Kane

Reviewv of EducationalResearch
*, '; - 1 iSummer 2002, VoL 72, No. 2, pp. 177-228
Telling Half the Story: A iCritical Review of

Research on thle Teaching Beliefs, and Practices of
University Academnics
I ' 2- .Ruth Kane,

Susan Sandretto
ChrisHeath i
University of Otago .
A criticalreviewvofresearchon teachingbeliefs andpracticesofuniversityaca-

demics revealed that the espoused theories of action of academics have not
been distinguishedfromtheir theories-in-use in some studies.,It is our con-
tention that research that examines only what university teachers say about
theirpracticeand does notdirectlyobservewhattheydo is at riskof telling,half
the story. Our review revealed seieral unsupported claim' about universityl
academics' teachingpratice, raisedconcerns about datagathdringand analy-
sis methods, and fouind that research on primary and secondary teachers -
-beliefs has been used infrequently to inform researchin teiliary settings. The.
review identifies implicationsfor understandinguniversity.academics'devel-
opment as teachersand provides directionforfitrther research.,
KEywoRDs: espoused theories, higher education, teachers' beliefs, teaching
practice.
Researchers acknowledge the complexity involved in teaching and in leaming to
teach effectively (e.g., Ballantyne, Bain, & Packer, 1999; Calderhead, 1996; Clark
&Peterson, 1986). At the primary and secondarylevels, the difficult and complicated
process of learning to teach has been well studied (e.g., Ethell, 1997; Etiheli '&
McMeniman, 2000; Kagan, 1992b; Wideeh, Mayer-Smith, & Moon,' 1998).Emerg-
ing from this research is an'understanding of the central role that teachbers' personal
beliefs and theories play in teaching pradtice (Bullough, 1997a; Cark, & Peterson,'
1986; Ethell, 1997;Kagan, 1992b; Pajares, 1992' Richardson, 1996;'Trumbull, 1990).
In the past decade, a body of literature has emerged at the tertiary level ihat 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 on
the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics are the primary focus of
the present review.
Our interest in' this area developed as we began our background reading for a
research project exploring the beliefs and practices of excellenifteachers at'our uni-
versity. We became aware of some studies that made claims about teaching practice
based only on information gathered about teachers' beliefs without observations of
177
Kane, Sandretto, andHeath
practice. As we began to question the literature, we widened our search in an effort
to understand the complex field. We found ample discussion of the relationship
between teachers' beliefs (espoused theories of action) and teachers' practices (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, we
realized 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 teaching
beliefs and practices of primary and secondary teachers to lay the foundation for
examining studies of university academics. In this background section, we briefly
examine the research on teacher cognition, highlight findings from the research on
the beliefs and practices of primary and secondary teachers, and examine problems
with' the terminology used in some studies. With this foundation, we build a case
for the application of findings fromn research in primary and secondary settings to
teachers at the tertiary level (i.e., instructors, lecturers, and professors).
The next section of the review describes the theoretical framework we have used,
theories of action. In the Method section, we describe how we searched for and
selected studies for the review. Then we review research that has sought to under-
stand the beliefs that university academics hold about teaching in order to better
understand their teaching practices and improve the practices of others.
Our critical analysis of the 'literature on tertiary teaching revealed some studies
that (a) assume teachers' practice from reports of teachers' beliefs, (b) are based
on unstated research designs, and (c) miss opportunities to apply their findings to
the development of teachers. .The review concludes with a discussion of the 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 of
university teaching.
Background- Research on Primary and Secondary Teachers

Since the 1970s, a portion of the research aimed at improving teaching has
focused on teacher cognition (Calderhead, 1996; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Dann,
1990). Such research has predominantly been conducted with primary and secondary
school teachers. This research "has helped to identify. the nature and complexity
of the teacher's work, and helped to provide ways of thinking about the processes
of change and support" (Calderhead, 1996, p. 721). Shavelson and Stem (1981)
explained that research on teacher cognition made the "basic assumption ... that
teachers' thoughts, judgements and decisions guide their teaching behavior" (p.470).
Teacher cognition includes the knowledge, beliefs, and thinking of teachers
(Calderhead, 1996). Kagan (1990) noted that the term teachercognition
is somewhat ambiguous, because researchers invoke the term to refer to 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; automatized
routines and activities that form their instructional repertoire; and self-,
awareness of procedures they use to solve classroom problems. (p. 420)
178
Telling Halfthe Story
Studies on teacher cognitionwhave investigated teachers' judgments, decision
making, planning, and thought processes (Calderhead, 1996; Clark,& Peterson,
1986; Shavelson & Stem, 1981). This review, however, is primarily focused on the
area of teacher cognition research that has investigated the knowledge, beliefs, and
conceptions of teachers that underpin their teaching practice.
Researchon Teacher Knowledge
Researchers and reviewers have distinguished between teacher knowledge and
teacher beliefs (Calderhead, 1996; Fenstermacher, 1994; Richardson, 1996; Thomp-
son, 1992). Teacher knowledge has been defined as the "factual propositions and the
understandings that inform skillful action" (Calderhead, 1996, p. 715). Different cat-
egories of teacher knowledge have been identified or described, including subject or
content 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) practicalknowledge 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 and
classroom management skills" (p. 5). The work of Clandinin and Connelly has
focused on the personal aspect of practical knowledge (e.g., Clandinin & Connelly,
1987). They defined personal pracdcal knowledge as a combination of the teacher's
past experiences, present context, and future plans that is "found in the teacher's
practice" (Connelly& Clandinin, 2000, p,. 1).
Craft knowledge has been defined as including "the wealth of teaching informa-
don that very skilled pracddoners have about their own practice. . . [which] includes
deep, sensitive,' ocation-specific knowledge of teaching ... and ... fragmentary,
superstitious and often inaccurate;opinions" (Leinhardt, 1990, p. 18). Craft knowl-
edge is the knowledge that teachers have constructed about teaching as a result of
their teaching experience or practice (Calderhead, 1996; Fenstermacher, 1994).
Research on TeacherBeliefs
Studies have examined teacher beliefs about learners and learning, teaching, 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 information
someone 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, a
behavior, a policy, an event, etc., and the associated attribute may be any object, trait,
property, quality, characteristic, outcome, or event" (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 12).
While Rokeach (1972) defined a belief as "any simple proposition, conscious or
unconscious, inferredfrom what a person says or does, capable of being preceded by
the phrase 'I believe that. . .' "(p. 113), Rokeach (1972) described an attitude as "an
organization of beliefs" (p.112), and Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined abeliefsys.-
tem as a hierarchy of beliefs according to strength about a particular object.
179
Block and Hazelip (1995) explained that beliefs vary in strength and kind, and
over time form a system or network. The ease with which a teacher can change his
or her beliefs is related to the strength of those beliefs. The stronger the belief, the
more resistant it becomes to change. Several researchers (e.g., Kagan, 1992a;
Pajares, 1992) have,supported Block and Hazelip's claim that "teacher beliefs and
belief systems are grounded in their personal experiences and, hence, are highly
resistant to change" (1995, p. 27). Thompson's (1992) review of the beliefs and con-
ceptions of primary and secondary mathematics teachers noted that "thoughtful
analyses of the nature of the relationship between beliefs and practice suggest that
belief systems are dynamic, permeable mental structures, susceptible to change in
light of experience" (p. 149). 1
Researchers studying teachers' beliefs at the primary and secondary levels have
used a number of definitions: "the highly personal ways in which a teacher 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 held
understandings, 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 consensus
on several issues:
Students enter teacher education programs with preexisting beliefs based on
their experience as students in schools, referred to by Lortie (1975) as their
"apprenticeship of observation" (reinforced by the research and reviews 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 is
deemed compatible or incompatible with current beliefs (Nespor, 1987; Pajares,
1992; Weinstein, 1990).
• Beliefs exist,in a tacit or implicit form and are difficult to articulate (Clark,
1988; Ethell, 1997; Nespor, 1987; Trumbull, 1990).
It would be reasonable to expect that these findings may have relevance to teach-
ers at tertiary levels. Unfortunately, it appears that tertiary researchers have not taken
full advantage of these findings. Less than half of the tertiary studies we critiqued
referred to findings on primary and/or secondary teacher beliefs. Entwistle, Skinner,
Entwistle, and Orr (2000) noted this omission in their recent work: "The two litera-
tures have previously not cross-referenced each other" (p. 5). And Entwistle and
Walker (2000) explained that "while teaching in higher education is bound to have
distinctive characteristics, it also has elements in common with more general ways
of describing teaching. Consequently, we can draw on research on school teaching"
(p. 343).
Confusing Terminology
The literature on teacher knowledge and beliefs from the primary and secondary
levels has developed a number of different terms. Kagan (1990) highlighted this
problem by noting: "Terms such as teacher cognition, self-reflection, knowledge
and belief can each be used to refer to different phenomena. Variation in the defin-
180
ition of a term can range from the superficial and idiosyncratic to the profound and
theoretical" (p.456).. The use of these varying terms makes it difficult to investigate
this area of teacher cognition research. Pajares (1992) addressed this difficulty in.
his review:
They travel in disguise and often under aliasA-attitudes, values, judgements,
axioms, opinions, ideology, perceptions, conceptions, conceptual systems,
preconceptions, dispositions, implicit theories, explicit theories, personal the-
ories, internal mental processes, action strategies, rules of practice, practical
principles, perspectives, repertories of understanding, and social strategy, to
name but a few that can be found in the literature. (p. 309)
Several reviewers have noted the lack of consistency in the terminology used
to describe primiary and secondary preservice teachers'-beliefs (Clandinin & Con-
nelly, 1987; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Ethell, 1997; Kagan, 1990, 1992a; Marland,
1987; Pajares, 1992). Kagan (1992a) noted "even the term 'teacher belief is not
used consistently,'with some researchers referring instead to teachers' 'principles
of practice,' 'personal epistemologies,' 'perspectives,' 'practical knowledge' or
'orientations'- " (p. 66). Clandinin and Connelly (1987) referred to this lack of
agreement in terminology among researchers as "simply different words naming
the same thing" (p. 488).
The study of teachers' beliefs at the tertiary level has also resulted in the prolif-
eration of a number of similar terms. Perhaps this is 'due to the number of different
perspectives that have been used to examine how tertiary teachers view teaching.
For example, researchers have asked participating teachers:
* "What is your view of teaching?" (Gow & Kernber, 1993, p. 23).
* "What are the most important things you can, do to enhance students' 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 and
terms used to describe teachers' beliefs and conceptions at the tertiary level. Mar-
land (1987) noted that "the terminological babel in research on teacher thinking is
causing confusion and impeding productive dialogue" at the primary and secondary
levels (p. 503). We would argue that the lack of a common terminology at the 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 disseminate
knowledge. For.academnics trained as researchers, this means that they are often well
prepared for the research role. In'contrast, many academics have had little or no for-
mal teacher education to prepare them for the teaching role. As staff deyelopers and
181
Kane, Sandretto, and Heath
teacher educators, we are concerned with supporting new academics on their 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 active
learners 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 and
understandings based on what they already know and believe" (p. 1225, italics
added). 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 echoed
this view: "Fundamental changes to the quality of university teaching ... are unlikely
to happen without changes to professors' conceptions of teaching" (McAlpine &
Weston, 2000, p. 377). Research into teachers' beliefs serves to emphasize the impor,
tant role that teachers' beliefs play in the development of teaching practice. We argue
that an understanding of uniyersity teaching is incomplete without a consideration of
teachers' beliefs about teaching and a systematic examination of the relationship
between those beliefs and teachers' practices.
A Theoretical Framework: Theories of Action

