The 3P and DEDEPRO Models predict interactive relationships among presage, process, and product variables in teaching and learning. This study examines the effects of a teacher training programme in regulatory teaching-learning strategies on students' perception of the two processes. The sample included 737 undergraduate students and 12 teachers from two universities in southern Spain. Using a quasi-experimental design, data was collected using three validated instruments: The Scales for Assessment of the Teaching-Learning Process, student version (ATLP-S), the Scales for Interactive Assessment of the Teaching-Learning Process (IATLP) and the Experiences of Teaching and Learning questionnaire (ETLQ). MANOVAs and structural equation analysis were applied. As predicted, results offer evidence for a consistent effect of the training, in interaction with the level of regulation in teaching, on university students' perception of regulatory teaching, of self-regulated learning and on their level of satisfaction. Implications for the training of university teachers are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiggsJ. (2001). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (3rd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
2.
BrawnerC. E.FelderR. M.AllenR.BrentR. (2002). A survey of faculty teaching practices and involvement in faculty development activities.Journal of Engineering Education91 (4), 393–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00722.x
3.
ChismN. V. N.SzabóB. S. (1997). How faculty development programs evaluate their services.Journal of Faculty, Program and Organization Development15 (2), 55–62.
4.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
CruzM. A. (2003). El proceso de convergencia europea: ocasión de modernizar la universidad española si se produce un cambio de mentalidad en gestores, profesores y estudiantes. [The process of European convergence: a chance to modernize the Spanish university if there is a change of mentality in administrators, teachers and students.]Aula Abierta, 82, 191–216.
6.
De CorteE.VerschaffelL.EntwistleN.Van MerrienboerJ. (2003). Powerful learning environments: unravelling basic components and dimensions.Oxford: Earli-Pergamon.
7.
DeLAFuenteJ.JusticiaF. (2003). Regulación de la enseñanza para la autorregulación del aprendizaje en la Universidad. [Regulation of teaching for more self-regulated learning at university.]Aula Abierta, 82, 161–171.
8.
DeLAFuenteJ.JusticiaF. (2007). The DEDEPRO Model for Regulating Teaching and Learning: recent advances.Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5 (3), 535–564.
9.
DeLAFuenteJ.SanderP.Cardelle-ElawarM.JusticiaF. (in review). Interaction between personal self-regulation and regulatory teaching in predicting performance and academic confidence at university. Educational Psychology.
10.
DeLAFuenteJ.SanderP.JusticiaF.PichardoM. C.BerbénA. B. (2010). Validation Study of the Scale for the Assessment of the Teaching Learning Process, Student version (ATLP-S).Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8 (2), 815–840.
11.
DeLAFuenteJ.ZapataL.Martínez-vicenteJ. M.Cardelle-ElawarM.SanderP.JusticiaF.García-berbénA. B. (2012). Regulatory Teaching and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students: Confirmatory Validation Study of the IATLP Scales.Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10 (2), 839–866.
12.
EntwistleN. J. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In ForestJ. F. (Ed.), University teaching: International perspectives (pp. 73–112). New York: Garland.
13.
EntwistleN. J. (2005). Enhancing teaching-learning environments in undergraduate courses in electronic engineering: An introduction to the ETL project.International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 42, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.7227/IJEEE.42.1.2
14.
EntwistleN.MccuneV.HounsellJ. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: Concepts, measures and preliminary findings.Enhancing Teaching and Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Occasional Report, 1. Retrieved 15 September 2010 from http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/etlreport1.pdf
15.
EntwistleN. J.PetersonE. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: relationships with study behavior and influences of learning environments.International Journal of Educational Research, 41 (3), 407–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.009
16.
GibbsG.CoffeyM. (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 Education5 (1), 87–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469787404040463
HanburyA.ProsserM.RickinsonM. (2008). The differential impact of UK accredited teaching development programmes on academics' approaches to teaching.Studies in Higher Education, 33 (4), 449–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070802211844
19.
