEducation, 34, 105-122. Warkentin, R.; W., Bates, J. A., & Rea, D. (1993, February).Discontinuitiesin science teachers' inistructionalbeliefs and practicesacross Artade levels. Paper presented at the Eastern Educational Research Association Symposium on ScienceTeaching, Clearwater Beach, FL. Weinstein, C. S. (1990). Prospective elenientary te'achers' beliefs about teaching: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 279-290. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., &Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological' perspective on inquiry. Review of EducationalResearch, 68, 130-178. Wildman, T. M., Niles, J. A., Magliaro, S. G., & McLaughlin, R. A. (1990).Prornoting reflective practice among beginning and experienced teachers. In R.-T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging'reflectivepractice in education (pp. 139-162). New York: Teachers College Press. Willcoxson, L. (1998). The impact of academics' leaming and teaching preferences on' their teaching practices: A pilot study. Studies inHligherEducation, 23, 59-70. Wineburg, S. S. (1987). The self-fulfillment of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 28-37. Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programmuing in the 21st century. Journal of TeacherEducaiion, 51, 39-49. Young, L. J. (1998). Overcomning silences: Comment on 'Teaching-as an encounter with the self: Unraveling the mix of personal beliefs; education ideologies, and pedagogical practices." Anthropology and Educatioh Quarterly, 29, 372-376. Authors' RUTH KANE is Director of TeacherEducation, School of Education, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand; e-mail [email protected]. Her research specializadons include self-study of teacher education practice, teacher thinking, and the theorizing of teaching practice. SUSAN SANDRETTO is an Assistant Lecturer, School 6f Education, University-of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand; [email protected]. Her research interests include teacher education, educational equity, and teaching for ' ', social justice. CHRIS HEATH is Director of the Otago Higher Educaioni Developrment Centre; University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand; e-mail [email protected]. His research specializations include academic staff development, teaching in higher education, and medical education.

*,

211'

E-e

q 3 on82tg.o3

.

.S o =or

o

r

-,

_3a >: -:0 t42

Ei o 0 P,

P

0) ta o Ei

V4

lo, U

0

v

o

.5

2

8,

in 0 00 :3 'a=

'o

C,

0

0

a 0.0

r0 U,- t; a -a

GMU6

o U 0

ou

0) P

.0

C\ 'IT

C\

cn =3 L) 40.

t)

o

in=D

3 eo Ca z

t

Wi =

¢

C) C)

0

E

o

n > o0

.r-: Id .!i m 8 ,, zn M

a; , = = A < 5 0 :ci C, = P (7, ,

cli ;g,.

M 4

m

212

C-4

S cq

40. 40

jg - = 0

In

-53 P-4

IC)

M

-0

C% >1 C.)

m

_~~~~t

0

I

u

I

.-S

U

t0O a a= !Ceio C0c

¢0S _5 C)

3

om Y 0<

I. m B 'P

bow

t33.

°°

°

E o.ac.> t

;

qoo

8a

2

E , E

E 3ts

E

, |*

O

0

:,

1,

,

.

e

0

0

0

x

z

Y

r

11

¢ | -

o

.=

,

w

,lE e a e

3r >

i

0

=

>

<

*t

r

O

6 ,oo 0

It0

_

Xs

'C 0

-

<,

l

4

0 o.

r S o

,i

to

.

,

N

=>

.

Co

-0

CE

I

~~ ~ ~

c

0

o

os~~~~~~~C

213

0Qo_

tib_a

3~~~~

c~

u, w

214

~~~.

;g

*eao i;

IL) -2¢= 0 o

nt

.&s o

4

C

. u

C

~

0

to

:

0v

u

~

-

CC

'0

*u

C'--C) C 0- D50C

o

to

Un

o 0

U, U

0

A 0C

.

° 'O 0

U,

. L.. .0.

C0. O CUe

CD '.

.oS

C>

00

A

-0 Z

>.-Z W

E

C)

>~~~~~

0.= o

C,

n0

L _

I

o

I.

U,

o

C)-

-

I, . -

C O

F

O

CC__f U,

.0

C)

-1

U* U

0 a

o°

C)

I.-

O

C)C

0

3,

2C -o ) 0

0

n2

cL. 2

oC)

u

'U oo

.. 0

o eo

.C

OC =

r..

00

O oX

-

S0 C) U,

-~

O

00 .0

I.! 74 <.- C)=

cn0

Xo m

C

0\ 0

C\

U,'

.0

215

C)

.s.C-

'3

I0. C's

co

4)O 4)~ P40

I-

CY

_4 . 0. O

>,

p.

4i2

Q~ .;

CZo 3,

CU 0 4) 34

4) C)

U,

0n 4)

. 4)-

I

*C

0tc

._ -S 0. 4) 4) 00

L. 00

C'

C °

4)4)O O E- ZA

P) 03 4)

4)c

L)4 .

'4-

4

o .4 4): 4 ) P'. -.

).

-

U,

0 00 0R

-V3 C) ,

o

C4)4 0.'

O

4

'C

C).

0.

j-

= .t

'I1

0n 0%

¢4<',

> ) 3-

216

U,

0

C.

a:,

a

h

8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tw o

. - Q > . .a Yo ,- ji B S = r

E = t.

.

2

>C -0

>.

,

0 QE*

yx>o*

3Qoc . o , e = _

y~~~~~~~~~~

o:

X

,

30*-° _

_ to 3ocrow NCS.

. QC=;

_ .r ;s -r5

0=.-^

T1~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~07, ,a

0, o

:

Ar. tn t) -

3

t ^.- °

