Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teacher educators’ approaches to teaching and connections with their

perceptions of the closeness of their research and teaching
Yanling Cao a, *, Liisa Postareff b, Sari Lindblom-Yla
€nne a, Auli Toom a
a
Centre for University Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, P. O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 1A), FI-00014,
Finland
b € €meenlinna, P. O. Box 230 (Visama €entie 35 A), 13100, Finland
Hame University of Applied Sciences (HUAS), Ha

h i g h l i g h t s

A student-focused approach to teaching is the one most commonly adopted by teacher educators.

Knowledge transmission is an element of the student-focused approach to teaching.

Some teacher educators adopt both student- and teacher-focused approaches to teaching.

Some teacher educators feel confused about their approaches to teaching.

The student-focused teacher educators experience a close research-teaching relationship.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study explores teacher educators’ perceptions of their approaches to teaching and the closeness of
Received 15 February 2018 their research and teaching. A total of 115 participants completed a questionnaire. The results showed
Received in revised form that these teacher educators perceived information transmission as an element of the student-focused
14 June 2019
approach to teaching. Three clusters were identified which mirrored different kinds of combinations
Accepted 19 June 2019
Available online 28 June 2019
of the teacher- and student-focused approaches to teaching. The results further revealed that these
clusters were related to how closely teacher educators considered their teaching and research to be
related to each other.
Keywords:
Teacher educators
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Approaches to teaching inventory (revised (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
version)
Approaches to teaching
Closeness of research and teaching
Chinese teacher education context

1. Introduction teacher educators employ when teaching student teachers

Teacher educators are agents who educate and help student
teachers to develop knowledge and competence in the teaching
profession. Furthermore, they also act as models that student
teachers can observe and imitate (Lunenberg, Korthagen, &
Swennen, 2007). Therefore, it is important to explore how
teacher educators approach teaching to facilitate student teachers
becoming qualified future teachers. Approaches to teaching are
complex combinations of teaching intentions and strategies that
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yanling.z.cao@helsinki.fi (Y. Cao), liisa.postareff@hamk.fi
€nne), auli.toom@helsinki.fi
(L. Postareff), sari.lindblom@helsinki.fi (S. Lindblom-Yla
(A. Toom).
(Postareff & Lindblom-Yl€ anne, 2008; Trigwell, Prosser, & Taylor,
1994). Two broad approaches to teaching have been identified:
the student-focused approach to teaching and the teacher-focused
approach to teaching (Trigwell et al., 1994). Teachers combine these
two approaches in different ways according to different teaching
contexts and disciplines (Lindblom-Yla €nne, Trigwell, Nevgi, &
Ashwin, 2006; Postareff, Katajavuori, Lindblom-Yl€ anne, &
Trigwell, 2008; Stes & Van Petegem, 2014). Moreover, teachers'
approaches to teaching influence students' approaches to learning
(Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999). Concerning the situation in
teacher education, student teachers' beliefs concerning teaching
have been formed during their previous learning and school ex-
periences before entering teacher education programmes (Berry,
2004; Lortie, 1975). These beliefs influence the ways in which

