Student and teacher perceptions of learning and teaching: a case study

This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 05 October 2014, At: 00:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Further and HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Student and teacher perceptions oflearning and teaching: a case studyKylie Budge a & Keith Cowlishaw ba DSC College Office, RMIT University , Melbourne , Australiab School of Fashion & Textiles, RMIT University , Melbourne ,AustraliaPublished online: 15 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Kylie Budge & Keith Cowlishaw (2012) Student and teacher perceptions oflearning and teaching: a case study, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36:4, 549-565, DOI:10.1080/0309877X.2011.643775

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.643775

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0309877X.2011.643775

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.643775

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Student and teacher perceptions of learning and teaching: a casestudy

Kylie Budgea* and Keith Cowlishawb

aDSC College Office, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia; bSchool of Fashion& Textiles, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

(Received 21 November 2010; final version received 27 April 2011)

Exploring student and teacher perspectives on approaches to learningand teaching reveals interesting insights and new understandings forpractice by involving the two key groups of participants in the learningand teaching story. Do students understand and experience learning andteaching similarly or differently from the way teachers intend them to?This paper describes the findings of a study that explored perceptions oflearning and teaching in one discipline of an Australian dual-sector uni-versity from both a student and staff perspective. Teachers’ conceptionsof teaching are also explored and provide extra insight and understand-ing of the approach to learning and teaching taking place. Key findingsof this multifaceted study employing a case study with a mixed methodapproach include a difference between students’ and teachers’ percep-tions of approaches to learning and teaching. Implications for broaderpractice are highlighted and explored.

Keywords: teaching; learning; conceptions; practice; tertiary education

Introduction: teachers and students in the learning and teaching story

During the 1990s a number of studies on the relationship between teachers’approaches to teaching and student approaches to learning revealed thatapproaches to teaching are in fact associated with what learning occurs (seefor example Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999; Gow and Kember1993; Kember and Gow 1994). This research showed that if teachers focuson content-driven approaches, students will respond with surface-level learn-ing rather than the deep learning resulting from conceptual change/student-focused approaches to teaching (Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999).Kember (1998) in particular, has led research on teachers’ conceptions intertiary contexts and highlighted the difficulty in changing deeply heldbeliefs about teaching. In particular he

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Further and Higher EducationVol. 36, No. 4, November 2012, 549–565

ISSN 0309-877X print/ISSN 1469-9486 online� 2011 UCUhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.643775http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

located 14 different studies which focused on university academics’ beliefs orconceptions of teaching. Kember found that there was general congruenceabout the types of categories that were described across the 14 studies. Hissynthesis of these categories identified 5 conceptions of teaching along acontinuum ranging from a teacher-centred/content-oriented pole to a student-centred/learning-oriented one. (Budge, Clarke, and de la Harpe 2007, 3)

Kember’s theoretical framework of teaching approaches and teachers’ con-ceptions takes the view that fundamental changes to the quality of teachingand learning are unlikely to happen without changes to teachers’ concep-tions of teaching. This was further reinforced in later research with Kwan(Kember and Kwan 2000). In addition, in the late 1990s Trigwell and Pros-ser (1996) focused their research on changing approaches to teaching. As away of measuring teaching conceptions, Trigwell and Prosser (2004) devel-oped an instrument known as the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI).Since this time the ATI has been widely used by those interested in betterunderstanding teachers’ conceptions. However, the instrument has its criticsincluding Meyer and Eley (2006) who question its overall rigour and meth-odology, and who also critique the range of approaches to teaching as beinglimited in terms of functionality. Despite critiques of the ATI, the researchconducted in the late 1990s offered a theoretical way of understanding whyteachers approach teaching in the way that they do. Kember’s framework inparticular enables a way of thinking about teaching that views changes tobeliefs and approaches as possible, rather than as a static, unchangeablestate. Importantly, Kember and Kwan (2000) emphasise that it is necessaryto take a long-term approach, accepting that deep change in teaching prac-tice requires focused attention and takes place over time.

This paper describes a study designed to explore teachers’ approaches toteaching, teachers’ conceptions and students’ perceptions from a learningpoint of view, within the context of the literature about teaching concep-tions. Due to the exploratory nature of the study the key research questionswere deliberately kept broad and open: Do students understand and experi-ence learning and teaching similarly or differently from the way teachersintend them to? Furthermore, is the learning and teaching of a student-centred nature?