.Argyris and Schon (1974) and later Argyris, Putnam, and McLain Smith (1985)
provided the definitions and terms used in much of the literature on theories of
action. Gow,IKember, and Sivan (1992);McLean and Blackwell (1997); and Menges
and Rando (1989), among others, have embraced this framework and employed it
in their research. Theories of action are based on a view of humans as agents acting
purposefully on their environment. Humans leam from their actions and use this
learning to plan further actions. As a result of the complexity of the world, humans
have created models of their environment, along with a variety of theories on how
to act according to those models, in order to create actions that achieve certain
desired outcomes. Because it would be impossible to develop a theory that deals
with each and every possible situation, "agents learn a repertoire of concepts,
schemas, and strategies, and they learn programs for drawing from their repertoire
to design representations and acdon forunique situations" (Argyris et al., 1985, p. 81).
Argyris et al. (1985) explain that these design programs are theories ofaction. They
distinguish between two types of action theories: espoused theories of action and
theories-in-use.
Argyris et al. (1985) explain that when asked about their behavior in a certain 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 the
need to examnine theories-in-use as well as espoused theories:
Any serious attempt to characterize a teacher's conception of the discipline
he or she teaches should not be limited to an analysis of the teacher's pro-
fessed views. It should also include an examination of the instruction setting,
the practices 'characteristic of that teacher, and the relationship between the
teacher's professed views and actual practice. (1992, p. 134)
182
'Telling Halfthe Story
Theories-in-use exist predominantly as tacit knowledge, that is, knowledge we
hold but cannot articulateieasily (Argyris & Sch6n, 1974; Bereiter & Scardamalia,
1992; Polanyi, 1966). Polanyi (1966) described tacitknowledge as "a certain 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-use
from observations and examinations of practice. If theory-in-use is tacit knowledge,
and the teacher is possibly unaware of it and typically unable to explain it, the ques-
tion arises: Why Make-that theory explicit? i
If the agent is performing ineffectively and does not know why .'. . explicitly
stating his [sic] theory-in-use allows conscious criticism . .. he may not be
willing to beh'ave differently until he has examined his theory-in-use 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 both
the espoused theories of action and the theories-in-use of teachers. Marland
explained that "implicit theories cannot be studied until they are first made
explicit ... asking teachers to articulate their implicit theories inevitably involves
them in a process of discoyery.,... Finding appropriate and valid ways of making
implicit theories explicit is therefore a major methodological challenge" (.1995,v
p. '133). Methods such as concept maps (Kagan, 1990; Morine-Dershimer, 1993),
repertory grids (Munby, 1982, 1984), interviews (Samuelowicz-& Bain, 1992),
metaphors (Bullough & Stokes, 1994), autobiography'(Trumbull, 1990), narrative
(Beattie, 1995; Elbaz, 1991), and life history (Fang, 1996) have all been adopted by'
researchers studying the beliefs and conceptions,.or the espoused theories of action,
of teachers. Direct observation (Tiompson, 1992), stimulated recall interviews
(Calderhead, 1981; Meade & McMeniman, 1992), think aloud protocols, (Clark &
Peterson,1986; Fang, 1996),joumal keeping (Fang, 1996), retrospective interviews
(Fang, 1996), and document analysis (Freeman, 1991; Pratt, 1992) have been used
to access the thinking in action or the theories-in-use of teachers. *. '
One way in'which researchers have made explicit and examined teachers' theo-
ries-in-use is through engaging them in strategies of reflective-practice. "Reflection
is an active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed formi of
knowledge in light of the grounds supporting it and future conclusions to which it
tends" (Dewey, 1933, as cited in Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000, p. 39).-
Reflection is considered to be a critical component of the development of teaching
expertise at all levels. Wildman,MNiles, Magliaro, and McLaughlin (1990) argued
that "growth is unlikely without systematic reflection" (p. 161), and McLean and
Blackwell (1997) proposed that "excellence in teaching resides in a reflective, self-
critical, theoretically informed 'approach" (p. 85). Andrews et al. (1996) found in
their interviews probing teaching excellence at the tertiary level that '"the general
concept . -,expressed was that excellent teachers use self-reflection to develop a
model (eitherformal or informal) for teaching within a particular context; they then
attempt to 'live the model,' and be authentic to and congruent with their model"
(p. 87). McAlpine and Weston's (2000) work with exemplary university teachers
described "reflection as a'mechanism for the improvement and development of
teaching" (p. 382).
Rando and Menges (1991) suggest that'"every [university] teacher has a profes-
sional obligation toformulateand articulate a rationale for his or her instructional
183
world" (p. 13). Acknowledging the aforementioned distinctions between espoused
theories of action and theories-in-use, it follows that it is important to examine both
theories of action of any particular tertiary teacher. We suggest that a great deal can
be learned about teaching at the tertiary level by examining the coherence of 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 is
disagreement, there is an opportunity for university academics, researchers, and
staff developers to reflect on the disjuncture between teachers' espoused theories of
action and theories-in-use in the interests of improving teaching at the tertiary level
(e.g., Sandretto, Ethell, & Heath, 2002). It is our contention that research that exam-
ines only teachers' espoused theories of action is at risk of telling only half the story.
Method
Selection fStidiesfor Review
This review draws attention to the need for research that examines the impor-
tant relationship between espoused theories of action and theories-in-use. In order
to study this relationship between what teachers say they wish to achieve and what
they do in the university classroom, we conducted a search to find studies that
examine the beliefs that university academics hold about their teaching and the
implications of these beliefs for their teaching practice.
We searched the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Current
Contents, Web of Science, Periodicals Contents Index, ProQuest Education Com-
plete, PsycINFO, Inside Web and Expanded Academic databases, and internet
search engines for research in the areas of beliefs, conceptions, personal practical
knowledge, orientations to teaching, subjective theories, espoused theories of
action, theories-in-use, and attitudes that tertiary academics hold about teaching.
Studies were also gleaned from bibliographies and higher education conferences.
In addition, weliased with the university's education librarian. Every attempt was
made to be as thorough as possible. The.various literature searches unearthed 71
studies that were reviewed and critiqued by all three authors. Fifty papers were
included in the review. The criteria for selection of studies for this review were that
the research investigated the beliefs and conceptions of university teachers and that
it Was reported in English.
Studies that we found that did not directly examine university academics' teach-
ing beliefs were excluded from the review. Among the 21 rejected studies were
some that examined university teachers' conceptions, beliefs, or attitudes about
related aspects, such as student learning (Bruce & Gerber, 1994; Warkentin, Bates,
& Rea, 1993), academic work (Kreber, 2000), and lecturing (De Neve, 1991). Other
researchers compared teachers' concepts of good teaching with students' 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 of
teaching of community college faculty (Hughes, 1993), studied faculty beliefs about
mathematics learning and teaching as compared with their awareness of National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards (LaBerge, Sons, & Zollman, 1999;
LaBerge, Zollman, & Sons, 1997), and compared the beliefs and conceptions
184
that student teachers held with findings from the literature on university teachers
(Entwistle & Walker, 2000). While these studies'do advance our understanding of
teacher beliefs in some specific areas, they do not examine the relationship between
what university academics espouse about their teaching and their actual teaching
practice, and thus were not included in the review.
Analysis of Studies
Our analysis of the selected studies is underpinned by our own beliefs and expe-
riences as staff developers and teacher educators. Pratt (.1992) stated that the "study
and practice of teaching is grounded in our conceptions. There can be no neutral
ground from which to understand another person's teaching" (p. 204). We are using
theories of action (as described earlier) as the organizing structure for this review.'
We acknowledge that "there is no single interpretive truth" (Denzin & Lincoln,
1998, p. 30) and that our framework is but one way of examining this research."
We conducted the analysis for this review by critically reading and rereading,
the selected studies' To facilitate comparison between the studies, our criticai read-
inigs were framed by the following questions: '
* What theoretical framework was used?
What was the research focus?
V
* What were the research methods?
,. Were claims made about teaching practice based on a method to gain direct
access to that practice? ,
* Did the study draw upon primary and secondary teacher beliefs research?
* Were the data gathering and analysis methods clear?
* How does', this study inform staff development?,
The critical readings were alternaited' with group meetings in which we discussed
themes and concerns that were arising, including concerns about'supported and
unsupported claims made about teaching practice, concerns about data gathering
and analysis methods, and concerns about the application of findings'to'staffdevel-
opment efforts.
An outcorme of the analysis is a table of the'studies selected for the review to
assist readers'in following the critiques and arguments in our review. Table 1 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 our
intent that Table 1 facilitate comparisons between the studies and highlight areas
for future research.
Findings: Unsupported and Supported Claims

