A follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education

High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 DOI 10.1007/s10734-007-9087-z A follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education Liisa Postareff Æ Sari Lindblom-Ylänne Æ Anne Nevgi Published online: 13 August 2007 Ó Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract The present follow-up study examines the effect of university teachers pedagogical training on approaches to teaching and self-efficacy beliefs measured by Approaches to Teaching Inventory and an additional part measuring motivational strategies. The effect of pedagogical training on teaching is analysed among 35 teachers who had not participated in pedagogical courses after the first measurement in 2004 as well as among 45 teachers who had acquired more pedagogical training after the first measurement. The results showed that there were more positive changes in the measured scales among teachers who had acquired more credits of pedagogical courses since the year 2004 than among teachers who had not acquired more credits. The results of the first and second measurements are compared. Keywords Approaches to teaching Conceptions of teaching Pedagogical training Self-efficacy beliefs Teaching experience Introduction In most European countries, teachers in higher education do not need a certificate of teaching competencies. However, the quality of university teaching has been discussed in recent years, and the need to improve university teachers teaching skills and pedagogical thinking is now acknowledged to be essential. Many countries have made decisions about the compulsory pedagogical training of university teachers (Gibbs and Coffey 2004; Sonesson and Lindberg Sand 2006; van Keulen 2006). However, in Finland the training is not compulsory, but it is common that new teachers take some pedagogical courses. According to the strategy of the University of Helsinki (Strategic plan for the years L. Postareff (&) S. Lindblom-Ylänne A. Nevgi Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education, Department of Education, University of Helsinki, P.O.Box 9, Helsinki 00014, Finland e-mail: liisa.postareff@helsinki.fi

30 High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 2007 2009, University of Helsinki 2006) the aim of teacher training at the University of Helsinki should be to change teachers approaches to teaching to be more student-centred and less teacher-centred. From teacher-centred to student-centred approaches to teaching The way academic teachers approach their teaching has been studied since the early 1990s. These studies have identified a range of different approaches to teaching, which vary from teacher-centred approaches to student-centred approaches. Teacher-centred teaching is described as a way of teaching in which students are considered to be more or less as passive recipients of information which is transmitted from the teachers to the students. Thus, it is argued that knowledge is constructed by the teacher and the students are expected to learn factual knowledge. On the other hand, student-centred teaching is described as a way of teaching which sees teaching as facilitating students learning processes. Transmission of knowledge and course contents may be a component, but the aim is to promote students own knowledge production processes (e.g., Trigwell and Prosser 1996; Biggs 1999; Prosser and Trigwell 1999; Trigwell et al. 1999; Vermunt and Verloop 1999; Kember and Kwan 2000). However, teaching in higher education is a complex phenomenon and a strong opposite positioning of the two approaches might easily lead to a simplified view of the phenomenon. Approaches to teaching are, however, contextual and relational in a way that they have been shown to vary from one teaching context to another (Samuelowicz and Bain 1992; Prosser and Trigwell 1999; Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006), although some researchers have argued that the approaches are stable (Kember and Kwan 2000). More specifically, the student-centred approach has been found to be more sensitive to contextual effects (Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006). Moreover, most teachers are found to apply simultaneously elements of both approaches in their teaching while a minority of teachers approach teaching purely in either student-or teacher-centred terms (Postareff et al. in press). The simple either/or relationship between the two approaches could be better described as an and relationship (Åkerlind 2003; see also Postareff et al. in press). While teachers approach teaching in diverse ways, they also hold different conceptions of teaching. Teachers conceptions of teaching have been shown to affect the way teachers approach their teaching. Teachers who conceive teaching as transmitting knowledge are more likely to adopt a teacher-centred approach to teaching, while those who conceive teaching as facilitative are found to use more student-centred approaches (Samuelowicz and Bain 1992; Prosser et al. 1994; Kember 1997; Kember and Kwan 2000; Eley 2006). Teachers conceptions of teaching do not necessarily develop with increased teaching experience (Norton et al. 2005; Richardson 2005). However, teachers should be helped to apply student-centred approaches instead of teacher-centred approaches (Trigwell and Prosser 1996; Samuelowicz and Bain 2001) because the student-centred approach to teaching is likely to have a positive effect on student learning (Trigwell et al. 1999). There is some evidence that pedagogical training organised for university teachers enhances the adoption of more student-centred approaches (Gibbs and Coffey 2004; Postareff et al. 2007). Some researchers emphasise that a change in conceptions of teaching is considered to be a prerequisite to a change in teaching practices (e.g., Ho et al. 2001; Oosterheert and Vermunt 2003). However, the opposite effects have also been reported (Guskey 2000), so that changes in teaching practices are seen to occur before changes in conceptions. Conceptions of teaching change slowly, and hence, teachers should be made aware of the

