University professors’ teaching conceptions questionnaire: an instrument to understand teaching models

5 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 University Professors’ Teaching Conceptions Questionnaire: An Instrument to Understand Teaching Models Noelia Pérez-Rodríguez1, Elisa Navarro-Medina2, Nicolás de-Alba-Fernández3 1 University of Seville, Faculty of Education Sciences, Department of Experimental and Social Sciences Education, C/Pirotecnia s/n, ES-41013, Seville, Spain, [email protected] 2University of Seville, Faculty of Education Sciences, Department of Experimental and Social Sciences Education, C/Pirotecnia s/n, ES-41013, Seville, Spain, [email protected] 3University of Seville, Faculty of Education Sciences, Department of Experimental and Social Sciences Education, C/Pirotecnia s/n, ES-41013, Seville, Spain, [email protected] Annotation. This article presents the design, validation using structural equations, and results of a questionnaire about the teaching conceptions of University of Seville professors. Two differentiated samples were used: an experimental group, that included professors who were taking the General University Teaching Course and a control group of professors who were not taking the said course. The results and conclusions of the study show significant differences between the groups. Keywords: teacher training, conceptions about teaching, university teaching, questionnaire, validation, structural equations. Introduction Higher education faces an important challenge, which is none other than to respond to the problems of today’s world. It is essential that students’ learning processes be significant, relevant, and useful. Therefore, it is paramount that the role of professors is contemplated in the consecution of quality learning and in the transformation of a university that transmits knowledge to a university that is involved in change and social improvement (Lledó, 2018). ISSN 1392-0340 (Print) ISSN 2029-0551 (Online) https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2021.144.1 Pedagogika / Pedagogy 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4, p. 5–24 / Vol. 144, No. 4 pp. 5–24, 2021 6 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 Attaining this goal is extremely difficult, especially when the university context continues to be dominated by master class teaching styles (Amundsen & Wilson, 2012; Jiménez Hernández et al., 2020). It all derives from a simple idea that considers any specialist in a scientific discipline to be equipped with the capacity to teach the said subject material, although that person has not been trained for said function (Paricio etal., 2020; Shulman, 1986; Zabalza, 2009). One consequence of this phenomenon is that both in Europe, there is no formal and systematic training for this profession (Rodríguez, 2020). Within the context of Spain, most teacher training is limited to short courses to improve specific aspects of teaching methodology such as resources and tools (Montes & Suárez, 2016; Pérez-Rodríguez, 2019), but these have no in depth repercussions in changing teaching models. Thus, it is imperative that we forsake anecdotic and volunteer training in isolated elements of teaching to consolidate a didactic training model that is more reflexive and profound. This current work moved towards teacher-training conception models by studying a specific case. Thus, as the details provided later one, seek to transform teaching conceptions and practice into a teaching model that is more constructivist and research-oriented (Porlán, 2017). Conception Models about Teaching and University Professor Learning When it comes to the conceptions of university professors regarding teaching and learning and the didactic models within which they are organized, is essential to improve teaching (Barrón, 2015; Trigwell & Prosser, 2020). A number of studies have sought to define the predominating didactic model in university classrooms (Murray & Macdonald, 1997; Trigwell & Prosser, 2004; Opfer et al., 2011; Postareff et al., 2008; Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2008; Caballero & Bolívar, 2015; Jiménez Hernández etal., 2020; Yurén etal., 2020). In general, the existence of two opposite teaching models has been established. One focuses on the professor and the material taught (Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused) (ITTF), while the other focuses on the student and the conceptual change (Conceptual Changes/Student-Focused) (CCSF) (Postareff et al., 2008). Other studies are characterized by more detailed conception models to even establish intermediate models between the two mentioned above. Gargallo et al. (2007) use a Likert questionnaire to address the conceptions of 326 professors from a variety of universities in Spain. Their results prove the existence of four conceptual models. Opposite extremes are held by the CCSF