Made About Teaching Practice
Studies That Assume Teachers' Practice(Theories-inl- Use)
From Teachers' Beliefs (Espoused Theories of Action)
Several of the selected studies examined the.espoused theories of tertiary teach-
ers primarily by conducting semistructured interviews in order to explore'their beliefs
about teaching and learning (e.g., Dunkin, 1990; Martin & Balla, 1991; van Driel,
Verloop, van Werven, & Dekkers, 1997) (see Table 1 for additional studies). Other
185
studies used surveys or questionnaires, in some cases developed from interview data
(e.g., Hativa, 1993, 1997; Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Prosser & Trigwell, 1997;
Rahilly & Saroyan, 1997; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996b) (see Table I for additional
studies). A few studies used repertory grid interviews (Brown, Bell, & McDowell,
1995; Hillier, 1998), and one was a self-study (Gibson, 1998). Some of the researchers
extended their findings to explain teacher practice, although their reports reveal that
they only investigated teachers' espoused theories of action (Andrews et al., 1996;
Ballantyne et al., 1999; Dall'Alba, 1991, 1993; Fox, 1983; Gow & Kember, 1993;
Gow et al., 1992; Johnston, 1996; Kember & Kwan, 2000; Kember, Kwan, &
Ledesma, 2001; Menges & Rando, 1989; Pratt, 1992; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001;
Singer, 1996; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a). While these studies claim to shed light on
teaching practice in tertiary settings, they reveal teachers' espoused theories only and,
so, in our view, tell only half the story.
For example, Fox (1983) asked an unspecified number of newly appointed teach-
ers "What do you mean by teaching-what is actually happening?" (p. 151). He then
developed a conceptual model to explain the four theories of teaching that he 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 by
relating "standard teaching methods" to his four theories of teaching. However, Fox
did not examine how the individual teacher who subscribed to a particular theory
actually taught in the classroom, because he did not make use of any of the existing
methods to examine teachers' practice (see theFindings: Research Design Concems
sechion).
Menges and Rando (1989) wrote specifically of theories of action (espoused the-
ories of action and theories-in-use). Their study examined the "implicit theories held
by graduate teaching assistants" (GTAs) (p. 55). Twenty GTAs participated in a
twofold interview. The first section asked "What do you mean by teaching?" and the
second posited a classroom problem: "Can you imagine a time iri one of your classes
when you planned a discussion but alrmost no one responded or participated? What
did you do? How did you determine the reasons for the situation?" (p. 55). Menges
and Rando used this self-reported practice as evidence of the GTAs' theories-in-use.
They described teaching conceptions focused on content, process, and motivation.'
While self-reported practice may well be a close approximation of teaching practice
in some instances, we argue that this is not necessarily always the case. Menges and
Rando explained that further "research should include more teachers and should
gather classroom behavioral data, for example, using direct observation" (p' 57).
Dall'Alba (1991) focused on "teachers' conceptions or ways of understanding
teaching" (p. 293). Dall'Alba described seven qualitatively different conceptons
of teaching (pp. 294-295):
* teaching as presenting information
* teaching as transmitting information
* teaching as illustrating the application of theory to practice
* teaching as developing concepts/principles and their interrelations
* teaching as developing the capacity to be expert
* teaching as exploring ways of understanding from particular perspectives
* teaching as bringing about conceptual change,
186
Telling Half the Story,
She explained that the conceptions of teaching were "ordered from less to more 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 left
to 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 "represent
some 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 she
document?,The answer is not clear from her descriptions. We suggest she was telling
half thestory.l
Gow et al. (1992) sought "to determine the perceptions of academic staff at apoly-
technic in Hong Kong of how they approach their teaching and to infer implications
for staff development needs" (p. 136). They conducted semistructured interviews
with 39 participants in order to "determine their views on their-teaching practices"
(p. 135). Their participantsidentified "the development of problem-solving skills" in
their students and "training for specific professions" as goals of higher education
(p. 137); yet most of the participants focused on "prepaiation for a 'specific'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 action
framework, they did not use a research method that would have gained access to the
participants' practice and their theories-in-use. - .
In another study, Dall'Alba (1993) described "the ways in which teachers 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 conceptions
that 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 field
or discipline" (p. 302). These participants described course content as follows: (a) a
body of knowledge and skills to be gained, (b) concepts and principles to which
knowledge and skills are linked, and (c) experiences of a' field of study and practice
(pp. 305-307). - '
Yet, Dall'Alba's findings are based on the' assumption that the teachers 'were
reporting their "teaching practice" in the interviews (p. 300). Without the use of a
method to gain access' to the participants' teaching practice, we suggest thatDall'Alba
does not have the evidence to claim that the articulated beliefs and conceptions accu-
rately describe the participants' teaching practice.'
Gow and Kember (1993) initially interviewed 39 randomly selected polytechnic
lecturers. They subsequently developed a trial questionnaire based on the constructs
that arose from the interviews. The-arialysis of the questionnaire responses identified
two conceptions of teaching: learningfacilitation'and knowledge transmission. Lec-
turers who subscribed to a learning facilitation teaching orientation saw "teaching as
a facilitative' pr6cess to help students develop problem solving 'skills and critical'
thinking abilities" (p.' 28). On the othet hand, teachers operating under the knowl--
edge transmission teaching orientation focused 'on the delivery of content. After a
comparison of departmental orientations to teaching with,student orientations to
learning (surface, deep, or achieving), Gow and Kember (1993) stated that "this study
suggests that the methods of teaching adopted, the learning tasks set, the assessment
demands made and the workload specified are strongly influenced by the orientation
to teaching", (p. 31). They then added: "The orientation affects the curriculum design,
187
the teaching method employed and the learning tasks specified" (p. 31). While the
findings classify teachers as having particular orientations to teaching, the lack of
teaching observations, examinations of course materials, and/or some other inquiry
into direct teaching practice raises some questions about the legitimacy of claims pro-
jected onto teaching practice.
Pratt (1992) and his graduate students interviewed 253 people from five countries
to understand their "conceptions of teaching." Pratt explained that "because we were
unable to observe most of the respondents, we asked them to describe their teaching,
and this was used as surrogate evidence of their actions" (p. 206). Pratt and his asso-
ciates used "the person's recall of activities and repertoire of techniques used in
teaching" as a proxy for the actions or teaching practice of the participants (p. 208).
For each of the five conceptions of teaching that Pratt elucidated, he characterized
the relationships between content, learners, teachers, ideals, and context as the 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) social
reform (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" of
teachers. They noted that "it was this secdon of the interviews that seemed to have
the mostimpact for the professors" (p. 87). The teachers focused on themes of hon-
esty, integrity, and genuineness. Andrews et al.' noted that these themes drove the
teachers' self-reflecdve practice that was described in the second section of the 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 researchers
with access to the espoused theories of action of their participants. Andrews et al.
(1996) did not access the teaching pracdce of the participants in order to elicit their
theories-in-use, yet they suggested that "contradicdons between teachers' espoused
theories and their theory-in-use must be made apparent" (p. 84). In the secdon of their
article that addressed limitations of the study, Andrews et al. (1996) acknowledged
that "a third limitation of this study is that in classroom observadons of the teaching-
learning process were not conducted" (p. 101).
Johnston (1996) interviewed four award-winning university teachers to examine
their views on teaching. She noted that areas of research inquiry such as "how the
teacher understands his or her ownteaching" (espoused theories of action) and "how
that understanding influences his or her teaching practice" (theories-in-use) were
central to the field (p.214). The teachers participated in two to three semistructured
interviews designed to elicit their thinking on several topics: how they described
themselves as teachers,, their aims in teaching, their teaching approaches, their
development as teachers, and how teaching fits into their lives as academics (p. 216).
Johnston identified the following images of teaching:
* teaching as manipulating the environment to bring about changes in the 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'Halfthe Story
Johnston,reviewed the relevant literature and noted that"'there is a recognition that
teaching involves the acting out of personal knowledge, craft knowledge or implicit
theories which are often held at the subconscious level; but which' nevertheless influ-
ence personal approaches to teaching in very significant ways" (p. 214, italics
added). Had Johnson accessed the actual teaching practice of her participants, she
would have had an opportunity;to examine this concept through her project.
Singer (1996) used a questionnaire based on the three teaching paradigms devel-'
oped.by Menges and Rando (1989)-content,-process, -and motivation-to survey
443 full-time faculty. In her discussion and conclusions, Singer claims that "the 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 their
teaching practices" (p. 675).' However, in an anonymous survey, teachers~could
report what they think, hope, or belieVe they do, rather than necessarily what they
do. Singer did not observe any participants teaching to confirm her results, nor did
she employ any alternative means to elicit their actuial teaching practice. She did
acknowledge anumber of limitations in her study,,for example, the exclusion of stu-
dent characteristics such as motivation, as well as other variables such as faculty job
satisfaction that might account for differences in teaching paradigms. However, the
omission of teaching observations was not acknowledged as problematic.
Trigwell and Prosser (1996a) described the results of a study that investigated
"relations between conceptions of teaching and learning, and approaches to teach-
ing" (p. 276). The researchers used transcripts-from interviews with 24 university
physics 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 to

students
* 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 acquire
the concepts of the discipline
* a student-focused strategy aimed at students developing their conceptions
., a studeit-focused strategy aimed at stude'nts changing their conceptions
(Trigwell & Prosser,41996a, p. 277) ' ' I
Also, the researchers reported six conceptions that described teaching as:
* transmitting concepts of the syllabus '
* transmitting the teachers' knowledge

* helping students to acquire concepts of the syllabus ' ll '
* 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 in

teachers' conceptions and approaches" (1996b, p. 281). It is not clear, however, how
"the distribution-of individual transcripts after they have been allocated to the high-,
est possible level":(p. 279) resulted in "a large and statistically significant relation-~
ship between'conceptions of teaching and approaches to teaching" (p. 279). Kember
and Kwan (2000) have also raised concerns in regard to this study. They noted that
189
"we feel that some caution should be attached to this claim as the authors define
neither construct and the labels used to identify the conceptions of teaching are very
close to the intention component of the approaches" (p.472). Kember and Kwan
added that "unless the evidence for categorising conceptions and approaches came
from quite discrete parts of the transcripts, which is not specified in the paper, the
claim to have established a conception/approach relationship should be treated with
a degree of scepticism" (p.472). Had Trigwell and Prosser added another source of
evidence for their participants' practice, it would have gone a long way in support-
ing their findings.
Hativa (1997) conducted a survey of faculty in a private research university to
elicit their "attitudes toward teaching and their teaching practices" (p. 1). Hativa
explained the rationale behind the choice of the questionnaire method: 'Teaching
thinking, perceptions and beliefs are tacit and not directly observable. Thus, they can
only be studied through getting teachers' oral or written responses to related 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 the
structure and organization of knowledge, and the 'tools' of the domain" (p. 15). The
most common teaching practice reported was that of lectures, which "usually include
students' questions [but not] discussions" (p. 16). We propose that an instrument that
provided options for the staff to choose from limited the potential to fully describe
their beliefs about teaching. In addition, another-source of information derived from
the participants' teaching practices might have created a more detailed picture of the
complexity of teaching in the university she studied. Hativa did acknowledge the low
response rate as a limitation.
Ballantyne et al. (1999) interviewed tertiary teachers nominated as having "exem-
plary or noteworthy teaching practice" in order to encourage the participants to
"describe and analyze their teaching practice and to articulate their understanding of
what constitutes effective teaching and learhing in their own context" (p. 239). In
addition, open-ended questionnaires were distributed to 20 students who had recently
attended the participants' classes to obtain the students' perspectives on the strengths
and weaknesses of the teaching interaction (see Ballantyne, Bain, & Packer, 1997,
for published narratives). Their participants described beliefs on the importance of:
* creating and maintaining student interest
* caring for students
* pitching at the students' level
* relevance to students' everyday experiences
* starting from a practice base
* teaching for learning
* managing discomfort
* interacting with students to ensure understanding and learning
* fostering generic and lifelong learning skills (1997, pp. xxi-xxvii).
Ballantyne et al. made deductions about the teaching practice of their participants,
although they did not access their teaching practice directly; "these academics' self
analyses and stories reveal strong coherence between their educational beliefs and
practices" (Ballantyne et al., 1999, p. 238). In addition, they emphasized the need
for "exploration of the links between beliefs and practice" (Ballantyne et al., 1999,
p. 255). Yet, according to the theories of acdon framework, the study can only report
190
coherence between espoused theories and self-reported practices. The authors may
have used the students'. input to address this weakness, but this connection is not
made clear.
Kember and Kwan (2000) sought to "examine the relationship between lecturers'
approaches to teaching and their conceptions of good.teaching" (p. 469). They con-
ducted semistructured interviews with. 17 lecturers from three departments. An ini-
tial investigation of the methods or techniques used by the paiticipants reVealed ihat
they "'did not seem to be determined by any fundamental beliefs about teaching"-
(p. 475). This initial finding is out of step with a great deal of research that has shown
the essential role of beliefs in underpinning teaching;practices. However, Kember
and Kwan then reported that a "deeper examination of the transcripts" resulted in
the description of two approaches: content centered&andlearning centered (p. 475).
They described a one-dimensional motivation component (named motivator) and
a five-dimensional strategy component (named instruction, focus, assessment,
accommodation for student characteristics, and-source of experience/knowledge) to
categorize the lecturers' approaches. The researchers described conceptions of teach-
ing that fell into the two broad categories of teaching as trdnsmission of knowledge
and teaching as learningfacilitation. In: order to examine the relationship between
approaches and conceptions of teaching, Kember and Kwan used cross tabulation.
They found "a high level of correspondence" of 89.5%. From this finding the
researchers concluded that "approaches to teaching are strongly influenced by the
lecturer's conceptions of teaching". (p. 489). Had Kember and Kwan pursued their
"open naturalistic approach" to include observations of their subjects' teaching prac-,
tices, the additional information would have served to strengthen their findings..
Recently, Samuelowicz and Bain (2001) revisited their 1992 study (see next sec-
tion). They again conducted semistructured interviews with academics in a range
of 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). Theyfound
some overlap with their previouis findings, and made some additions. The analysis
identified seven ways in which participants understood teaching:i
* imparting information X -
* transmitting structured knowledge

* providing and facilitating understanding
* helping students develop expertise
* preventing mrisunderstandings
* negotiating meaning
* encouraging knowledge creation (p. 306)
The imparting information, transmittingstructuredkn'owledge, and encouraging
knowledge creation concepts were similar to their- 1992 findings; however, the
names were altered to allow for a more precise characterization of teaching orien-
tation (p. 308). In addition, Samuelowicz andBain supplemented their findings with
two 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 how
closely coupled an academic's beliefs and practices tend to be, although that is not
the focus of this article" (p.312). Samuelowicz andBain (2001) recommended that
191
further research in this area examine "the coupling between belief and practice ...
with a variety of methods" (p.322). In theirsecond investigation of the ways in which
academics conceptualize teaching, Samuelowicz and Bain did not take advantage
of their own insight into gaps in this research area.
Kember et al. (2001) interviewed 17 lecturers from three different departments in
one university to examine their conceptions of good teaching, their perceptions of
adult and full-time students, and the actual strategies and methods they used in their
teaching practice with the two groups of students. They did not make use of any
methods to directly observe the teaching practice of their participants. As did Kem-
ber and Kwan (2000), they found two main conceptions of good teaching, teaching
as transmission of knowledge and teaching as learningfacilitation, and identified
two subcategories in each. The authors made distinctions between two levels of con-
ceptions in the first category: teachingas passinginformation and teachingas mak-
ing it easierfor students to understand. Kember et al. found teaching as meeting
students' learningneeds and teaching asfacilitatingstudents to become independent
learnersin the second category. Using a cross tabulation between the teaching con-
ceptions and the claimed teaching practice of the,participants, the authors found "a
high level of correspondence between a lecturer's conception of teaching and the way
in which the teaching accommodated the differing characteristics of adult and other
students" (p. 403). Kember et al. missed an opportunity to examine the relationship
between the participants' conceptions of good teaching and their claimed educational
pracdce. They acknowledged: "The study does not reveal how the constructs might
be related" (p. 403). The use of methods to, directly observe the teaching practice of
the participants might have shed some light on the effect of teaching conceptions on
teaching practice at the university level.
Studies That Do Not Report Teaching PracticeBased on