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.013
0742-051X/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
126 Y. Cao et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136
student teachers perceive teaching and their facilitation of pupil
learning. Thus, the challenge for both teacher educators and stu-
dent teachers is that student teachers need to consider their
teaching beliefs and ways to teach, which are resistant to change
once formed (Berry, 2004; Pajares, 1992). Teacher educators’ sup-
port for student teachers in terms of their teaching is significant in
this process (Nilsson & Loughran, 2012; Rajuan, Beijaard, &
Verloop, 2008; Vanassche & Kelchtermans, 2014).
Besides the teaching task, teacher educators are involved in
productive research activities. Being active in research is important
for teacher educators working in the academic university context,
firstly, because high quality research projects and publications are
used as evaluation criteria for teacher educators to receive funding
and promotion (Geschwind & Brostro € m, 2015). Secondly, research-
active teachers have the competence to teach student teachers
skills to conduct research (Lucas, 2007; Lunenberg, 2010; Toom
et al., 2008). However, there are concerns that teacher educators'
participation in research work would conflict with their involve-
ment in teaching, especially when their research and teaching focus
on different issues and are separate activities. It is argued that an
integrated relationship between research and teaching is war-
ranted for teacher educators to improve their teaching and to be
able to work effectively (Geschwind & Brostro € m, 2015; Robertson,
2007). Thus, the aim of the present study is to clarify how
teacher educators perceive the different approaches to teaching
and combine the different approaches in a Chinese teacher edu-
cation context. Further discussion based on teacher educators’ dual
roles as teachers and researchers, focuses on how closely they
consider their research work and teaching are related in the aca-
demic university context. The final argument is on whether their
perceptions concerning the closeness of their research and teach-
ing are related to the way they approach their teaching.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Teacher educators’ approaches to teaching
Approaches to teaching are defined as strategies that teachers
adopt for teaching and the intentions underlying these strategies
(Postareff & Lindblom-Yla €nne, 2008; Trigwell et al., 1994). With 24
university physical science teachers, Trigwell et al. (1994) identified
the information transmission/teacher-focused approach to teaching
(ITTF) and the conceptual change/student-focused approach to
teaching (CCSF). In the ITTF approach, teaching is seen as trans-
mitting knowledge from teachers to students, and it is less con-
nected with students' deep approach to learning (Trigwell et al.,
1999), while in the CCSF approach, teaching is seen as helping
students to develop their own understanding of knowledge
(Trigwell et al., 1994). There are arguments concerning whether the
two approaches can be combined. Trigwell, Prosser, and Ginns
(2005) argued that transmission elements of the teacher-focused
approach to teaching can be included in the student-focused
approach. Thus the student-focused approach to teaching can be
seen as a more sophisticated and complete approach than the
teacher-focused approach. After exploring the teaching of 97
Finnish university teachers from a wide variety of disciplines,
Postareff et al. (2008) concluded that only a minority of teachers
adopt an either teacher-focused or student-focused approach, i.e., a
theoretically consonant approach to teaching. Most teachers adopt
a combination of both approaches, resulting in a theoretically
dissonant approach to teaching (Postareff & Lindblom-Yl€ anne,
2011). Further studies showed that the dissonance in teachers’
approaches to teaching is typically related to a development pro-
cess in which teachers develop from using more teacher-focused
approaches towards adopting student-focused approaches to
teaching. It takes time to develop teaching to be consistently
student-focused (cf. Conway & Clark, 2003; Fuller & Bown, 1975;
Postareff, Lindblom-Yla €nne, & Nevgi, 2007, 2008).
The exploration of what kinds of approaches exist in teachers'
teaching is the first step in the development of their approaches to
teaching. This is also helpful in designing the pedagogical training
to fit for teachers with the particular approaches (Prosser,
Ramsden, Trigwell, & Martin, 2003; Stes & Van Petegem, 2014).
Furthermore, the understanding of teachers' approaches to teach-
ing is closely related to the improvement of their students' ap-
proaches to learning (Prosser & Trigwell, 2014). In a quantitative
study, Prosser et al. (2003) found that a dissonant approach to
teaching is associated with lower quality learning of the students,
while a consonant approach to teaching is related to the
improvement of students’ learning.
Approaches to teaching are contextually dependent and may
vary according to different teaching context (Prosser & Trigwell,
2006). Moreover, previous research has identified disciplinary dif-
ferences in approaches to teaching. It has been revealed that uni-
versity teachers in hard disciplines (such as chemistry and physics)
tend to apply a teacher-focused approach to teaching, while
teachers of soft disciplines (like history and anthropology; see
Neumann, Parry, & Becher, 2002) more commonly adopt a student-
focused approach (Lindblom-Yl€ anne et al., 2006). However, there
are other studies indicating that disciplines may not always be an
influencing factor in the difference in teachers’ approaches to
teaching (Stes, Gijbels, & Van Petegem, 2008).
The complicated findings on approaches to teaching require
further exploration of the issue in specific fields. In teacher edu-
cation, studies focusing on teacher educators' teaching show that
teacher educators experience a tension between “telling and
growth.” They struggle between teaching through the transmission
of propositional knowledge and teaching through the creation of a
learning context to develop students' understanding of knowledge
(Berry, 2004). Teaching by “telling” might satisfy teacher educators'
need to transfer information to student teachers, but it does not
necessarily satisfy student teachers' learning needs (Nilsson &
Loughran, 2012). Student teachers prefer both teacher-centred
features of teacher direction and student-centred features of
cooperative learning and knowledge construction (Baeten, Dochy,
Struyven, Parmentier, & Vanderbruggen, 2016). The difficult task
for teacher educators is that they need to understand their student
teachers' various learning needs and further adapt their teaching to
the preferred learning approaches of the students to create a pro-
ductive learning environment (Tubi c & Hamilog lu, 2009). Student
teachers need to be challenged during their pedagogy learning
because they need to reconsider their existing knowledge through
experience, and teacher educators should engage them in such
reflection (Nilsson & Loughran, 2012; Rajuan et al., 2008). Thus,
teacher educators' teaching work is not simply offering student
teachers the technical and instrumental knowledge of teaching. It
also stresses teacher educators’ support for student teachers to
realise the interaction between teaching theory and their own
practice, and further, to question their teaching beliefs and prac-
tices and involve themselves in a continuous professional devel-
opment (Vanassche & Kelchtermans, 2014). To make this happen,
teacher educators need to apply a variety of educational strategies
and approaches to their teaching in a student-focused way, one