High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 31 possible delay in more sophisticated conceptions (see e.g., Oosterheert and Vermunt 2003). However, there is still little evidence that conceptions of teaching and approaches to teaching change as a result of formal training. In general, researchers hold different views of the effectiveness of training of university teachers. Research on the effect of pedagogical training on university teachers teaching Studies on the effect of pedagogical training of university teachers on teaching present different views of the effectiveness of pedagogical training. Norton et al. (2005) found no differences in teaching beliefs and intentions between teachers who had participated in a pedagogical programme and teachers who had no training. However, more positive results of the effectiveness of pedagogical training have also been presented. Gibbs and Coffey (2004) showed, by using the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Prosser and Trigwell 1999) that by the end of the 4 18 month training programs teachers became less teachercentred and more student-centred. Similarly, Coffey and Gibbs (2000) found positive effects of pedagogical training on academics teaching. After completing two- and threesemester long training programmes teachers showed significant improvements in scores measuring learning, enthusiasm and organisation. However, Postareff et al. (2007) showed that approaches to teaching change slowly. The results of a cross-sectional study implied that an intensive pedagogical training is needed until positive changes on approaches to teaching emerge. Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers A teacher s efficacy belief is a judgment about his/her capabilities to get students engaged in the learning process to achieve the desired learning outcomes (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy 2001). Bandura defines self-efficacy as generative capability in which cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioural sub skills must be organised and effectively orchestrated to serve innumerable purposes. Perceived self-efficacy is a belief that one can perform using one s skills and abilities adequately in a certain circumstance (Bandura 2000, pp. 36 37). In the present study, self-efficacy beliefs are determined as a teacher s beliefs regarding his/her ability to perform academic tasks (see Lindblom-Ylänne and Nevgi 2003; Trigwell et al. 2004). Teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs are likely to engage in a wide range of more productive teaching practices than teachers with low self-efficacy (Gordon and Debus 2002). Moreover, novice teachers have been shown to score lower in teacher self-efficacy than career teachers (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy 2007). However, the research focusing on university teachers self-efficacy beliefs is scarce. Bailey (1999) conducted research that focused on academics motivation and self-efficacy concerning research and teaching. He found that gaining higher research qualifications increased academics motivation and self-efficacy for doing research, but not with teaching. The low success in research was correlated with higher motivation in teaching. The present study reports on a longitudinal follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical training. The results of the present study are compared to the results of the previous study, which was conducted in 2003. The study analysed the effect of pedagogical training on approaches to teaching and on self-efficacy beliefs with 200 teachers. In the cross-sectional study the participants were divided into four groups, depending on how much pedagogical

