kane

Reviewv of Educational Research*, '; - 1 iSummer 2002, VoL 72, No. 2, pp. 177-228

Telling Half the Story: A iCritical Review ofResearch on thle Teaching Beliefs, and Practices of

University Academnics

I ' 2 - .Ruth Kane,Susan Sandretto

ChrisHeath iUniversity of Otago .

A critical reviewvof research on teaching beliefs andpracticesof universityaca-demics revealed that the espoused theories of action of academics have notbeen distinguishedfrom their theories-in-use in some studies., It is our con-tention that research that examines only what university teachers say abouttheirpractice and does notdirectlyobserve whattheydo is at riskof telling,halfthe story. Our review revealed seieral unsupported claim' about universitylacademics' teaching pratice, raised concerns about data gathdring and analy-sis methods, and fouind that research on primary and secondary teachers --beliefs has been used infrequently to inform research in teiliary settings. The. review identifies implications for understanding university. academics' devel-opment as teachers and provides direction forfitrther research.,

KEywoRDs: espoused theories, higher education, teachers' beliefs, teachingpractice.

Researchers acknowledge the complexity involved in teaching and in leaming toteach effectively (e.g., Ballantyne, Bain, & Packer, 1999; Calderhead, 1996; Clark& Peterson, 1986). At the primary and secondarylevels, the difficult and complicatedprocess of learning to teach has been well studied (e.g., Ethell, 1997; Etiheli '&McMeniman, 2000; Kagan, 1992b; Wideeh, Mayer-Smith, & Moon,' 1998).Emerg-ing from this research is an'understanding of the central role that teachbers' personalbeliefs 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 exam-ines 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 onthe teaching beliefs and practices of university academics are the primary focus ofthe present review.

Our interest in' this area developed as we began our background reading for aresearch project exploring the beliefs and practices of excellenifteachers at'our uni-versity. We became aware of some studies that made claims about teaching practicebased only on information gathered about teachers' beliefs without observations of

177

Kane, Sandretto, and Heath

practice. As we began to question the literature, we widened our search in an effortto understand the complex field. We found ample discussion of the relationshipbetween teachers' beliefs (espoused theories of action) and teachers' practices (the-ories 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 sim-ilar studies at the tertiary level (for a review, see Kember,,1997). While trying to clar-ify our thinking on the issues that were arising from our readings of the studies, werealized that there was no comprehensive critical analysis of current studies on uni-versity academics' teaching beliefs and practices.

The review begins with a background section that uses research on the teachingbeliefs and practices of primary and secondary teachers to lay the foundation forexamining studies of university academics. In this background section, we brieflyexamine the research on teacher cognition, highlight findings from the research onthe beliefs and practices of primary and secondary teachers, and examine problemswith' the terminology used in some studies. With this foundation, we build a casefor the application of findings fromn research in primary and secondary settings toteachers 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 andselected studies for the review. Then we review research that has sought to under-stand the beliefs that university academics hold about teaching in order to betterunderstand their teaching practices and improve the practices of others.

Our critical analysis of the 'literature on tertiary teaching revealed some studiesthat (a) assume teachers' practice from reports of teachers' beliefs, (b) are basedon unstated research designs, and (c) miss opportunities to apply their findings tothe development of teachers. .The review concludes with a discussion of the impli-cations of the findings for understanding the development of academics as teach-ers, the professional development of academics, and future research in the area ofuniversity teaching.

Background- Research on Primary and Secondary Teachers

Since the 1970s, a portion of the research aimed at improving teaching hasfocused on teacher cognition (Calderhead, 1996; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Dann,1990). Such research has predominantly been conducted with primary and secondaryschool teachers. This research "has helped to identify. the nature and complexityof the teacher's work, and helped to provide ways of thinking about the processesof change and support" (Calderhead, 1996, p. 721). Shavelson and Stem (1981)explained that research on teacher cognition made the "basic assumption ... thatteachers' 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 teacher cognition

is somewhat ambiguous, because researchers invoke the term to refer to dif-ferent products, including teachers' interactive thoughts during instruction;thoughts during lesson planning; implicit beliefs about students, classrooms,and learning; reflections about their own teaching performance; automatizedroutines and activities that form their instructional repertoire; and self-,awareness of procedures they use to solve classroom problems. (p. 420)

178

Telling Half the Story

Studies on teacher cognitionwhave investigated teachers' judgments, decisionmaking, planning, and thought processes (Calderhead, 1996; Clark,& Peterson,1986; Shavelson & Stem, 1981). This review, however, is primarily focused on thearea of teacher cognition research that has investigated the knowledge, beliefs, andconceptions of teachers that underpin their teaching practice.

Research on Teacher Knowledge

Researchers and reviewers have distinguished between teacher knowledge andteacher beliefs (Calderhead, 1996; Fenstermacher, 1994; Richardson, 1996; Thomp-son, 1992). Teacher knowledge has been defined as the "factual propositions and theunderstandings that inform skillful action" (Calderhead, 1996, p. 715). Different cat-egories of teacher knowledge have been identified or described, including subject orcontent knowledge (Grossman, 1990; Ormrod & Cole, 1996; Shulman, 1987), ped-agogical content knowledge (Gudmundsdottir, 1991; Ormrod & Cole, 1996; Shul-mani, 1987), ciaft knowledge (Calderhead, 1996; Fenstermacher, 1994; Leinhardt,1990); and (personal) practical knowledge (Clandinin &,Connelly, 1987,1991; Con-nelly '& Clandinin, 1990; Elbaz, 1981, 1983; Johnston, 1992; Tamir,'1991).'

We use the term (personal) practical knowledge to describe the 'work by Clan-dinin' and Connelly (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987, 1991; Connelly & Clandinin,1990) and Elbaz (1981, 1983) in an inclusive fashion. Elbaz (1983) defined practi-cal knowledge as the context-specific knowledge teachers accumulate with prac-tice, which "encompasses firsthand experience of students' learning styles, interests,needs, strengths and difficulties, and a repertoire of instructional techniques andclassroom management skills" (p. 5). The work of Clandinin and Connelly hasfocused on the personal aspect of practical knowledge (e.g., Clandinin & Connelly,1987). They defined personal pracdcal knowledge as a combination of the teacher'spast experiences, present context, and future plans that is "found in the teacher'spractice" (Connelly& Clandinin, 2000, p,. 1).

Craft knowledge has been defined as including "the wealth of teaching informa-don that very skilled pracddoners have about their own practice. . . [which] includesdeep, sensitive,' ocation-specific knowledge of teaching ... and ... fragmentary,superstitious and often inaccurate;opinions" (Leinhardt, 1990, p. 18). Craft knowl-edge is the knowledge that teachers have constructed about teaching as a result oftheir teaching experience or practice (Calderhead, 1996; Fenstermacher, 1994).

Research on Teacher Beliefs

Studies have examined teacher beliefs about learners and learning, teaching, sub-ject matter, learning to teach, and self and the teaching role (Calderhead, 1996). Fish-bein and Ajzen (1975) defined a belief as a representation of the informationsomeone holds about an object, or a "person's understanding of himself and his envi-ronment", (p. 131). This object can "be a person, a group of people, an institudon, abehavior, 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 orunconscious, inferredfrom what a person says or does, capable of being preceded bythe phrase 'I believe that. . .' "(p. 113), Rokeach (1972) described an attitude as "anorganization 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


Block and Hazelip (1995) explained that beliefs vary in strength and kind, andover time form a system or network. The ease with which a teacher can change hisor her beliefs is related to the strength of those beliefs. The stronger the belief, themore resistant it becomes to change. Several researchers (e.g., Kagan, 1992a;Pajares, 1992) have,supported Block and Hazelip's claim that "teacher beliefs andbelief systems are grounded in their personal experiences and, hence, are highlyresistant to change" (1995, p. 27). Thompson's (1992) review of the beliefs and con-ceptions of primary and secondary mathematics teachers noted that "thoughtfulanalyses of the nature of the relationship between beliefs and practice suggest thatbelief systems are dynamic, permeable mental structures, susceptible to change inlight of experience" (p. 149). 1

Researchers studying teachers' beliefs at the primary and secondary levels haveused a number of definitions: "the highly personal ways in which a teacher under-stands classrooms, students, the nature of learning, the teacher's role in the class-room, and the goals of education',' (Kagan, 1990, p. 423); "psychologically heldunderstandings, premises or propositions about the world that are felt to be true"(Richardson, 1996, p. 103); and "generally refer[ring] to suppositions, commit-ments and ideologies" (Calderhead, 1996, p. 715). Findings from research into pri-mary, secondary, and preservice teachers' beliefs appear to have reached consensuson several issues:

Students enter teacher education programs with preexisting beliefs based ontheir experience as students in schools, referred to by Lortie (1975) as their"apprenticeship of observation" (reinforced by the research and reviews offBul-lough, 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 isdeemed 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 teach-ers at tertiary levels. Unfortunately, it appears that tertiary researchers have not takenfull advantage of these findings. Less than half of the tertiary studies we critiquedreferred to findings on primary and/or secondary teacher beliefs. Entwistle, Skinner,Entwistle, and Orr (2000) noted this omission in their recent work: "The two litera-tures have previously not cross-referenced each other" (p. 5). And Entwistle andWalker (2000) explained that "while teaching in higher education is bound to havedistinctive characteristics, it also has elements in common with more general waysof 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 secondarylevels has developed a number of different terms. Kagan (1990) highlighted thisproblem by noting: "Terms such as teacher cognition, self-reflection, knowledgeand belief can each be used to refer to different phenomena. Variation in the defin-

180


ition of a term can range from the superficial and idiosyncratic to the profound andtheoretical" (p. 456).. The use of these varying terms makes it difficult to investigatethis 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 the-ories, internal mental processes, action strategies, rules of practice, practicalprinciples, perspectives, repertories of understanding, and social strategy, toname but a few that can be found in the literature. (p. 309)

Several reviewers have noted the lack of consistency in the terminology usedto describe primiary and secondary preservice teachers'-beliefs (Clandinin & Con-nelly, 1987; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Ethell, 1997; Kagan, 1990, 1992a; Marland,1987; Pajares, 1992). Kagan (1992a) noted "even the term 'teacher belief is notused consistently,'with some researchers referring instead to teachers' 'principlesof practice,' 'personal epistemologies,' 'perspectives,' 'practical knowledge' or'orientations'- " (p. 66). Clandinin and Connelly (1987) referred to this lack ofagreement in terminology among researchers as "simply different words namingthe same thing" (p. 488).

The study of teachers' beliefs at the tertiary level has also resulted in the prolif-eration of a number of similar terms. Perhaps this is 'due to the number of differentperspectives 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' learn-

ing?" (Dunkin & Precians, 1992, p. 487). l* "What does a good teacher teaching ,in this course do?" (Martin & Balla

" "What would you describe as your main role as a lecturer?" (Murray & Mac-Donald, 1997).