which encourages student teachers to adopt a deep approach to
learning.
Besides the disciplinary contexts mentioned above, it should be
realised that cultural influence is complex, and basic concepts of
Western educational cogitation need to be reconsidered in the
Chinese context (Watkins, 2000). “The paradox of the Chinese
learner” (Watkins & Biggs, 1996) indicates that while memorisation
 Y. Cao et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136
is normally seen as a rote learning method, Chinese learners utilise
memorisation as a means to develop their own understanding of
the content, which indicates a deep learning approach. This
paradox among Chinese learners shows that the surface and deep
approaches to learning are culturally and contextually dependent.
Thus, it is reasonable to consider that the approaches to teaching
are also influenced by the specific teaching and learning context,
and a similar “paradox” might exist in Chinese teachers' teaching as
well. In other words, approaches to teaching could be conceived
differently in the Chinese educational context. The teacher-focused
approach to teaching is common and dominant among university
teachers in China (Leung, Lu, Chen, & Lu, 2008). Contradictorily, it
has also been shown that Chinese university teachers have a
stronger belief in student-focused than teacher-focused teaching
(Han, Yin, & Wang, 2015; Hu, Van Der Rijst, Van Veen, & Verloop,
2014). It is argued that Chinese university teachers' approaches to
teaching are developing towards the student-focused (Han et al.,
2015). In the discipline of teacher education in China, teaching
has been criticised for its teacher-focused and outdated teaching
methods and poor effects on developing students’ cognitive crea-
tivity and independent learning (Paine, 1995; Zhou, 2014). Thus, in
response to the reform of teacher education since the 1990s to
educate future teachers with student-focused views of teaching,
teacher educators themselves have been required to change their
approaches to teaching from the traditional teacher-focused
“transmission teaching” to student-focused teaching (Guo, 2005;
Paine, 1995; Zhou, 2014; Zhu, 2010).
Several studies have shown that teachers' approaches to
teaching vary between different contexts (Prosser & Trigwell, 2006;
Stes et al., 2008; Uiboleht, Karm, & Postareff, 2016). However, most
studies have investigated approaches to teaching in western
countries, and few of them have focused on teachers in teacher
education. Empirical research exploring teaching in the context of
teacher education of China is needed (Guo, 2005), and may shed
light on how Chinese teacher educators perceive their approaches
to teaching. Both the student- and teacher-focused approaches to
teaching have been found in the university teaching context in
China in previous studies, however with contradictory conclusions
concerning which one is more often applied (Cao, Postareff,
Lindblom, & Toom, 2018; Han et al., 2015; Hu et al., 2014; Leung
et al., 2008). Furthermore, no previous studies have explored
whether the dissonance exists in Chinese university teachers’ ap-
proaches to teaching. Meanwhile, as mentioned above, the teaching
in teacher education of China, which is in the midst of change, may
be related to the adoption of the teacher-focused or dissonant ap-
proaches to teaching among teacher educators. In summary, all the
findings in previous studies mentioned above provide an initial
background to explore the consonant and dissonant approaches to
teaching of Chinese teacher educators in the present study.
2.2. The role of research in teacher educators’ approaches to
teaching
There has been an increasing amount of research on the
research-teaching nexus and the significance of the nexus for
teachers' teaching (Coate, Barnett, & Williams, 2001; Elen,
Lindblom-Yla €nne, & Clement, 2007; Lucas, 2007; Tight, 2016).
Research could enhance teachers' teaching effectiveness. For
example, as research-active academics, teachers provide more up-
to-date knowledge to students (Coate et al., 2001). Based on the
interrelated nexus between research and teaching and the positive
influence of the research-teaching nexus on teachers' work and
students' learning, many studies have further discussed the various
forms in which teachers implement and strengthen the nexus in
practice. For instance, teachers could use the research they work on
127
as information to be transmitted to the students, while they could
also use their research as a structural element in the learning
process to shape the learning activities carried out by the students.
In the latter situation, teachers' research is incorporated with their
teaching in a deeper way and serves as a mode of teaching, students
are involved in teachers' research and participate in the process of
knowledge creation with the teachers (Griffiths, 2004). Teachers
might relate research with teaching either in an information-
transmission way, or in a way that supports deep student engage-
ment (Brew, 2003). The different forms teachers apply reflect their
conceptions of knowledge, research and teaching (Brew, 2003;
Robertson, 2007). A recent study showed that the more teachers
consider their teaching as student-focused, the more important
they value the role of research in their own teaching (Hu et al.,
2014). However, research and teaching could be independent of
each other, or even have a negative nexus (Coate et al., 2001). The
conflict between research and teaching could be caused by the
limited time and energy of teachers to put in their work (Coate
et al., 2001; Pan, Cotton, & Murray, 2014). Furthermore, the uni-
versity context, policy and supporting strategies for teachers also
influence teachers' perceptions and practice over their research-
teaching nexus (Brew, 2010; Hill & Haigh, 2012). For example,
research has been highly valued since it is more related to teachers'
academic careers and promotion, though teaching is also an
important part of teachers' academic work. Teachers may have to
prioritise research work over their teaching tasks (Geschwind &
Brostro € m, 2015). It is important for teachers to keep a balance be-
tween research and teaching and to enhance the research-teaching
nexus. Teachers’ experience of the nexus varies from a weak rela-
tionship to an integrated one (Robertson, 2007). A close and
mutually enriching relationship between research and teaching
would be helpful for reducing the tension between research and
teaching (Geschwind & Brostro € m, 2015; Robertson, 2007).
There has been debate about teacher educators’ role as re-
searchers, how their research influences their teaching and is of
benefit to the educational activities in schools and universities in
general (Arreman, 2005; Chetty & Lubben, 2010; Lopes, Boyd,
Andrew, & Pereira, 2014; Lucas, 2007; Robinson & McMillan,
2006). Teacher educators not only work as teachers, their
research work enhances their academic role as professionals in the
field (Lopes et al., 2014; Yogev & Yogev, 2006). Teacher educators
conduct research in teacher education (Cochran-Smith, Feiman-
Nemser, Mclntyre, & Demers, 2008; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner,
2005). Their research could focus on themes such as teaching and
learning in school contexts, subject-related research and the
pedagogy of teacher education, and it is indicated that their
research is mainly qualitative in methodology (Livingston, McCall,
& Morgado, 2009; Lunenberg, 2010). Teacher educators have also
been encouraged to conduct practitioner research to focus on the
educational practice of their own, because it is argued that they can
improve their practice directly by conducting research on it
(Lunenberg, 2010). Furthermore, teacher educators teach research
to their students to provide them with a research-orientation to-