32 High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 training for university teachers they had. Differences between the four groups on scales measuring the approaches to teaching and teachers self-efficacy beliefs were analysed. The aim of the present study is twofold. First, the aim is to analyse the long-term effect of pedagogical training on conceptual change/student-focused (CCSF) and information transmission/teacher-focused (ITTF) approaches to teaching and on self-efficacy beliefs among teachers who have not participated in pedagogical courses after the previous study (Postareff et al. 2007) conducted two years ago. Second, the study aims to explore, by using a longitudinal setting, the effect of pedagogical training on teaching among teachers who have now more pedagogical training than in the previous study. The results of the previous and the present study are compared. Methodology Pedagogical courses at the University of Helsinki At the University of Helsinki teachers participate in pedagogical courses on a voluntary basis. The teachers are highly motivated and there are hardly any drop-outs. The aim is to take all the teachers who are inclined to participate in pedagogical courses. The majority of pedagogical courses at the University of Helsinki are organised by the Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education. However, the four campuses of the university have their own development units which organise their own basic teacher-training courses. The Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education is, however, responsible for the design of all courses (Lindblom-Ylänne and Hämäläinen 2004). The participants of the present study have participated in pedagogical courses organised by three development units. The university offers three levels of pedagogical courses, which build on each other. The aim of the short courses on learning and instruction in higher education (approximately 10 12 ECTS) is to give teachers the basic skills to plan, instruct and assess teaching and learning in their courses. In addition, the aim is to help university teachers become aware of and capable of using student-centred ways of teaching. The courses may be considered as basic teacher-training courses because they focus on general theoretical principles of learning and instruction. The basic courses which are organised by three development units last from 4 to 6 months. After completing the basic course the teachers can apply for the next one-year course (30 ECTS), organised by the Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education, which aims to affect teachers underlying conceptions of teaching and learning and their pedagogical thinking. Furthermore, the aim is to deepen teachers understanding of theoretical principles of learning and instruction in higher education. Teachers reflect on their learning during the course in their portfolios. In addition, a short practicum is also included in this course. During the practicum the teachers observe each others teaching and evaluate it. Moreover, an expert in the field of university pedagogy observes each teacher s teaching and gives individual feedback. After taking both the short course of 10 12 ECTS and the 30 ECTS course, a teacher can apply for a 70 ECTS course. In this course, which last for 2 years, teachers participate in a practicum both in their own work and in other institutions. They also conduct research concerning teaching in higher education, usually in their own discipline. Pedagogical courses at the University of Helsinki are separate; a teacher may select only the first shortest course and it is not compulsory to continue to the next two courses.

High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 33 Participants The participants of the previous study (Postareff et al. 2007) were 200 academics, of which 197 came from different disciplines at the University of Helsinki and three teachers from the Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration. Of the 200 participants of the previous study, the inventory concerning the follow-up study was mailed to 135 teachers. The contact information of the 65 teachers who did not receive the inventory had changed and new contact information was not available or they no longer held a teaching vacancy at the university. Of the 135 teachers, 80 participated in the follow-up study; the percentage of response was 59. The teachers of the present study, as well as of the previous study (Postareff et al. 2007) represented all ten faculties of the University of Helsinki. In addition, the two teachers from the Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration represented commercial sciences. Each of the faculties comprises several disciplines. About 54% of the teachers represented hard sciences and 46% soft sciences. The division of the disciplines into hard and soft sciences is made on the basis of disciplines cultural and epistemological differences (Biglan 1973; Becher 1989). The teachers ages varied from 26 to 62 years (mean age 41 years). One teacher did not report his/her age. Of the 80 participants 27.5% were male and 72.5% female. The teachers teaching experience varied from a few months to 35 years, and half of the teachers had less than 8 (Md) years teaching experience. Three teachers did not report how much teaching experience they had. The structure of teachers age, gender, teaching experience and disciplines were similar in the previous study, so the sample of the present study is not biased when compared to the sample of the previous study (Postareff et al. 2007). Most of the participants taught students who study for a Bachelor s or Master s degree, but some teachers taught also doctoral students. The contexts of teaching varied greatly in both the previous and the present study. Class sizes varied from a few students to over one hundred. Moreover, teaching methods varied from demonstrations, personal instruction and discussions with small groups to lecturing to large audiences. Inventory The Inventory used in the previous and the present study consists of two parts. The Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Prosser and Trigwell 1999), measures the conceptual change/student-focused approach (CCSF) and the information transmission/teacherfocused approach (ITTF) to teaching with 16 items. The second part of the inventory (Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006; Trigwell et al. 2004) explores teachers motivational aspects to teaching and regulation strategies they use. From the second part, a four-item scale measuring self-efficacy beliefs was analysed. The self-efficacy scale is adapted for teaching from Pintrich s (1998) motivation model for learning (see Trigwell et al. 2004). The scales of the both parts of the inventory are measured with a 5-point likert scale. When answering the inventory, the teachers were asked to select the most typical course in which they teach. The selected course is not necessarily the same in the previous and in the present study, but the most typical or common course at the time of filling in the inventory. The inventory has been originally designed to measure approaches to teaching from a relational perspective (see Prosser & Trigwell 1999), but in the present study the inventory was consciously used to measure the approaches in the most typical teaching