Espoused Theories of Action
While we have idenutified thus far studies of tertiary teachers' beliefs that we
believe tell only half the story, other studies of tertiary teachers' beliefs that had not
accessed teaching practice directly were careful not to make claims regarding teach-
ing practice. For example, Dunkin and Precians (1992) did not watch the participants
teach to compare their espoused theories of action with their theories-in-action.
However, they acknowledged this shortcoming by noting:
Although important questions have been asked about the relationship between
teacher thought and behavior, it was not within the purpose or resources of this
study to investigate that association by complementing the interviews with
observations of the award winners in actual teaching situations. Rather, the
present study is thought of as providing a basis for further study that might
include the thought-behaviour nexus. (p.486)
Trigwell et al.. (1994) reported the teaching approaches, which consisted of inten-
tions and teaching strategies, of 24 university physical science teachers. These
approaches arose from a phenomenographic analysis of interviews. The researchers
did not fall prey to our, critique conceming a lack of additional sources of 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' "concerns
and ... thinking associated with memorable teaching incidents" (p. 3). They
acknowledged that the CIQ was "retrospective in nature and [did] not capture think-
ing in action" (theories-in-use) (p.4). .
Willcoxson (1998) interviewed 15 teachers and 23 of the participants? students to
examine "the relationship between academics' personal experience of being taught
and perceptions of teaching and also-the experiences of.students being taught in lec-
tures by that teacher" (p. 60). Willcoxson did not access the teaching practice of;the
lecturers in question; however, student interviews report the participants' teaching
practice as experienced by the students. Pratt, Kelly, and Wong (1999) used ques-
ti6nnaires to "identify conceptions of 'effective teaching' held by.Hong Kong Chi-,
nese university students andHong Kong Chinese and western expatriate university
teachers" (p. 241). They conducted their study with a view to influencing the con-
struction of more culturally sensitive instruments for the evaluation of teaching. Pratt
et 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 knowledge
and attitudes toward knowledge within the framework of an academic discipline, and
(e) imparting information. (pp. 98-101). They then suggested the need for further
research "to solve one of the mysteries of higher education-the disjunction between
the stated aims. . . and educational practice" of tertiary teachers (p.110). Given this
insight, perhaps they could have taken the opportunity to make explicit links between
the conceptions they found and the teaching practice of their participants (see also
van Driel et al., 1997). - ;
Studies That Examine ConnectionsBetween Espoused
Theories of Teaching and Teaching Practice
Mertz and McNeely (1990) presented a-study at the tertiary level that incorpo-
rated teaching-observations into their research plan. They were i"concerned with
finding out how teachers think about teaching, their internal, mental constructs, and
at looking at the relationship between teacher thought and behavior" (p. 6, italics
added). They observed the teaching of 13 of their 15 participants. They made 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 different
paradigms of teaching: transmissionof information, communication with students,'
doing the discipline, andpersonaldevelopment'.
Martin and Ramsden (1993) conducted a study to investigate "how academic staff
understand teaching, and about how their understanding is embodied in their prac-
tice", (p. 148). The researchers worked with a group of five university teachers who
participated in a course looking at 'practice and research involved in teaching and
leaming. The participants discussed their aims, intentions, and teaching -strategies
with the researchers before each session they taught. That session was then observed,
and the participants and researchers met directly afterward to debrief the session.
193
Martin and Ramsden used the interviews and observations to develop and report case
studies detailing the professional development of the participants. The researchers
developed a hierarchical model to describe the "expansion of awareness" that the 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 before
and 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). The
researchers 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) which
serve as enablers or constrainers to playing out these assumptions and beliefs" (p. 23).
Saroyan and Snell (1997) conducted a study to examine lecturing styles in light
of "current conceptions of teadhing and pedagogical principles" (p. 85). The re-
searchers observed a set of seven 1-hour lectures in the dermatology program of a
medical school. They selected "three [lectures] representing the most divergent
styles" for their report (p. 90). Saroyan and Snell administered a questionnaire to
the lecturers prior to the lecture, videotaped each lecture, and collected student 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 their
coding of the questionnaire. Saroyan and Snell described what some researchers
have termed the conceptions of teaching by relating the aims of the lecturers to
previously reported frameworks. For example, the first lecture was described as
"content-driven," where "there is little evidence that the concepdon of teaching
extends beyond that of 'cultural transmission' (Scardamalia and Bereiter 1989)"
(p. 99). The researchers did not make any explicit links between the lecturers' aims
or conceptions of teaching and their teaching practices. They did conclude, how-
ever, that "a lecture can be as effective as any other instructional strategy so long as
it is appropriately suited to the intended learning outcomes and is pedagogically
planned and delivered" (p. 102).
Gibson (1998) conducted a reflective self-study into her own teaching beliefs and
pracdces in order "to assess my instrucdonal approach for effectiveness in its sup-
port of culturally relevant pedagogy" (pp. 360-361). By audiotaping her teaching
practices, transcribing those audiotapes, and reflecting upon them, Gibson was able
to "unravel the tangled web of personal beliefs, cross-cultural perspecdves . . . and
traditional education ideologies which informed my teaching practices" (p.361). She
found instances of classroom practices in which she did not act in a manner consis-
tent with her espoused beliefs on critical pedagogy and pardcipatory democracy and
vowed to "initate, rather than short-circuit" discussions on controversial issues such
as racism and end her "compact of silence" (pp. 368-369).
Hermes (1999) described an action research project that investigated the subjec-
tive theories of a university teacher and students in an advanced literature course.
Hermes explained that "university teachers . .. develop subjective theories of their
role as academic teachers" (p. 200). The teacher and students "tried .. . to become
aware of their own self-concepts, of the roles they played . .. especially with a view
194
to active participation, to teacher-student and student-student interaction" (p. '199).
Information from student diaries, videotaped sessions, and student interviews
demonstrated that the teacher and students had become more cognizant of their
subjective theories. Hermes was careful to note: "Action research projects are
always case studies. Generalisations can therefore=only be made on a very tenta-
tive basis" (p. 204).r -
Quinlan (1999b) studied the educational beliefs of eight academic historians in an
attemptto'situate'those beliefs,in the context ofthe specific discipline, department,
and university. The researcher observed departmental meetings, faculty seminars,
and classes, and conducted interviews. The resulting departmental case study illus-
trated commonalities and differences in the participants' educational beliefs through
their 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) guiding
students (p. 453).
Martin, Prosser, Trigwell, Ramsden,,and Benjamin (2000) examined the rela-
tionship between university teacheis' intentions and their teaching.practice with
respect to the "teaching of a particular topic, within a specific context" (p. 387). They
interviewed 26 university teachers in four discipline areas. The interviews focused
on what the teachers wanted students to learn and how they intended to teach a spe-
cific topic or "the object of study." On the basis of these interviews, the researchers
constructed a hypothesis "as to how the teacher[s] would approach their teaching"
(p. 390).They then conducted two teaching observations' to determine whether the
teachers' practice supported or disproved the hypothesis. Martin et al. found that
"the results of the observational study showed no observed inconsistency between
the teachers' intentions and their practices" (p. 409). Martin'et al. explain that what
they are investigating in this case are specific responses to teaching particular topics
rather than the participants' "general orientations to teaching" (p. 388). TheyC con-
clude that there is a need for further investigation of the object of study, thai is, "what
is it that teachers want their students to learn and how do they believe their students
will come to know this" (p.4 1 1), as an influence on how university academics teach.
Hativa,Barak, and Simhi (2001) researched "the beliefs and pedagogical content
knowledge of exemplary university teachers regarding effective teaching strategies,
the extent to which they use various of these strategies and the relations between their
beliefs and knowledge to their classroom practice" (pp. 703-704). To examine this
research focus, the authors conducted teacher and student interviews, videotaped
classroom sessions, administered a student teaching effectiveness questionnaire, and
examined course outlines and exam questions. This study, one of the most thorough
we have reviewed in its attempts-to capture the complexity of teaching, proposes
explanations for the differences between poor and good teachers: "Maybe one way
in which the pedagogical content knowledge . .. differs is in the number of effective
classroom strategies with which they :re familiar" (p.722). Hativa, et al. found "that
there is a good, but far from perfect, fit between these teachers' beliefs and 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 between
teachers' espoused beliefs and congruence or lack of congruence with their teaching
practice. For example, work by Pratt (1992) and Mertz and McNeely (1990) dis-
cussed earlier highlights our concern about drawing conclusions regarding teaching
practice based on espoused theories of teaching. As researchers -concerned with
improving the teaching practice of university academics, it is imperative that we
understand how the links between beliefs and practice are made so thatwe may facil-
itate the growth and development of novice staff. Pajares (1992), :in'her review of
research into primary and secondary teachers' beliefs, cautions that "little will have
been accomplished if research into educational beliefs fails to provide insights into
the relationship between beliefs ... and teacher practices, teacher knowledge and
student outcomes" (p. 327).
Findings: Research Design Concerns
During careful scrutiny of the literature, we became concerned about the rigor of
the research design of several of the studies. We begin with some specific concerns
and criticisms with regard to some individual studies at the tertiary level and follow
with discussion of general methodological issues to inform future research into uni-
versity academics' teaching beliefs and practices.
Snark Syndrome
Fox's (1983) research design has been criticized. Dall'Alba suggests that his
findings were "neither derived ... from,'nor supported . . . with, empirical research"
(1993, p. 304). Fox (1983) did not describe the process used to select the 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 these
concerns, Fox's 1983 article was cited by a quarter of the studies we critiqued.
Byrne (1993a, 1993b) coined the term snark syndrome to describe this phenome-
non. Her term comes from the Lewis Carroll poem The Hunting of the Snark in
which the Bellman claims "What I tell you three times is true" (Byrne, 1993a, p. 1).
Byrne (1993a, 1993b) explained that the snark syndrome occurs when a reported
research finding is repeated again and again until it becomes part of the folklore or
"received wisdom" of a field. However, "received wisdom frequently has no actual
basis in sound, empirical or qualitative research and objective enquiry" (Byrne,
1993b, p. 18). The 1983 study by Fox has fallen prey to the snark syndrome. The
findings have been cited repeatedly, and the deficiencies of the study have been lost
in this repetition.
ResearcherPerspective"
In several studies we examined, the researchers have failed to make explicit the
epistemological and theoretical assumptions that have guided the focus of inquiry
and the gathering, analysis, and presentation of data. Maykut and Morehouse (1994)
drew attention to the importance of this awareness in qualitative study:
The qualitative researcher's perspective is perhaps a paradoxical one: it is to
be acutely tuned-in to the experiences and meaning systems of others-to
indwell-and at the same time to be aware of how one's own biases and pre-
conceptions may be influencing what one is trying to understand. (p. 123)
196
Dall'Alba (1991), forexample, claimed thatthe conceptions of teaching expressed
by 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 and
assumptions of what makes a good teacher at the tertiary level, but not explicitly
stated. Hasselgren andBeach (as cited in Gall,Borg, & Gall, 1996, p.20) raised the
issue of reflexivity, defined as a "focus on the researcher's self as an integral 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 and
their 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 phenomenographic
study (Prosser et.al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, ,1996a; Trigwell et al., 1994), they
did not make explicit their own beliefs, theories, or assumptions that may have
influenced their analysis. In one description, they explained that initially they
treated all of the transcripts "as a whole," and thus "the categories that were devel-
oped are consequently relatively 'pure"' (Prosser et al., 1994, p. 220), implying
that their own conceptions and experiences did not have an influence on that
process.
We raise concerns about th6 work of-Prosser, Trigwell,,and Taylor and others
in an effort to' reinforce the importance of researchers being explicit about the
assumptions and theories that underpin their work. ForDeniin and Lincoln (1998):
There is no clear window into the inner life of an individdal. Any gaze is always
filtered through the lenses of language, gender, social class, race and ethnicity.
There are no objective observations, only observations socially situated in the
worlds of the observer and the observed. (p. 25)
Crotty (1998) echoed this need: "At every point in our research. . . we inject a
host of assumptions ... without unpacking these assumptions and clarifying them,
no one ... .can really divine what our research has been or what ,it is now saying"
(p. 17).1
- ethodsfor Examining Teachers' Beliefs.