* "What do you mean by teaching (learning) in this subject?" (Prosser, Trig-well, & Taylor, 1994). ,I

* What were your "aims in teaching"? (Johnston, 1996, p. 216).* What about "the nature of teaching excellence"? (Andrews, Garrison, & Mag-

nusson, 1996, p. 86).

The vanrety of approaches has resulted in a number of different theories andterms used to describe teachers' beliefs and conceptions at the tertiary level. Mar-land (1987) noted that "the terminological babel in research on teacher thinking iscausing confusion and impeding productive dialogue" at the primary and secondarylevels (p. 503). We would argue that the lack of a common terminology at the ter-tiary 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 disseminateknowledge. For.academnics trained as researchers, this means that they are often wellprepared for the research role. In'contrast, many academics have had little or no for-mal teacher education to prepare them for the teaching role. As staff deyelopers and

181


teacher educators, we are concerned with supporting new academics on their jour-ney 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 activelearners who construct their own understandings" (p. 1225). They explain that cur-rent learning theories are now constructivist in nature and view learners as active par-ticipants in the learning process, in which they "construct new knowledge andunderstandings based on what they already know and believe" (p. 1225, italicsadded). Thus, for "professional development experiences to be successful in sup-porting meaningful change, they must take into account and address teachers' knowl-edge and beliefs" (Putnam & Borko, 1997, p. 1281). Other researchers have echoedthis view: "Fundamental changes to the quality of university teaching ... are unlikelyto 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 arguethat an understanding of uniyersity teaching is incomplete without a consideration ofteachers' beliefs about teaching and a systematic examination of the relationshipbetween 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 ofaction. Gow,IKember, and Sivan (1992);McLean and Blackwell (1997); and Mengesand Rando (1989), among others, have embraced this framework and employed itin their research. Theories of action are based on a view of humans as agents actingpurposefully on their environment. Humans leam from their actions and use thislearning to plan further actions. As a result of the complexity of the world, humanshave created models of their environment, along with a variety of theories on howto act according to those models, in order to create actions that achieve certaindesired outcomes. Because it would be impossible to develop a theory that dealswith each and every possible situation, "agents learn a repertoire of concepts,schemas, and strategies, and they learn programs for drawing from their repertoireto design representations and acdon forunique situations" (Argyris et al., 1985, p. 81).Argyris et al. (1985) explain that these design programs are theories of action. Theydistinguish between two types of action theories: espoused theories of action andtheories-in-use.

Argyris et al. (1985) explain that when asked about their behavior in a certain sit-uation, most people respond with their espoused theory of action for that situation.This is the theory that encompasses their aims and intentions. However, theories-in-use actually determine their actions. These two theories may or may not be compat-ible, and the individual may or may not be aware of this. Thompson has signaled theneed to examnine theories-in-use as well as espoused theories:

Any serious attempt to characterize a teacher's conception of the disciplinehe or she teaches should not be limited to an analysis of the teacher's pro-fessed views. It should also include an examination of the instruction setting,the practices 'characteristic of that teacher, and the relationship between theteacher's professed views and actual practice. (1992, p. 134)

182

'Telling Half the Story

Theories-in-use exist predominantly as tacit knowledge, that is, knowledge wehold but cannot articulateieasily (Argyris & Sch6n, 1974; Bereiter & Scardamalia,1992; Polanyi, 1966). Polanyi (1966) described tacitknowledge as "a certain knowl-edge 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-usefrom 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 ques-tion arises: Why Make-that theory explicit? i

If the agent is performing ineffectively and does not know why .'. . explicitlystating his [sic] theory-in-use allows conscious criticism . .. he may not bewilling to beh'ave differently until he has examined his theory-in-use explic-itly 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 boththe espoused theories of action and the theories-in-use of teachers. Marlandexplained that "implicit theories cannot be studied until they are first madeexplicit ... asking teachers to articulate their implicit theories inevitably involvesthem in a process of discoyery.,... Finding appropriate and valid ways of makingimplicit theories explicit is therefore a major methodological challenge" (.1995,vp. '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 usedto access the thinking in action or the theories-in-use of teachers. *. '

One way in'which researchers have made explicit and examined teachers' theo-ries-in-use is through engaging them in strategies of reflective-practice. "Reflectionis an active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed formi ofknowledge in light of the grounds supporting it and future conclusions to which ittends" (Dewey, 1933, as cited in Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000, p. 39).-Reflection is considered to be a critical component of the development of teachingexpertise at all levels. Wildman,MNiles, Magliaro, and McLaughlin (1990) arguedthat "growth is unlikely without systematic reflection" (p. 161), and McLean andBlackwell (1997) proposed that "excellence in teaching resides in a reflective, self-critical, theoretically informed 'approach" (p. 85). Andrews et al. (1996) found intheir interviews probing teaching excellence at the tertiary level that '"the generalconcept . -,expressed was that excellent teachers use self-reflection to develop amodel (eitherformal or informal) for teaching within a particular context; they thenattempt to 'live the model,' and be authentic to and congruent with their model"(p. 87). McAlpine and Weston's (2000) work with exemplary university teachersdescribed "reflection as a'mechanism for the improvement and development ofteaching" (p. 382).

Rando and Menges (1991) suggest that'"every [university] teacher has a profes-sional obligation toformulateand articulate a rationale for his or her instructional

183


world" (p. 13). Acknowledging the aforementioned distinctions between espousedtheories of action and theories-in-use, it follows that it is important to examine boththeories of action of any particular tertiary teacher. We suggest that a great deal canbe learned about teaching at the tertiary level by examining the coherence of teach-ers' theories of action and exploring the factors that encourage or discourage agree-ment. These questions expose a vast sea of uncharted research. Where there isdisagreement, there is an opportunity for university academics, researchers, andstaff developers to reflect on the disjuncture between teachers' espoused theories ofaction 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 exam-ines only teachers' espoused theories of action is at risk of telling only half the story.

Method

Selection fStidies for Review

This review draws attention to the need for research that examines the impor-tant relationship between espoused theories of action and theories-in-use. In orderto study this relationship between what teachers say they wish to achieve and whatthey do in the university classroom, we conducted a search to find studies thatexamine the beliefs that university academics hold about their teaching and theimplications of these beliefs for their teaching practice.

We searched the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), CurrentContents, Web of Science, Periodicals Contents Index, ProQuest Education Com-plete, PsycINFO, Inside Web and Expanded Academic databases, and internetsearch engines for research in the areas of beliefs, conceptions, personal practicalknowledge, orientations to teaching, subjective theories, espoused theories ofaction, 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 wasmade to be as thorough as possible. The.various literature searches unearthed 71studies that were reviewed and critiqued by all three authors. Fifty papers wereincluded in the review. The criteria for selection of studies for this review were thatthe research investigated the beliefs and conceptions of university teachers and thatit Was reported in English.

Studies that we found that did not directly examine university academics' teach-ing beliefs were excluded from the review. Among the 21 rejected studies weresome that examined university teachers' conceptions, beliefs, or attitudes aboutrelated aspects, such as student learning (Bruce & Gerber, 1994; Warkentin, Bates,& Rea, 1993), academic work (Kreber, 2000), and lecturing (De Neve, 1991). Otherresearchers compared teachers' concepts of good teaching with students' concep-tions 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 develop-ment of skill in their work (Larsson, 1986), investigated the personal theories ofteaching of community college faculty (Hughes, 1993), studied faculty beliefs aboutmathematics learning and teaching as compared with their awareness of NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics standards (LaBerge, Sons, & Zollman, 1999;LaBerge, Zollman, & Sons, 1997), and compared the beliefs and conceptions

184


that student teachers held with findings from the literature on university teachers(Entwistle & Walker, 2000). While these studies'do advance our understanding ofteacher beliefs in some specific areas, they do not examine the relationship betweenwhat university academics espouse about their teaching and their actual teachingpractice, and thus were not included in the review.

Analysis of Studies

Our analysis of the selected studies is underpinned by our own beliefs and expe-riences as staff developers and teacher educators. Pratt (.1992) stated that the "studyand practice of teaching is grounded in our conceptions. There can be no neutralground from which to understand another person's teaching" (p. 204). We are usingtheories 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 read-inigs were framed by the following questions: '

* What theoretical framework was used?V What was the research focus?

* 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 discussedthemes and concerns that were arising, including concerns about'supported andunsupported claims made about teaching practice, concerns about data gatheringand analysis methods, and concerns about the application of findings'to'staffdevel-opment efforts.

An outcorme of the analysis is a table of the'studies selected for the review toassist readers'in following the critiques and arguments in our review. Table 1 con-tains 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 ourintent that Table 1 facilitate comparisons between the studies and highlight areasfor future research.

Findings: Unsupported and Supported ClaimsMade 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 teach-ers primarily by conducting semistructured interviews in order to explore'their beliefsabout 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


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 additionalstudies). A few studies used repertory grid interviews (Brown, Bell, & McDowell,1995; Hillier, 1998), and one was a self-study (Gibson, 1998). Some of the researchersextended their findings to explain teacher practice, although their reports reveal thatthey 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 onteaching 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 teach-ers "What do you mean by teaching-what is actually happening?" (p. 151). He thendeveloped a conceptual model to explain the four theories of teaching that he iden-tified from the discussions. Fox described the theories of transfer, traveling, shap-ing, 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 byrelating "standard teaching methods" to his four theories of teaching. However, Foxdid not examine how the individual teacher who subscribed to a particular theoryactually taught in the classroom, because he did not make use of any of the existingmethods to examine teachers' practice (see theFindings: Research Design Concemssechion).

Menges and Rando (1989) wrote specifically of theories of action (espoused the-ories of action and theories-in-use). Their study examined the "implicit theories heldby graduate teaching assistants" (GTAs) (p. 55). Twenty GTAs participated in atwofold interview. The first section asked "What do you mean by teaching?" and thesecond posited a classroom problem: "Can you imagine a time iri one of your classeswhen you planned a discussion but alrmost no one responded or participated? Whatdid you do? How did you determine the reasons for the situation?" (p. 55). Mengesand 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 practicein some instances, we argue that this is not necessarily always the case. Menges andRando explained that further "research should include more teachers and shouldgather classroom behavioral data, for example, using direct observation" (p' 57).

Dall'Alba (1991) focused on "teachers' conceptions or ways of understandingteaching" (p. 293). Dall'Alba described seven qualitatively different conceptonsof 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 com-plete understandings of teaching". (p. 296). It is not apparent that Dall'Alba exam-ined the teaching practice of any of the participants in the classroom, so we are leftto assume that their espoused theories of action are congruent with their theories-in-use. Also, Dall'Alba's assertion that her seven conceptions of teaching "representsome of the variation in conceptions of teaching in higher-education and reflect dif-ferences in practice? (p.296) raises the question: What differences in practice did shedocument?,The answer is not clear from her descriptions. We suggest she was tellinghalf thestory.l

Gow et al. (1992) sought "to determine the perceptions of academic staff at apoly-technic in Hong Kong of how they approach their teaching and to infer implicationsfor staff development needs" (p. 136). They conducted semistructured interviewswith 39 participants in order to "determine their views on their-teaching practices"(p. 135). Their participantsidentified "the development of problem-solving skills" intheir students and "training for specific professions" as goals of higher education(p. 137); yet most of the participants focused on "prepaiation for a 'specific'profes-sion" 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 actionframework, they did not use a research method that would have gained access to theparticipants' practice and their theories-in-use. - .