34 High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 context. The teachers were asked to describe the teaching context they thought of when answering the inventory. The reliability of all the scales (CCSF, ITTF, self-efficacy) was acceptable in both measurements. The Cronbach s Alpha varied between.70 and.77. For the eight-item CCSF approach scale the Alpha was.77 (N = 189) in the first measurement and.75 (N = 78) in the second measurement. For the eight-item ITTF approach scale the Alpha was.70 (N = 191) in the first measurement and similarly.70 (N = 76) in the second measurement. Finally, for the four-item self-efficacy scale the Alpha was.70 (N = 197) in the first measurement and.72 (N = 79) in the second measurement. Statistical procedures A hierarchical multilevel model was applied in analysing the changes on the scales measuring the CCSF and ITTF approaches to teaching and on self-efficacy beliefs between the first and the second measurement. This kind of model is used in longitudinal studies in separating changes within one individual. The model does not compare the whole data between the measurements as such, but instead compares the measurements at an individual level (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002, pp. 160 202). Sum scales measuring the CCSF and ITTF approaches to teaching and self-efficacy beliefs were calculated. A paired sampled t-test was used to compare the mean scores of each scale of the training groups between the first and the second measurement. A new variable indicating the relative increase of teaching experience was created. Every teacher had 2 years more of teaching experience in the present study than in the previous study which was conducted 2 years earlier. The new variable indicates the relative increase of teaching experience when compared to the amount of experience at the time of the first measurement. The scatter plot with smooth curve fitted by loess was applied to visualise the effect of the relative increase in teaching experience on each scale. One-way analysis of variance was used to analyse the differences between the training groups in the amount of the relative increase in teaching experience. The previous study The results of the present study will be compared to the results of research (Postareff et al. 2007) analysing the effect of pedagogical training on approaches to teaching and on selfefficacy beliefs with 200 teachers. In the cross-sectional study the participants were divided into four groups, depending on how much pedagogical training for university teachers they had (see Fig. 1). Differences between the four groups on scales measuring the CCSF and ITTF approaches to teaching as well as self-efficacy beliefs were analysed. The effect of teaching experience was statistically held constant in order to find out the unique effect of pedagogical training on each scale. Figure 1 shows that the shapes of the scales measuring the CCSF approach and selfefficacy beliefs were very similar. Teachers who had just begun their studies in pedagogical courses scored even lower on the CCSF approach scale and on the self-efficacy scale than teachers who had not had any pedagogical training. Only after a year-long process of pedagogical training (30 ECTS or more), were teachers scores on these scales higher than those of teachers who did not have training at all. The results implied that

High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 35 Fig. 1 Scores for CCSF approach, ITTF approach and self-efficacy beliefs of the four training groups when examining the unique effect of the amount of pedagogical training approaches to teaching and self-efficacy beliefs change slowly and that the effect of pedagogical training is not linear. However, because of the cross-sectional setting, the results do not imply a change within a group of teachers, but differences between different groups. Possible explanations for the collapse in scores measuring the CCSF approach and self-efficacy beliefs were presented. One explanation concerns the increase of pedagogical awareness in the beginning of pedagogical courses. The change in teachers beliefs about themselves as teachers might be reflected in as lower scores on the measured scales. Another explanation concerns the intermediate phase of expertise: those in mid-career desires to avoid changes or they have a fear of choosing or making commitment (Lueddeke 2003). The development of expertise is not a continuous and uninterrupted process (Boshuizen 2004). Results The hierarchical multilevel model showed that, in general, the individual participants scored significantly higher on the scales measuring the CCSF approach to teaching (p =.006) and self-efficacy beliefs (p =.014) in the second measurement than in the first measurement. When background variables gender, discipline, teaching experience and the amount of pedagogical training (ECTS) were held constant the significance of the selfefficacy scale became even more favourable (p =.003). Table 1 shows the distribution of the teachers of the present study into the four training groups in the previous study. It also shows the number of teachers who had participated in further pedagogical training after the previous study enough to belong to another training group and the number of teachers who still belonged to the same training group.