M
We wish to signal als'o'a potential problem with the use of surveys, questionnaires,
or other multiple-choice-type inventories as methods used'to gather data about
teacher conceptions and beliefs. Richardson (1996) noted that these methods are "too
constraining" and "often do not validly;represent teachers' beliefs" (p. 107). In 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) explained
that the term self-fulfilling prophecy has been in common usage since 1948, when
Robert K. Merton used it to explain social behavior. A self-fulfilling prophecy is
described as "the false definition of a situation,:which in turn engenders behavior that
brings the situation into conformity" (Wineburg,' 1987, p. 28). The concept has been
well researched in classrooms, with upwards of 300 to 400 published studies 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 from
the 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 scales
on 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 then
described in their findings that "in the university sector there is a significant correla-
tion between staff's academic orientations and their good teaching practice-the
more 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 good
teaching" (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. Findings
from the questionnaires revealed a "disjunction between stated aims and claimed
educational practice" (Murray &'MacDonald, 1997, p. 331). In seeking to explain
this disjunction, Murray and MacDonald acknowledge that the participants could
have been influenced by "what they believed they should say" and/or could be "say-
ing what they would ideally like to do" (p. 345). In addition, they noted that "there
may also be a difference between reflecting on the idealised role of the lecturer and
reporting actual pracdcal experience" (p.343). It is possible that their 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 the
participants.
DataAnalysis Methods
Qualitative researchers "have been criticised for being unclear about research
methodology" (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 'of
responses" that took context and voice inflection into account (p.55). Both the data
gathering and data analysis methods of the study by Dunkin (1995) were unclear.
He described his "investigations ... [as] an exploration of [the participants']
thoughts about the most important ways in which they might enhance their students'
leaming" (p. 24). The participants' "concepts of teaching effectiveness" were
revealed through "careful analysis of the responses" (p. 24). Willcoxson's (1998)
description of the' method of analyzing the,data was as follows: "in analysing the
transcribed interview datait became clear. ." (p. 61). Rahilly and Saroyan (1997)
explained the process used to anive at their results as: "basically, the results pre-
sented in this section involve reading over the summaries in the same way that one
mightlook through a portfolio or a photo album and [walk] away tell[ing] someone
what you just saw.' (p. 6). We are unable to evaluate the usefulness of the findings
from these studies because we cannot be confident we understand the process used
to analyze the data.
Value ofMultiple Data Sources
Triangulation, the use of multiple data sources and research,methods, Which
allows the researcher to view the focus of inquiry from several vantage points, has
been called "the heart of qualitative research's validity" (Davidson & Tolich, 1999,
198
p. 34) . Lincoln and Guba;use the term trustivorthiinessof the research (as cited in
Creswell, 1998; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). In determining trustworthiness, one
could ask in what ways did the researchers plan "for a rigorous ciedible exploration
of [the] focus of inquiry"? (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p. 153). One method 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 in
the area of teacher beliefs have noted the importance of using multiplermethods to
investigate teacher beliefs (Richardson, 1996; Wideen et al., 1998). Accbrding to
Kagan-(1990), "the use of multimethod approaches appears.to be-superior, not 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 multiple
data sources to investigate' their focus of inquiry'(Ballantyne,et;al., 1999; Hativa,
1998; Martin et al.,'2000; Martin &Ramsden, .1993; McLean & Blackwell, 1997;
Mertz & McNeely, 1990',;Quinlan, 1999a, 1999b; Saroyan & Snell, 1997; Scott
et al., 1994). -!
Another method recommended by Lincoln aiidGuba to enhance trustworthiness
is the building ,of an audit trail (as cited in Maykut & Morehouse; 1994). An audit
trail is a collection of documents such as the researcher's journal, original interview
transcripts, field notes, coded data, and any other documentation' that would allow
the researcher to walk readers through the research step by step so that that they might
understand the path followed (Davidson &,Tolichi 1999; Maykut & Morehouse,
1994). An audit trail provides the reader with evidence of trustworthiness in that she
or he can start with the raw data and continue along the trail to determine for her- or
himself if, in fact, the trail leads to the outcomes claimed by the researcher. Some of
the researchers we reviewed provided a more complete audit trail than others. For
example, Fox's (1983) entire methods section consisted of the following: "For a
number of years I haye been,asking newly,appointed polytechnic teachers to tell me
what they mean by 'teaching' "(p. 151). From such a minimal description of process,
Fox went on to develop his conceptual model of teachinig that is widely cited in con-
temporary literature. In contrast, Pratt (1992) carefully outlined his methods in sec-
tions titled "phenomfenography 'as research imethodology," "'guiding frames of
reference," "data collection," and "data analysis." We joinf,with'Maykiit and More-
house (1994) when they write "by seeking to make the research process transparent
to the reader, we increase thelikelihood that'readers will seriously consider our
work" (p.146). I,
Implications ' I
ImplicationsforVUnderstanding University
I : ' t l Academics' Development as Teachers
It is common for university academics to have little or no formal preparation for
theirroleas teachers (e.g.,Boice,1992). Aspreparation forteaching,'university aca-
demics can be said to have completed an "apprenticeship of observation" during their
years 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"' in
the lecture theatre, classroom, or laboratory. As demonstrated by this critical review,
however, it is still unclear how university academics develop as teacher.s.'
199
The theories of action framework provides one avenue to gain a greater under-
standing of the development of university acadenics as teachers! From the studies
reviewed here, it is apparent that university teachers form beliefs or conceptions
about university teaching in general, and more specifically about their own aims and
intentions in the classroom. In addition, the reviewed studies, together with research
involving primary and secondary teachers, reinforce the importance of examining
teachers' practice in light of their espoused theories (e.g., Richardson, 1996; Thomp-
son, 1992; Young, 1998).
The theories of action framework used in this review offers a way to understand
university academics' development as teachers (Argyris & Sch6n, 1974). Argyris
and Schon argue that teachers can engage in theory building or theory learning
through critical examination of their own theories of action, a process that is typically
initiated via experiencing dilemmas or conflicts. According to Argyris and Sch6n,
dilemmas consist of conflicts in the relationship between theories of action and the
reality of practice. As demonstrated by this review of the literature, where there is no
distinction made between teachers' espoused theories and their theories-in-use, there
is little opportunity for dilemmas or conflicts to emerge or be identified.
This review reinforces the need for research that enables university academics
to make explicit their own theories-in-use and to interrogate these in light of
espoused theories and intentions. Kugel (1993) proposed a framework for univer-
sity teacher development and noted that developing university teachers "seldom
look at ... their assumptions" (p. 316). And Kember (1997) highlighted the need
for research that includes "investigations of the way in which conceptions of teach-
ing change over time" (p. 273). Research that examines both the espoused theories
and theories-in-use of university academics as they develop as teachers appears
to hold a great deal of potential to shed light 'on this important but infrequently
studied area.
Implicationsfor the ProfessionalDevelopment of UniversityAcademics