In another study, Dall'Alba (1993) described "the ways in which teachers expe-rienced their teaching roles" (p.301). The interview'data provided by the participants'represented their espoused-theories of teaching, that is, the beliefs and conceptionsthat they could easily articulate when they described their "ways of seeing the con-tent within a course of study" (p.302) and their "ways of seeing the content of a fieldor discipline" (p. 302). These participants described course content as follows: (a) abody of knowledge and skills to be gained, (b) concepts and principles to whichknowledge 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 'werereporting their "teaching practice" in the interviews (p. 300). Without the use of amethod to gain access' to the participants' teaching practice, we suggest thatDall'Albadoes not have the evidence to claim that the articulated beliefs and conceptions accu-rately describe the participants' teaching practice.'

Gow and Kember (1993) initially interviewed 39 randomly selected polytechniclecturers. They subsequently developed a trial questionnaire based on the constructsthat arose from the interviews. The-arialysis of the questionnaire responses identifiedtwo conceptions of teaching: learningfacilitation 'and knowledge transmission. Lec-turers who subscribed to a learning facilitation teaching orientation saw "teaching asa 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 acomparison of departmental orientations to teaching with,student orientations tolearning (surface, deep, or achieving), Gow and Kember (1993) stated that "this studysuggests that the methods of teaching adopted, the learning tasks set, the assessmentdemands made and the workload specified are strongly influenced by the orientationto teaching", (p. 31). They then added: "The orientation affects the curriculum design,

187


the teaching method employed and the learning tasks specified" (p. 31). While thefindings classify teachers as having particular orientations to teaching, the lack ofteaching observations, examinations of course materials, and/or some other inquiryinto direct teaching practice raises some questions about the legitimacy of claims pro-jected onto teaching practice.

Pratt (1992) and his graduate students interviewed 253 people from five countriesto understand their "conceptions of teaching." Pratt explained that "because we wereunable 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 asso-ciates used "the person's recall of activities and repertoire of techniques used inteaching" 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 characterizedthe relationships between content, learners, teachers, ideals, and context as the defin-ing elements of each conception. These conceptions were as follows: (a) engineer-ing (delivering content), (b) apprenticeship (modeling ways of being), developmental(cultivating the intellect), (d) nurturing (facilitating personal agency), (e) socialreform (seeking a better society) (pp. 210-216). According to Pratt, "for most peo-ple, 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" ofteachers. They noted that "it was this secdon of the interviews that seemed to havethe mostimpact for the professors" (p. 87). The teachers focused on themes of hon-esty, integrity, and genuineness. Andrews et al.' noted that these themes drove theteachers' self-reflecdve practice that was described in the second section of the inter-view. The teachers stressed the importance of respect,for the students, for the ma-terial, for the process of teaching, and for themselves as the basis of good teaching.Under the theories of action framework, these interviews provided the researcherswith 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 theirtheories-in-use, yet they suggested that "contradicdons between teachers' espousedtheories and their theory-in-use must be made apparent" (p. 84). In the secdon of theirarticle that addressed limitations of the study, Andrews et al. (1996) acknowledgedthat "a third limitation of this study is that in classroom observadons of the teaching-learning process were not conducted" (p. 101).

Johnston (1996) interviewed four award-winning university teachers to examinetheir views on teaching. She noted that areas of research inquiry such as "how theteacher understands his or her ownteaching" (espoused theories of action) and "howthat understanding influences his or her teaching practice" (theories-in-use) werecentral to the field (p.214). The teachers participated in two to three semistructuredinterviews designed to elicit their thinking on several topics: how they describedthemselves as teachers,, their aims in teaching, their teaching approaches, theirdevelopment 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 atti-tudes 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'Half the Story

Johnston,reviewed the relevant literature and noted that"'there is a recognition thatteaching involves the acting out of personal knowledge, craft knowledge or implicittheories which are often held at the subconscious level; but which' nevertheless influ-ence personal approaches to teaching in very significant ways" (p. 214, italicsadded). Had Johnson accessed the actual teaching practice of her participants, shewould 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 survey443 full-time faculty. In her discussion and conclusions, Singer claims that "the pat-tern of findings also validates an explicit connection between the espoused teach-ing paradigms of college faculty and the instructional behaviors they, use in theirteaching practices" (p. 675).' However, in an anonymous survey, teachers~couldreport what they think, hope, or belieVe they do, rather than necessarily what theydo. Singer did not observe any participants teaching to confirm her results, nor didshe employ any alternative means to elicit their actuial teaching practice. She didacknowledge anumber of limitations in her study,,for example, the exclusion of stu-dent characteristics such as motivation, as well as other variables such as faculty jobsatisfaction that might account for differences in teaching paradigms. However, theomission 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 teach-ing" (p. 276). The researchers used transcripts-from interviews with 24 universityphysics and chemistry lecturers from an earlier study to conduct their analysis (Trig-well et al., 1994). They reported five approaches to teaching: -

* a teacher-focused strategy with the intention of transmitting information tostudents

* a teacher-focused .strategy with the intention that students acquire the con-cepts of the discipline '

* a tea6her/student interactdon strategy w;ith the in"tention that students acquirethe 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* helping students to acquire concepts of the syllabus ' l l '

* helping students to acquire teachers' knowledge t S

* teaching students to develop conceptions* helping students to change conceptions (p. 277) X

In this analysis of the transcripts, Trigwell Tand Prosser found "consistency inteachers' 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). Kemberand Kwan (2000) have also raised concerns in regard to this study. They noted that

189


"we feel that some caution should be attached to this claim as the authors defineneither construct and the labels used to identify the conceptions of teaching are veryclose to the intention component of the approaches" (p.472). Kember and Kwanadded that "unless the evidence for categorising conceptions and approaches camefrom quite discrete parts of the transcripts, which is not specified in the paper, theclaim to have established a conception/approach relationship should be treated witha degree of scepticism" (p.472). Had Trigwell and Prosser added another source ofevidence for their participants' practice, it would have gone a long way in support-ing their findings.

Hativa (1997) conducted a survey of faculty in a private research university toelicit their "attitudes toward teaching and their teaching practices" (p. 1). Hativaexplained the rationale behind the choice of the questionnaire method: 'Teachingthinking, perceptions and beliefs are tacit and not directly observable. Thus, they canonly be studied through getting teachers' oral or written responses to related ques-tions" (p.5). She reported that 115 of the 500 respondents surveyed placed an empha-sis on "conveying the basic body of Xnowledge in the domain" and "conveying thestructure and organization of knowledge, and the 'tools' of the domain" (p. 15). Themost common teaching practice reported was that of lectures, which "usually includestudents' questions [but not] discussions" (p. 16). We propose that an instrument thatprovided options for the staff to choose from limited the potential to fully describetheir beliefs about teaching. In addition, another-source of information derived fromthe participants' teaching practices might have created a more detailed picture of thecomplexity of teaching in the university she studied. Hativa did acknowledge the lowresponse rate as a limitation.

Ballantyne et al. (1999) interviewed tertiary teachers nominated as having "exem-plary or noteworthy teaching practice" in order to encourage the participants to"describe and analyze their teaching practice and to articulate their understanding ofwhat constitutes effective teaching and learhing in their own context" (p. 239). Inaddition, open-ended questionnaires were distributed to 20 students who had recentlyattended the participants' classes to obtain the students' perspectives on the strengthsand 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' selfanalyses and stories reveal strong coherence between their educational beliefs andpractices" (Ballantyne et al., 1999, p. 238). In addition, they emphasized the needfor "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


coherence between espoused theories and self-reported practices. The authors mayhave used the students'. input to address this weakness, but this connection is notmade clear.

Kember and Kwan (2000) sought to "examine the relationship between lecturers'approaches to teaching and their conceptions of good.teaching" (p. 469). They con-ducted semistructured interviews with. 17 lecturers from three departments. An ini-tial investigation of the methods or techniques used by the paiticipants reVealed ihatthey "'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 shownthe essential role of beliefs in underpinning teaching;practices. However, Kemberand Kwan then reported that a "deeper examination of the transcripts" resulted inthe description of two approaches: content centered&andlearning centered (p. 475).They described a one-dimensional motivation component (named motivator) anda five-dimensional strategy component (named instruction, focus, assessment,accommodation for student characteristics, and-source of experience/knowledge) tocategorize the lecturers' approaches. The researchers described conceptions of teach-ing that fell into the two broad categories of teaching as trdnsmission of knowledgeand teaching as learning facilitation. In: order to examine the relationship betweenapproaches and conceptions of teaching, Kember and Kwan used cross tabulation.They found "a high level of correspondence" of 89.5%. From this finding theresearchers concluded that "approaches to teaching are strongly influenced by thelecturer'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 sec-tion). They again conducted semistructured interviews with academics in a rangeof disciplines. The interviews sought to reveal the participants' beliefs about teach-ing, knowledge, student learning, and links between teaching and learning. The.researchers used the participants' descriptions of "characteristic instances and con-crete teaching situations" as a proxy for theirteachingpractice (p.304). Theyfoundsome overlap with their previouis findings, and made some additions. The analysisidentified 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, transmitting structured kn'owledge, and encouragingknowledge creation concepts were similar to their- 1992 findings; however, thenames were altered to allow for a more precise characterization of teaching orien-tation (p. 308). In addition, Samuelowicz andBain supplemented their findings withtwo illustrative stories to provide "a contextualized sense of an individual academ-ic's beliefs and practices" (p. 312). They noted that the stories "also illustrate howclosely coupled an academic's beliefs and practices tend to be, although that is notthe focus of this article" (p.312). Samuelowicz andBain (2001) recommended that

191


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 whichacademics conceptualize teaching, Samuelowicz and Bain did not take advantageof their own insight into gaps in this research area.

Kember et al. (2001) interviewed 17 lecturers from three different departments inone university to examine their conceptions of good teaching, their perceptions ofadult and full-time students, and the actual strategies and methods they used in theirteaching practice with the two groups of students. They did not make use of anymethods to directly observe the teaching practice of their participants. As did Kem-ber and Kwan (2000), they found two main conceptions of good teaching, teachingas transmission of knowledge and teaching as learning facilitation, and identifiedtwo subcategories in each. The authors made distinctions between two levels of con-ceptions in the first category: teaching as passing information and teaching as mak-ing it easier for students to understand. Kember et al. found teaching as meetingstudents' learning needs and teaching asfacilitating students to become independentlearners in the second category. Using a cross tabulation between the teaching con-ceptions and the claimed teaching practice of the, participants, the authors found "ahigh level of correspondence between a lecturer's conception of teaching and the wayin which the teaching accommodated the differing characteristics of adult and otherstudents" (p. 403). Kember et al. missed an opportunity to examine the relationshipbetween the participants' conceptions of good teaching and their claimed educationalpracdce. They acknowledged: "The study does not reveal how the constructs mightbe related" (p. 403). The use of methods to, directly observe the teaching practice ofthe participants might have shed some light on the effect of teaching conceptions onteaching practice at the university level.