and ITTF models. There are two intermediate models; one is closer to the ITTF model although open to the participation of students but grants priority to the professor as the transmitter of knowledge. The other is closer to the CCSF model, although it fails to have all of its elements. As the authors describe, the ITTF model understands learning as the accumulation of knowledge from the instructor, using a presentation methodology. Resources include manuals, which are assessed by means of exams to verify the ability of students to 7 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 reproduce contents. The CCSF model conceives knowledge as an individual and social construct between the professor and the student. The instructor works as a learning facilitator who adjusts his/her methodology to students’ needs. A variety of resources are used and assessment is processual with continued feedback, which favors students’ self-evaluation to become aware of one’s own individual strengths and weaknesses. As Basilisa et al. (2014) stated using an ex post facto design, analyzed the conceptions of one hundred university professors regarding the four learning-related dimensions (What is learning? What is learned? How is it learned? What and how is it evaluated?). In their research, they describe three conception models (direct, interpretive, and constructive). The direct model is similar to the transmissive model, while the constructive model identifies more with student-centered model and conceptual change. The interpretive model is an intermediate type. Nevertheless, as with the previous case, there are two, prenominating opposite models and an intermediate model. de-Alba-Fernández and Porlán (2020) developed four, progressive teaching models that emerge from empiric results with 48 professors in training. Once again, and as with the aforementioned studies, the opposing extremes show the Transmissive Model—which focuses on the professor and the material (TM)—and the Constructive and Investigative Model—which centers more on students (ICM). Also, there are two intermediate models: the Transmissive model, which is Open to Students (TMOS) and the Closed Problem Resolution Model (CPRM). Both of these models appear in a progression. Just as de-Alba-Fernández and Porlán (2020) state, this characterization should not be understood as a simple and disconnected relationship of teaching models. The results of their studies show how single instructors share these combinations or “dissonances” in the conception models are commonplace within the scope of university professors’ professional development, as proven by other researchers (Postareff et al., 2008; Uiboleht et al., 2016). Teacher Training for University Professors Since the implantation of the European Higher Education Area, teaching approaches have been a standard problem in the university debate (Paricio et al., 2020). These reforms are committed to a teaching model that corresponds to a student-focused model to grant the student greater independence and interaction with knowledge (de-Alba-Fernández & Porlán, 2020; Fernández & Madinabeitia, 2020; Paricio et al., 2019). Research has sought to determine the effects of teacher training on their teaching conceptions with positive results. At the University of Helsinki, Postareff et al. (2008) using a pre-test and a post-test, assessed a program with a sample of 200 professors, divided into four groups, all with different duration and contents. The results showed positive changes in most of the participants, in the sense that they moved closer to more student-focus teaching. 8 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 Gibbs and Coffey (2004), on the other hand, researched the efficiency of teacher training at 22 universities in eight countries. A variety of questionnaires were used, in addition to a pre-test and post-test with a one-year interval. Among other results, the professors participating in the program underwent changes in their teaching conceptions to move towards a more student-centered model. Johannes et al. (2013) also evaluated twelve professors participating in a training program titled “Learning to Teach” with a post-test questionnaire. This author pointed out the positive effects on professional knowledge in terms of conceptions and the focus on contests, active learning, and student participation. Thus, it is pertinent to appreciate teacher training, and consider the most suitable strategies to favor professors’ contemplating their practice and to have more student-centered teaching models. Among the strategies used for teacher training, De Rijdt et al. (2006) pointed out the use of a teaching portfolio as an instrument that facilitates the reflection on one’s own practice. Another tool proposed is peer review; this allows the actual teachers to learn more about their own teaching practice from their peers (Murray & Grant, 1998; Thomas et al., 2014; Da Silva & Guimarães, 2016). In this regard, Louie et al. (2003) pointed out that the self-analysis process facilitates teacher education by developing new knowledge that arises from researching their own teaching practice. As Yurén et al. (2020) indicated, to change teachers’ representations so that these have a more student-centered approach, it is essential that their conceptions be clear and that professors are able to meditate on them. Another strategy, proposed by Conde-Jiménez and Martín-Gutiérrez (2016) for university teacher training, was the “improvement cycles”. This 4-phase system includes: 1) planning to detect those elements eligible for improvement; 2) observation in which participants video their own classes; 3) the teaching team reviews the video and proposes improvements; and 4) analyze improvement and initiation of a new cycle. These improvement cycles become a tool for reflection, self-evaluation and constant improvement. Therefore, based on the results of various studies, a teacher training program should have the following traits: a) a university professor-training figure (De la Cruz, 2003) who provides emotional security (Saunders, 2013); b) work units that are constituted as teaching teams (Gómez et al., 2014; Martínez & Viader, 2008); c) a program that is continual, collaborative, reflective and open in nature (Rodríguez, 2003; Schön, 1991); d) a renovated teaching identity model (Monereo & Domínguez, 2014); and e) one that is gradual in training times, as changing conceptions is a slow process that requires training that is prolonged over time (de-Alba-Fernández & Porlán, 2020; Postareff et al., 2008). Context: The University of Seville Professor Training and Innovation Program Since the 2012/2013 academic year, the University of Seville has been developing FIDOP (Programa de Formación e Innovación Docente del Profesorado or Instructor Training and Innovation Program). This program is open to professors, whatever their field of expertise and career, wishing to participate voluntarily. 9 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 FIDOP is organized in two phases (de-Alba-Fernández et al., 2017). For Phase One, instructors take a 100-hour General Course for University Teaching (CGDU, from the Spanish Curso General de Docencia Universitaria). After Phase Two, participants become members of REFID or Teacher Training and Innovation Network (Red de Formación e Innovación Docente). This current work focuses on Phase One participants; in other words, CGDU. The following aspects characterize this course (de-Alba-Fernández & Porlán, 2020): • The training strategy is based upon the implementation of In-classroom Improvement Cycles (or CIMA from the Spanish Ciclos de Mejora en el Aula). All fundamental variables from the curriculum (conception models and practice about contents, methodology and evaluation) are covered in a coherent, simultaneous, and constructive manner (Biggs, 2014). Moreover, other practical problems linked to the professional dimension are covered; these include: the didactic model, conceptions about learning, conceptions about the discipline and professional identity. At all times, the constructivist and research model focusing on students is considered the reference. These In-classroom Improvement Cycles constitute a coming and going process of the reflective action (Karm, 2010), designing and applying changes, assessing the results, and initiating new CIMAs. • Personal work on one’s own teaching practice, both in class (50 hours) as well as remote learning (50 hours) is a fundamental element upon which the course is based and is included in a portfolio. • Collective work, based on the exchange and discussion among participants, is the standard dynamics used during the sessions. Peer work is an essential training strategy. • The group of professors is advised by expert trainers in university didactics. This trainer is a reference who provides advice and orients the reflections and designs for improved teaching practice. • The course—and the program in general—is part of an integrated plan for excellence among professors within the scope of the University of Seville’s Third Teaching Plan, in which case, there is institutional coverage. Materials and Methods The research design is quasi-experimental. A post-text evaluation is performed with an experimental group and compared with a control group, in which the dependent variable is the professors’ conceptions and independently, their participation in the CGDU. 10 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 The research objectives are: 1. Validate the Questionnaire for University Professors’ Teaching Conceptions (UPTC). 