HoA.WatkinsD.KellyM. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme.Higher Education, 42, 143–169.
20.
HoogveldA. W. M.PaasF.JochemsW. M. G. (2005). Training higher education teachers for instructional design of competency-based education: Product-oriented versus process-oriented worked examples.Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 287–297. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l0l6/j.tate.2005.0l.002
21.
LightG.CalkinsS.LunaM.DraneD. (2009). Assessing the impact of a year-long faculty development program on faculty approaches to teaching.International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (2), 68–181.
22.
MargalefL.álvarezJ. M. (2005). La formación del profesorado universitario para la innovación en el marco de la integración del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. [Training university teachers for innovation in the comprehensive framework of the European Higher Education Area.]Revista de Educación, 337, 51–70.
23.
MonereoC. (Coord.) (2006). Ser estratégico y autónomo aprendiendo [Being strategic and autonomous in learning.] (2nd ed.). Barcelona: GRAÓ.
24.
MonereoC. (2007). Towards a new paradigm of strategic learning: the role of social mediation, self and emotions.Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5 (3), 497–534.
25.
NortonL.RichardsonJ. T. E.HartleyJ.NewsteadS.MayesJ. (2005). Teachers' beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education.Higher Education, 50, 537–71. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l007/sl0734-004-6363-z
26.
PintrichP. R. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students.Educational Psychology Review, 16 (4), 385–407. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l007/sl0648-004-0006-x
27.
PostareffL.Lindblom-YlänneS.NevgiA. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education.Teaching and Teacher Education23, 557–571. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l0l6/j.tate.2006.ll.0l3
28.
RamsdenP. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. SchuitemaJ.PeetsmaT.VanDERVeenI. (2012). Self-regulated learning and students' perceptions of innovative and traditional learning environments: a longitudinal study in secondary education.Educational Studies, 38 (4), 397–413. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l080/03055698.20ll.643l05
29.
SchunkD. H. (2005). Inherent details of self-regulated learning include student perception.Educational Psychologist, 30 (4), 213–216. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l207/sl5326985ep3004_7
30.
StesA.CoertjensL.Van PetegemP. (2010). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: impact on teaching approach.Higher Education, 60, 187–204. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l007/sl0734-009-9294-x
31.
StesA.De MaeyerS.GijbelsD.Van PetegemP. (2012a). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: Effects on students' learning outcomes.Teaching in Higher Education, 17 (3), 295–308. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l080/l35625l7.20ll.6ll872
32.
StesA.De MaeyerS.GijbelsD.Van PetegemP. (2012b). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: Effects on students' perceptions of the teaching—learning environment.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 398–419. http://dx.doi.org/l0.llll/j.2044-8279.20ll.02032.x
33.
StesA.Min-LeliveldM.GijbelsD.Van PetegemP. (2010). The impact of instructional development in higher education: The state-of-the-art of the research.Educational Research Review5, 25–49. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l0l6/j.edurev.2009.07.00l
34.
TrigwellK. (2002). Approaches to teaching design subjects: A quantitative analysis.Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education1, 69–80. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l386/adch.L2.69
35.
TrigwellK.CaballeroK.HanF. (2012). Assessing the impact of a university teaching development programme.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37 (4), 499–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.547929
36.
TrigwellK.ProsserM.WaterhouseF. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning.Higher Education, 37, 57–77.
37.
TrowlerP.CooperA. (2002). Teaching and learning regimes: Implicit theories and recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through educational development programmes.Higher Education Research & Development, 21, 221–240. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l080/0729436022000020742
38.
Van GrinsvenL.TillemaH. (2006). Learning opportunities to support student self-regulation: comparing different instructional formats.Educational Research, 48 (l), 77–91. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l080/00l3l880500498495
39.
VermettenY. J.VermuntJ. D.LodewijksH. G. (2002). Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures.Learning and Instruction, 12, 263–284. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l0l6/S0959-4752(0l)000l3-5