Studies That Do Not Report Teaching Practice Based onEspoused Theories of Action

While we have idenutified thus far studies of tertiary teachers' beliefs that webelieve tell only half the story, other studies of tertiary teachers' beliefs that had notaccessed teaching practice directly were careful not to make claims regarding teach-ing practice. For example, Dunkin and Precians (1992) did not watch the participantsteach 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 betweenteacher thought and behavior, it was not within the purpose or resources of thisstudy to investigate that association by complementing the interviews withobservations of the award winners in actual teaching situations. Rather, thepresent study is thought of as providing a basis for further study that mightinclude the thought-behaviour nexus. (p.486)

Trigwell et al.. (1994) reported the teaching approaches, which consisted of inten-tions and teaching strategies, of 24 university physical science teachers. Theseapproaches arose from a phenomenographic analysis of interviews. The researchersdid not fall prey to our, critique conceming a lack of additional sources of informa-tion on the teaching practices of their participants, as reflected in thefollowing state-ment: "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


Saroyan (1997) used a critical incidents questionnaire (CIQ) to characterize 102 in-experienced, experienced, and award winnin'g university professors' "concernsand ... thinking associated with memorable teaching incidents" (p. 3). Theyacknowledged 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 toexamine "the relationship between academics' personal experience of being taughtand perceptions of teaching and also-the experiences of.students being taught in lec-tures by that teacher" (p. 60). Willcoxson did not access the teaching practice of;thelecturers in question; however, student interviews report the participants' teachingpractice as experienced by the students. Pratt, Kelly, and Wong (1999) used ques-ti6nnaires to "identify conceptions of 'effective teaching' held by. Hong Kong Chi-,nese university students andHong Kong Chinese and western expatriate universityteachers" (p. 241). They conducted their study with a view to influencing the con-struction of more culturally sensitive instruments for the evaluation of teaching. Prattet al. were "convinced that conceptions of effective teaching are deeply rooted in spe-cific cultural values and social norms" as, a result of their findings (p. 257).

Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) found that f'some preliminary observations sug-gest 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 under-standing of the world, (c) facilitating understanding, (d) transmission of knowledgeand attitudes toward knowledge within the framework of an academic discipline, and(e) imparting information. (pp. 98-101). They then suggested the need for furtherresearch "to solve one of the mysteries of higher education-the disjunction betweenthe stated aims. . . and educational practice" of tertiary teachers (p.110). Given thisinsight, perhaps they could have taken the opportunity to make explicit links betweenthe conceptions they found and the teaching practice of their participants (see alsovan Driel et al., 1997). - ;

Studies That Examine Connections Between EspousedTheories of Teaching and Teaching Practice

Mertz and McNeely (1990) presented a-study at the tertiary level that incorpo-rated teaching-observations into their research plan. They were i"concerned withfinding out how teachers think about teaching, their internal, mental constructs, andat looking at the relationship between teacher thought and behavior" (p. 6, italicsadded). They observed the teaching of 13 of their 15 participants. They made run-ning notes during the observation to use as data and as a means to focus question-ing during the subsequent interviews. Mertz and McNeely described four differentparadigms of teaching: transmission of information, communication with students,'doing the discipline, and personal development'.

Martin and Ramsden (1993) conducted a study to investigate "how academic staffunderstand teaching, and about how their understanding is embodied in their prac-tice", (p. 148). The researchers worked with a group of five university teachers whoparticipated in a course looking at 'practice and research involved in teaching andleaming. The participants discussed their aims, intentions, and teaching -strategieswith 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


Martin and Ramsden used the interviews and observations to develop and report casestudies detailing the professional development of the participants. The researchersdeveloped a hierarchical model to describe the "expansion of awareness" that the par-ticipants underwent (p. 154).

Scott, Chovanec, and Young (1994) studied 14 professors to examine "the rela-tionship between their philosophy of teaching and their teaching practice in the class-room" (p. 1). The researchers conducted an interview with each participant beforeand after a classroom observation. They related their findings to five formal philoso-phies of education: liberal/perennialism, progressivism, essentialism/behaviorism,humanism, and reconstructionism/critical theory. Scott et al. found that "all partici-pants in the study draw on aspects of more than one philosophical base" (p. 8). Theresearchers concluded that the "common theme in this research .. . is one of negoti-ation between what one assumes and believes to be true about teaching and the con-textual factors (students, institution, and societal assumptions and beliefs) whichserve 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 lightof "current conceptions of teadhing and pedagogical principles" (p. 85). The re-searchers observed a set of seven 1-hour lectures in the dermatology program of amedical school. They selected "three [lectures] representing the most divergentstyles" for their report (p. 90). Saroyan and Snell administered a questionnaire tothe lecturers prior to the lecture, videotaped each lecture, and collected student eval-uations afterward. The questionnaire aimed to "establish the scope of the instruc-tional plans" (p. 90). The researchers focused on content and pedagogy in theircoding of the questionnaire. Saroyan and Snell described what some researchershave termed the conceptions of teaching by relating the aims of the lecturers topreviously reported frameworks. For example, the first lecture was described as"content-driven," where "there is little evidence that the concepdon of teachingextends beyond that of 'cultural transmission' (Scardamalia and Bereiter 1989)"(p. 99). The researchers did not make any explicit links between the lecturers' aimsor conceptions of teaching and their teaching practices. They did conclude, how-ever, that "a lecture can be as effective as any other instructional strategy so long asit is appropriately suited to the intended learning outcomes and is pedagogicallyplanned and delivered" (p. 102).

Gibson (1998) conducted a reflective self-study into her own teaching beliefs andpracdces in order "to assess my instrucdonal approach for effectiveness in its sup-port of culturally relevant pedagogy" (pp. 360-361). By audiotaping her teachingpractices, transcribing those audiotapes, and reflecting upon them, Gibson was ableto "unravel the tangled web of personal beliefs, cross-cultural perspecdves . . . andtraditional education ideologies which informed my teaching practices" (p.361). Shefound instances of classroom practices in which she did not act in a manner consis-tent with her espoused beliefs on critical pedagogy and pardcipatory democracy andvowed to "initate, rather than short-circuit" discussions on controversial issues suchas racism and end her "compact of silence" (pp. 368-369).

Hermes (1999) described an action research project that investigated the subjec-tive theories of a university teacher and students in an advanced literature course.Hermes explained that "university teachers . .. develop subjective theories of theirrole as academic teachers" (p. 200). The teacher and students "tried .. . to becomeaware of their own self-concepts, of the roles they played . .. especially with a view

194


to active participation, to teacher-student and student-student interaction" (p. '199).Information from student diaries, videotaped sessions, and student interviewsdemonstrated that the teacher and students had become more cognizant of theirsubjective theories. Hermes was careful to note: "Action research projects arealways case studies. Generalisations can therefore=only be made on a very tenta-tive basis" (p. 204).r -

Quinlan (1999b) studied the educational beliefs of eight academic historians in anattemptto'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 illus-trated commonalities and differences in the participants' educational beliefs throughtheir educational goals, choices, practices, and analysis of student work. The partic-ipants' beliefs about their role as teachers varied, including that of (a) inspiring stu-dents, (b) stimulating further inquiry, (c) conveying information, and (d) guidingstudents (p. 453).

Martin, Prosser, Trigwell, Ramsden,,and Benjamin (2000) examined the rela-tionship between university teacheis' intentions and their teaching.practice withrespect to the "teaching of a particular topic, within a specific context" (p. 387). Theyinterviewed 26 university teachers in four discipline areas. The interviews focusedon what the teachers wanted students to learn and how they intended to teach a spe-cific topic or "the object of study." On the basis of these interviews, the researchersconstructed a hypothesis "as to how the teacher[s] would approach their teaching"(p. 390).They then conducted two teaching observations' to determine whether theteachers' practice supported or disproved the hypothesis. Martin et al. found that"the results of the observational study showed no observed inconsistency betweenthe teachers' intentions and their practices" (p. 409). Martin'et al. explain that whatthey are investigating in this case are specific responses to teaching particular topicsrather than the participants' "general orientations to teaching" (p. 388). TheyC con-clude that there is a need for further investigation of the object of study, thai is, "whatis it that teachers want their students to learn and how do they believe their studentswill come to know this" (p.41 1), as an influence on how university academics teach.

Hativa,Barak, and Simhi (2001) researched "the beliefs and pedagogical contentknowledge of exemplary university teachers regarding effective teaching strategies,the extent to which they use various of these strategies and the relations between theirbeliefs and knowledge to their classroom practice" (pp. 703-704). To examine thisresearch focus, the authors conducted teacher and student interviews, videotapedclassroom sessions, administered a student teaching effectiveness questionnaire, andexamined course outlines and exam questions. This study, one of the most thoroughwe have reviewed in its attempts-to capture the complexity of teaching, proposesexplanations for the differences between poor and good teachers: "Maybe one wayin which the pedagogical content knowledge . .. differs is in the number of effectiveclassroom strategies with which they :re familiar" (p.722). Hativa, et al. found "thatthere is a good, but far from perfect, fit between these teachers' beliefs and knowl-edge conceming effective strategies and their classroom practice" (p.725).'

, ' ' . Summary ''

In this section, we have critically reviewed the selected papers and thereby high-lighted the difference between,'comparing espoused beliefs of laction with self-

195


reported practice and comparing espoused beliefs of action with observed practice.It is our contention that the difference is crucial to understanding the link betweenteachers' espoused beliefs and congruence or lack of congruence with their teachingpractice. For example, work by Pratt (1992) and Mertz and McNeely (1990) dis-cussed earlier highlights our concern about drawing conclusions regarding teachingpractice based on espoused theories of teaching. As researchers -concerned withimproving the teaching practice of university academics, it is imperative that weunderstand how the links between beliefs and practice are made so thatwe may facil-itate the growth and development of novice staff. Pajares (1992), :in'her review ofresearch into primary and secondary teachers' beliefs, cautions that "little will havebeen accomplished if research into educational beliefs fails to provide insights intothe relationship between beliefs ... and teacher practices, teacher knowledge andstudent outcomes" (p. 327).

Findings: Research Design ConcernsDuring 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 concernsand criticisms with regard to some individual studies at the tertiary level and followwith discussion of general methodological issues to inform future research into uni-versity academics' teaching beliefs and practices.

Snark Syndrome

Fox's (1983) research design has been criticized. Dall'Alba suggests that hisfindings were "neither derived ... from,'nor supported . . . with, empirical research"(1993, p. 304). Fox (1983) did not describe the process used to select the partici-pants. It is not known how many teachers participated in his study, how the inter-view data were gathered, or the methodology used to analyze them. In spite of theseconcerns, 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 phenome-non. Her term comes from the Lewis Carroll poem The Hunting of the Snark inwhich 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 reportedresearch 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 actualbasis 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. Thefindings have been cited repeatedly, and the deficiencies of the study have been lostin this repetition.