An important outcome of any research on university teaching is its application
in assisting novice or less experienced teachers in their development. In our critical
review of the literature, we found wide variation in the use made of research on
teacher beliefs for informing the potential academic development of tertiary teach-
ing staff. Some studies carefully developed the links between their findings and the
potential to assist staff development efforts aimed at improving tertiary teaching,
while others did not explore the link.
A number of studies highlighted the connection between their findings and pos-
sibilities for staff development. Martin et al. (2000) explained that teachers' inten-
tions, or orientations toward teaching, and the specific strategies that they employed
were driven by "the object of study" or what they wanted students to know (p.4 1 1).
And, thus, staff development efforts needed to take a more holistic picture of 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 I
r
200
* 'Telling Haifthe Story
Burroughs-Lange (1996) noted that "lecturers mainly have idiosyncratic,
intuitively-based knowledge about learning derived from their'experiences with
teaching and learning" (p. 47). She explained that her model was grounded in the par-.
ticular case study described in her report, and could and should serve as the basis for
professional development. She then justified the need for conceptual understanding
and change before a lecturer can be expected to improve his or her teaching. Ballan-
tyne et al. (1999) noted that "by examining the beliefs, concerns and approaches of
such practitioners, it is hoped that others may be challenged to reflect similarly on
their own teaching practice and on the values and beliefs which support it" (p. 238).'
They also explained that they were developing the materials they described in their
report in order, to use them in staff development. Gow et al. (1992) identified staff
development as part of the purpose of their research. They recommended -action
research as a vehicle to "focus on the concerns of the participants and,. . . make
changes in line with the practitioner's beliefs" (p. 146). Trigwell and Prosser (1996a)
took the opportunities for staff development further and used their research to create
"teaching developrnent programs" with a "major focus . .. on helping staff examine
and change their con6eptions of teaching and learning" (p. 283).
While the aforementioned studies did develop links between the teachers' 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 further
in 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 Study
Process Questionnaire 'to determine whether students were using a "deep approach,"
"surface approach," or "achieving approach" to study. Kember and Gow predicted
(and fourid) that the knowledge transmission orientation was positively correlated
with a surface a'pproach and that the learning facilitation orientation'was positively
co*related with deep and achieving approaches. They then restated a sentence from
their 1993 article: "This,study suggests that the methods of teaching adopted, the
learning tasks set, the. assessmeht deniands made and the workload specified are
strongly influenced by the orientation to teaching" (1994, p. 69). They directed staff
development toward changing lecturers' conceptions-from knowledge transmission
to learning facilitation in',order to promote deep learning and achieving study
approaches by students. They notedd
Such a change in conceptions would need the adoption' of an alternative
.!model of the teaching/learning process ... it is likely that such a shift in par-
adigmatic beliefs would have to be accompanied by a change in teaching
style-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 of
teaching identified in the higher education literature formed a "nested hierarchy"
(p. 335). They advocated for staff development that would "encourage colleagues
to develop more sophisticated' conceptions of learning and teaching" (p. 358).
Entwistle and Walker described the-poles of their hierarchy, with "the least devel-
oped conception . . .-as teacher-focused and content, oriented, with an emphasis
on the reproduction of correctinformation . . [and the most sophisticated] as ...
student-focused, learning-oriented, and.concerned with conceptual develop-
ment" (p. 341). ' ; ' '
201
Kane, Sandretto, and.Heath
We would argue that different conceptions of teaching and teaching methods or
styles are appropriate in different contexts. Several researchers have mentioned the
role that context plays in tertiary teaching (Laurillard, 1993; Murray & MacDonald,
1997; Pratt, 1992; Prosser et al., 1994; Quinlan, 1999b; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992;
Singer, 1996; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996b). Quinlan (1999b) explained that "research
on teaching in higher education has largely overlooked the contexts of teaching and
learning',' (p.448). This position is supported by Pratt, who stated "there is no single,
universal, best perspective on teaching adults" (1998, p. 11). Trigwell et al. (1994)
found that "the approach adopted by a teacher in a particular context is a function of
both the teacher and the context" (p. 77).
Other studies mentioned briefly, or not at all, the implications of their findings'for
staff development. While we acknowledge that this may not have been a central 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), and
Singer (1996) missed opportunities to linik the devel6pmentiof teachers' conceptions
to teachers' practices for staff development. Dunkin and Precians (1992) noted that
"there may be lessons in the above for novices to learn" (p. 501). Fox (1983) made
no mention of staff development implications, but rather recognized that some staff
members might have differing "perceptions of the process of teaching and learming"
and might feel a need to' reconcile those differences (p. 163). He explained that in
order to econcile' the differing viewpoints, they "will first have to be recognised and
made overt-and then the'y must be examined and discussed rationally and sensi-
tively" (p. 163). Murray and MacDonald (1997) explained that "if it is found that
conceptions are very firmly held, then it may be that institutions wish either to select
staff on the basis of an institutionally preferred conception, or to deploy staff to work
at a level or in an area best suited to their particular con6eption" (p. 347)-a proposal
that we find unduly pessimistic. Research on primary and secondary teachers makes
it clear that teachers' beliefs are resilient, but not impossible to, change:
If a program is to promote growth among novices, it must require them to-
make their preexisting personal beliefs explicit; it must challenge the ade-
quacy of those beliefs; and it must,give novices extended opportunities to
examine, elaborate, and integrate new information into their existing belief
systems. (Kagan, 1992a, p. 77)
An alternative to changing teachers' preexisting beliefs that warrants further
study is that of building on the beliefs that students (or teachers) bring with them to
teacher education' (or staff development) programs (Calderhead & Robson, 1991;
Wideen et al., 1998). Martin and Ramsden (1993) concluded from their staff devel-
opment efforts with a group of university teachers that "the knowledge, skills, and
the concepts must be integrated and reintegrated by, each teacher during a slow
process of gaining understanding" (p.155).
More Tesearchers are highlighting the importance of considering the beliefs and
conceptions that university academics,hold about teaching, learning, and students
when developing professional development programs (e.g., Burroughs-Lange,
1996; Entwistle & Walker, 2000; Hativa, 2000; Kember & Kwan, 2000; Trigwell
& Prosser, 1996a). Ho (2000) and Ho, Watkins, and Kelly (2001) have reported on
the outcomes of a staff development program using a conceptual change approach.
202
Telling HaIfthe Story
Briefly, Ho et al. (2001) developed a~program that assisted participants in;"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 plractice
to 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; surveyed
student perceptions of courses taught by the participants both before and after the
program; and assessed students' studying approaches in a course taught by the par-
ticipants both before and after the program. In addition, there was a control group
of four participants who had agreed to be part of the study and completed the full
data set but were unable to attend the program itself. I
The authors found that the six teachers who showed positive changes in their
conceptions of teaching also demonstrated "significant-improvement in their teach-
ing practices as perceived by their students" (p. 163), and three of these teachers
were able to "induc[e] a positive change in their students'"studying habits".(p. 163).
Ho et' al. concluded that their study "provid[es] evidence that a development in
teaching conceptions can lead to improvements in teaching practices and in student
learning" (p. 165). We believe that this type of program holds a great'deal of
promise in effecting long-term change- in the teaching practices of university aca-
demics by assisting them to become aware of their implicit beliefs, directly exam-
ining their teaching practice, and supporting their efforts to improve. -
ImplicationsforFuture Research
Roche and Marsh (2000) note that "there is unanimity among researchers and
practitioners that teaching is a comnlex activity consisting of multiple dimensions"
(p. 447)i Future research must pay more attention to the complexity of teaching when
attempting to further our understanding of university-level teaching. Our-discussion
of the studies included in this critical review should serve to emphasize the 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 teacher
beliefs and teaching practice in university and in primary and secondary school con-
texts. We argue
tiostoth that Apiayadn
resarch research on university teachingcould
ol eei efitfrom'closeratten-
frm loefr atn
tion to theresuearh in primary and secondary settinigs. In addition, there is scope for
fuert research that examines the coherence (and contradictions) between learning
to teach in formal'preservice primary and secondary programs and learning to teach
in situ within the' university context.
There are a nuniber of related research questions that deserve further attention:
* How do teachers' beliefs and conceptions.influence the'development 6f uni-
versity academics as teachers? . -
* How do teachers' beliefs and conceptions of teaching and teaching practice
change over time? . ' ' X" .
* How do teachers' beliefs and conceptions relate to their teaching practice at
'the university level? X ' I M
* If the theories-in-use of experienced university teachers are largely tacit and
difficult to articulate, how-can, researchers (and novice university teachers)
203
gain access to these and so make explicit and improve understanding of how
university teachers learn to teach?
This area holds exciting potential for developing more complex understandings of
university academics as teachers, which in turn has implications for the improve-
ment of university-level teaching.
Conclusions
Research into teachers' beliefs, conceptions, attitudes, orientations, (personal)
practical theories, and implicit or subjective theories about teaching is grounded in
the understanding that these concepts drive teachers' practices. For example, Pajares
(1992) noted that "few would argue [against the assumption] that the beliefs teach-
ers hold influence their perceptions and judgements, which, in turn, affect their
behavior in classrooms" (p. 307).
Researchers and reviewers in primary, secondary, and tertiary 'teaching have
noted the proliferation of terms and theories used to describe teacher beliefs and
conceptions (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Ethell, 1997;
Kagan, 1990, 1992a; Kember, 1997; Pajares, 1992; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992).
Pajares (1992) charged future researchers with "communicat[ing] ideas and results
as clearly aspossible using common terms" (p. 315). Itmaybe time for researchers
in the field of teachers' beliefs to agree upon common terminology and definitions
to aid further study. In addition, it would appear that sufficient conceptions of 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 the
various 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 'well
as about participants in the educational enterprise valuing and achieving quality
outcomes" (p. 101). Much of the current research into teachers' beliefs at the 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 practice
of teaching.
The research studies we have reviewed have contributed to a growing body of
literature that exarnines tertiary teachers' espoused beliefs. We remain unconvinced,
however, that the relationship between tertiary teachers' espoused beliefs and their
teaching practice has been investigated sufficiently thoroughly to draw any 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 coherent
relationship between what educators say and what they do is a disaster" (p. 55).
What is clear is that further research is needed to make explicit the links between
tertiary teachers' espoused theories and their teaching practice so that we can under-
stand better how university academics learn to teach and, especially, so that novice
teachers may benefit. One promising area that warrants further research is that of
self-study (e.g., Gibson, 1998). Scott et al. (1994) also highlighted this need for "fur-
ther study ... [that] could make more explicit the complexity of teaching particu-
larly for those who espouse alternative philosophies, assumptions and beliefs that
guide their teaching practice" (p. 24). In addition, we advocate that future studies
204
Telling Half the Story
be designed to enhance trustworthiness in the findings. iThere is also room for miore
explicit links between studies of teachers' espoused theories of action, theories-in-
use, and the implications for the development of tertiary teachers. Our own ongoing
research 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 HigherEducation, 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 professionaleffec-

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. EducationalResearch, 37, 53-70.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia,M. (1992). Cognitioni and curriculum. In'P. Jackson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 517-L542).'NeW York: Macmilian.,
Block, J. H., & Hazelip, K. (1995). Teachers' beliefs and belief systems. In-L. W.
'Anderson (Ed.', Ir,ternatio'nalencyclopedid of teaching and ieache'reducation (ind'
ed., pp. 25-28). New York: Pergamon Press. -
'
Boice, R.' (1992). The new faculty membe*: Supporting'andfostering professional'

development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ' ; ,
Brown, S., Bell, D:, &McDowell,'L. (1995). What makes agoodlecturerinhigher'edu-
'cation? Outcomes ofa'SCED/SEDA small-grant project. In B. Smithf& S. Brown'
(Eds.), Research, teaching and 'learningin highereducdtion (pp.108-116). London:
Kogan Page. '
Bruce, C., & Gerber, R. (1994). Toivards university lecturers' conceptions of student
learning. Centre fdr AppliedEnvironmental and Social Educational Research, 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 teacher
education. In B. J.-Biddle, T.L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), Intern`ationalhand--
book of teachersand teaching (pp. 79-134). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic. " -
Bullough, R. V. Jr. (1997b). Practicing theory and theorizing practice in teacher edu-
cation.'In J.Loughran & T. RIuseli (Eds.), Teaching about teaching. Purpose, pas--
sion andpedagogy in teachereducation. London: Falmer Press.'
Bullough, R.V. Jr., & Stokes, D. K.(1994). Analyzing personal teaching metaphors in
preservice teacher education as a means for encouraging professional development.
American EducationdlResearchJournal, 31, 197-224.
Burroughs-Lange, S. G. (1996). University lecturers' concept of theirrole' HigherEdu-
cationResearch and Development, 15; 29-49. '
Byme,E.M. (1993a). Womenandscience: Thesnarksyndrome.London:FalmerPress.
Byrne, E. (1993b, September). Women, science and the snark syndrome: Myths-out,
policy strategies in. Paper presented at the Women's Suffrage Centennial Science
Conference, Wellington, New Zealand. '
Calderhead, J. (1981).:Stimulated recall: A method.for research on: teaching. British