2. Compare the conceptions of the professors participating in the CGDU with regards to a group of non-participating professors. Sample For the collection of data, an email was sent to all CGDU participants requesting their participation in the study. Upon accepting, a questionnaire was sent to each participant; simultaneously, an equivalent sample of non-participating professors was sent the same questionnaire. Between April and July of 2018, both groups accessed the sample and data were collected. The total sample included 251 people. The experimental group (N=148) took the CGDU between 2013 and 2017, while the control group (N=103) were not participants in the FIDOP program phases. Both the experimental and control groups include University of Seville professors. Table 1 provides a description of the sample groups. Table 1 Sample Characteristics for the Experimental and Control Groups Characteristics Experimental Group (N=148) F (%) Control Group (N=103) F (%) Gender Women 95 (64.6%) 43 (41.7%) Men 52 (35.4%) 60 (58.3%) Total 147* (100%) 103 (100%) Age (m) 39.5 44 Years of Experience <10 92 (63.4%) 44 (43.1%) 10–20 38 (26.2%) 31 (30.4%) >20 15 (10.3%) 27 (26.5%) Total 145* (100%) 102* (100%) Fields of Knowledge Arts & Humanities 28 (19.2%) 21 (20.8%) Social Sciences 32 (21.9%) 28 (27.7%) Health Sciences 25 (17.1%) 12 (11.9%) Sciences 31 (21.2%) 24 (23.8%) Engineering & Architecture 30 (20.5%) 16 (15.8%) Total 146* (100%) 101* (100%) Note. *Lost values 11 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 As can be observed, both groups are heterogeneous and comparable, as they include participating and experienced professors who vary in gender, disciplines, and age. Similarly, the percentages in the categories described are similar. Therefore, the groups could be considered equivalent in characteristics. Instrument A Likert questionnaire was designed to collect data; it focused on collecting information to measure professors’ conception models. The items have been built based on previously designed instruments (Abril et al., 2014; Briceño & Benarroch, 2012; Martín & Prieto, 2016; Porlán, 1989; Serrano, 2010). Part one of the two-part questionnaire refers to socio-demographic variables described above. The second part explores four teaching models based on those proposed by de-Alba-Fernández et al. (2020): • Transmissive Model, focusing on the professor and material (TM). •Transmissive Model, Open to Students (TMOS). • Closed Problem Resolution Model (CPRM). • Constructivist and Investigative Model, focused on students (ICM). These models are analyzed by considering the interaction between three relevant curricular elements: content, methodology, and evaluation. In the Transmissive Model (TM), contents are merely disciplinary and selected from reference manuals. The methodology focuses on the professor and the subject material. There is no difference between evaluation and grading. In this model, evaluation means “verifying” that students’ answers are in line with the work contents. Thus, grading corresponds to the degree of correct or mistaken answers. The TMOS continues to be transmissive, but it begins to consider a change in methodology. Consequently, although the conception of the context is similar, greater prominence is granted to students´ learning; for example, student activities to verify the previously explained theoretical content are introduced. The CPRM differs from the two previous elements, as it considers different referents when formulating contents. Beyond the contents of the discipline, students’ ideas and representations begin to be taken into account, or even the social and environmental needs of their surroundings. This impacts on the methodology, as the approach to learning contents that differ in nature also implies working from another perspective in the classroom, by means of research projects, case studies problems or similar learning activities. Nevertheless, this approach is carried out within a closed format, as it considers that there is only one possible response when solving problems or cases. Placing students at the center of the methodology also has an impact on grades. In this model, grades should reflect students’ learning progression, and not so much the final result. The ICM is important for the investigative and constructive nature of the teaching-learning processes. By considering that certain contents are more relevant and structured than others this grants greater relevance to the process. Importance is also 12 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 rendered to the various activities designed as elements that allow students to construct knowledge. A total of 13 items, shown in Table 2, were designed for the four models, on a response scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being “complete disagreement” and 6 “complete agreement”. Table 2 Description of the Models and Items Making up the Questionnaire Models Items Transmissive Model, focused on professor & the material (TM) A1. The grade should reflect the students’ degree of correct