Researcher Perspective"

In several studies we examined, the researchers have failed to make explicit theepistemological and theoretical assumptions that have guided the focus of inquiryand 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 tobe acutely tuned-in to the experiences and meaning systems of others-toindwell-and at the same time to be aware of how one's own biases and pre-conceptions may be influencing what one is trying to understand. (p. 123)

196


Dall'Alba (1991), forexample, claimed thatthe conceptions of teaching expressedby the participants in her study were "ordered from less to more complete under-standings of teaching" (p. 296), a view informed by her underlying beliefs andassumptions of what makes a good teacher at the tertiary level, but not explicitlystated. Hasselgren andBeach (as cited in Gall,Borg, & Gall, 1996, p.20) raised theissue of reflexivity, defined as a "focus on the researcher's self as an integral con-structor of the social reality being studied." Richardson (1999) called for ''a ieflex-ive approach that takes into account the social relationship between researchers andtheir informants and the constructed natures of the research,interview" (p. 70).

Prosser et al. (1994) also neglected to describe their epistemological and theo-retical assumptions in their work. In several reports based on a phenomenographicstudy (Prosser et.al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, ,1996a; Trigwell et al., 1994), theydid not make explicit their own beliefs, theories, or assumptions that may haveinfluenced their analysis. In one description, they explained that initially theytreated all of the transcripts "as a whole," and thus "the categories that were devel-oped are consequently relatively 'pure"' (Prosser et al., 1994, p. 220), implyingthat their own conceptions and experiences did not have an influence on thatprocess.

We raise concerns about th6 work of-Prosser, Trigwell,,and Taylor and othersin an effort to' reinforce the importance of researchers being explicit about theassumptions 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 alwaysfiltered through the lenses of language, gender, social class, race and ethnicity.There are no objective observations, only observations socially situated in theworlds of the observer and the observed. (p. 25)

Crotty (1998) echoed this need: "At every point in our research. . . we inject ahost 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

-Methods for Examining Teachers' Beliefs.

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 aboutteacher conceptions and beliefs. Richardson (1996) noted that these methods are "tooconstraining" and "often do not validly;represent teachers' beliefs" (p. 107). In addi-tion,' studies that utilize a multiple-choice-type instrument to gather data about teach-ers' beliefs may fall prey to a self-fulfilling prophecy.Wineburg (1987) explainedthat the term self-fulfilling prophecy has been in common usage since 1948, whenRobert K. Merton used it to explain social behavior. A self-fulfilling prophecy isdescribed as "the false definition of a situation,:which in turn engenders behavior thatbrings the situation into conformity" (Wineburg,' 1987, p. 28). The concept has beenwell researched in classrooms, with upwards of 300 to 400 published studies exam-ining the effects of teacher expectations on student achievement (Wineburg, 1987).Here we use it to describe the expectations that the researcher holds for the partici-pant. When the researcher's expectations are built into an instrument used to "study"the participant, the likelihood that the participant will fulfill those expectations can-not be ignored. - ' '

197


For example, Moses and Ramsden (1992) surveyed academic staff members fromthe College of Advanced Education sector and the Unified National systems "to clar-ify the diversity of values and work pattems" (p. 103). Their survey included scaleson academic motivation, good teaching practices, and commitment to student inde-pendence. Moses and Ramsden explained that the good teaching practices scale was"informed by our view as to what constitutes good teaching" (p. 108). They thendescribed in their findings that "in the university sector there is a significant correla-tion between staff's academic orientations and their good teaching practice-themore staff are oriented towards teaching, the more they report good teaching prac-tices" (p. 107). They also found that "most academics profess to be practising goodteaching" (p. 106). Why would participants not claim to be good teachers when a sur-vey is clearly looking for those responses? Another exampleis a study that used ques-tionnaires based on initial interview data from a sample of the participants. Findingsfrom the questionnaires revealed a "disjunction between stated aims and claimededucational practice" (Murray &'MacDonald, 1997, p. 331). In seeking to explainthis disjunction, Murray and MacDonald acknowledge that the participants couldhave been influenced by "what they believed they should say" and/or could be "say-ing what they would ideally like to do" (p. 345). In addition, they noted that "theremay also be a difference between reflecting on the idealised role of the lecturer andreporting actual pracdcal experience" (p.343). It is possible that their instrumentpro-vided their participants with an opportunity to fulfill the researchers' expectations.This could have been checked through an examination of the actual practice of theparticipants.

Data Analysis Methods

Qualitative researchers "have been criticised for being unclear about researchmethodology" (Maykut &'Morehouse, 1994, p. 146). Several of the research stud-ies we examined are vulnerable to the criticism. For example, Menges and Rando's(1989) description of their data analysis methods consisted of an "inspection 'ofresponses" that took context and voice inflection into account (p. 55). Both the datagathering 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" wererevealed through "careful analysis of the responses" (p. 24). Willcoxson's (1998)description of the' method of analyzing the,data was as follows: "in analysing thetranscribed interview datait became clear. ." (p. 61). Rahilly and Saroyan (1997)explained the process used to anive at their results as: "basically, the results pre-sented in this section involve reading over the summaries in the same way that onemightlook through a portfolio or a photo album and [walk] away tell[ing] someonewhat you just saw.' (p. 6). We are unable to evaluate the usefulness of the findingsfrom these studies because we cannot be confident we understand the process usedto analyze the data.

Value ofMultiple Data Sources

Triangulation, the use of multiple data sources and research,methods, Whichallows the researcher to view the focus of inquiry from several vantage points, hasbeen called "the heart of qualitative research's validity" (Davidson & Tolich, 1999,

198


p. 34) . Lincoln and Guba;use the term trustivorthiiness of the research (as cited inCreswell, 1998; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). In determining trustworthiness, onecould ask in what ways did the researchers plan "for a rigorous ciedible explorationof [the] focus of inquiry"? (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p. 153). One method rec-ommended by Lincoln and Guba to build trustworthiness is the use of multiple meth-ods of data collection (as cited inMaykut & Morehouse, 1994). Several reviewers inthe area of teacher beliefs have noted the importance of using multipler methods toinvestigate teacher beliefs (Richardson, 1996; Wideen et al., 1998). Accbrding toKagan-(1990), "the use of multimethod approaches appears.to be-superior, not sim-ply because they allow triangulation of data but because they are more likely to cap-ture the complex, multifaceted aspects of teaching and learning" (p.459). For Pajares(1992), "additional measures. ... must be included if richer and.more'accurate infer-ences are to be made" (p. 327). Of the 50 studies critiqued, only 10 utilized multipledata 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; Scottet al., 1994). -!

Another method recommended by Lincoln aiidGuba to enhance trustworthinessis the building ,of an audit trail (as cited in Maykut & Morehouse; 1994). An audittrail is a collection of documents such as the researcher's journal, original interviewtranscripts, field notes, coded data, and any other documentation' that would allowthe researcher to walk readers through the research step by step so that that they mightunderstand the path followed (Davidson &,Tolichi 1999; Maykut & Morehouse,1994). An audit trail provides the reader with evidence of trustworthiness in that sheor he can start with the raw data and continue along the trail to determine for her- orhimself if, in fact, the trail leads to the outcomes claimed by the researcher. Some ofthe researchers we reviewed provided a more complete audit trail than others. Forexample, Fox's (1983) entire methods section consisted of the following: "For anumber of years I haye been,asking newly, appointed polytechnic teachers to tell mewhat 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 con-temporary literature. In contrast, Pratt (1992) carefully outlined his methods in sec-tions titled "phenomfenography 'as research imethodology," "'guiding frames ofreference," "data collection," and "data analysis." We joinf,with'Maykiit and More-house (1994) when they write "by seeking to make the research process transparentto the reader, we increase thelikelihood that'readers will seriously consider ourwork" (p.146). I,

Implications ' I

Implications forVUnderstanding UniversityI : ' t l Academics' Development as Teachers

It is common for university academics to have little or no formal preparation fortheirroleas teachers (e.g.,Boice,1992). Aspreparation forteaching,'university aca-demics can be said to have completed an "apprenticeship of observation" during theiryears as undergraduate and graduate students (Lortie, 1975).'Their beliefs and con-ceptions of go6d teaching are a result- of this apprenticeship and a "trial by fire"' inthe lecture theatre, classroom, or laboratory. As demonstrated by this critical review,however, it is still unclear how university academics develop as teacher.s.'

199


The theories of action framework provides one avenue to gain a greater under-standing of the development of university acadenics as teachers! From the studiesreviewed here, it is apparent that university teachers form beliefs or conceptionsabout university teaching in general, and more specifically about their own aims andintentions in the classroom. In addition, the reviewed studies, together with researchinvolving primary and secondary teachers, reinforce the importance of examiningteachers' practice in light of their espoused theories (e.g., Richardson, 1996; Thomp-son, 1992; Young, 1998).

The theories of action framework used in this review offers a way to understanduniversity academics' development as teachers (Argyris & Sch6n, 1974). Argyrisand Schon argue that teachers can engage in theory building or theory learningthrough critical examination of their own theories of action, a process that is typicallyinitiated via experiencing dilemmas or conflicts. According to Argyris and Sch6n,dilemmas consist of conflicts in the relationship between theories of action and thereality of practice. As demonstrated by this review of the literature, where there is nodistinction made between teachers' espoused theories and their theories-in-use, thereis little opportunity for dilemmas or conflicts to emerge or be identified.

This review reinforces the need for research that enables university academicsto make explicit their own theories-in-use and to interrogate these in light ofespoused theories and intentions. Kugel (1993) proposed a framework for univer-sity teacher development and noted that developing university teachers "seldomlook at ... their assumptions" (p. 316). And Kember (1997) highlighted the needfor research that includes "investigations of the way in which conceptions of teach-ing change over time" (p. 273). Research that examines both the espoused theoriesand theories-in-use of university academics as they develop as teachers appearsto hold a great deal of potential to shed light 'on this important but infrequentlystudied area.

Implications for the Professional Development of University Academics

An important outcome of any research on university teaching is its applicationin assisting novice or less experienced teachers in their development. In our criticalreview of the literature, we found wide variation in the use made of research onteacher beliefs for informing the potential academic development of tertiary teach-ing staff. Some studies carefully developed the links between their findings and thepotential 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 pos-sibilities for staff development. Martin et al. (2000) explained that teachers' inten-tions, or orientations toward teaching, and the specific strategies that they employedwere 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 teach-ing 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) i r I

200

* 'Telling Haif the Story

Burroughs-Lange (1996) noted that "lecturers mainly have idiosyncratic,intuitively-based knowledge about learning derived from their'experiences withteaching 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 forprofessional development. She then justified the need for conceptual understandingand change before a lecturer can be expected to improve his or her teaching. Ballan-tyne et al. (1999) noted that "by examining the beliefs, concerns and approaches ofsuch practitioners, it is hoped that others may be challenged to reflect similarly ontheir 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 theirreport in order, to use them in staff development. Gow et al. (1992) identified staffdevelopment as part of the purpose of their research. They recommended -actionresearch as a vehicle to "focus on the concerns of the participants and,. . . makechanges 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 examineand change their con6eptions of teaching and learning" (p. 283).