wards their work, understanding of the relevance of the theoretical
knowledge in practice, and to develop their pedagogical thinking
(Lucas, 2007; Lunenberg, 2010; Toom et al., 2008). Teacher educa-
tors are responsible for teaching student teachers about the aca-
demic work of a researcher. Meanwhile, teacher educators engage
in research-based teaching, meaning that they organise their
teaching around inquiry-oriented activities and make educational
decisions based on research-based thinking and the competence
achieved through research work (Griffiths, 2004; Kyna €slahti et al.,
2006; Toom et al., 2008).
In the context of teacher education in China, the educational
reform launched in the late 1990s has emphasised the importance
128 Y. Cao et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136
of teacher educators regarding their roles both as teachers and as
researchers (Zhu, 2010). Though Chinese teacher educators showed
a passion for teaching, in line with university teachers in other
countries, they experienced conflict between teaching and con-
ducting research (Dai & Goodwin, 2013; Lai, Du, & Li, 2014; Yuan &
Lee, 2014; Zhu, 2010). Chinese teacher educators are required to
have a PhD, indicating that they have had years of training to
conduct research and in academic writing, and they are encouraged
to engage in a range of academic activities concerning research,
such as academic publications, conferences, and seminars, to
publish their research results (Yuan & Lee, 2014). However, suffi-
cient support for them to engage in research work is scarce.
Although Chinese teacher educators perceived that their research
should be related to their teaching practice, they experienced dif-
ficulties in bridging research and teaching (Yuan & Lee, 2014).
As teachers, teacher educators need to be excellent in teaching
and consider it to be an important task. Furthermore, the
demanding work in teacher education requires them to be reflec-
tive and inquiring and to be able to interpret and analyse the
educational issues (Robinson & McMillan, 2006), which indicates
that research is a necessary task for teacher educators and it should
not be separated from their teaching (Livingston et al., 2009; Miles,
Lemon, Mitchell, & Reid, 2016). Previous studies from a range of
international contexts have stressed the positive influence that
arises from teacher educators’ research on their teaching. However,
it is unclear whether their perceptions of the nexus between their
research and teaching are related to the way they approach
teaching.
3. The study
3.1. Aims and research questions
The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of
teacher educators' perceptions of their approaches to teaching and
how their approaches to teaching were related to their perceptions
of the closeness of their research and teaching. Firstly, by applying
the revised version of Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI-R:
Trigwell et al., 2005) in the Chinese teacher-education teaching
context, the present study examined how teacher educators re-
ported applying approaches to teaching in their everyday practice.
Secondly, it investigated the connections between teacher educa-
tors’ approaches to teaching and their perceptions of how closely
their research was related to their teaching.
The specific research questions and hypotheses were:
(1) What approaches to teaching did the teacher educators
report adopting?
It was hypothesised that among Chinese teacher educators, who
are in the midst of the changing pedagogical environment, both the
teacher-focused approach to teaching and dissonant approach to
teaching, in which the teacher- and student-focused approaches
are combined, could be identified (Cao et al., 2018; Han et al., 2015;
Hu et al., 2014; Leung et al., 2008; Watkins & Biggs, 1996).
(2) How were the teacher educators' approaches to teaching
related to their perceptions of the closeness of their research
and teaching?
It was hypothesised that the student-focused approach to
teaching was more intensively associated with a close relation
between research and teaching than the teacher-focused approach
(Hu et al., 2014).
3.2. Research context
Teacher education in China is mainly offered at teachers' uni-
versities1 (Shi & Englert, 2008). Teachers' universities generally
provide teacher education study as four-year bachelor's pro-
grammes, three-year master's programmes, and some also have
programmes for doctoral studies. The programmes are offered in
different faculties and according to the different levels of education
and subject knowledge student teachers receive, they become
teachers at different levels and subject areas (Li, 2012). The
curricula may differ between institutions (Li, 1999). Normally, they
contain general education courses, such as political theories and
foreign languages; professional education courses, like pedagogy,
psychology, and 6e8 weeks of teaching practice; and subject
matter courses (Zhou, 2014). Teachers are required to pass a qual-
ification examination to obtain a teaching certificate in higher ed-
ucation institutions to teach at universities (Ministry of Education
of the People’s Republic of China, 1995). Since the late 1990s, Chi-
nese teacher education has undergone reform, aiming at launching
teacher education curricula as being learner-centred and practice-
oriented (Han, 2012; Zhou, 2014; Zhou & Reed, 2005). Mean-
while, teachers' universities are required to conduct more research.
Furthermore, academic publications in prestige journals are seen as
one evaluation criterion of the institutions (Zhou & Reed, 2005).
The present study included two teachers' universities from the
northeast part of China. One is a key national teachers' university
and is affiliated with the Ministry of Education, China. This means
that the university represents the high quality of teacher education
in the country. The other university is under the supervision of the
regional education administration and in the same province as the
first one, and it is a key provincial teachers' university. Nine fac-
ulties from the two universities were involved, including the Fac-
ulties of Education, Arts, Chemistry and Biological Sciences. The
programmes included in the study were at the bachelor's and
master's levels.
3.3. Participants
A total of 115 teacher educators participated in this study (the
response rate was 51%). The mean age of the participants was 39
years (SD ¼ 6.42; Min: 26 years; Max: 54 years). Of these, 49 were
male (42.6%) and 63 were female (54.8%). Three participants did not
report their gender. Among the participants, only one had a bach-
elor's degree (0.9%), 35 held a master's degree (30.4%) and 79
possessed a doctoral degree (68.7%). This meant that almost all of
them had experienced professional training in conducting research.
Most of the participants (n ¼ 109; 94.8%) mentioned having a
formal teaching certification, of which 105 had the teaching cer-
tificate in higher education institutions. Furthermore, 111 partici-
pants reported their teaching experience, which varied from one to
33 years (M ¼ 12.62, SD ¼ 7.66). Twenty teacher educators (18%)
had five years or less of teaching experience. Concerning their
workload, 62 teacher educators (53.9%) perceived that teaching
occupied 50% or more of their total work time, and that research,
administration and other tasks accounted for the rest of their
workload. Thirty-eight (33%) thought conversely that research
occupied 50% or more of their total work. Eighty-six teacher edu-
cators (74.8%) had participated in pedagogical training that ranged
1
Almost all teacher education institutions at different levels in China have the
term “normal university” or “normal school” in their names, which is derived from
French (Li, 2010). As “normal university” is not commonly used in the international