or mistaken answers. A2. The subject contents should be selected from manuals and texts that cover the fundamentals of each scientific discipline. A3. Above all else, the contents to be taught at the university should be the concepts of that scientific discipline. A4. What I appreciate, especially when evaluating, is that students’ answers are as adjusted as possible to the classroom contents. Transmissive Model, Open to Students (TMOS) B5. My theory classes consist in explaining the content. In the case of practical classes, I prepare a student guideline in advance that defines all steps. B6. Students learn when they incorporate the correct knowledge transmitted by the instructor. B7. Activities should mainly serve students to clarify, consolidate or verify the theoretical content. Closed Problem Resolution Model (CPRM) C8. Standard procedure to perform research projects, case studies or similar activities so that students learn contents. C9. To design my subject’s contents, I take into consideration what students know, the social and environmental needs, the actual discipline, etc. C10. When grading, I try to indicate each students’ progression throughout the learning process. Constructivist & Investigative Model focused on students (CIM) D11. Teaching is, above all else, efficiently helping students construct their own knowledge. D12. The class activities between instructor and students should promote students’ building knowledge on their own. D13. There are contents are more valuable than others, as they aid in organizing knowledge. Analytical Procedures Prior to detailing the analytical procedure, it is essential to note that the data matrix was modified for operational purposes. Those items with a negative response were 13 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 inverted to maintain concordance with regards to the rest of the items. Specifically, A1, A2, A3, A4, B5, B6, and B7 have been inverted. To proceed with the data analysis, the psychometric properties of the questionnaire were analyzed first to guarantee both validity and reliability. For this, different processes were followed. First, a trial was carried out with seven (7) experts who assessed the questionnaire content following criteria of clarity and relevance of the items on an ordinal scale from 1 to 5. To verify the degree of agreement among the judges, Kendall’s W test was applied, which is frequently used to assess the degree of agreement among judges when the rating scale is ordinal (Escobar-Pérez & Cuervo-Martínez, 2008). Secondly, a pilot test with a group of university professors from the CGDU 2018, who were not part of the study sample, was used. Finally, a variety of statistical tests were applied to verify adjustment to the model. Reliability and discriminant validity were obtained by means of McDonald’s Omega coefficients, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR). To assess the internal consistency of the scale, the Omega ordinal coefficient was chosen as it is the most appropriate for ordinal data that do not comply with the tau-equivalent measurement model (Frias-Navarro, 2020). Construct validity was obtained using an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) from the categorical principal component analysis method with Varimax rotation and Kaiser Normalization. Once the number of factors was obtained, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to confirm the theoretical model established through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), which allows a set of observed variables to be listed. In this case, it corresponded to the teachers’ conceptions, with different latent variables or factors, referred to in this study to the four teachers’ conception models (Bollen, 1989; Ruíz et al., 2010). The AMOS program was used for this analysis, applying the Unweighted Least Squares (ULS) method. This method was chosen because it is considered suitable for Likert-type scales that measure ordinal variables, with polychoric correlations, 3–4 items for each factor, and samples of around 250 cases (Ferrando & Anguiano Carrasco, 2010; Forero et al., 2009; Morata-Ramírez et al., 2015). Once the fit of the model had been verified, a comparative study of the conceptions among CGDU participants and non-participants was performed. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to verify any non-normality assumptions for each dependent variable in the two groups (p=.000). This led to the use of the Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples as the most suitable contrast technique. The objective was to test the differences in means between the conceptions of teachers participating in the CGDU and those who did not participate. To test the magnitude of these differences, Cohen’s d statistic was used to calculate the effect size, which considered moderate differences to be valued close to .5 (Cohen, 1988). Moreover, the means and standard deviations were calculated for each group, dimensions, and items making up the instrument. 