While the aforementioned studies did develop links between the teachers' con-ceptions and staff development, we found laterresearch by Kember and Gow (1994)and Entwistle and Walker (2000) to be.biased in favor of certain teaching orienta-tions. Kember and Gow (1994) took the findings of their 1993 study a step furtherin their i994 report by comparing their findings with the learning approaches of stu-dents, in cou,rses taught by the participants. They administered the Biggs StudyProcess 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 correlatedwith a surface a'pproach and that the learning facilitation orientation'was positivelyco*related with deep and achieving approaches. They then restated a sentence fromtheir 1993 article: "This,study suggests that the methods of teaching adopted, thelearning tasks set, the. assessmeht deniands made and the workload specified arestrongly influenced by the orientation to teaching" (1994, p. 69). They directed staffdevelopment toward changing lecturers' conceptions-from knowledge transmissionto learning facilitation in',order to promote deep learning and achieving studyapproaches 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 par-adigmatic beliefs would have to be accompanied by a change in teachingstyle-away from,a unidirectionallecturing formatiand t6ward a moreinter- active style. (Kember & Gow,1994, p.71)

Entwistle and Walker (2000) worked from the assumption that conceptions ofteaching identified in the higher education literature formed a "nested hierarchy"(p. 335). They advocated for staff development that would "encourage colleaguesto develop more sophisticated' conceptions of learning and teaching" (p. 358).Entwistle and Walker described the-poles of their hierarchy, with "the least devel-oped conception . . .-as teacher-focused and content, oriented, with an emphasison the reproduction of correctinformation . .. [and the most sophisticated] as ...student-focused, learning-oriented, and.concerned with conceptual develop-ment" (p. 341). ' ' ; '

201

Kane, Sandretto, and.Heath

We would argue that different conceptions of teaching and teaching methods orstyles are appropriate in different contexts. Several researchers have mentioned therole 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 "researchon teaching in higher education has largely overlooked the contexts of teaching andlearning',' (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 ofboth the teacher and the context" (p. 77).

Other studies mentioned briefly, or not at all, the implications of their findings'forstaff development. While we acknowledge that this may not have been a central pur-pose of these studies, we suggest that these omissions represent missed opportuni-ties. For example, Moses and Ramsden (1992), Prosser and Trigwell (1997),Samuelowicz and Bain (1992), Saroyan and Snell (1997), Scott et al. (1994), andSinger (1996) missed opportunities to linik the devel6pmentiof teachers' conceptionsto 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) madeno mention of staff development implications, but rather recognized that some staffmembers 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 inorder to econcile' the differing viewpoints, they "will first have to be recognised andmade overt-and then the'y must be examined and discussed rationally and sensi-tively" (p. 163). Murray and MacDonald (1997) explained that "if it is found thatconceptions are very firmly held, then it may be that institutions wish either to selectstaff on the basis of an institutionally preferred conception, or to deploy staff to workat a level or in an area best suited to their particular con6eption" (p. 347)-a proposalthat we find unduly pessimistic. Research on primary and secondary teachers makesit clear that teachers' beliefs are resilient, but not impossible to, change:

If a program is to promote growth among novices, it must require them to-make their preexisting personal beliefs explicit; it must challenge the ade-quacy of those beliefs; and it must, give novices extended opportunities toexamine, elaborate, and integrate new information into their existing beliefsystems. (Kagan, 1992a, p. 77)

An alternative to changing teachers' preexisting beliefs that warrants furtherstudy is that of building on the beliefs that students (or teachers) bring with them toteacher education' (or staff development) programs (Calderhead & Robson, 1991;Wideen et al., 1998). Martin and Ramsden (1 993) concluded from their staff devel-opment efforts with a group of university teachers that "the knowledge, skills, andthe concepts must be integrated and reintegrated by, each teacher during a slowprocess of gaining understanding" (p.155).

More Tesearchers are highlighting the importance of considering the beliefs andconceptions that university academics,hold about teaching, learning, and studentswhen 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 onthe outcomes of a staff development program using a conceptual change approach.

202

Telling HaIf the Story

Briefly, Ho et al. (2001) developed a~program that assisted participants in;"reflect-ing on their espoused conceptions of teaching and their actual teaching practices"(p. 147). The program involved four processes: self-awareness, confrontation, expo-sure to alternative conceptions, and a commitment building process wherein the par-ticipants moved frommunderstanding their current tea6hing conceptions and plracticeto planning future practice (see also Ho, 2000). In order to evaluate the effective-ness of the program, Ho et al. (2001) conducted preprogram, immediate postpro-gram, and delayed postprogram interviews with the 12 'participants; surveyedstudent perceptions of courses taught by the participants both before and after theprogram; and assessed students' studying approaches in a course taught by the par-ticipants both before and after the program. In addition, there was a control groupof four participants who had agreed to be part of the study and completed the fulldata set but were unable to attend the program itself. I

The authors found that the six teachers who showed positive changes in theirconceptions of teaching also demonstrated "significant-improvement in their teach-ing practices as perceived by their students" (p. 163), and three of these teacherswere 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 inteaching conceptions can lead to improvements in teaching practices and in studentlearning" (p. 165). We believe that this type of program holds a great'deal ofpromise in effecting long-term change- in the teaching practices of university aca-demics by assisting them to become aware of their implicit beliefs, directly exam-ining their teaching practice, and supporting their efforts to improve. -

Implicationsfor Future Research

Roche and Marsh (2000) note that "there is unanimity among researchers andpractitioners that teaching is a comnlex activity consisting of multiple dimensions"(p. 447)i Future research must pay more attention to the complexity of teaching whenattempting to further our understanding of university-level teaching. Our-discussionof the studies included in this critical review should serve to emphasize the impor-tance of exarnining'both what teachers say4and what they do in university classrooms.

This review reinforces that there are synergies between the interaction of teacherbeliefs and teaching practice in university and in primary and secondary school con-texts. We argue that research on university teachingcould efitfrom'closeratten-tiostoth resarch Apiayadn ol eei frm loefr atntion to the resuearh in primary and secondary settinigs. In addition, there is scope forfuert research that examines the coherence (and contradictions) between learningto teach in formal'preservice primary and secondary programs and learning to teachin 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 uni-versity academics as teachers? . -

* How do teachers' beliefs and conceptions of teaching and teaching practicechange over time? . X " ' ' .

* How do teachers' beliefs and conceptions relate to their teaching practice at'the university level? X ' I M

* If the theories-in-use of experienced university teachers are largely tacit anddifficult to articulate, how-can, researchers (and novice university teachers)

203


gain access to these and so make explicit and improve understanding of howuniversity teachers learn to teach?

This area holds exciting potential for developing more complex understandings ofuniversity academics as teachers, which in turn has implications for the improve-ment of university-level teaching.

ConclusionsResearch into teachers' beliefs, conceptions, attitudes, orientations, (personal)

practical theories, and implicit or subjective theories about teaching is grounded inthe understanding that these concepts drive teachers' practices. For example, Pajares(1992) noted that "few would argue [against the assumption] that the beliefs teach-ers hold influence their perceptions and judgements, which, in turn, affect theirbehavior in classrooms" (p. 307).

Researchers and reviewers in primary, secondary, and tertiary 'teaching havenoted the proliferation of terms and theories used to describe teacher beliefs andconceptions (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 resultsas clearly aspossible using common terms" (p. 315). Itmaybe time for researchersin the field of teachers' beliefs to agree upon common terminology and definitionsto aid further study. In addition, it would appear that sufficient conceptions of teach-ing have been identified. Kember (I998) stated that "there seems to be little value...in further exploratory studies to classify academics' conceptions of teaching" (p. 273),and instead advocated for research that explores the relationships between thevarious categories.

Andrews et al. (1996) noted that "excellence in teaching is. complex and diffi-cult to achieve. It is about content expertise and methodological technique, as 'wellas about participants in the educational enterprise valuing and achieving qualityoutcomes" (p. 101). Much of the current research into teachers' beliefs at the ter-tiary level acknowledges this complexity and makes an attempt to encourage excel-lence by emphasizing the important role that teachers' beliefs play in the practiceof teaching.

The research studies we have reviewed have contributed to a growing body ofliterature that exarnines tertiary teachers' espoused beliefs. We remain unconvinced,however, that the relationship between tertiary teachers' espoused beliefs and theirteaching practice has been investigated sufficiently thoroughly to draw any defini-tive conclusions. Freire (1998), in his discussion of the relationship between teach-ers and students, noted that "an educational practice in which there is no coherentrelationship 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 betweentertiary teachers' espoused theories and their teaching practice so that we can under-stand better how university academics learn to teach and, especially, so that noviceteachers may benefit. One promising area that warrants further research is that ofself-study (e.g., Gibson, 1998). Scott et al. (1994) also highlighted this need for "fur-ther study ... [that] could make more explicit the complexity of teaching particu-larly for those who espouse alternative philosophies, assumptions and beliefs thatguide their teaching practice" (p. 24). In addition, we advocate that future studies

204


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

References- i'Andrews, 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 Higher Education, 1, 81-103. ' !,

Argyris, C., Putnam,'R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Actinscience. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. ' ,io

Argyris, C., & Sch6o, D. (1974j. The'ory in practice: 'Increasing professional effec-tiveness. San F,rancisco: Jossey-Bass. g,

Ballantyne, R., Bain,' J., & Packer, J. (1997). Reflecting on university teachinfg: Aca-'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. Educational Research, 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'nal encyclopedid of teaching and ieache'r education (ind'ed., pp. 25-28). New York: Pergamon Press. ' -

Boice, R.' (1992). The new faculty membe*: Supporting 'and fostering 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 'learning in higher educdtion (pp.108-116). London:Kogan Page. '

Bruce, C., & Gerber, R. (1994). Toivards university lecturers' conceptions of studentlearning. Centre fdr AppliedEnvironmental and Social Educational Research, Queens-land 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 teachereducation. In B. J.-Biddle, T.L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), Intern`ational hand--book of teachers and teaching (pp. 79-134). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic. " -

Bullough, R. V. Jr. (1997b). Practicing theory and theorizing practice in teacher edu-cation.'In J.Loughran & T. RIuseli (Eds.), Teaching about teaching. Purpose, pas--sion and pedagogy in teacher education. London: Falmer Press.'

Bullough, R. V. Jr., & Stokes, D. K. (1994). Analyzing personal teaching metaphors inpreservice teacher education as a means for encouraging professional development.American Educationdl Research Journal, 31, 197-224.

Burroughs-Lange, S. G. (1996). University lecturers' concept of theirrole' HigherEdu-cation Research 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 ScienceConference, Wellington, New Zealand. '

Calderhead, J. (1981).:Stimulated recall: A method.for research on: teaching. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 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 con-ceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1-8.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1987). Teachers' personal knowledge: Whatcounts as "personal" in studies of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19,487-5 00.