Journal of EducationalPsychology, 51, 211-217. ' a '
I E 0205
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: What
counts as "personal" in studies of the personal. Journalof CurriculumStudies, 19,
487-5 00.
Clandinin,' D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1991). Narrative and story in practice and
research. In D. A. Schon (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies inland on educa-
tionalpractice(pp. 258-281). New York: Teachers College Press.
Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contribu-
tions of research on teacher thinking. EducationalResearcher, 17(2), 5-12.
Clark, C.M.,.& Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C.Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York:
Macmillan.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.
EducationalResearcher, 19(5), 2-14.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2000). Knowledge, context and identity. In F. M.
SConnelly & D. J. Clandinin (Eds.), Shaping aprofessionalidentity: Stories of edu-
cationalpractice(pp. 1-5). New York: Teachers College Press.
Creswell,'J. W. (1998). Qua'litativeinquiry and researchdesign: Choosingamongfive
traditions.London: Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998). Thefoundations of social research:Meaning andperspective in the
researchprocess.London: Sage.
Dall'Alba, G. (1991, July). Foreshadowingconceptions of teaching. Paper presented
at the 16th Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development
Society of Australasia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Dall'Alba, G. (1993). The role of teaching in higher education: Enabling students to
enter a field of study and practice. LearningandInstnrction, 3, 299-313.
Dann, H. D. (1990). Subjective theories: A new approach to psychological research and
educational practice. In G. R. Semin & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Everyday 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:, Student
evaluation of lecturing as an improvement perspective for the lecturer. HigherEdu-
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 and
products. Higher Education, 20, 47-66.
Dunkin, M. (1995). Concepts of teaching and teaching excellence in higher education.
HigherEducation Research and Development, 14, 21-33.
Dunkin, M. J., & Precians, R. P. (1992). Award-winning university teachers' concepts
of teaching. HigherEducation, 24, 483-502.
Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher's practical knowledge: Report of a case study. Curricu-
lum Inquiry, 11, 42-71.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacherthinking:Astudy ofpracticalknowvledge.London: Croom Helm.
Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teachers' knowledge: The evolution of a discourse. Jour-
nal of CurriculumStudies, 23, 1-19.
206
-TellingHaif the Story,
Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs
about "good teaching": An integration of contrasting research areas. HigherEduca-
tion Research and Development, 19, '19-26. I
Entwistle, N., &Walker, P. (2000). Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within
/sophisticated conceptions of teaching. InstructionalScience, 28, 335-361.
Ethell, R!i G. (1997). Reconcilingpropositionalandproceduralknowledge: Beginning
teachers' knowledge in action. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Griffith'University,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.- !: ' ,, 1 I 4
Ethell, R. G., & McMeniman, M. M. (2000). Unlocking the knowledge in action' of an
expert practitioner. Journalof TeacherEducation, 51, 87-101.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational
'Research, 38,'47-65.-
Fenstermacher, G.D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge iin
research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond(Ed.), Review of research in education
(Vol. 20, pp. 3-56). Washingt6n, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Fishbein, M., &Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief attitude, intentionand behavioi..Reading,MA:'
Addison-Wesley. . . I
Fox, D.'(1983).Personal the6ries of teaching. Studies in HigherEducation,8, 151 -163.
Freeman, D. (1991). "To make the tacit explicit": Teacher education, emerging dis-
course, and conceptions of teaching. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 7, 439-454.
Freire, P. (1998). Teachersasculturalworkers:ELettersto those who dare teach. Boul-
der, CO: Westview Press. A l
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educationalresearch:An introduction
(6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gibson, L. S. (1998). Teaching as an encounter with the self: Unraveling the mix of
personal beliefs, education ideblogies, and pedagogical practices. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 29, 360-371.
Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to stu
dent learning. British Journalof Educati6nalPsychology, 63, 20-33.
Gow, L., Kember, D., & Sivan, A.(1992).'Lecturers' views of their teaching practices:
Implications for,staff development needs.,HigherEducation Research and Devel-.
opment, 11, 135-149.
Grossman, P.L. (1990). A tale of two Hamlets. In The making of a,teacher: Teacher,
knowledge and teacher education (pp. 1-18). New York:,Teachers CollegelPress.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991). Ways of seeing are ways of knowing. The pedagogical
content knowledge of an expert English teacher. Journalof C'urriculumStudies, 23,,
409-421. .,
Hativa, N. (1993). Attitudes towards instruction of faculty in mathemaiics and te
physical sciences.' InternationalJournalof Mathematics Education, Science and.
Technology,24, 579-593.
Hativa,N. (1997, March). Teaching in a researchuniversity. Professors'conceptions,T
practices,,and disciplinarydifferences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Hativa, N. (1998). Lack of clarity in university teaching: A case study. HigherEduca-
tion, 36, 353-381.
Hativa,: N. (2000). Becoming a better teacher: A case of changing the pedagogical
knowledge and beliefs of law professors. InstructionalScience,,28, 491-523.
Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge
and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. Journalof Higher
Education, 72, 699-729.
Hermes, L. (1999). Learner assessment through subjective theories and action research.
Assessment and Evaluation in HigherEducation,24, 197-204.
207
Hillier, Y. (1998). Informal practitioner theory: Eliciting the implicit. Studies in the
Education of Adults, 30, 35-52.
Ho, A. S. P. (2000). A conceptual change approach to staff development: A model for
programme design.lnternationalJournalforAcademic Development, 5, 30-41.
Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to 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. Community
College Journalof 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 HigherEducation, 1, 213-225. .
Kagan, D. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the
Goldilocks principle. Review of EducationalResearch, 60, 419-469.
Kagan, D. M. (1992a). Implications of research on teacher belief. EducationalPsy-
chologist, 27, 65-90.
Kagan, D. M. (1992b). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers.
Review of EducationalResearch, 62, 129-169.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics'
conceptions of teaching. Learning andInstruction, 7, 255-275.
Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality
of student learning. Journal of HigherEducation, 65, 58-74.
Kember, D., & Kwan', K. (2000). Lecturers' approaches to teaching and their relation-
ship to conceptions of good teaching. InstnrctionalScience, 28, 469-490.
Kember, D., Kwan, K.-P., & Ledesma, J. (2001). Conceptions of good teaching and
how they influence the way adults-and school leavers are taught. InternationalJour-
nal of Lifelong Education, 20, 393-404.
Kreber, C. (2000). How university teaching award winners conceptualise academic
work: Some further thoughts on the meaning of scholarship. Teaching in Higher
Education,5, 61-78.
Kugel, P. (1993). How professors develop as teachers. Studies in HigherEducation,
18, 315-328.
LaBerge, V. B., Sons, L. R., & Zollman, A.' (1999). Awareness of NCTM standards,
mathematics beliefs, and classroom piactices 'ofmnathematics faculty at the collegiate
level. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 21, 30-47.
LaBerge, V. B., Zollman, A., & Sons, L. R. (1997, March). Awareness, beliefs and
classroompracticesof mathematicsfaculty at the collegiate level. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Larsson, S. (1986). Learning from experience: Teachers' conceptions of changes in
their professional practice. Journalof CurriculumStudies, 19, 35-43.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching. London: Routledge.
Leinhardt, G.(1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. EducationalResearcher,
19(2),18-25.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.'
Marland, P. (1987).'Response to Clandinin and Connelly. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 19, 503-505. i ,
Marland, P. W. (1995). Implicit theories of teaching. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), 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 implicationsfor
-learning. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Higher Education
Research Association, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
208
Telling Half the Story
Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K.,, Ramsden, P., & Benjamin, J. (2000). What uni-
versity teachers teach and how-they teach it. InstructionalScience, 28, 387-412.
Martin, E., & Ramsden, P. (1993). An expanding aware6ness: How lecturers change
their understanding of teaching. Research and Development in Higher Education,
15,148-155.' I, I , f Ie ,
Maykut, P., &'Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research:A philosophic
andpracticalguide. London: Falmer Press. " "
McAlpine, L., &Weston, C. (2000). Reflection: Issues related to improving professors'
teaching and students' learning. InstnrctionalScience, 28, 363-385.
McLean, M., &-Blackwell, R. (1997). Opportunity knocks? Professionalism and excel-
lence in uniiversity teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,3, 85-99.
Meade, P., & McMeniman, M. (1992). Stimulated recall-An effective methodology
for examining successful teaching inscience. Australian EducationalResearcher,
19(3),1f-1 1.
Menges, R. J., & Rando, W.' C. (1989). What are-your assumptions? Improving instruc-
'tion by examining theories. College Teaching, 37(2),'54-60. 1
Mertz, N., & McNeely, S. (1990, April). How professors "learn" to teach. 'Teacher
cognitions, teachingparddigmsand teachereducation. Paper presented at the annual,
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1993). Tracing conceptual change in preservice teachers.
Teaching and TeacherEducation, 9, 15-26.
Moses, I., & Ramsden, P. (1992). Acadernic values and academic practice in the new
universities. HigherEducationResearch anud Development,' 11, 1017118.
Munby, H. '(1982). Thle place of teachers' beliefs in research on teacher thinking and
decision making, and an alternative methodology. InstnrctionalScience, 11,201-225.
Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative approach to the study of a teacher's beliefs. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 27-38. -
Murray, K., &,MacDonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers' conceptions
of teaching and their claimed educational practice. HigherEducation, 33, 331-349.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journalof 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 in
HigherEducation, 23, 43-58.,
Ormrod, J. E., & Cole, D. B. (1996). Teaching content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge: A model from geographic education. Journal of Teacher Edit-
cation, 47, 37-42.
Pajares, M. F. (1992), Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Reviewv of EducationalResearch, 62, 307-332.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacitdimension. New York: Doubleday.
Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching.AdultEducation Quarterly, 42, 203-220.
Pratt, D. D. (1998). Fiveperspectives on teaching in adultand higher education. Mal-
abar, FL: Krieger.
Pratt, D. D., Kelly, M., & Wong, W. S. S. (1999). Chinese conceptions of 'effective
teaching' in Hong Kong: Towards culturally sensitive evaluation of teaching. Inter-,
national JournalofLifelong Education, 18, 241-258.,
Prosser, M., &Trigwell, K. (1997)L Relations between perceptions of the teaching envi-
ronment and approaches to teaching. British Journalof EducationalPsychology, 67,
,25-35. , " '
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., &'Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of acade-

mics"' conceptions of science learning.and teaching.'Learningand Instruction, 4,
217-231.
209
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of
cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), Internationalhand-
book of teachersand teaching (pp. 1223-1296). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
Quinlan, K. M. (1999a, April). Building bridges: The scholarlydimensions offaculty
beliefs about engineering education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Quinlan, K. M. (1999b). Commonalities and controversy in context: A study of aca-
demic historians' educational beliefs. Teaching andTeacherEducation,15, 447-463.
Rahilly, T. J., & Saroyan, A. (1997, March). Characterizingpoorandexemplaty teach-
ing in highereducation: Implicationsforfacultydevelopment. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Rando, W. C., & Menges, R. J. (1991). How practice is shaped by personal theories.
New Directionsfor Teaching andLearning, 45, 7-14.
Reid, D. J., & Johnston, M. (1999). Improving teaching in higher education: Student
and teacher perspectives. EducationalStudies, 25, 269-281.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research.
Review of EducationalResearch, 69, 53-82.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula
(Ed.), Handbookof researchon teachereducation (pp. 102-119). New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Roche, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2000). Multiple dimensions of university teacher self-
concept. InstructionalScience, 28, 439-468.
Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic
teachers. HigherEducation, 24, 93-111.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting acadernics' beliefs about teaching
and learning. HigherEducation, 41, 299-325.
Sandretto, S., Ethell, R., & Heath, C. (2002, April).A teachinginterventionprogramme
fornovice lecturers:The value of a personalapproach.Paper presented-at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Saroyan, A., & Snell, L. S. (1997). Variations in lecturing styles. Higher Education,
33, 85-104.
Scott, S. M., Chovanec, D. M., & Young, B. (1994). Philosophy-in-action in univer-
sity teaching. CanadianJournalof HigherEducation, 24(5), 1-25.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judg-
ments, decisions, and behavior. Review of EducationalResearch, 51, 455-498.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Har-
vard EducationalReview, 57, 1-22.
Singer, E. R. (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research in
HigherEducation, 37, 659-679.
Tamir, P. (1991). Professional and personal knowledge of teachers and teacher educa-
tors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 263-268.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the
research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning(pp. 127-146). New York: Macmillan.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996a). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational
perspective. Studies in HigherEducation, 21, 275-284.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996b). Congruence between intention and strategy in uni-
versity science teachers' approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77-87.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches
to first year university science. HigherEducation, 27, 75-84.
Trumbull, D. J. (1990). Evolving conceptions of teaching: Reflections of one teacher.
CurriculumInquiry, 20,161-182.
210
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., van Werven, H. I., & Dekkers, H. (1997). Teachers' craft
knowledge and curriculum innovation in higher efigineering education. HigherEdu-
cation, 34, 105-122.
Warkentin, R.; W., Bates, J. A., & Rea, D. (1993, February).Discontinuitiesin science
teachers' inistructionalbeliefs and practicesacross Artade levels. Paper presented at
the Eastern Educational Research Association Symposium on ScienceTeaching,
Clearwater Beach, FL. -
Weinstein, C. S. (1990). Prospective elenientary te'achers' beliefs about teaching:
Implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 279-290.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., &Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research
on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological' perspective on inquiry.
Review of EducationalResearch, 68, 130-178. -
Wildman, T. M., Niles, J. A., Magliaro, S. G., & McLaughlin, R. A. (1990).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 inHligherEducation, 23, 59-70.
Wineburg, S. S. (1987). The self-fulfillment of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Educational
Researcher, 16(9), 28-37.
Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the con-
struct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programmuing in the
21st century. Journal of TeacherEducaiion, 51, 39-49.
Young, L. J. (1998). Overcomning silences: Comment on 'Teaching-as an encounter
with the self: Unraveling the mix of personal beliefs; education ideologies, and 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 nith.kane@st6nebowv.otago.ac.nz. Her
research 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; e-mail-susan.sandretto@stonebow.otago.acnz.
Her research interests include teacher education, educational equity, and teaching for
social justice. ', '
CHRIS HEATH is Director of the Otago Higher Educaioni Developrment Centre; University
of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand; e-mail chrisheath@stonebow.6tago.ac.nz.
His research specializations include academic staff development, teaching in higher edu-
cation, and medical education.
*,
211'
E-e q
3 on82tg.o3
.S o =or . o -, r
_3a
>: -:0 t42
0 IC)
.5 o v
ta 0)
o Ei 8, 2 M
Ei jg - = 0
o lo, V4
U in In C-4
0 00 :3 'a= S
0 P, P
'o cq
r-
-53 C%
40. 0 U,- t;
-a a m
GMU6
P-4 >1
40 a o C.)
C, 0 0
0.0 U 0 ou 0) P C\ 'IT .0 -0
C\
cn
=3
L)
40.
t) o
0 E C) C)
o n > o0
.r-: Id
.!i m
8 ,,
M zn
in=D
3 eo Ca a; , =
= A <
z t 5 0 :-
ci C,
¢ = P (7, ,
Wi = cli
;g,. M
4
212
_~~~~t 0 I
u
I .-S
U
:, 11
t0O a a= !Ceio C0c
¢0S _5 C) 0< 3
om Y
I. m B 'P ;
e
0
0
0 x
bow °° qoo , 1, , . z Y r
t33. ° 8a 0 O 2 |* ¢ |
E
o.ac.>
t E , E E 3ts E - o
.= , w
,lE e a e
i
3r >
0 =
> < Xs
*t r 'C
O _ 0
6 -
,oo 0 It0 <,
4 l
0 o.
r
S
o ,i
to . , N => I
. ~~ ~ ~ c 0
Co -0 o
CE os~~~~~~~C
213
0Qo_ tib_a
3~~~~ *eao i;
c~ ~~~. ;g -2¢=
IL) 0 o nt
u, w
214
.&s 4
o C to 0 - ~ CC
. C '0
u C'--C) ~
C 0- D50C *u o 0 Un U, U
to u 0
:
0v A
0C .
o ° 'O
0
U,
.
L..
C-
O
0. .0.
CUe CD '.
C> .oS
00 -0 Z
A >.-Z W
E C)
>~~~~~
C, 0.= o
_
L
n0
I I, .
I. o U, o - C
C)-
- O
F
O CC__f
U,
.0 C) -1
U*
U
a C) I.-
0
o° O C)C
3, cL. 2
2C -o
) n2 oC)
0 0
u 'U -
oo
.. 0 .C
o eo
OC = r.. 00
O oX
S0
C)
- O 0\
00 .0
I.! 74
<.- C)= cn0 0 C\
U, -~ -
Xo m U,'
.0
C
215
C)
.s.-
C- 0
'3
I0.
C's
4)O co
4)~
P40
I-
_4 . CY
0.
O
>,
p. 4i2
Q~ .;
CZo
3,
CU
0
4)
34
4) C)
U,
0n
4)
I . 4)-
*C 0tc ._
-S 0.
L. 4)
4) 00
00
C' C °
4)4)O O
E- ZA L)4
'4- U,
4)c . 4
P)
o .4
03
4) 4): 4 ) -
P'.
-. ). - U,
0
00
0R O 4
C4)4 'C C).