In 2009, within the boundaries of one discipline, a dual sector school –comprising approximately 30% higher education (HE) and 70% vocationaleducation and training (VET) programmes – of an urban Australian univer-sity known for its applied focus set out to explore this area. An interestingrelated factor in this exploration is that VET and HE are differentiated assectors by their respective pedagogies. In Australia VET programmes areunderpinned by competency-based assessment and pedagogy focused ondelivery and acquisition of applied skills and knowledge (National TrainingInformation Service 2010). In comparison, HE programmes focus on thedevelopment of specific graduate attributes or capabilities through a

550 K. Budge and K. Cowlishaw

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

pedagogy that primarily privileges critical thinking and analysis over appliedskill development (Department of Education Employment and WorkplaceRelations 2010). As an added contextual dimension, the school in our studyoffers a range of programmes in a creative discipline: fashion and textiles.

There were a number of factors behind the desire to explore both teach-ers’ and students’ perceptions of approaches to learning, teaching andassessment in the school. As a dual sector institution, the university encour-ages schools to develop pathways for VET programmes to articulate intoHE programs. The development of such pathways require VET curricula tobe mapped into the target HE programmes to allow for credit arrangements(articulation) to be agreed upon between HE and VET programme areas.This process requires staff in VET and HE to examine their respectiveapproaches to learning, teaching and assessment. Over time a ‘comingtogether’ or synergy between the two sectors is anticipated enabling thedevelopment of a school-wide pedagogy that facilitates articulation anddelivers the best of both sectors to students.

From an educational management perspective the school leadership wasinterested in how it could assist this ‘coming together’ and provide effectivesupport to programme teaching teams. This paper reviews the findings ofthe study and proposes that teachers and students do not necessarily per-ceive learning and teaching in the same way.

For simplicity the term ‘school’ will be used to describe the disciplinegroup at the centre of our study, and the institution in which it belongs asthe ‘university’. Teaching staff will be referred to as ‘teachers’.

Methodology: a three-pronged approach

In 2009, a study was conducted to explore teachers’ and students’ percep-tions of the learning and teaching taking place within the school. Theresearch team comprised two senior university staff, one learning and teach-ing adviser (external to the school) and one research assistant. The teachingconception literature informed the design of the case study and the decisionto focus on teachers’ and students’ perceptions of approaches to teachingand learning (see for example Biggs 1999; Trigwell, Prosser, and Water-house 1999).

The case study methodology (Yin 2002) using a mixed-method approachwas employed to frame the study. The case study is understood to be a use-ful methodology for understanding complex, human interaction and organi-sational behaviour (Burns 2000). The research team believed thatunderstanding learning and teaching from student and teacher perspectives isa complex matter requiring deep consideration within the boundaries of oneschool. The school itself is unique in character in that it is geographicallyseparated by a short distance from the main city campus of the university, is

Journal of Further and Higher Education 551

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

dual sector in its programme composition (offers a mix of both HE andVET programmes) and promotes this aspect with pride. The majority of pro-grammes within the school are located in the VET sector and are practicalin their focus. Due to their applied nature, most classes are small (20–35students) and teacher–student relationships tend to be closer than what ispossible in large, lecture-based courses. Students are predominantly youngand enroll in the programmes immediately after completing secondaryschool. In addition, the larger programmes in the school attract strong num-bers of international students. The higher education and research componentof the school is smaller in comparison.

Kember’s theoretical framework (1998) of teaching approaches andteachers’ conceptions was chosen as a means for understanding the teacherand student data collected during the research. At the core of this theoreticalperspective is the idea that changes in teachers’ conceptions and approachesare possible.

The study employed three methods for data collection: a voluntary elec-tronic survey to all students employing both open and closed questions; avoluntary electronic survey to all teachers – a minor adaptation of Trigwelland Prosser’s ATI (2004); and voluntary one-to-one interviews with a sam-ple of 21 teachers from across both sectors (HE and VET) and all teachingprogrammes within the school. These three methods were employed as ameans of triangulating the data collected, enabling the development of astronger overall research design (Greene, Caracelli, and Graham 1989).Classroom observation would have further strengthened the research designby offering insights in addition to teachers’ and students’ perceptions, butwas not possible due to the limited resources available.