Clandinin,' D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1991). Narrative and story in practice andresearch. 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: Contribu-tions of research on teacher thinking. Educational Researcher, 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.Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2000). Knowledge, context and identity. In F. M.SConnelly & D. J. Clandinin (Eds.), Shaping aprofessional identity: Stories of edu-cationalpractice (pp. 1-5). New York: Teachers College Press.

Creswell,'J. W. (1998). Qua'litative inquiry and research design: Choosing amongfivetraditions. London: Sage.

Crotty, M. (1998). Thefoundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in theresearchprocess. London: Sage.

Dall'Alba, G. (1991, July). Foreshadowing conceptions of teaching. Paper presentedat the 16th Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and DevelopmentSociety of Australasia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Dall'Alba, G. (1993). The role of teaching in higher education: Enabling students toenter a field of study and practice. Learning and Instnrction, 3, 299-313.

Dann, H. D. (1990). Subjective theories: A new approach to psychological research andeducational practice. In G. R. Semin & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Everyday understand-ings: 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:, Studentevaluation of lecturing as an improvement perspective for the lecturer. Higher Edu-cation, 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 andproducts. Higher Education, 20, 47-66.

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

Dunkin, M. J., & Precians, R. P. (1992). Award-winning university teachers' conceptsof teaching. Higher Education, 24, 483-502.

Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher's practical knowledge: Report of a case study. Curricu-lum Inquiry, 11, 42-71.

Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacherthinking:A study ofpracticalknowvledge. London: Croom Helm.Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teachers' knowledge: The evolution of a discourse. Jour-

nal of Curriculum Studies, 23, 1-19.

206

-Telling Haif the Story,

Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefsabout "good teaching": An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Educa-tion Research and Development, 19, '19-26. I

Entwistle, N., & Walker, P. (2000). Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within/sophisticated conceptions of teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 335-361.

Ethell, R!i G. (1997). Reconciling propositional andprocedural knowledge: Beginningteachers' knowledge in action. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Griffith'University,Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.- : ! , 1 ' , I 4

Ethell, R. G., & McMeniman, M. M. (2000). Unlocking the knowledge in action' of anexpert practitioner. Journal of Teacher Education, 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 iinresearch 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, intention and 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 dis-

course, and conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 439-454.Freire, P. (1998). Teachers ascultural workers:ELetters to those who dare teach. Boul-

der, CO: Westview Press. A lGall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: 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 andEducation Quarterly, 29, 360-371.

Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. British Journal of Educati6nal Psychology, 63, 20-33.

Gow, L., Kember, D., & Sivan, A. (1992).'Lecturers' views of their teaching practices:Implications for,staff development needs.,Higher Education 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 pedagogicalcontent knowledge of an expert English teacher. Journal of C'urriculum Studies, 23,,409-421. .,

Hativa, N. (1993). Attitudes towards instruction of faculty in mathemaiics and tephysical sciences.' International Journal of Mathematics Education, Science and.Technology,24, 579-593.

Hativa,N. (1997, March). Teaching in a research university. Professors' conceptions,Tpractices,, and disciplinary differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Hativa, N. (1998). Lack of clarity in university teaching: A case study. Higher Educa-tion, 36, 353-381.

Hativa,: N. (2000). Becoming a better teacher: A case of changing the pedagogicalknowledge and beliefs of law professors. Instructional Science,,28, 491-523.

Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledgeand beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. Journal of HigherEducation, 72, 699-729.

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

207


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

Ho, A. S. P. (2000). A conceptual change approach to staff development: A model forprogramme design.lnternational Journalfor Academic Development, 5, 30-41.

Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improv-ing teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development pro-gramme.HigherEducation,42, 143-169.

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

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

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

Kagan, D. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning theGoldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60, 419-469.

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

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

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

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

Kember, D., & Kwan', K. (2000). Lecturers' approaches to teaching and their relation-ship to conceptions of good teaching. Instnrctional Science, 28, 469-490.

Kember, D., Kwan, K.-P., & Ledesma, J. (2001). Conceptions of good teaching andhow they influence the way adults-and school leavers are taught. International Jour-nal of Lifelong Education, 20, 393-404.

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

Kugel, P. (1993). How professors develop as teachers. Studies in Higher Education,18, 315-328.

LaBerge, V. B., Sons, L. R., & Zollman, A.' (1999). Awareness of NCTM standards,mathematics beliefs, and classroom piactices 'of mnathematics faculty at the collegiatelevel. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 21, 30-47.

LaBerge, V. B., Zollman, A., & Sons, L. R. (1997, March). Awareness, beliefs andclassroom practices of mathematics faculty at the collegiate level. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Larsson, S. (1986). Learning from experience: Teachers' conceptions of changes intheir professional practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 35-43.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching. London: Routledge.Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. Educational Researcher,

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.), Inter-

national 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 implications for-learning. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Higher EducationResearch Association, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

208


Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K.,, Ramsden, P., & Benjamin, J. (2000). What uni-versity teachers teach and how-they teach it. Instructional Science, 28, 387-412.

Martin, E., & Ramsden, P. (1993). An expanding aware6ness: How lecturers changetheir understanding of teaching. Research and Development in Higher Education,15,148-155.' , I , I f e , I

Maykut, P., &'Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophicandpractical guide. London: Falmer Press. " "

McAlpine, L., &Weston, C. (2000). Reflection: Issues related to improving professors'teaching and students' learning. Instnrctional Science, 28, 363-385.

McLean, M., &-Blackwell, R. (1997). Opportunity knocks? Professionalism and excel-lence in uniiversity teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 3, 85-99.

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

Menges, R. J., & Rando, W.' C. (1989). What are-your assumptions? Improving instruc-'tion by examining theories. College Teaching, 37(2),'54-60. 1

Mertz, N., & McNeely, S. (1990, April). How professors "learn" to teach. 'Teachercognitions, teaching parddigms and teacher education. 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 Teacher Education, 9, 15-26.

Moses, I., & Ramsden, P. (1992). Acadernic values and academic practice in the newuniversities. Higher Education Research anud Development,' 11, 1017118.

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

Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative approach to the study of a teacher's beliefs. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 21, 27-38. -

Murray, K., &,MacDonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers' conceptionsof teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher Education, 33, 331-349.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curricu-lum Studies, 19, 317-328.

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

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

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

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching.Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 203-220.Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and 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 Journal ofLifelong Education, 18, 241-258.,

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997)L Relations between perceptions of the teaching envi-ronment and approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67,,25-35. " ' ,

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

209


Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views ofcognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International hand-book of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223-1296). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.

Quinlan, K. M. (1999a, April). Building bridges: The scholarly dimensions offacultybeliefs about engineering education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Quinlan, K. M. (1999b). Commonalities and controversy in context: A study of aca-demic historians' educational beliefs. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 15, 447-463.

Rahilly, T. J., & Saroyan, A. (1997, March). Characterizing poorand exemplaty teach-ing in higher education: Implicationsforfaculty development. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Rando, W. C., & Menges, R. J. (1991). How practice is shaped by personal theories.New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 45, 7-14.

Reid, D. J., & Johnston, M. (1999). Improving teaching in higher education: Studentand teacher perspectives. Educational Studies, 25, 269-281.

Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research.Review of Educational Research, 69, 53-82.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Simon& Schuster.

Roche, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2000). Multiple dimensions of university teacher self-concept. Instructional Science, 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. Higher Education, 24, 93-111.Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting acadernics' beliefs about teaching

and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299-325.Sandretto, S., Ethell, R., & Heath, C. (2002, April).A teaching intervention programme

fornovice lecturers: The value of a personal approach. Paper presented-at the annualmeeting 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 univer-sity teaching. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 24(5), 1-25.

Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judg-ments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-498.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Har-vard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.

Singer, E. R. (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research inHigher Education, 37, 659-679.

Tamir, P. (1991). Professional and personal knowledge of teachers and teacher educa-tors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 263-268.

Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of theresearch. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teachingand learning (pp. 127-146). New York: Macmillan.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996a). Changing approaches to teaching: A relationalperspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 275-284.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996b). Congruence between intention and strategy in uni-versity science teachers' approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77-87.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approachesto first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75-84.

Trumbull, D. J. (1990). Evolving conceptions of teaching: Reflections of one teacher.Curriculum Inquiry, 20,161-182.

210


van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., van Werven, H. I., & Dekkers, H. (1997). Teachers' craftknowledge and curriculum innovation in higher efigineering education. HigherEdu-cation, 34, 105-122.

Warkentin, R.; W., Bates, J. A., & Rea, D. (1993, February).Discontinuities in scienceteachers' inistructional beliefs and practices across Artade levels. Paper presented atthe 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 researchon learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological' perspective on inquiry.Review of Educational Research, 68, 130-178. -

Wildman, T. M., Niles, J. A., Magliaro, S. G., & McLaughlin, R. A. (1990).Prornot-ing reflective practice among beginning and experienced teachers. In R.-T. Clift,W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging 'reflectivepractice in educa-tion (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 inHligher Education, 23, 59-70.

Wineburg, S. S. (1987). The self-fulfillment of the self-fulfilling prophecy. EducationalResearcher, 16(9), 28-37.

Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the con-struct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programmuing in the21st century. Journal of TeacherEducaiion, 51, 39-49.

Young, L. J. (1998). Overcomning silences: Comment on 'Teaching-as an encounterwith the self: Unraveling the mix of personal beliefs; education ideologies, and ped-agogical 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]. Herresearch specializadons include self-study of teacher education practice, teacher think-ing, 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] research interests include teacher education, educational equity, and teaching forsocial justice. ', '

CHRIS HEATH is Director of the Otago Higher Educaioni Developrment Centre; Universityof Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand; e-mail [email protected] research specializations include academic staff development, teaching in higher edu-cation, and medical education.

*,

211'

P-4

cn=3L)

40.

t) o

.r-: Id.!i m

8 �,, �M � zn

a; , == A <5 0 :-�

ci C,= P� (7, ,cli;g,.� M

4

m

E- e q

.S o =or .

>: -:0 t42 _3 a

3 on82tg.o3o r -,

0 IC).5 o v

ta 0) 8, 2 MEi o Eio lo, V4 jg - = 0

U in In C-40 P, P 0 00 :3 'a= S

'o r--53 cq

40. 0 U, - C%t;40�

MU -a a m

C, a o G 6 >10 0

C.)0.0 U 0 ou 0) P� C\ 'IT .0 -0

C\

0 E C) C)

o n > o0

z t

Wi =

212

in =D3 eo Ca

¢

I

I .-S

:, 11

u

U

om Y3e 0

; 0 0 x

1, , . z Y r

¢ |

o

. = , w

,lE e a e3r >i 0 =

> < Xs

*t r 'C

O _ 0

6 -

4 l

o ,i

to . , I N =>

. ~ ~ ~ ~ c 0

Co -0 o

CE os~~~~~~~C

213

_~~~~t 0

t0 O a a= ei o 0< ¢0S _5 C) !C C0c I. m B 'P

b ow ° ° qoo , t 33. ° 8a 0 O 2 |*

E t o.ac.> E , E E 3ts E -

,oo 0 0 It <,

0 o.S r

0Q o_ tib_a

3~~~~ *eao i;

c~ ~~~. IL) 0 o ;g -2¢= nt

u, w

214

C' C ~ D Cu C) -- 0- 50

o 'O ° 0

: 0v

.& s 4 o C to 0 - ~ CC

. C '0

* u o 0 Un U , U

to u 0

A 0C .