-V3 o 0.' 0.
C) ,
j-
= .t
0n
'I1 0%
¢4<',
3-
> )
216
a a:, C. C
h 8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tw o t ^.- ° 30*-°
_
. - Q > . .a Yo ,- ji B S E = t. ~~~~~~'r - O OcS
= r ct crs
Z r. ._4 o-ip o to 3ocrow
_
a 2 . > NCS.
>C -0 , >. , .
0 QE* yx>o* o: QC=;
3Qoc . o , e = _ X _ .r ;s -r5 : 0, o
y~~~~~~~~~~ 3 Ar. tn t) - 0=.-^

T1~~~~~~~~ > 0
~~~~~~~~~~~-
07, ,a 90: = 5: 0j w > C) _r 0
-.j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 0 00 I [ ;
> neO Nce ;
X + ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ 1
217
I I
0~~~~~~~~~1
0~~~
o C)
0~~~)
P..-R 4
.0 .0
~~~~~~~~~O)Z
~~~o 0
C) '1-, 2m
L)
0.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
> = O
C)
0 t
0~~~~~~~~
~~~C~~~3 otoF
Cl)
oII
~~~~~~~-C)
~~~~~~~
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e
218
zDo
j
u 9 . - c ° .~~~~= 0 0 -= w
r-~~~~~~~~~
|~~~~~~~~~~~2. ; E 2
o oi 3h
D' 1 i|
y 2EQ- °=0
E3 i'
IL
'r EO ;ba u C.
_ O 'i
0-~ ~'o o o i3E

*a 0'
P. 't 'o P4 0
.4
t ~ ~~
-t 4>oX
C C >~~
o
X X 0 00
C)L5.4
U)
0
*3
I '
. C) C .D0
_ 0
0 1
C14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3 to
C\O *
O °
° 0M
I219
I II
II
1 1
c4 * ,3 .= p*, r 2 Y g E e 2 >0 3
E enag s- -- r-z-a- - E.~-a-~~
E 0
l:;~~~~~~
Q==. 0,
ei _ > o u0=S
D
5 U Ca >
Y 0
- ,0~~~~~~~~~~~~0
00
U
D U
2 0
o"
Z3 .0.0
0 C)~~~~~~~~~
0- .. Z==C
.)0M
E-O
Uib
220
-ON tn ,ZU
.-_
0
C)0 -
'.- 0O
0 C)
L 0 *= 0
a
-
O 0
C0
G4
~ 2
o~~~~ )-
_.'O
a-
0C)o04
i
o cn o
0I.
to
N
.4In,o U, *. 0
0 a -...
.2,
0-4 0
4
~0~.
;C)
a-.
0'W
.0
,0G 0 - U
, 0S
C)
C)a ~ ~ ~
'C) Ul
a-
a-
0 40
to
a- 4 'S
Q
C0 't
_.0 ;
44
C)
. C
U,
0 C
C - )
E2- :3 ri 0
o0 > . O
0
C)
- W,
_4
\O0
*0 ,
wU
i 0C-
N
0Z 0 >~ 3 C02
04 0, '-
W -Z)
o 00
0 -Z C 0 0c
0
ax, °.OitS,
fi 2S QP , 6,lCj.=,2
C)>.C Z 004'
tto 0
0 0 .
) _0
a- C).
U, 5f C) '
0 U~0
0 W >- 0. W~0
*.) a..
04
0C U
U U C)
.'
. .9
.) U.
mC)- 0'* C)
0
0 ca U, E.
04 Ci .
3I 0 o00
-.
aIeo s: . i-0S
SC
, a,
221
CC
'0
CC C3C
.tn '0 0 o >
C)0
C 00 C) C )C) C) 0
C*
C) ., , - E_
C
0 .. 4:2 .~ EP
c C) C.)
CZ )
C4
.0
'0 .A
C)
C) C) '0 C)
C)
I-.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ Ei. C) 0
'0 *3
a C) CC
En
9 C )
V
C.) a )-
CC OC o
'C)
0'
.5
CC0C
I C) C 0 w
UM
oC)
S .
C,,
C)
r-0 E C -o
C) C) '- 0 0
B o
V Q = CC4
VI
_ tti ~ 00
C.) - 00 -4
C.) C._._)
5 C)
.a!
cn
_ : ::j
10
0 u~~~C
0
CS CC) C) 0CZ:
'S).9
C) C) '0
C)4 C)C)i
C).-
cC
0
0,
CC C)
r-
C)
0
u
', -a
u
C)
C3%
C .)C
z 0 9 .C.
¢ G C\ M
C-, 0'\ '0
~-0 -
_
a)
CS
222
0 g > > 4 ~
a 0 -s
CsC..
ZS
S= 3 1 '
ZS $ S
U, *
Q)° S 00 0 O
C),, o
cj 0. U
0 I
---
U, = t
U, 0
0- C.) C)B i
C.-
4C) C
,O
. . 0 n
r- Qq4.. .
:i 0,
u t
C) c)
I- I.
00
U, U
C >4
U,U
C.)
-
s s
0
a) tn
4- -
0. -b
I
0 sU
C),
0. 0 ,
C.) C)
C)
0 C)
U 0..
-. 5
s,
C)
>4. 0 t- En
0 0 . I 'I) M
R) ;
I-.m . ~ ~~~~~~
1 s
223
Ca -d
a C
'n
*% En
.1 At g .> r Q
to Q*>-- Q =U C
0
U O
0 ao
U >o }gE}W °0 .n'
a o g~~~ <
C ai
o7 -s ~0 ci
a
*0
o o. c3 r.
.5
CZ,
Q
~~~
~ 0
o~~~~ -
CS ~ ~~~
cq
En, 0
Q °~~~~~1
Ca U
e
~~~~~~4
20 U, ~ c
0n X 0
C.) .- -A
a.-
U
u,
U2
U, U C' e
C-A0 '0 o
U,
0.
0
U,
.
fU 0 16
u mq
Ca.,
= U
-0R
0
0
i0 U3 a
C%
Ct O
-bN C 12-a C7 C*
;- 0 C- , - 0'%
032 o,
En
H
' 0 ~
224
42
o U 0 D- .o .0 >
o .. 0 )
-'-
* l~ x JU
U, C) C_ ,o
,_ a;r
U,o
1. 0.>
'0O
C),Ccn
U_,
O) '5> O
C *C E
CU '0
'a , j ... C C
'0 0.
0.R
C)1
0' C).
U,
C)
'0
.0
C.) I - ; >1
u)
ot) ci
0
P_
C) :*
I 0
cUi
cn c) . c
oa) a).,
c 3
c)
cO
00
0
C) ~C.0C)U ~ ~CU ~ ~ U,
C
S °r a o )U,E
- °U~8 8 °- o
W>r oz CUs
C) U, 0.
l3C6H3)UXS to~~~~~C wbC o
0~ 0. W a oU ra)a
Q t C GQ oi0 0'0 *°
In cn
= c,
0 0
cU
0
*,= *-,=
'-_
0
0 C) c,°
i
C.)
eC) u=r a)
I 0
c I:b
u
o
o _-
=C
~C*
N -
t' , W CU
.
CU
-n U o ~
:d;. 6 Ei Cal
I I,
225
s
C)
O.-m
II
I U,3 0 0> .) o H 0
o
u s,
Ca
C)C) I C)a
C)0 r 4
C.)
U 2 P.4
0'
0 .E, C)E
0 1 0 >>
C. 't
.0
- o- 'C)
)a CL. S5
) s: a -E C = =
0_ >d' C') a
> C)
W
0 0 a
C: -C) >
L. -) CO *
C) 0 C
3- 03 0
0 _ 3, 3-.- C)
3-
>O. ._ F3o ui I,, oa
3- .0
C)
'C.) Ca,
C) C.
'3 Z; 2a i Ut
O) )
0
3-u C.)-
o X _g o = 3-~~C
> >C)
C)3g
ress S *,
C) s3 > ,
U,
C) CIn
C.)
Si CU
)
o .! *5
0
C; J?
C.
" C.) I0
a).-
= .0
0
4) ._~ u 0~
'3 ti
Cs
-='
C)
Z :r 0 0~
,s, C,
a o 0 :a U
,, C'It
009 t
s O o s- C%) ._
a C Ci)
¢2 = w
>~m
u/2
226
M
.Q .t a
r. 4
0 .;
C*P.
-o 8
O C3
C. C
C)E
. i
I 0 E ,r _ C I N
Q4 >
.C
r _ , o,_ . =w.2
l O_ e
D' p Y R 3 0 ,Co
C
C)
ca
o= 00
~ *te°POtC .e Q0 1< tt WrC'g3
r0
Cs°4
u~:
a) oo _ 5,>C) o.o.
c )
cn 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o2
._t
. _ o
co
C~ °
1 0 i2
o ;=
oC. t
CO -3 C
: e) u*3 =C;- 64 r- =Rto =
4
to
A
Ut.
M
c 0 t)
c
0
c- 21
u 4 - I u
X Ut E ~~~~~o
N
'r C M C3
>t t~ o
,, O - xnCC
32g vo a rg~~~t
r. >Q6
Cs,
227
0
0
cl:
.5
cn
m
Ci0
U cS
:U -
ri
0 U,
.E
G
.0 0. U
X2
*.na) . .~
O 0~~~~
:3
o =
40. Ei 0
0.
0
= ti U
Ut 32 0 00
YA:;-
0 ~ I
228
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: Telling Half the Story: A Critical Review of Research

on the Teaching Beliefs and Practices of University
Academics
SOURCE: Review of Educational Research 72 no2 Summ 2002
WN: 0219600924002
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.aera.net/.
Copyright 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

Kane

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Kane

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Reviewv of EducationalResearch

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

Telling Half the Story: A iCritical Review of

I ' 2- .Ruth Kane,

A criticalreviewvofresearchon teachingbeliefs andpracticesofuniversityaca-

Background- Research on Primary and Secondary Teachers

Why Study the Beliefs Academics Have About Teaching?

A Theoretical Framework: Theories of Action

Findings: Unsupported and Supported Claims

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

* transmitting the teachers' knowledge

* helping students to acquire teachers' knowledge t S

In this analysis of the transcripts, Trigwell Tand Prosser found "consistency in

* transmitting structured knowledge

Studies That Do Not Report Teaching PracticeBased on

- ethodsfor Examining Teachers' Beliefs.

Implicationsfor the ProfessionalDevelopment of UniversityAcademics

Argyris, C., & Sch6o, D. (1974j. The'ory in practice:'Increasing professionaleffec-

Boice, R.' (1992). The new faculty membe*: Supporting'andfostering professional'

Calderhead, J. (1981).:Stimulated recall: A method.for research on: teaching. British

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., &'Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of acade-

,oo 0 It0 <,

C4)4 'C C).

y~~~~~~~~~~ 3 Ar. tn t) - 0=.-^

> neO Nce ;

0-~ ~'o o o i3E

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

TITLE: Telling Half the Story: A Critical Review of Research

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

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

Вам также может понравиться