36 High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 Table 1 Division of the participants of the previous and the present study into the four training groups The previous study in 2003 (n) The present study in 2005: Teachers with further pedagogical training (n) The present study in 2005:Teachers with no further pedagogical training (n) Group1: 0 ECTS 9 3 (from Group 1 to 2) 6 Group 2: 1 9 ECTS 24 23 (from Group 2 to 3) 1 Group 3: 10 29 ECTS 32 12 (from Group 3 to 4) 20 Group 4: 30 ECTS or more 15 7 (70 ECTS) 8 Total 80 45 35 Teachers with no further pedagogical training Thirty-five teachers training group had not changed since the first measurement. There were no statistical differences between the first and the second measurement on scales measuring the CCSF and the ITTF approaches to teaching on the part of any of the groups (see Table 2). Teachers who had fewer than 30 ECTS (Group 3) in the first and in the second measurement scored significantly higher in the second measurement than in the first measurement on the scale measuring self-efficacy beliefs (t[19] = 3,1, p =.006). In Table 2 the mean scores of each group among teachers with no further pedagogical trainingof both measurements are reported in order to give a holistic view of the changes. However, the number of participants in Groups 1, 2 and 4 is rather small, and the results concerning these groups are not dealt with in depth later in the article. Teachers with further pedagogical training Forty-five teachers training group had changed since the first measurement (see Table 3). There were only three teachers who had no pedagogical training in the first measurement, but in the second measurement had under 10 ECTS (from Group 1 to 2). Teachers who had under 10 ECTS in the first measurement, but in the second measurement had under 30 ECTS (from Group 2 to 3) scored significantly higher in the second measurement than in the first measurement on the scales measuring the CCSF approach to teaching (t[22] = 2,05, p =.05) and self-efficacy beliefs (t[22] = 3,16, p =.005). Teachers who had under 30 ECTS in the first measurement, but in the second measurement had 30 ECTS or more (from Group 3 to 4) scored significantly higher in the second measurement than in the first measurement on the scale measuring the CCSF approach to teaching Table 2 Means and significant p-values for CCSF approach, ITTF approach and self-efficacy beliefs of the four training groups in the first and second measurement among teachers whose training group had not changed (I = first measurement, II = second measurement) n CCSF I CCSF II ITTF I ITTF II Self-efficacy I Self-efficacy II Group 1 6 4.09 4.05 3.56 3.33 4.33 4.42 Group 2 1 2.63 2.63 3.75 3.5 4.5 4.5 Group 3 20 3.64 3.89 3.0 3.14 3.75 4.06 (p =.006) Group 4 8 3.89 3.92 3.53 3.63 4.22 4.41

High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 37 Table 3 Means and significant p-values for CCSF approach, ITTF approach and self-efficacy beliefs of the four training groups in the first and second measurement among teachers whose training group had changed (I = first measurement, II = second measurement) n CCSF I CCSF II ITTF I ITTF II Self-efficacy I Self-efficacy II From Group 1 to 2 3 3.75 4.08 3.58 3.17 3.75 3.83 From Group 2 to 3 23 3.67 3.99 (p =.053) 3.48 3.28 3.91 4.2 (p =.005) From Group 3 to 4 12 3.57 4.03 (p =.054) 3.36 3.49 4.4 4.36 From Group 4 to 70 ECTS 7 4.21 3.99 2.93 3.02 4.21 3.68 (t[11] = 2,15, p =.05). The group which consisted of three teachers was not large enough for quantitative analyses, but the mean scores of the group are presented to give a holistic view of the results. When comparing the first and the second measurement, we can see that the effect of pedagogical training on the CCSF approach to teaching was not similar (see Fig. 2). The results of the cross-sectional study implied that at the beginning of the pedagogical training the scores measuring the CCSF approach to teaching decrease and only after 30 ECTS are the scores higher than among teachers who do not have pedagogical training or among those who had only a few ECTS of pedagogical courses. The results of the present longitudinal study, however, implied that the scores increased with all the training groups. An exception was the new training group of teachers who had completed the 70 ECTS course of university pedagogy. Their scores on the CCSF approach decreased, but the difference between the first and the second measurement was not significant. Fig. 2 Scores for the CCSF approach to teaching of the training groups in the first and second measurements (scale 1 5)