As part of the methodology design there were ethical issues to be consid-ered and addressed. In relation to a possible conflict of interest in the inter-views with teachers, the learning and teaching adviser in the research teamacted as the interviewer because of the external nature of that particularposition. Moreover, interview data was de-identified to prevent the possibil-ity of data being attached to a particular teacher. Invitations to participate inthe student and teacher surveys were offered via email to all enrolled stu-dents and all current teaching staff. Students and teachers were able to par-ticipate in their respective surveys anonymously and this was possible dueto the use of an external electronic survey tool that did not collect identify-ing information from participants. Thus, confidentiality was assured to allparticipants and at all times during the study student and teacher participa-tion was optional. In addition, university ethics approval was granted for theresearch study. Access to the electronic surveys was available to studentsand teachers during the same four-week period during the middle of semes-ter one of the academic year. The timing of the surveys was consideredcarefully by the research team to ensure that it would not occur during abusy work period for either group of participants.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

At the conclusion of the survey period, teachers were invited to partici-pate in individual interviews. Once again, the timing of interviews was con-sidered carefully to avoid stressful periods during the semester. Theinterview sample was determined by asking programme coordinators tonominate teachers that could then be approached by the research team.Whilst not an ideal way to construct a sample, it did, however, allow forrepresentation across all teaching programmes. All teachers approachedagreed to be interviewed as part of the study. It is conceivable that the coor-dinators selected teachers to be interviewed who are more student-centred or‘exemplary’ in behaviour and practice. This possible selection bias in termsof the interviewees must be kept in mind and, in hindsight, may have con-tributed to a weakness in the research design.

An additional methodological issue is that due to the small survey andinterview samples involved in the study, it cannot be assumed that the stu-dents and teachers who participated were commenting on the same classes.Therefore, any direct comparisons between what students and teachers sayabout learning and teaching must be viewed with caution and understood inthe context of the exploratory nature of the study.

Findings: student survey, teacher survey, teacher interviews

Student data

Ten percent (N = 146) of all enrolled students completed the student survey.While the response rate might appear low compared to those achieved bypaper-based surveys, Winter and Dye (2003/2004) have noted the relativelylow response rate experienced by research studies using electronic surveys.With this in mind, a response rate of 10% seems reasonable. The VET–HEcomposition of students who responded to the survey (27% HE; 66% VET;7% cross-sector) was consistent with the sector breakdown more broadly inthe school, and the discipline mix was consistent with the broader schoolcomposition. Two questions were asked about sector and discipline but nogeneral demographic data was collected. Therefore it is not possible to knowif the student sample was representative of the school more generally interms of age, gender, ethnicity or other characteristics.

The student survey comprised six questions in total – two questionsabout sector and discipline, two short answer questions, and two questionsseeking quantitative information. The questions are outlined in Table 1.

Qualitative data from the two short answer questions (questions threeand four) in the survey was analysed using a comparative thematic approachidentifying patterns and relationships of interest (Stake 2000). Two membersof the research team, the learning and teaching adviser and the researchassistant, were initially involved in analysing the data. At a later date thetwo other members of the research team provided further insights into theanalysis contributing to the overall validity of the findings.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Short answer responses to survey question three were coded according tothemes. On reflection, the researchers have considered that the wording of thisquestion asking about a ‘typical class’ may have caused confusion for a smallnumber of students in the school who participate in lectures as well as smallertutorial/practice-based classes. It must be acknowledged that activities occur-ring in a lecture environment have restrictions not usually experienced insmaller classes with a tutorial format or practical focus such as studio. There-fore, conclusions drawn from this data should be considered carefully in thislight. Table 2 shows the top five comments reported by students. They wereable to comment on any number of topics to this question, hence the numberof comments in column one is more than the number of students whoresponded to this question (see Table 2). The second column indicates eachcomment’s proportion in terms of the overall comments reported by students.As could be expected from a creative discipline, 20% of student commentswere in relation to spending time involved in practical activities. When com-ments from the two ‘listening to the teacher’ categories are combined itreveals that 23% of the top five reported comments relate to this area.

Responses to question four about other activities experienced as part ofstudents’ classes also indicates a broad range of activities occurring.Amongst the top five comments reported by students, 11% related to ‘listen-ing to the teacher (including lecture and/or PowerPoint slides)’ and ‘listen-ing to instructions/teacher explain’ as being part of their other activities.‘Small group activities / group project work / working with other students’(9%) and ‘creating (garments, cutting, drawing, weaving, sewing, patterns

Table 1. Student survey questions (excluding two demographic questions).