~~~~~~'r - O OcS

._4 o-ip o >

Z r. ct crs

a

C

90: =

>

0

5: 0j w

>

C) _r 0

-.j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

00

0

0

>

[

I

Nce

neO

;

;

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

X +

217

I

I

0~~~~~~~~~1 0~~~

C)

o

0~~~) .0

4

P..-R

.0

C) ~~~~~~~~~O)Z ~~~o 0

L) 0.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

C)

= O

>

0 0~~~~~~~~ otoF ~~~C~~~3 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e ~~~~~~~

218

Cl)

oII ~~~~~~~-C)

t

'1-, 2m

zDo j

u 9 . - c ° .~~~~=

0

0 -=

r-~~~~~~~~~

|~~~~~~~~~~~2. ;

o oi 3h D' 1

y 2EQ-

E

2

i|

°=0 E3

i'

EO

IL

'r

_

O

0' P.

~'o o o i3E 't

.4

t

C C

~

C.

'i

0-~

*a

;ba u

'o

~~ -t

P4 0 4>oX

>~~ o

X X 0 00

C)L5.4

U) 0

*3 I ' .

C)

C _

.D0 0

0 1 C14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 to C\O ° 0M

* O °

I219

w

I

II II

1 1

c4

,3 .= p*,

*

E

enag

r

2

s-

Y g

E

l:;~~~~~~ Q==.

ei 5 U Ca

2

e

-- r-z-a-

>0

3

E.~-a-~~ E

-

0,

_

>

Y

-

,0~~~~~~~~~~~~0

00

U D U 2

.. Z==C .)0M E-O Uib

220

o"

.0.0

0

0-

o u0=S D

>

Z3

0

C)~~~~~~~~~

0

0

-ON 0 C)0

C0

a

-

0

O 0

.-_

0O

'.-

L

,ZU

tn

0 C) *= 0

o~~~~ ~ 2

G4

0C)o04 a)i _.'O

o

cn

to

o 0I.

N .4In,o

*. 0 a -... 0

U,

0-4 ;C)

.2, a-. 0'W .0

0

,0G ,

0

0S C)a

C) a-

~ ~ ~

'C)

-

to a-

4

C0 't

E2-

o0

C) U, . C 0 C C - )

:3 ri

>

.

U

Ul

a40

0

44

~0~.

4

'S Q _.0

;

0

O

0

C) -

W, _4

\O0

*0

i

0Z

>~

0

3

C02 04

ax, °.OitS, fi 2S QP

C

0

0CN

0, '-

W -Z) o 0 -Z

wU ,

00 0c

0 , 6,lCj.=,2 C)>.C

Z 004'

tto

0 0

0 ) _0 C). a5f C) '

U,

.

U~0

0 0

*.) 04

W

0.

>-

W~0

a.. 0C

U

U

U C) .' .

.9

.)

mC)0 0 ca

U.

0'*

U, E. -. 3I 0 o00 aIeo s:

04 Ci

C) .

. i-0S

SC ,

a,

221

CC

'0 C3C

CC .tn

C) C

C*

.,

o > )C)

-

,

C) 0

E_

.. 4:2 .~ EP

C 0

c C) CZ )

0

'0

C)0 C 00 C)

C.) C4

.0

C) .A

'0 C) C)

C) I-..

~~ ~ ~ ~

a C)

'0 C) C) 0

Ei.

'0 *3

En CC

9

C )

V

C.)

OC

a )CC

o

'C) 0'

.5 I C,,

C) C

0

CC0C

w

UM

oC) S .

C)

r-0

E

VI

V

C)

_ C.)

tti

C)

~

C -o '- 0 B o

0 CC4

Q =

00 00

-

C.)

-4 C._._) 5 C)

.a!

cn

:

_

10

0 CS 'S).9 C) '0 C)C)i

C) C)4

CC)

C)

u~~~C 0

0CZ:

C).-

cC 0 0,

C) rC)

CC

0

u

', -a u

C) C3% C

z ¢ G C-,

222

0

~-0

.)C 9

::j

.C. C\ 0'\ _

M '0 a) CS

0

g >

~

> 4

a 0 -s CsC.. ZS S= 3

ZS $

1

'

S U,

00

Q)° S

* 0

O

C),,

o

0. U

cj 0

=

U, U,

I ---

t

0

0-

C.-

C)B

C.)

i

4C) C

,O

r- Qq4..

:i

.

0 n

.