38 High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 In the first measurement the scores on the ITTF approach to teaching were similar among the training groups. Teachers who had 30 ECTS or more scored lowest on this scale, but the difference was not significant when compared to the other groups. The results of the longitudinal study showed as well that the scores on the ITTF approach to teaching were similar among all the training groups between the first and the second measurement (see Fig. 3). However, the scores did not decrease among those who had completed 30 ECTS or more as in the first measurement. In the first measurement the results of the cross-sectional study showed that at the beginning of pedagogical courses the scores measuring the self-efficacy beliefs decrease. After 10 ECTS the scores increased, but only after 30 ECTS or more were the scores higher than among teachers who had no pedagogical training (see Fig. 4). The results of the second longitudinal study showed, however, that after 10 ECTS the scores on this scale increased. After 30 ECTS the scores slightly decreased and teachers who had completed the 70 ECTS course scored lowest of all groups on the self-efficacy scale. The relative increase in the amount of teaching experience did not have an effect on approaches to teaching. The relative increase in teaching experience was highest among teachers who had fewer than 30 ECTS (Group 3) in the previous and in the present study and among teachers who had under 10 ECTS in the previous study, but in the present study under 30 ECTS (from group 2 to 3). These two groups scored higher on the selfefficacy scale in the second than in the first measurement on a significant level. Hence, the scores on the self-efficacy scale increased the most among teachers whose relative increase in teaching experience was highest. Fig. 3 Scores for the ITTF approach to teaching of the training groups in the first and second measurements (scale 1 5)

High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 39 Fig. 4 Scores for self-efficacy beliefs of the training groups in the first and second measurements (scale 1 5) Discussion The challenge in measuring change The setting of the present study was challenging. First, the data split in two because some teachers had participated in pedagogical training after the first measurement and others had not. Hence, the number of participants in each group was rather small and not all groups could be included in the statistical analyses. Second, we wanted to compare the results of the present study to the results of the previous study (Postareff et al.2007), and the amount of credits in the previous study had to be taken into account in the comparisons. Hence, it was not reasonable to compare the whole data of the present study to the whole data of the previous study, since the results of the previous study were not linear. This setting made it challenging to find a suitable analysis method. A paired samples t-test turned out to be the most suitable method when comparing the results of the present and the previous study, and this model was accompanied by a hierarchical multilevel model which gave us information of the change between the two measurements at a general and individual level. Changes among teachers with no further pedagogical training Among teachers who had not participated in pedagogical courses after the previous study the scores on the measured scales had remained similar. The only exception was an increase on the self-efficacy scores among teachers who had from 10 to 29 ECTS (Group 3). Among these teachers the relative increase of teaching experience was highest of the four groups who had no further pedagogical training. In other words, the self-efficacy beliefs increased on a statistically significant level among teachers who had the least