3. Think back to a typical class you attended recently. What did you spend yourtime doing in that class? (e.g. working with other students in small groups,writing, reading, listening to the teacher explain something, doing a practicalexercise, etc.)

4. What kind of other activities do you experience as part of your classes?

5. What do you spend most of your time doing in an average class? Circle thetime percentage for each of the following:

a. listening to the teacher talk/explain something; b. working in small groups; c.writing by myself; d. reading information; e. taking notes; f. solving a problemby myself; g. solving a problem with other students; h. doing a practicalexercise; i. working on assessment tasks; j. listening to other students (e.g.during presentations)

0–20%; 20–40%; 40–60%; 60–80%; 80–100% of time

6. How often do you spend doing online activities (using Blackboard (the DLS);blogs, wikis, email etc.) in class? Circle the time percentage:

0–20%; 20–40%; 40–60%; 60–80%; 80–100% of time


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

etc.)’ (9%) were the next most reported areas of other activities in responseto question four.

Table 3 shows data collected in response to survey question five wherestudents were asked to quantify the time spent in different learning activi-ties. When 60–100% of time in an ‘average’ class is considered, studentsreport spending most of their time ‘doing a practical exercise’ and ‘workingon assessment tasks’, again this is consistent with what could be expectedfor a practical, creative discipline. The activity reporting the third highestnumber of comments is ‘listening to the teacher talk / explain something’.

Student responses to survey question six – How often do you spenddoing online activities (using Blackboard, the distributed learning system(DLS), blogs, wikis, email etc.) in an ‘average’ class?’ – reveals the major-ity of students (66%) report only spending 0–20% of their time in this way.

Table 2. Top five student responses to question 3 – ‘Think back to a typical classyou attended recently. What did you spend your time doing in that class?’

ActivityCommentsN = 294

% of totalcomments

Practical exercises (58) 20%Listening to instructions / teacher explain (38) 13%Small group activities/group project work / workingwith other students

(33) 11%

Listening to teacher (including lecture and/orPowerPoint slides)

(30) 10%

Working individually (24) 8%

Note: the number of comments does not equal the number of students as some studentschose to comment on more than one area.

Table 3. Student responses to question 5 – ‘What do you spend most of your timedoing in an ‘average’ class? Select the time percentage for each of the following:’N = 146.

Answer options 60–100% of time in an ‘average’ class

a. Listening to the teacher talk/explain something

31% of students report that 60–100% of theirtime is spent on this activity

b. Working in small groups 4%c. Writing by myself 11%d. Reading information 9%e. Taking notes 16%f. Solving a problem by myself 23%g. Solving a problem with otherstudents

16%

h. Doing a practical exercise 51%i. Working on assessment tasks 45%j. Listening to other students 11%


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

It is conceivable that this question posed some problems for students in giv-ing an accurate answer due to the overlapping scales offered as percentagesof time. On reflection, the question would have been more accurate if it wasphrased, ‘What percentage of time do you spend doing online activities?’

Teacher data

Survey

The teacher survey comprised three questions about sector and disciplineand year spent in teaching, and 16 questions from the ATI using a five-pointLikert scale. The ATI was initially developed as a tool for measuring ‘keyaspects of the variation in approaches to teaching’ (Trigwell and Prosser2004, 409) and was chosen for use in our study because we were interestedin exploring this aspect. The ATI’s limitations as a self-reporting tool wasacknowledged in the initial design of our study, and is the rationale behindthe decision to also use student survey data and teacher interview data toexplore the research questions. The research team modified the ATI in avery minor way to include terms that were more familiar to teachers in theschool. An example of this is the use of ‘course’ instead of the original ATIterm ‘subject’ given the university in our study uses the terms ‘course’ and‘programme’ rather than ‘subject’ and ‘course’. The researchers believedthat these minor modifications would not impact on the overall intent of theATI. An example question from the ATI includes the following:

I encourage students to restructure their existing knowledge in terms of thenew way of thinking about the course that they will develop:neversometimesabout half the timealmost alwaysalways

In all, 11% of teachers (continuing and contract teachers) in the school com-pleted the survey (N = 27). Once again, given that response rates to elec-tronic surveys are not usually high, this response was considered acceptableby the research team, especially as it supplemented data collected via inter-views with teachers. The VET–HE composition of teachers who respondedto the survey (15% HE; 72% VET; 13% cross-sector) was consistent withthe broader composition in the school. Given the limited range of informa-tion about participants collected via the survey it was not possible to knowmore about the sample.