.

u

t

0, C)

c)

I-

I.

00 U,

U

C >4 U,U

C.) -

s s 0 a) tn

4-

-

0. -b

I 0 0.

sU

C), ,

0

C.) C) 0

C) C) 0..

U

-.

5 s,

>4.

0 I-.m

C) 0

0

t- En 'I) M

I

. .

~

R) ; s ~~~~~~ 1

223

Ca

-d C

a 'n *% En

.1 U O

0

0

to

At

ao U

a o

g

Q*>--

Q

>o

}gE}W

g~~~

C ai

.>

°0

r =U

C

Q

.n'

<

o7

-s

~0

ci

a *0

o o.

c3 r.

.5

~~~ ~

CZ,

Q CS

~

o~~~~

0

-

~~~ cq 0

En,

Q °~~~~~1

Ca

U

e

20

U,

~

~~~~~~4 c

0n X C.) a.-

0

.- -A

U u,

U2 C-A C' e 0 '0

U, U

U,

0. 0 U,

.

0

fU

16

u

Ca., = U

mq

-0R -bN

C-

032 o,

En

224

U3

12-a

C

;- 0

,

C% a Ct

i0

0 0 -

0'%

C7 C*

H

'

O

0

~

o

42

o

U 0 D-

o ..

0

.o

.0

>

) -'-

U,

* l~

x JU

C) C_

,o a;r

,_

U,o

1. 0.> '0O C),Ccn U_, C *C O) '5> O 'a , j

CU '0 E ... C C '0 0.

0.R C)1

0'

C).

U,

C) '0

.0 C.)

I

-

; >1

u)

ot) ci cn

C) cUi c)

oa) a)., c

:*

0 P_ I 0

c)

. c

3

cO

00 0

C)

S

°r a o

8

l3C6H3)UXS C) U, 0.

0.

W

a

~CU ~ ~

C

U,

)U,E

- °U~8 0~

~C.0C)U ~

oU ra)a Q

t

°-

to~~~~~C

C

GQ

W>r o

oz

wbC

o

oi0

0'0

In

0

'-_

c,° i

C)

C.)

I

0

*,= *-,=

0

0 0

*°

cn

= c,

cU

CUs

eC) u=r a)

0 c I:b

u o

o _-

~C*

=C

W

t' ,

o

-n U

N CU .

-

CU

~

6 Ei

:d;.

Cal

I

I,

225

s C)

O.-m

II I

0

U,3

0>

.)

o H

0

o u

C)C) C)0

r

4

0'

P.4

.E, C)E 1 0 0

0

-

Ca

C.)

2

U

s,

I C)a

C.

>>

't

.0 'C)

o)a

CL.

) s: 0_

a

-E

C

>

>d'

C')

=

S5

=

a

C)

W C:

0

-C) >

a

0

L. -) CO

* C) 0

C

0 >O. 'C.)

3-

._

C)

F3o

_ ui

Z; 2a

i

>

C.

Ut C.)o

>C)

C)

X

_g

CIn

Si CU )

C.)

o .!

*5

0

C;

" C.) a).= .0 0

u

I0

J? C.

0~

'3 ti -=' Z

:r ,s,

s O

Cs 0~

o s-

a

C%)

= >~m

226

C'It o 0 :a U ,,

C

¢2

o =

C)3g ress S

s3 > ,

C)

C) 0 C, a

C)

O) )

0 3-u

._~

3-.3- .0 oa

Ca,

'3

4)

3,

I,,

C)

U,

3- 03 0

u/2

w

009 t ._ Ci)

3-~~C

*,

M

.t

.Q

a

r.

0 .;

4 C*P.

-o

8

O C3 C. C

C)E

.

I 0

E ,r

_

.C r

C) ca

C

_

,

I

=w.2

.

o,_

l O_ e

C D' p Y R 3 0 ,Co ~

*te°POtC

o= 00

.e

1< tt

Q0

_ 5,>C)

a) oo

cn

i

N Q4 >

u~:

r0

Cs°4

WrC'g3

o.o.

c ) o2

2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

._t . _

o

co C~ °

i2

0

1

o ;= oC. t

CO -3

: e) u*3

=C;-

64 r-

C

=Rto

=

4 to

A

M

Ut.

0

c c

t)

0

21

c-

4 -

u

X

,,

Ut

O

32g vo

E

N ~~~~~o

I

u

'r C M

C3

>t

o

t~

xnCC

-

a

rg~~~t

r. >Q6 Cs,

227

0

0

cl: .5

U

cn

m Ci0 U

cS :U

0 ri

.E

-

U,

G

.0 0.

U

X2 *.na)

.

.~

0~~~~

O

:3

o =

40.

Ei 0

0.

=

0 U

ti

Ut

32 0

00

YA:;0

228

~

I

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Telling Half the Story: A Critical Review of Research on the Teaching Beliefs and Practices of University Academics SOURCE: Review of Educational Research 72 no2 Summ 2002 WN: 0219600924002 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.aera.net/.

Copyright 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company.

All rights reserved.