40 High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 teaching experience. This seems logical, since teachers with little teaching experience gain more trust to complete their teaching tasks when they acquire pedagogical knowledge. Otherwise, the scores on approaches to teaching and on self-efficacy beliefs remained at the same level when measured after 2 years among teachers who had not completed further pedagogical courses. However, the number of participants in three of the groups who had no further pedagogical training was rather small, and only the group of teachers with 10 to 29 ECTS comprised of 20 teachers. Changes among teachers with further pedagogical training Among teachers who had participated in pedagogical courses after the first study there were more changes in the measured scores. The CCSF approach to teaching had increased on a significant level among two training groups (from Group 2 to 3 and from Group 3 to 4). In addition, the former group (from Group 2 to 3) scored significantly higher on the self-efficacy scale in the second measurement than in the first measurement. However, these teachers relative increase in teaching experience was, again, highest of the four groups who had further pedagogical training. These results imply that when teachers complete more pedagogical courses, it has the strongest effect on their CCSF approach to teaching. An increase on the scores measuring the CCSF approach to teaching did not emerge among teachers who had not participated in pedagogical courses after the first study. However, an increase on the self-efficacy scores was found among a group of teachers who had not gained more ECTS as well as among a group of teachers who had gained more ECTS. Among both of these groups the relative increase in teaching experience was highest of all groups. Hence, it could be argued that whether the teacher has participated in pedagogical courses after the first study or not, does not have an effect on the self-efficacy scale, but rather the high relative increase of teaching experience. There were no statistically significant differences on the scale measuring the ITTF approach to teaching among any of the groups between the first and the second measurement. Previous studies have proved similarly that the teacher-centred approach to teaching is more stable than the student-centred approach and it is more difficult to affect the teacher-centred approach than the student-centred approach (Prosser and Trigwell 1999; Gibbs and Coffey 2004; Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006). The results of the present study suggest that the length of pedagogical training has an effect on approaches to teaching. However, it cannot be assumed that the effects are simply due the length of pedagogical training, but the content and intention of the pedagogical courses might also have an effect on the results. The 10 ECTS course focuses on general theoretical principles of learning and instruction, while the 30 ECTS course aims to affect teachers underlying conceptions of teaching and learning. At this point of pedagogical studies the CCSF scores increased in both studies. During the 70 ECTS course the participants participate in a practicum and conduct a research concerning their own teaching. The focus is still on conceptions of teaching and learning, but perhaps not to the same extent as in the 30 ECTS course. At this point of pedagogical studies the CCSF scores declined. Comparison of the results of the previous and the present study When comparing the results of the present study to the results of the previous study (Postareff et al. 2007), some differences can be found (see Figs. 2 4). The collapse of the

High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 41 scores measuring the CCSF approach to teaching and self-efficacy beliefs did not occur in the present study. Some possible explanations to this are discussed. First, one explanation could be that the results of the previous study were taken into account in the pedagogical courses organised by the Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education. The teachers have been made aware of the possible collapse and negative effect of the training at the beginning of the training. Oosterheert and Vermunt (2003) have emphasised that teachers should be made aware of the possible delay in the development of more sophisticated conceptions of teaching. Second, the teachers of the present study might have been more devoted to developing their own teaching since they voluntarily participated in the follow-up study. Previous research has shown that teachers with a more sophisticated understanding of teaching and learning are more likely to change their understanding of teaching and teaching practices (Martin and Lueckenhausen 2005). Teachers who are motivated to develop pedagogical knowledge have been shown to engage in a sort of reflection that leads to better teaching. Furthermore, they have a willingness and an ability to take risks in their actions, to do things differently (McAlpine and Weston 2000). Third, the differences in the research settings might have had an effect on the differences in the results of the two studies. The previous study was a cross-sectional study and compared groups which consisted of different people, while the present study applied a longitudinal setting comparing groups which consisted of the same people as in the previous study and measured changes within the same groups. The group of teachers who had 30 ECTS or more in the previous study but in the present study had completed 70 ECTS of pedagogical courses (from group 4 to 70 ECTS) scored lower on the CCSF approach and self-efficacy scales in the present study. This phenomenon is interesting, although the differences between the measurements were not significant (the group consisted of only seven teachers). The decrease in their scores could be explained by their increased awareness of their own teaching. In the previous study their scores were on an extremely high level, and after applying the information gained from the training to practice and after an intensive pedagogical training of 70 ECTS, their awareness of teaching might have resulted in a decrease. The scores return to a realistic level after a hype. The original scores on the measured scales were somewhat different between the 200 participants of the previous study and the 80 ones who participated in the present study. For example, the original score on the self-efficacy scale of teachers who had under 30 ECTS was much lower than the score of the teachers who participated in the present study (see Fig. 4). The assumption presented earlier that the teachers of the present study would be more motivated and committed to developing their teaching than the participants of the previous study might explain these differences. However, as reported earlier, the teachers of the previous and the present study did not differ from each other in terms of teacher s age, gender, teaching experience or discipline. Pedagogical implications The study brought some valuable insights for the developers and organisers of pedagogical courses for university teachers. First, a possible negative effect of pedagogical training on approaches to teaching and on teachers self-efficacy beliefs at the beginning of pedagogical courses could be prevented by making teachers aware of this possible collapse. Second, it is important to acknowledge that the effects of pedagogical training are rather stable. The results of the present study imply that no increase or decrease in the scores