The ATI scoring system as devised by Trigwell and Prosser (2004) con-sists of scoring each respondent in relation to whether their answers are‘conceptual change/ student focused’ (CCSF) or ‘information-transmission/


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

teacher focused’ (ITTF). When the 27 survey respondents in our study werescored, 16 were CCSF; 6 were ITTF; and 5 participants were equal in theirscoring against both categories. In using the ATI scoring system in conjunc-tion with Kember’s (1998) conceptions of teaching framework as a theoreti-cal model for understanding the data collected via the survey, we were ableto see how approaches to learning, teaching and assessment are conceptua-lised by teachers (see Figure 1).

When viewed through this framework, more than half (59%) of theteachers who completed the survey were located on the CCSF end of thecontinuum (i.e. they scored CCSF on the ATI). This data suggests themajority of teachers surveyed hold beliefs about teaching and learning thatare student-focused and see learning being about conceptual change ratherthan information transmission as indicated by the teacher-centred end of thecontinuum.

Interviews

The third aspect of our study was voluntary one-to-one interviews with asample of 21 teachers from across both sectors and all teaching programmeswithin the school. The representation of teachers who were interviewed wasproportional to the VET–HE composition of the school (38% HE; 62%VET). A mix of early-career and experienced teachers were interviewed.Each interview was approximately 40 minutes long and the total numbercompleted over a three-week period running concurrently with the teacherand student survey period. Interviewees were asked six questions about theirapproach to learning and teaching (see Table 4) and also completed a shortranking task.

Qualitative data from the 21 interviews was then coded for themes usinga comparative thematic approach identifying patterns and relationships ofinterest. In response to question one about approach to teaching, when datawas applied to Kember’s (1998) conceptions of teaching framework we

Figure 1. Teacher responses to ATI applied to Kember’s conceptions of teaching.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

were able to see how approaches to learning, teaching and assessment areconceptualised by teachers (see Figure 2).

When Figures 1 and 2 are compared, the spread across the continuum isrevealed to be slightly different in Figure 2. In analysing the qualitative datacollected via the interviews a more even spread of teachers’ conceptionsacross the continuum is evident compared to that recorded in Figure 1. Inthe case of Figure 2, 39% of teachers interviewed were located on the stu-dent-centred learning oriented end of the continuum, while 24% werelocated on the teacher-centred content oriented end of the spectrum. How-ever, despite the slight differences between Figure 1 and 2, the majority ofteachers who were surveyed and interviewed held beliefs about teaching andlearning that were student-focused and saw learning as being about concep-tual change. Moreover, when both the conceptual change/student focusedand transition points were taken into account, similar percentages of teachersin Figures 1 and 2 in those areas are apparent (78% in Figure 1 and 77% inFigure 2) thus showing how data collected from the staff survey and inter-views is closely aligned.

During the interviews it was observed that what teachers say about theirteaching style does not always align with their own description ofapproaches taken to learning and teaching. A disjuncture was sometimes

Table 4. Teacher interview questions.

1. How would you describe your approach to teaching?2. Describe the main activities that take place in your classes. e.g. what are

the students doing?3. Think of a typical class you’ve taught recently. Describe, from beginning

to end, what took place in that class.4. What other learning/teaching activities do you typically include in your

classes?5. How do you think your students learn best?6. Describe the main way you assess.

Figure 2. Teacher responses to interview question one applied to Kember’sconceptions of teaching model.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

apparent. An example of this is a participant who initially described herselfas ‘an old-fashioned teacher’, who is ‘very strict’ with her students and ‘ha[s] strong beliefs about discipline’. About her classes she revealed: ‘Myclasses are structured into lectures and tutorials and I believe this is the bestway to learn.’ If we were to place her on Kember’s continuum according toher own description of the kind of teacher she is it is possible that shewould fall towards the ITTF end. However, later in the interview the partici-pant described in detail how she involves students in their learning viagroup work and discussion, situating this information in a broader descrip-tion of her beliefs about active learning. When this extra information is alsoconsidered, it becomes apparent that it is more accurate to place her aroundthe transition point of the continuum, despite the teacher’s own labeling ofher teaching style suggesting otherwise.