CU e CD '.

A

C>

>~~~~~

C,

I.

I.-0

C)C

C ) C )2 -o n2 o0

.C

r..

- O

cn0

00 .0

Xo m

00

0\

0U,'

.0

CC O __fU,

.0 C) -1

U* U

0

oo

'U -

3, cL. 2

C\

.

.oS

o U,

0. = o_ L

n0

U,

C- L..

0. O .0.

00 -0 Z >.-Z W

E C)

II , .

o - C

C)-- O

F

a C)

o° O

0u

.. 0o eoOC =

O o XC) S0

.! <.-I 74 C)=U, -~ -

C

215

-V3C) ,

= .t

¢4

'I1

<',

C's

P40

I0.

4)

L.00

'3

4)O

4)~

0.O

p.

3,

CU0

34

U,

4)

C'

P)

034)

C)

.s .-C- 0

_4 .

>,4i2

Q~ .;

CZo

C) 4)

0 n

00

I 4)- .*C 0tc

4)4)O O E- ZA

4)c . 4

4 ): 4 ) -

P'. -. ). -

0R

4)4 C

o 0.' 0.

j-

co

CY

I-

-S ._

C °

4) 0.4) 00

L)4

'4- U,

o .4

U,

0

O 4

.C)'C

0n0%

> )3-

216

a a:, C. C

h 8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tw o t ^.- ° 30*-° _ . -Q > . .a Yo ,- ji B S E = t. ~~~~~~'r - O O c S

= r ct crs Z r. ._4 o-i p o to 3 ocrow _a 2 . > NCS.

>C -0 , >. , .0 >o* QE* yx o: QC=;

3 c o Qo . , e = _ X _ 5 : .r ;s -r 0, o

y~~~~~~~~~~ A r. tn t) 3 - 0=.-^ T1~~~~~~~~ 0 >

~~~~~~~~~~~- 07, ,a 90: = 5: 0j w > C) _r 0

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

0 0 00 I [ ;

> n eO Nce ;

X ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + 1

217

0~~~~~~~~~1

0~~~

o C)

0~~~)

.0 .0 P..-R 4

~~~o0C) ~~~~~~~~~O)Z '1-, 2m

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

C) > = O

0 t

0~~~~~~~~~~~C~~~3 oII otoFCl) ~~~~~~~-C)

~~~~~~~ 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e

218

I I

u 9 . - c ° .~~~~= 0 0 -= w

r-~~~~~~~~~

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

IL 'r ba u EO ; C.

_ O 'i

0-~ ~ i3E o 'o o

't 'o P4 0

t ~ ~~ -t 4>oX >~~o

z Do j

o i D' 1 o 3h i|

y 2EQ- °=0 E3 i'

*a

.4

X X 0 00

C)L 5.4

0'P.

C C

U)

0*3

I '

0 1

3 to*

O °

. C) .D0 C_ 0

C14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

C\O

° 0M

I219

1 1

en E g a s - E. E -- r-z-a- - ~-a-~~ 0

l:;~~~~~~ Q==. 0,

ei _ > o D u0=S

c4 * ,3 .= p*, r 2 Y g E e >0 2 3

5 Ca > U

Y 0

- ,0~~~~~~~~~~~~0

0 0

U 0D U 2 o"

Z3 .0.0

0 C)~~~~~~~~~

0- .. Z==C

.)0M

E-O Uib

220

I IIII

0O

o~~~~ 2 ~o cn

U, *. 0 0 a -... 4 .

0 ~0~

0 - U

'C) ~ ~ ~ Ul

C0 't

4 4

o 0

C) 0

- W,_4

0

E2- :3 ri 0 > . O

C) .U, C

0 C C - )

0Z 0 >~

0 -Z C 0

fi ax, °.OitS, , 6,lCj.=,22 S QP 0

C)>.C

U,

0

*.)04

U

mC)-00 ca

S C

, a,

a..

U~0

0 W >-

. .9

U, E.

0 003I -. oaI eo s:

a-40

toa -

\O0

02 0,3 C 04 '-

-Z) W o 00

0c

Z 004'

tto 00

0.

C).' U

.) U.

0'* C)

04 Ci .

. i-0S

-ON

00 -C) '.-

L 0

- C0 a

O 0 G4

,ZUtn .-_

0 C)*= 0

C)o 040 a-)- i_.'O

0I. o

to

.2,

0'Wa-..0

C)a-

N.4In,o

0-4

;C )

,0G, 0S

C)a

4 'SQ_.0 ;

*0 wU ,

i 0C-

N

0 .) C).a- _05f C) '

W~0

0C U

221

CC

'0C3C

C)0

C*

C) C)

C.)

'0

C)I-.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ei.

En CC

C, ,C)

r- EC )

0C)

VI V_ ~ tti 00

- 00

I C) C

oC)S .

C -o'- 0

B oQ =

C._ ._)5 C)

.a! cn

-4

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

C). A'0 C)

C) 0

'0 *3

C )

a )CC -

0 w

V

UM

'0 0 o >

C) C )C) C) 0

., , - E_

C0 .. 4:2 .~ EP

.0

OC o

'C)

C4

0'

CC0C

0

CC4

_ : ::j

0 u~~~C

C ) C C ) 0

0CZ:

.- C)

CC

C)

C3% C .)C

CC.tn

C 0C)

0

c C)CZ )

C)

.5

C.)

a9

C.)C.)

10

C)

C)4

, -a' u

z

C-,¢ G

cC0

0,C)C)r-

0u

0

~-0

222

9 .C.

C\ M0'\ '0- a)_ CS

C..Cs 0 sa -ZS S= 3

ZS $ S

Q) ° S

U, = t

U,0

C.-

r- 4... .

Qq .

:i0,

00

C >4

U,U

-s s

I0

0.

C.)C)0U

C )>4. 0

0 0

I-.m

C) ,, o

0 g > > 4 ~

0 ---I

U, *00 0 O

0- C.) C)B i

cj 0 . U

4C) CO ,

0 n

u t

C) c)I- I.

U, U

C.)

0

a) tn

4 - -0. -b

sUC),0 ,

C)

C)0..

-. 5s,

t- En

. I 'I) MR) ;

. ~ ~~~~~~ 1 s

223

1 '

Ca -da C

U .n' }gE}W

g~~~ <

.1 At g .> r Qto Q*>-- =U Q Cao >o °0

CS ~ ~~~ cq

o7 -s ~0 ci

o o. c3 r.

~~~ ~ 0

En, 0

U

~~~~~~42 0 U, ~ c

U,0.0

0u

-0R

12-a

C- , -o, H

En '

o~~~~ -

Q °~~~~~1

0n X 0.- -A

U U C' 0 '0 o, C-A e

U,

.16mq

i0 U3

0'%

Ct OC% aC7 C*

0 ~

'n *% En

U O0 0a oC ai

a

e

*0

.5CZ,

Q

Ca

C.)a.-

Uu,

U2

00

-bN C

;- 0

032

U f

Ca.,= U

224

42

o U 0 - .o D .0 >

..o 0 )

0.R

C)10'

ot) ci

cO c 3

000

a) o a).,cn

S °r a o )U,E

0~ 0. W a oU ra)a

cU

00

C.)

= C~C*

t' ,

-n U

:d;.

U,C)

.0C.)

C)cUi

c)

' 0I -

u)

: *

c)

C) C) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CC U .0 C U U ,

- - >r °U~ 8 C 8 Us ° W o oz

to~~~~~CC) U, 0. l3C6H3)UXS wbC o

Q t C GQ oi 0 0'0 *°

0

C)

0uI c I:b

W CU .

o_- o

o ~ 6 Ei

Cal

I I ,

In cn= c,0 0

*,= *-,='- _

i c,°e u a)C) =r

N -CU

-'-

l~ * x JU

U, C) C _ ,o,_ a;r

U,o

'0O C),Ccn

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

1. 0.>

U_, O C *CO) '5>

C).

'a j ,

; >1

0P_I 0

. c

225

U,3 0 0> .) o H 0

C)C)C)0 r 4

U 2

0'

- -o

)a CL.

) s: a0_ >

0 .E, C)E 1 0C.

0't

-E C = =

>d' C') a

* C ) 0 C

0 _

0 0 a

F3o ui I,,

C) C.

Z; 2a i Ut

3-

o C .)-O) )

J?C.I0

0~

o a,, : U0 C'It

C%)

u/2

= w

3- 03 0

3, 3-.- C)

3- .0 oa

X _ g o = 3-~~C

C)3g ress S *,

0~

._ t009

Ci)

s

C)

O.-m

o Cau s,

I aC)

C.)

P.4

> >.0

'C)

C)

S 5

W

-C) > L. -) CO

> O. ._C)

Ca,

'3

> >C)

s3 > , C) CIn

Si CU )o .! *5

C:

'C.)

03-u

C)

U,

C.)

C)0

C, a

s O

C; 0

" C.)a).-= .00u4) ._~

'3 ti

Z :r

,s,

¢ 2

Cs-='

o s-a C

>~m

226

III

.Q

0 .;

O C3C. C

-o 8

C)E

i .

=w .2

l O _ e

r0 u~:Cs °4 c )

o2

I 0

C)ca ~o= 00a) oo

._t

. _ o

co

C~ °

1 0 i2o ;= C. o t

4

to

t)

u

Ut.c

u

M

c

c-

�A

0

0214 - I �

227

M

.t ar. 4

C*P.

E r , _ C I N > Q4

.C r _ , o,_ .

D' p Y R 3 0 ,Co C*te° tC PO .e Q0 1< tt WrC'g3

_ 5 , > C) o.o .

cn 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CO -3 C

: e) u*3 =C;- 64 r - = R to =

X Ut E ~~~~~o N

,, O - xnCC

32g vo a rg~~~t

'r C M C3

>t t~ o

r. >Q6 Cs,

00

cn

cS

:U -

U,

O

*.n

.0 0. U

Ei

a) . .~

0~~~~

0

0.

0U

00

0 ~

.5cl:

U

U

0

G

Ci0m

ri.E

X 2

:3o =

40.

32 0= ti

U t

YA:;-

228

I

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Telling Half the Story: A Critical Review of Researchon the Teaching Beliefs and Practices of UniversityAcademics

SOURCE: Review of Educational Research 72 no2 Summ 2002WN: 0219600924002

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.aera.net/.

Copyright 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

kane

Documents

teachers beliefs

teachers practices theories

secondary teachers beliefs

thle teaching beliefs

personal beliefs

teaching practice

beiiefs of university

icritical review of