20 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 Amundsen, C., & Wilson, M. (2012). Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 90–126. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312438409 Barrón, C. (2015). Epistemological conceptions and teaching practices. A review. REDU-Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 13(1), 35–56. Basilisa, M., Mateos, M., & Vilanova, S. (2014). Questionnaire on dilemmas to investigate conceptions on learning in university teachers. Docencia Universitaria, 15, 103–120. Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00431.x Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley y Sons. Briceño, J. J., & Benarroch, A. (2012). Conceptions and beliefes in science, learning and teaching of university teachers. Revista Electrónica de Investigación en Educación en Ciencias, 8(1), 24–41. Caballero, K., & Bolívar, A. (2015). Academics’ identity as teachers: towards the scholarship of teaching and learning. REDU-Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 13(1), 57–77. Retrieved from http://red-u.net/redu/index.php/REDU/article/view/900 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Conde-Jiménez, J., & Martín-Gutiérrez, Á. (2016). The potential and need for improvement in the training of new university lecturers. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 18(1), 140–152. https://redie.uabc.mx/redie/article/view/767 Da Silva, M. M., & Guimarães, B. (2016). Peer instruction: continuing teacher education in higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2016.02.078 De la Cruz, M. Á. (2003). Necesidad y objetivos de la formación pedagógica del profesor universitario [Necessity and objectives of university teacher training]. Revista de Educación, 331, 35–66. De Rijdt, C., Tiquet, E., Dochy, F. & Devolder, M. (2006). Teaching portfolios in higher education and their effects: An explorative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.002 de-Alba-Fernández, N. & Porlán, R. (2020). Docentes universitarios. Una formación centrada en la práctica [University professors. A training focused on practice]. Morata. de-Alba-Fernández, N., Duarte, D., Hamed, S., Navarro, E., & Porlán, R. (2017). Una propuesta para la innovación docente y la formación del profesorado universitario [A proposal for teaching innovation and university profesor training]. En P. Membiela, N. Casado, M. I. Cebreiros, & M. Vidal, Investigación y práctica en la Educación Superior [Research and practice in higher education] (pp. 279–283). Educación Editora. de-Alba-Fernández, N., Navarro-Medina, E., Porlán, R., & Pérez-Rodríguez, N. (2020). La progresión de los modelos docentes universitarios: Resultados del primer estudio [The Progression of University Teaching Models: Results of the First Study]. En N. de-Alba-Fernández, & R. Porlán, 21 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 Docentes universitarios. Una formación centrada en la práctica [University professors. A training focused on practice] (pp.191–230). Morata. Escobar-Pérez, J., & Cuervo-Martínez, A. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: una aproximación a su utilización [Content validity and expert judgement: an approach to their use]. Avances en Medición, 6, 27–36. Fernández, I., & Madinabeitia, A. (2020). Teaching transformation of the university after twenty years of Bologna: Balance and keys for a future to be defined. Profesorado, 24(2), 28–52. https://doi.org/10.30827/PROFESORADO.V24I2.15149 Ferrando, P., & Anguiano Carrasco, C. (2010). Factor analysis as a research technique in psychology. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31(1), 18–33. Forero, C. G., Maydeu, A., & Gallardo, D. (2009). Factor analysis with ordinal indicators: A Monte Carlo study comparing DWLS and ULS estimation. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 625–641. Frias-Navarro, D. (2020). Apuntes de consistencia interna de las puntuaciones de un instrumento de medida [Notes on the internal consistency of the scores of a measuring instrument]. University of Valencia. https://www.uv.es/friasnav/AlfaCronbach.pdf Gargallo, B., Fernández, A. & Jiménez, M. A. (2007). Teaching models of university professors. Teoría de La Educación, 19, 167–189. 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(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1469787404040463 Gómez, M., Escofet, A., & Freixa, M. (2014). The teaching staff in higher education. Utopia or reality? Revista Española de Pedagogía, (259), 509–523. González, M., & Raposo, M. (2008). Necesidades formativas del profesorado universitario en el contexto de la convergencia europea [Training needs of university teaching staff in the context of European convergence]. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 26(2), 285–306. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall. Cengage Learning EMEA. 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. Jiménez Hernández, D., González Ortiz, J. J., & Tornel Abellán, M. (2020). Active methodologies in the university and their relationship with teaching approaches. Profesorado-Revista de Curriculum y Formacion de Profesorado, 24(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado. v24i1.8173 Johannes, C., Fendler, J., & Seidel, T. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of the learning environment and their knowledge base in a training program for novice university teachers. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(2), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.681785 Karm, M. (2010). Reflection tasks in pedagogical training courses. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(3), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2010.497681. 22 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 Lévy Mangin, J. P., Varela Mallou, J., & Abad González. J. (2006). Modelización con estructuras de covarianzas en ciencias sociales: temas esenciales. Avanzados y aportaciones especiales [Modelling with covariance structures in the social sciences: essential topics. Advanced and special contributions]. Netbiblo. Lledó, E. (2018). Sobre la educación [About education]. Taurus. Louie, B. Y., Drevdahl, D. J., Purdy, J. M., & Stackman, R. W. (2003). Advancing the scholarship of teaching through collaborative self-study. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(2), 150–171. Martín, C., & Prieto, T. (2016). Creencias de profesorado de secundaria en formación inicial sobre su papel en el aula de ciencias [Beliefs of secondary school teachers in initial training about their role in the science classroom]. En J.L.Bravo Galán, 27 Encuentros en Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales [27th Meetings in Didactics of Experimental Sciences] (pp.1271–1278). https://cutt.ly/MgPigCV Martínez, M., & Viader, M. (2008). Learning and teaching in a context of change in the university. The promotion of Teaching Team. Revista de Educación, (número extraordinario), 213–234. Monereo, C., & Domínguez, C. (2014). The teaching identity of competent university teachers. Educación XX1, 17(2), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.17.2.11480. Montes, D. A. & Suárez, C. I. (2016). Teacher training in universities: key aspects of training in Spanish universities. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 18(3), 52–64. Morata-Ramírez, Mª. A., Holgado-Tello, F. P., Barbero-García, I., & Méndez, G. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis. Recommendations for unweighted least squares method related to Chi-Square and RMSEA Type I error. Acción psicológica, 12(12), 79–90. http://dx.doi. org/10.5944/ap.12.1.14362 Murray, C. E., & Grant, G. (1998). Teacher peer review: Possibility or pipedream? Contemporary Education, 69(4), 202–204. Murray, K., & Macdonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher Education, 33(3), 331–349. Opfer, V. D., Pedder, D. G., & Lavicza, Z. (2011). The role of teachers’ orientation to learning in professional development and change: A national study of teachers in England. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.014 Paricio, J., Fernández, A., & Fernández, I. (2019). Cartografía de la buena docencia universitaria. Un marco para el desarrollo del profesorado basado en la investigación [Mapping good university teaching. A framework for research-based faculty development]. Narcea Ediciones. Paricio, J., Zabalza, M. Á., & Trillo, F. (2020). Twenty years of change in higher education: achievements, failures and pending challenges. Homage to Miguel Ángel Zabalza. REDU- Revista de docencia Universitaria, 18(1), 9–15. Pérez-Rodríguez, N. (2019). Teacher training programs in higher education in the Spanish context. Investigación en la escuela, (97), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2019.i97.01 Porlán, R. (1989). Teoría del conocimiento, teoría de la enseñanza y desarrollo profesional. Las concepciones epistemológicas de los profesores [Theory of knowledge, teaching theory and 23 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 professional development. Epistemological conceptions of teachers] (Doctoral dissertation). University of Seville. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=46159 Porlán, R. (2017). Enseñanza universitaria. Cómo mejorarla [University teaching. How to improve it.]. Morata. Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2008). Variation in teachers’ descriptions of teaching: Broadening the understanding of teaching in higher education. Learning and Instruction, 18, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.008 Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Nevgi, A. (2008). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 557–571. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.013 Rodríguez, S. (2003). Nuevos retos y enfoques en la formación del profesorado universitario [New challenges and approaches in university teacher education]. Revista de Educación, (331), 67–69. Rodríguez, S. (2020). Lights and shadows in the pedagogical training of university faculty in Spain. REDU-Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 18(1), 143–168. https://doi.org/10.4995/ redu.2020.13183 Saunders, R. (2013). The role of teacher emotions in change: Experiences, patterns and implications for professional development. Journal of Educational Change, 14(3), 303–333. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10833-012-9195-0 Schön, D. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Oxford:Avebury. Serrano, R. C. (2010). Teacher’s thoughts: an introduction to the beliefs and conceptions about the teaching-learning process on Higher Education. Revista de Educación, 352 (mayo-agosto), 267–287. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 3–14. Thomas, S., Chie, Q. T., Abraham, M., Jalarajan, S., & Beh, L. S. (2014). A qualitative review of literature on peer review of teaching in higher education: An application of the SWOT framework. Review of Educational Research, 84, 112–159. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499617 Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0007-9 Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2020). Exploring university teaching and learning. Experience and Context. Palgrave MacMillan. Uiboleht, K., Karm, M., & Postareff, L. (2016). How do university teachers combine different approaches to teaching in a specific course? A qualitative multi-case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(7), 854–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1183615 Yurén, T., Garcia-Garcia, F. J., Escalante Ferrer, A. E., González-Barrera, Z., & Velazquez Albavera,D. J. (2020). Representations of university teaching quality: Instructional and constructivist focuses. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 25(85), 239–265. Zabalza, M.Á. (2009). Ser profesor universitario hoy [Being a university professor today]. La Cuestión Universitaria, (5), 68–80. 24 Pedagogika / 2021, t. 144, Nr. 4 Universiteto dėstytojų mokymo koncepcijų klausimynas: instrumentas mokymo modeliams suprasti Noelia Pérez-Rodríguez1, Elisa Navarro-Medina2, Nicolás de-Alba-Fernández3 1 Sevilijos universitetas, Edukologijos fakultetas, Eksperimentinių ir socialinių mokslų ugdymo katedra, C/Pirotecnia s/n, ES-41013, Sevilija, Ispanija, [email protected] 2 Sevilijos universitetas, Edukologijos fakultetas, Eksperimentinių ir socialinių mokslų ugdymo katedra, C/Pirotecnia s/n, ES-41013, Sevilija, Ispanija, [email protected] 3 Sevilijos universitetas, Edukologijos fakultetas, Eksperimentinių ir socialinių mokslų ugdymo katedra, C/Pirotecnia s/n, ES-41013, Sevilija, Ispanija, [email protected] Santrauka Šiame straipsnyje pateikiamas Sevilijos universiteto dėstytojų mokymo koncepcijų klausimyno dizainas, validacija ir rezultatai pagal kvazieksperimentinio tyrimo planą. Šiam tyrimui atlikti buvo naudojamos dvi diferencijuotos imtys: eksperimentinė grupė (N = 148), kurią sudarė dėstytojai, lankę bendrąjį universiteto mokymo kursą (angl. General Course for University Teaching (CGDU)), ir kontrolinė dėstytojų, kurie nelankė minėto kurso, grupė (N = 103). Likerto skalės klausimyne buvo pateikti keturi mokymo koncepcijų modeliai, t. y. į mokytoją orientuotas modelis: orientuotas į dėstytoją ir mokomąją medžiagą (angl. transmissive model (TM)), į mokytoją orientuotas modelis: atviras studentams (angl. transmissive model, open to students (TMOS)), į studentą orientuotas modelis: uždarojo problemų sprendimo modelis (angl. closed problem resolution model (CPRM)), į studentą orientuotas modelis: konstruktyvistinis ir tiriamasis modelis (angl. constructivist and investigative model, focused on students (ICM)). Pirma, autoriai validavo instrumentą naudodami struktūrines lygtis. Vėliau testas buvo pritaikytas abiem grupėms, siekiant sužinoti vidutinius jų atsakymų skirtumus. Tyrimo rezultatai ir išvados rodo statistiškai reikšmingus grupių skirtumus pagal keturis analizuotus mokymo modelius. Reikšmingiausi skirtumai išryškėja konstruktyvistinio ir tiriamojo modelio dimensijoje. Dėstytojų, lankančių bendrąjį universiteto mokymo kursą, balai buvo aukštesni nei kontrolinės grupės. Skirtumai tarp dviejų grupių gali būti paaiškinti kurso metu išvystyta dinamika, todėl kurse naudojamos mokymo strategijos yra tinkamos priartinti universiteto dėstytojus prie šio mokymo modelio. Esminiai žodžiai: mokytojų rengimas, mokymo koncepcijos, universitetinis mokymas, klausimynas, patvirtinimas, struktūrinės lygtys. Gauta 2021 06 21 / Received 21 06 2021 Priimta 2021 12 13 / Accepted 13 12 2021