In interview question two, participants were specifically asked to thinkabout and describe what their students were doing in their classes (rather thanwhat they, the teachers, were doing). This was deliberately emphasised by theinterviewer during the presentation of the question to participants. The deci-sion to focus on this aspect was informed by the literature, specifically Biggs(1999), as an indicator of student-centred learning and contemporary under-standings of good practice. In their responses, six participants focused onwhat the students do in their classes, seven focused on what they do, andeight focused on both, suggesting that seeing their classes through the studentlens was not always an easy means for teachers to think about learning andteaching. In response to this question activities described the most included:lectures, practical exercises, group work, and class discussion.

Responses to interview questions three and four indicate that teachersperceive themselves as including a range of activities in their classes. Lec-tures, group work, outline of topic, teacher demonstrations/examples, classdiscussion, ‘question and answer’ were the main activities reported inresponse to question three. In response to question four interviewees weregiven the opportunity to describe other activities included in their teachingnot mentioned in response to previous questions. Field trips/industry visits,video including YouTube, online activity/resources, and guest speakers werethe activities mentioned the most in response to this question.

In response to question five – ‘How do you think students learn best?’ –76% of teachers interviewed said they believed that ‘learning by doing’ ishow this occurs, suggesting a student-centred understanding of how studentslearn best. A range of assessment types were described by participants inresponse to question six, again suggesting, as in the responses to questiontwo, three, and four that teachers believe that using different types of assess-ment is important to student learning.

At the end of each interview, participants were asked to take part in ashort ranking activity. They were given a sheet of paper with the following


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

five concepts from Kember’s (1998) conceptions of teaching frameworklisted in no particular order:

� Imparting knowledge� Transmitting structured knowledge� Student–teacher interaction� Facilitating understanding� Conceptual change

Participants were then asked to rank the concepts according to how they val-ued them in their teaching practice. Participants’ verbal responses suggestedthat most, if not all, were unfamiliar with Kember’s (1998) framework. Fig-ure 3 illustrates where participants were placed on Kember’s continuumwhen all number one ranked places were considered. The majority of partic-ipants ranked conceptual change and facilitating understanding (combined49%) as their most valued concepts with a smaller combined percentage(28%) valuing the ITTF end of Kember’s spectrum. A slightly smallerpercentage of teachers (23%) value student–teacher interaction in theexercise, with this group being located on the mid-way transition point ofKember’s continuum. When compared with the data displayed in Figures 1and 2 a similar pattern is evident albeit with a slightly greater number ofteachers ranking their values on the ITTF end of the continuum and slightlyless at the transition point than was the case with data collected via the tea-cher survey and interviews.

In summary, participant responses to the interview questions suggeststhat teachers believe that they are offering a range of learning and assess-ment experiences to students, and that ‘learning by doing’ is an integral partof how students learn best. When interview data was combined across allsix questions, the majority of teachers interviewed could be placed betweenthe midway transition point and the CCSF end of Kember’s (1998) spec-trum. Moreover, the combined teacher data as collected via the survey andinterviews suggests the majority of teachers in this study hold beliefs about

Figure 3. Concepts ranked no. 1 by teachers according to how they are valued intheir teaching practice.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

teaching and learning that are student-focused and see learning being moreabout conceptual change rather than information transmission.

Discussion

The study has enabled a number of conclusions to be reached in relation tothe research questions. The exploration of teacher and student perspectivesis a complex issue and the case study, guided by the literature, has enabledthe researchers to develop premises to inform future work within the school.

What the teacher and student data revealed

It is important to acknowledge the weaknesses associated with the word-ing of the student survey and the small sample size of both teachers andstudents in this study in any discussion of the data. In addition, it isimportant to note that aside from information about sector and discipline,no demographic data was collected. This has possible bias implicationsfor the results because students who are more confident and comfortablein participating in surveys about their learning, such as students from HEprograms within the school, could have had a higher participation ratethan other students. The possible bias implication extends to teacherswho chose to participate in the survey. Teachers with more confidenceand interest in completing surveys about their teaching may have beenmore likely to have responded than perhaps those who are not. However,the researchers believe it is still possible to discuss the findings andconsider implications within these limitations.