research context, in this paper, we use “teachers' university” when we refer to
normal university in China.
 Y. Cao et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136
from three days to 12 months (M ¼ 1.91 months, SD ¼ 2.21). Sixty-
one teacher educators (74.4%) had received training of one month
or less, twenty-six (22.6%) did not participate in any courses on
university pedagogy, and three (2.6%) did not report their situation
in terms of pedagogical training.
3.4. Measures and data collection
The data were collected in 2015. The inventory was sent to the
participants in either electronic or paper form, according to their
preference. All the participants were informed about the nature
and aims of the study in the inventory's instructions. Participants'
submission of the inventory was voluntary and considered as being
their informed consent to participate in the study. All personal
information was de-identified. Since teacher educators may adopt
different approaches to teaching in different course contexts, the
respondents were asked to select a specific subject or course and
think of a typical teaching situation while answering the inventory.
The Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI: Trigwell & Prosser,
2004) and its revised version (ATI-R: Trigwell et al., 2005) have
been widely used to investigate approaches to teaching in a range
of countries (Goh, Wong, & Hamzah, 2014; Postareff et al., 2007;
Stes & Van Petegem, 2014), including China (Han et al., 2015; Hu
et al., 2014; Zhang, 2009). In our study, the revised version (ATI-
R: Trigwell et al., 2005) was applied since it was an improved
version compared with the previous one and the increased number
of items from eight to 11 per scale extended the range of the scales
(Trigwell et al., 2005). The inventory was translated into Chinese by
a Chinese researcher. Each item was compared with the original
English item to make sure that the translated item corresponded
with the original one. After this, the Chinese version was back-
translated into English by two scholars who were fluent in both
English and Chinese. The original English inventory and the back-
translated version were similar, including only a few word varia-
tions that did not change the core meaning of the items. The items
were slightly revised based on these differences. ATI-R (Trigwell
et al., 2005) includes 22 items (11 items on the teacher-focused
scale and 11 items on the student-focused scale). The items were
measured on a 5-point Likert scale (“1 ¼ only rarely or never true”
e “5 ¼ almost always or always true”). Two items were developed
by the authors to explore the participants’ perceptions of the
closeness of their research and teaching. The first item asked them
about how much they thought their research was related to their
teaching. The answer was measured on a 5-point Likert scale
(“1 ¼ no link”; “2 ¼ loosely related”; “3 ¼ partly related”;
“4 ¼ highly related”; “5 ¼ totally related”). The participants self-
estimated the relationship between their research and teaching
and chose one from the given choices. In addition, the respondents
were asked to estimate the extent to which they consider them-
selves to be researchers and/or teachers. They provided responses
as percentages, ranging from “0% as a teacher and 100% as a
researcher” to “100% as a teacher and 0% as a researcher.” The
second item was developed to understand how teacher educators
viewed their roles in their professional career concerning their two
main tasks as conducting research and teaching.
3.5. Data analyses
Firstly, exploratory factor analyses (principal axis factoring with
promax rotation) were conducted to assess the factor structure of
the inventory by using the SPSS Statistics 23.0. On the basis of the
factor analysis, two scales as the teacher- and student-focused
approaches to teaching were created. Afterwards, Cronbach's al-
phas of the scales were calculated for reliability analyses. Secondly,
the means of the two scales were calculated by the mean of the
129
items. Thirdly, two-step cluster analysis was conducted to classify
teacher educators into different groups according to their scores on
the two scales of approaches to teaching. Finally, a three-cluster
solution was selected. At the end, one-way ANOVA was used to
analyse how the three clusters differed from each other in terms of
how they perceived the closeness of their research and teaching,
and their roles as researchers and teachers.
4. Results
4.1. The factor structure and reliability of the ATI-R
The first aim of the study was to reveal what kind of approaches
to teaching the teacher educators reported adopting. Though ATI
(Trigwell & Prosser, 2004) and ATI-R (Trigwell et al., 2005) are seen
as valid and reliable instruments to explore teachers’ approaches to
teaching, Prosser and Trigwell (2006) note that the approaches to
teaching are contextually dependent, thus it is important to explore
the validity and reliability of the instrument when applied in a new
cultural context. Considering the cultural dependency of teaching
and learning and the “Chinese paradox” mentioned above (Watkins
& Biggs, 1996), the authors of the present study decided to conduct
exploratory factor analyses to examine the factor structure of the 22
items from ATI-R (Trigwell et al., 2005) in the present research
context.
There are different opinions about how large a sample should be
when conducting factor analysis and the recommendations are
diverse (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999). De Winter,
Dodou, and Wieringa (2009) recommended that with well-
defined factors, exploratory factor analysis with a small sample
size can produce reliable solutions. Thus, the authors considered
that the sample size of the present study was appropriate for
exploratory factor analysis.
Firstly, the items of the ATI-R (Trigwell et al., 2005) were
included in the exploratory factor analysis with principal axis
factoring and promax rotation in a two-factor solution (the corre-
lation between the two factors was 0.17). It is suggested that
factors with eigenvalues of more than 1.0 should be retained,
however, this criterion is not accurate, and too many factors are
retained by using this method (Costello & Osborne, 2005). The
scree test (Cattell, 1966) was used in the study, and the plot of ei-
genvalues showed that the curve flattened out after a break point of
three, thus two factors were retained with the cumulative variance
extracted of 36.63%. This means that the two factors together
accounted for 36.63% of the total variance. Next, exploratory factor
analyses with three and four factors were conducted to ensure the
appropriateness of the two-factor solution. The item loading tables
of the two-, three-, and four-factor solutions were compared, and
the two-factor solution revealed the cleanest factor structure
(Costello & Osborne, 2005). Furthermore, considering that our
study was based on the two scales of approaches to teaching
(Trigwell et al., 1994), and the two-factor solution was the most
interpretable, the authors decided to use the two-factor solution in
the following analyses. The cut-off for a loading of 0.32 to deter-
mine whether an item contributes towards the factor was refer-
enced (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
The results showed that items 4, 15, 21, and 29, which are
designed to measure the ITTF approach in the original inventory,
loaded to the CCSF scale. In addition, item 20 loaded from the CCSF
scale to the ITTF scale. On the CCSF scale, item 15 was left out
because of its low communality, and the Cronbach's alpha of this
scale increased when it was left out. On the ITTF scale, item 20 was
left out for the same reason. Finally, the CCSF scale included 13
items and the ITTF scale included seven items (Table 1). The three