42 High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 measuring approaches to teaching and self-efficacy beliefs are expected to occur after the training if teachers do not continue their studies. Third, teachers should be encouraged to continue their studies after the basic courses because of the positive effects of the training, especially on student-centredness. Fourth, it is important to acknowledge that pedagogical training is more likely to strengthen those teachers self-efficacy beliefs who have less teaching experience than of those who have more teaching experience. Finally, the focus and intention of pedagogical courses should be on changing teacher s conceptions of teaching rather than on changing their teaching techniques. Acknowledgement data analyses. We gratefully acknowledge Docent Erkki Komulainen for his valuable help in the References Åkerlind, G. S. (2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher Variation in meaning. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 375 390. Bailey, J. G. (1999). Academics motivation and self-efficacy for teaching and research. Higher Education Research & Development, 18, 343 359. Bandura, A. (2000). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckinghamshire: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204 213. Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2004). Does practice make perfect? A slow and discontinuous process. In H. P. A. Boshuizen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert (pp. 73 95). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Coffey, M., & Gibbs, G. (2000). Can academics benefit from training? Some preliminary evidence. Teaching in HigherEducation, 5, 385 389. Eley, M. E. (2006). Teachers conceptions of teaching, and the making of specific decisions in planning to teach. Higher Education, 51, 191 214. Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5, 87 100. Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Higher Education, 72, 483 511. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42, 143 169. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255 275. Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2000). Lecturers approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469 490. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Hämäläinen, K. (2004). The Bologna declaration as a tool to enhance learning and instruction at the University of Helsinki. International Journal for Academic Development, 9, 153 165. Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Nevgi, A. (2003, August). The effect of pedagogical training and teaching experience on approach to teaching. (Paper presented at the 11th EARLI conference, Padua). Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 285 298. Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and teaching-scholarship. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 213 228. Martin, E., & Lueckenhausen, G. (2005). How university teaching changes teachers: Affective as well as cognitive challenges. Higher Education, 49, 389 412. McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (2000). Reflection: Issues related to improving professors teaching and students learning. Instructional Science, 28, 363 385.

High Educ (2008) 56:29 43 43 Norton, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher education, 50, 537 571. Oosterheert, I. E., & Vermunt, J. D. (2003). Knowledge construction in learning to teach: The role of dynamic sources. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 9, 157 173. Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 557 571. Postareff, L., Katajavuori, N. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Trigwell, K. (in press). Consonance and dissonance in descriptions of teaching of university teachers. Studies in Higher Education. Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics conceptions of science teaching and learning. Learning Instruction, 4, 217 231. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in higher education. Suffolk: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students approaches to learning and teachers approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25, 673 680. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24, 93 112. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299 325. Sonesson, A., & Lindberg Sand, Å. (2006, June). Compulsory higher education teacher training in Sweden a nucleus for scholarship of teaching and learning. (Paper presented at the 6th Conference of the International Consortium for Educational Development, Sheffield). Strategic plan for the years 2007 2009. University of Helsinki. (2006). Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House. Trigwell, K., Ashwin, P., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Nevgi, A. (2004, June). Variation in approaches to university teaching: The role of regulation and motivation. (Paper presented at the EARLI SIG Higher Education Conference, Baltic Sea). Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 275 284. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers approaches to teaching and students approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57 70. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783 805. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944 956. van Keulen, H. (2006, June). Staff development and basic teacher qualification systems in The Netherlands, with a focus on Utrecht University. (Paper presented at the 6th Conference of the International Consortium for Educational Development, Sheffield). Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257 280.