In considering the broader research questions it can be said that teachersand students who participated in this study share similar views about therange of learning activities taking place. With regards to student percep-tions, this is evidenced through the range of activities described by studentsas taking place in their ‘typical’ class as well as other activities they experi-ence on occasion as part of their learning. Data collected via interviews withteachers also indicates that a range of activities occurs in their classes.

However, time spent in particular activities as reported by students doesnot match with how the majority of teachers perceive their approach tolearning and teaching: being about conceptual change and facilitating under-standing. The majority of teachers who participated in this study perceivetheir approach to learning and teaching as being student-centred. However,in response to three survey questions students report that as well as workingon practical tasks they spend a significant amount of time listening to theteacher. Thus, the data collected in this study suggests a difference betweenstudent and teacher perceptions of what is occurring. Interestingly, thispossible disconnection between what teachers say they value and believe inversus what takes place in practice aligns with Argyris and Schön’s (1974)ideas about the differences that can arise between ‘theories in use’ and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

‘theories in action’. In their research they argued that what people say theyvalue/believe does not always transpire through their actions.

It is possible that when given time to think about their pedagogicalbeliefs teachers tend to think about them through a student-centred lens, butin practice have a tendency towards more teacher-centred, content-orientedapproaches. It is also possible that student perceptions are inaccurate andthat they have a tendency to more easily remember when teachers use con-tent-oriented/teacher-centred approaches. While the latter is a possibility it isa concept that was not tested and explored through the parameters of ourstudy, but signals a topic for future research.

It is encouraging that teachers, when confronted, articulate a student-cen-tred orientation to learning, teaching and assessment. This is a positive basefrom which the educational leadership of the school can work, over time, toencourage and support a change in practice.

A broader finding of our study relates to teachers’ movement along Kem-ber’s (1998) continuum. The interview data we collected suggests that place-ment on the continuum might not be so fixed and static. There is thepossibility that the state is quite fluid and changes as the teacher adapts andchanges over time to different circumstances or incorporates new pedagogi-cal knowledge about learning and teaching into their practice. Framing a tea-cher’s placement on the continuum in such a way also enables further workwith teachers to more closely align beliefs with practice. Further, by framingplacement in such a way teachers are not seen as immovable along on thecontinuum, thus allowing for change and growth.

Implications for practice

While the majority of teachers in this study were found to possess student-centred beliefs about learning, teaching and assessment this may partly beexplained by the nature of the discipline in which these teachers work.Becher (1996) and Huntley-Moore and Panter (2003) describe how differ-ences between the disciplines contribute to specific disciplinary ways ofknowing and being. The teachers and students at the centre of our studywere working within a creative, practical discipline, which, one couldargue, be more open to student-centred practices than other disciplinesrequiring students to know large quantities of facts (Trigwell 2002). Thefindings of a recent study within the same school about student perceptionsof feedback on their work (Budge and Gopal 2009) further supports thisidea.

Certainly it is not possible to argue as an extension of the findings of ourstudy that all teachers necessarily possess student-centred beliefs aboutlearning, teaching and assessment. However, we do argue that what teacherssay about their pedagogical beliefs may not match what they do in practice.As educational leaders, it is important to assist teachers to see the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

disconnection, despite intentions, and to change practice so it encompassesstudent-centred beliefs about learning.

Further research could benefit from a more rigorous research design suchas one including classroom observation, or a design involving interviewsand/or surveys in a more controlled environment with students and teachersof the same class. Further research could also include the exploration of thealignment or disconnection between students’ and teachers’ pedagogical per-ceptions in a range of different disciplines. In addition, research could incor-porate action-learning studies where specific alignment interventions aredesigned to assist teachers towards putting their student-centred beliefs aboutlearning, teaching and assessment into practice.

Conclusion

Our study set out to explore if students understand and experience learningand teaching similarly or differently from the way teachers intend them to.It also sought to understand if the learning and teaching occurring was of astudent-centred nature. We found that what teachers say about their practice,despite their intentions, may not necessarily match with students’ percep-tions.

The findings of our study also reveal the majority of teachers possessstudent-centred beliefs about learning, teaching and assessment but that thismay not be the case for teachers in all disciplines. Further research in thisarea would be beneficial to explore this issue in greater depth.

In this particular learning and teaching story, our study has revealed anumber of positive approaches taking place. It has also highlighted areasthat require further attention, leadership and support. Significantly, it hasshown that the majority of teachers hold conceptions of teaching that arestudent-centred and focused on conceptual change and intellectual develop-ment. This is a positive place in which to continue the work of more closelyaligning teaching beliefs with teaching practice.