items from the original ITTF scale (4, 21, and 29) which were
130 Y. Cao et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136
included in the CCSF scale are about teachers' presentation of in-
formation or facts to the students.
Items varying from one scale to another indicated that the factor
structure of the inventory slightly varied. The three items loading
from the ITTF scale to CCSF scale confirmed the interpretation from
the inventory's developers that the CCSF approach is more so-
phisticated and it could include elements from the ITTF approach
(Trigwell et al., 2005). The meaning of teacher- and student-
focused approaches to teaching changed in the present research
context. The CCSF scale included items representing a student-
focused teaching strategy and an intention of changing students'
conceptions of knowledge. The ITTF scale included items repre-
senting a teacher-focused teaching strategy and an intention of
information transmission. Meanwhile in the present study, the
presentation of information for students was also an important
element in the CCSF scale.
4.2. Approaches to teaching of teacher educators
After the analysis of the factor structure of the ATI-R (Trigwell
et al., 2005), the participants’ mean scores and standard de-
viations on the student-focused scale (M ¼ 3.87; SD ¼ 0.67) and
teacher-focused scale (M ¼ 2.52; SD ¼ 0.69) were calculated. We
hypothesised that the teacher-focused approach to teaching and
dissonant approach to teaching could be identified among teacher
educators. To test this hypothesis, a two-step cluster analysis was
used to divide the participants into clusters. A three-cluster solu-
tion was revealed with the lowest BIC coefficient of 136.49 and the
largest ratio of distance measures of 2.15. The means and standard
deviations of each cluster on the student- and teacher-focused
approaches to teaching are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 1.
Teacher educators in cluster 1 had similar scores on student-
and teacher-focused approaches to teaching. Thus, they were
identified as “Teacher educators with a vague approach to teaching.”
These teacher educators did not show a clear preference towards
either of the two approaches to teaching. Cluster 2 was labelled as
“Teacher educators with a dissonant approach to teaching” because
they scored not only highly on the student-focused scale, but also
the highest on the teacher-focused scale among the three clusters.
These teacher educators showed dissonance in their approaches to
teaching since they applied both student- and teacher-focused
approaches while teaching, though they had a preference to-
wards the student-focused approach compared to the teacher-
focused approach. During the teaching, these teacher educators
stressed supporting the students' own learning activities and
aimed at helping the students to restructure their knowledge.
Meanwhile, they also focused on what they do and on delivering
the fixed concepts in the textbook to the students to help them to
pass the assessment. Teacher educators in cluster 3 scored the
highest on the student-focused scale and the lowest on the teacher-
focused scale. They clearly had a preference on the student-focused
approach to teaching and thus they were named as “Teacher edu-
cators with a student-focused approach to teaching.” In adopting the
consistently student-focused approach to teaching, these teacher
educators showed similarities with cluster 2 in that they also
intended to promote their students' conceptual development in
understanding the subject, by encouraging the students’ active
participation in learning activities. However, contrary to cluster 2,
they did not stress the teacher-focused approach while teaching.
Our first hypothesis was only partly true because a cluster of
teacher educators with a strong teacher-focused approach to
teaching did not emerge in the study. Instead, a group of teacher
educators with a student-focused approach to teaching was
identified.
One-way ANOVA was applied to show further whether teacher
educators in the three clusters differed in their approaches to
teaching at a statistically significant level. The post-hoc compari-
sons of the three clusters on the student-focused approach to
teaching scale showed that teacher educators with a vague
approach to teaching (Cluster 1) had statistically significantly lower
scores than teacher educators with a dissonant approach to
teaching (Cluster 2) and teacher educators with a student-focused
approach to teaching (Cluster 3; Table 3). Clusters 2 and 3 had
almost the same scores. On the teacher-focused approach to
teaching scale, Cluster 2 scored statistically significantly higher
than Cluster 1 and 3. Furthermore, Cluster 1 scored statistically
significantly higher than Cluster 3.
4.3. Teacher educators’ approaches to teaching and the closeness of
their research and teaching
Our second research question was to explore the relationship
between teacher educators’ approaches to teaching and how close
their research is related to their teaching. Participants were asked
about how much they think their research is related to their
teaching. More than half of them reported that their research and
teaching were highly related or totally related. Around one third
thought that their research and teaching were partly related. A
minority considered that their research and teaching were loosely
related, or that there was no link between them (Table 4).
Teacher educators’ means and standard deviations on the
closeness of their research and teaching were calculated based on
the three clusters (Table 5).
Afterwards, One-way ANOVA was applied to explore the dif-
ferences between the three clusters in terms of how close they
perceived the nexus between their research and teaching (F
(2,112) ¼ 3.10, p ¼ .049). Bonferroni's post-hoc test (p-value
adjusted) showed that teacher educators with a student-focused
approach to teaching (Cluster 3) scored significantly higher than
teacher educators with a vague approach to teaching (Cluster 1) on
the item measuring how strongly teaching and research are related
to each other (Table 6). It meant that the teacher educators
demonstrating the student-focused approach to teaching
emphasised the close relationship between teaching and research
in their work. It could also be elaborated that compared with
teacher educators with a vague approach to teaching (Cluster 1),
teacher educators who employed a consonant approach to teaching
(Cluster 3) experienced a close relationship between research and
teaching. The partial h2 was 0.05, which was seen as a small effect
in practical significance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). However, this
positive association between the closeness of research and teaching
and the teacher-focused approach to teaching was not shown in the
study.
Concerning teacher educators’ perceptions of their roles as
teachers and researchers, 54 teacher educators (47%) perceived
themselves more as teachers than as researchers, 30 teacher edu-
cators (26%) perceived themselves more as researchers than as
teachers, and 29 teacher educators (25%) thought their roles as
teachers or researchers were equal. It was revealed that half of the
teacher educators considered themselves mainly as teachers in
their professional field. One-way ANOVA was conducted to
compare the three clusters concerning the extent to which they
considered themselves to be teachers and researchers. However, no
differences were shown (F (2,112) ¼ 0.03, p ¼ .966).
5. Discussion
This study explored teacher educators’ perceptions of their ap-
proaches to teaching, and the connections between approaches to
teaching and their perceptions of the closeness of their research
 Y. Cao et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136 131