Notes on contributorsKylie Budge is a Senior Advisor Learning and Teaching in the College of Designand Social Context at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. She has worked inthe education sector for almost twenty years in various roles. Kylie’s teachingbackground is in English as a second/foreign language. Her research interestsinclude: conceptions of teaching and its impact on practice; learning, teaching andassessing in the creative disciplines; feedback and assessment; academicdevelopment; first-year student transition and internationalising the curriculum. Sheis currently pursuing a PhD in creative arts education.

Keith Cowlishaw is Head of School Fashion and Textiles in the Design and SocialContext Portfolio at RMIT University in which role he provides academicleadership for the school, development and implementation of the strategic businessplan, and ensures the provision of a quality learning environment. His background


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

is from within the textile industry where he has held a number of seniormanagement positions in research and development, operations, quality, sales andmarketing, business management, and general management with Dupont Nylon andICI Fibres. He has had extensive experience working in overseas markets with aparticular focus on Asia Pacific countries.

ReferencesArgyris, C., and D. Schön. 1974. Theory in practice. Increasing professional prac-

tice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Becher, T. 1996. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cul-

tures of disciplines. Buckingham, UK: SRHE / Open University Press.Biggs, J. 1999. What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher

Education Research and Development 18, no. 1: 57–75.Budge, K., A. Clarke, and B. de la Harpe. 2007. Working with conceptions of

teaching to underpin lasting change. Paper presented at Enhancing Higher Edu-cation, Theory and Scholarship, 30th HERDSA Annual Conference, July 8–11,in Adelaide, Australia.

Budge, K., and S. Gopal. 2009. Feedback: Working from the student perspective.Paper presented at Assessment in Different Dimensions, 2009 ATN AssessmentConference, November 19–20, in RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia.

Burns, R.B. 2000. Introduction to research methods. 4th ed. French’s Forest,Australia: Pearson Education Australia.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). 2010.Higher education: Overview. http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Pages/overview.aspx.

Gow, L., and D. Kember. 1993. Conceptions of teaching and their relationship tostudent learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 20–33.

Greene, J.C., V.J. Caracelli, and W.F. Graham. 1989. Toward a conceptual frame-work for mixed-method evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis 11, no. 3: 255–74.

Huntley-Moore, S., and J. Panter. 2003. Does discipline matter? Issues in the designand implementation of management development programmes for heads ofacademic departments. Paper presented at 2003 HERDSA Annual Conference,July 6–9, in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Kember, D. 1998. Teaching beliefs and their impact on students’ approach to learn-ing. In Teaching and learning in higher education, ed. B. Dart and G. Boulton-Lewis, 1–25. Camberwell: ACER Press.

Kember, D., and L. Gow. 1994. Orientations to teaching and their effect on thequality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education 65, no. 1: 58–74.

Kember, D., and K. Kwan. 2000. Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and theirrelationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science 28: 469–90.

Meyer, J., and M. Eley. 2006. The approaches to teaching inventory: A critique ofits development and applicability. British Journal of Educational Psychology 76,no. 3: 633–49.

National Training Information Service (NTIS). 2010. http://www.ntis.gov.au/default.aspx?/.

Stake, R. 2000. Case studies. In Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed., ed.N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 435–54. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Trigwell, K. 2002. Approaches to teaching design subjects: A quantitative analysis.Art Design & Communication in Higher Education 1, no. 2: 69–80.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 1996. Changing approaches to teaching: A relationalperspective. Studies in Higher Education 21, no. 3: 275–84.

Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 2004. Development and use of the approaches toteaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review 16, no. 4: 409–24.

Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse. 1999. Relations between teachers’approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education37: 57–70.

Winter, C., and V.L. Dye. 2003/2004. An investigation into the reasons why stu-dents do not collect marked assignments and the accompanying feedback. Cen-tre for Learning and Teaching, University of Wolverhampton. http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/bitstream/2436/3780/1/An%20investigation%20pgs%20133-141.pdf.

Yin, R.K. 2002. Case study research Design and methods. 3rd ed. Vol. 5 ofApplied Social Research Method Series. Thousand Oaks: Sage.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 00:

47 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Student and teacher perceptions of learning and teaching: a case study