Table 1
CCSF and ITTF scales of the revised version of Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Trigwell et al., 2005).

Items Communalities Loadings on the Loadings on the ITTF

CCSF scale scale

CCSF (13 items; Cronbach's Alpha: .86)

3. In this course I try to develop a conversation with my students about the topics we are studying. .50 .57 -.18
6. I set aside some teaching time so that the students can discuss, among themselves, key concepts and ideas in .67 .65 -.02
this subject.
8. I encourage students to restructure their existing knowledge in terms of the new way of thinking about the .47 .65 -.08
subject that they will develop.
10. In teaching sessions for this subject, I deliberately provoke debate and discussion. .61 .64 -.13
17. I make available opportunities for students in this course to discuss their changing understanding of the .59 .67 .15
subject.
18. It is better for students in this course to generate their own notes rather than copy mine. .38 .50 .01
23. I see teaching as helping students develop new ways of thinking in this subject. .53 .58 -.01
24. In teaching this subject it is important for me to monitor students' understanding of the subject matter. .37 .53 .11
27. Teaching in this course should help students question their own understanding of the subject matter. .39 .47 .15
28. Teaching in this course should support students in finding their own learning resources. .53 .49 -.08
(The three items which were originally on the ITTF scale)
4. It is important to present a lot of facts to students so that they know what they have to learn for this subject. .34 .51 .09
21. In this course my teaching focuses on the good presentation of information to students. .49 .51 .15
29. I present material to enable students to build up an information base in this subject. .57 .56 -.14
ITTF (7 items; Cronbach's Alpha: .72)
1. In this course students should focus their studies on what I provide them. .38 .24 .44
2. It is important that the course is completely described in terms of specific objectives that relate to the .44 -.07 .63
assessment of the course.
7. In this course I concentrate on covering the information that might be available from key texts and readings. .36 .04 .52
11. I structure my teaching in this subject to help students to pass the assessment of the course. .41 -.10 .54
13. I think it is important to give students a good set of notes in this course. .41 -.15 .59
14. In this course, I provide the students with the information they will need to pass the formal assessments. .34 -.06 .49
25. My teaching in this course focuses on delivering what I know to the students. .36 .24 .50
2 deleted items
15. I should know the answers to any questions that students may put to me during this course. .38 .30 .09
20. A lot of teaching time in this course should be used to question students' ideas. .26 .22 .30

Note. CCSF ¼ the student-focused approach to teaching; ITTF ¼ the teacher-focused approach to teaching.

Table 2
Means and standard deviations of the three clusters on the CCSF and ITTF scales.
CCSF ITTF
M SD M SD
Cluster 1 (n ¼ 25) 2.90 .49 2.44
Cluster 2 (n ¼ 37) 4.08 .45 3.26
Cluster 3 (n ¼ 53) 4.17 .38 2.03
Note. CCSF ¼ the student-focused approach to teaching; ITTF ¼ the teacher-focused
approach to teaching.
and teaching. In a previous study in which the ATI (Trigwell &
Prosser, 2004) was utilised to explore the approaches to teaching
in the Chinese context, it revealed a four-factor structure model of
the inventory (Han et al., 2015). In our study, the exploratory factor
analysis of the ATI-R (Trigwell et al., 2005) revealed that three
items, which are about teachers presenting information or facts to
students, loaded from the ITTF scale to the CCSF scale. This indi-
cated that the factor structure of the inventory in the present study
was also different from what had been introduced in previous
studies. Offering basic knowledge to the students seems to be
related to the other characteristics of the student-focused approach
to teaching, rather than to the teacher-focused approach.
This result indicated that information transmission is an
element that can be included in the student-focused approach to
teaching. However, in the student-focused approach, information
transmission is accompanied by student-activating teaching stra-
tegies. Teachers applying the student-focused approach to teaching
focus on their students' understanding and construction of
knowledge after the presentation of information, not the infor-
mation transmission itself (Trigwell et al., 2005). Concerning the
present study context, offering facts to students as an element of
the student-focused teaching could be explained by the research
context and “the paradox of the Chinese learner” (Watkins & Biggs,
1996). Contrary to the traditional view that memorising is related
to a surface approach to learning and is separable from under-
standing, Chinese learners see memorising as a means leading to
deep learning (Biggs, 1996). Similarly, the present study suggests
.49
that Chinese teacher educators’ intention to help students to un-
.36
.44 derstand deeply (student-focused approach to teaching) is inter-
twined with presenting information and facts to the students
(teacher-focused approach to teaching). Teacher educators who
intend to help student teachers develop their own understanding
of a subject may adopt a teaching strategy which focuses on of-
fering the students basic facts and information first.
The approaches to teaching teacher educators reported applying
is different from what we expected. We hypothesised that a cluster
of teacher-focused teacher educators could be identified, because
previous studies showed the existence of the teacher-focused
teaching in teacher education in the Chinese context (Paine, 1995;
Zhou, 2014). However, in line with studies of Han et al. (2015) and
Hu et al. (2014), teacher educators with a strong teacher-focused
approach to teaching did not emerge in our study. One explana-
tion could be that participation in our study was voluntary, and
therefore the inventories might have been returned mainly by
teacher educators who were interested in teaching and thus might
be more willing to adopt a student-focused approach to teaching.
Further, teacher educators who scored highly on the three items
which loaded from the ITTF scale to the CCSF scale in the inventory
were now measured as student-focused in their teaching. If these
items had remained in the ITTF scale, the results might be different
and show more evidence of the existence of the teacher-focused
approach. The disciplinary difference could also be an explana-
tion for the no-show of teacher-focused approach to teaching.
Leung et al. (2008) conducted the study in the construction engi-
neering discipline (considered to be a hard discipline) and
132 Y. Cao et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136

Fig. 1. Means of the three clusters on the CCSF and ITTF scales of approaches to teaching. Note. CCSF ¼ the student-focused approach to teaching; ITTF ¼ the teacher-focused
approach to teaching.

Table 3 Table 6
Post-hoc comparisons between the three clusters. Bonferroni's post hoc test on teacher educators' perceptions of the closeness of their
research and teaching.
CCSF ITTF
Mean difference padj
t p t p
Cluster 1 e Cluster 2 -.32 .608
Cluster 1 e Cluster 2 9.70 <.001 7.19 <.001 Cluster 1 e Cluster 3 -.56 .047
Cluster 1 e Cluster 3 12.50 <.001 3.64 <.001 Cluster 2 e Cluster 3 -.25 .653
Cluster 2 e Cluster 3 1.04 .300 14.00 <.001
Note. Cluster 1 ¼ teacher educators with a vague approach to teaching; Cluster
Note. Cluster 1 ¼ teacher educators with a vague approach to teaching; Cluster 2 ¼ teacher educators with a dissonant approach to teaching; Cluster 3 ¼ teacher
2 ¼ teacher educators with a dissonant approach to teaching; Cluster 3 ¼ teacher educators with a student-focused approach to teaching; Padj ¼ Bonferroni adjusted
educators with a student-focused approach to teaching; CCSF ¼ the student-focused p-value.
approach to teaching; ITTF ¼ the teacher-focused approach to teaching.

considered to be a soft discipline. Teachers in soft disciplines are

Table 4
more likely to employ a student-focused approach to teaching
The distribution of teacher educators on their perceptions of the closeness of their
research and teaching. compared with teachers in hard disciplines (Lindblom-Yla €nne et al.,
2006). Furthermore, it was also elaborated that teacher educators
Closeness of research and teaching N Percentage (%)
would use student-focused teaching strategies more often than
“No link between them” 4 3.5 university teachers in other disciplines to support student teachers’
“Loosely related” 14 12.2
active learning (Goubeaud & Yan, 2004).
“Partly related” 38 33.0
“Highly related” 48 41.7 The dissonance was revealed in teacher educators' approaches
“Totally related” 11 9.6 to teaching in the Chinese context. Teacher educators who reported
the dissonant approach to teaching, showed high scores on stu-
dent- and teacher-focused approaches to teaching and they were
Table 5
more towards the student-focused approach. A similar group of
Means and standard deviations of the three clusters on the closeness of their
research and teaching. teachers has been identified in previous studies (Postareff et al.,
2008). Postareff et al. (2008) applied the word “dissonant” in
Cluster M SD
their study to describe the teaching profiles in which university
Teacher educators with a vague approach to teaching 3.04 1.15 teachers' teaching are combinations of both student- and teacher-
Teacher educators with a dissonant approach to teaching 3.36 .76
focused approaches and thus theoretically dissonant. This group
Teacher educators with a student-focused approach to teaching 3.61 .93
of teacher educators could be in a transition phase developing from
the teacher-focused towards student-focused approach to teaching.
On one hand, concerning the undergoing reform and changes of
concluded that the teacher-focused approach to teaching is domi- teacher education which encourage teacher educators to teach with
nant among university teachers in China. However, the present a focus on students' learning, and further with the increasing in-
study was conducted with teachers in teacher education, which is fluence of Western pedagogic philosophy, such as developing
 Y. Cao et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136
students’ own critical thinking, Chinese teacher educators
increasingly tend to apply the student-focused approach to teach-
ing; on the other hand, they still need to face the reality of their
teaching context and the influence of traditional Chinese education.
For example, the high student-teacher ratio makes it easier for
teacher educators to complete their teaching tasks by applying
teaching methods such as lecturing. This could also be the reason
for the teacher educators who applied the vague approach to
teaching, as they may be confused about how to approach their
teaching in the complex teaching context.
Our study showed the close relationship between teacher edu-
cators' student-focused approach to teaching and their perceptions
of an intensive nexus between their research and teaching in
teacher education. This is similar to the result of another study in a
Chinese context (Hu et al., 2014) showing that there is a systematic
relationship between student-focused teaching and beliefs about
the role of research in ideal teaching. Applying a student-focused
approach to teaching means that teacher educators focus on stu-
dents' understanding and construction of knowledge while teach-
ing (Trigwell et al., 1994), and the results showed that these
teachers considered that there was a close relationship between
their research and teaching. How teacher educators perceive the
research-teaching nexus is aligned with their perceptions of
knowledge, research, teaching, and learning (Brew, 1999; 2010).
The student-focused teacher educators are more likely to link their
research work with their teaching in a student-focused way, as
Brew (2002; 2003) has described in the “new model” of the rela-
tionship between research and teaching. In this model of research-
teaching nexus, knowledge is constructed in a social context, and
teachers focus on students' engagement in research-based activ-
ities (Brew, 2003), which is beneficial to student teachers'
achievement in conceptual change and critical thinking. Engaging
in research is also a learning process for teacher educators con-
cerning their profession and teaching (Brew & Boud, 1995). These
teacher educators may see research and teaching in a mutually
reinforcing way. During the teaching process, research functions as
a primer to trigger students’ interests; interspersing research with
teaching gives teacher educators more opportunities to interact
with the student teachers. On the other hand, they may also try to
improve their research with the thoughts invoked by teaching.
Furthermore, teacher educators with a student-focused approach
are the ones who apply a coherent approach in their teaching and
they feel fewer negative emotions about improving teaching
(Postareff & Lindblom-Yla€nne, 2011). Thus, they are more willing to
enrich their teaching by integrating research work and teaching.
The study also explored teacher educators' perceptions of their
two roles as teachers and researchers and whether the perceptions
varied among teacher educators with differing approaches to
teaching. The results showed that though teacher educators have a
different tendency towards the student- and teacher-focused ap-
proaches to teaching, no difference was shown in their views on
their roles as teachers and researchers. The explanation could be
that almost half of the participants in the study considered them-
selves more as teachers than researchers, and there were limited
variations between the three clusters on their perceptions of their
roles as teachers and researchers. However, the analysis revealed
that the teacher educators had different perceptions of their roles
when they had different amount of workload concerning teaching
and research and belonged to different universities. For all the
teacher educators in the study, their perceptions of their roles were
consistent with the work they engaged in. To be more precise, the
more they focused on teaching, the more they perceived them-
selves as teachers. Correspondingly, the more they focused on
conducting research, the more they perceived themselves as re-
searchers. Furthermore, compared to the teacher educators in the
133
key national teachers' university, the teacher educators in the
regional teachers' university perceived themselves more as teach-
ers and less as researchers. Teachers' research-teaching nexus is
clearly influenced by the institution's policy and management
strategies (Brew, 2010; Hill & Haigh, 2012). The key national
teachers' university is research-intensive and a model of educa-
tional reform to other local universities. The positioning of the
university and its developing strategy stressed the importance of
conducting research, and the teachers of this university would
engage more in research. Thus, this could lead the teachers' self-
perceptions as more of researchers.
In order to enhance teacher educators' research-teaching nexus,
firstly it is vital to know how they define their roles and perceive
the closeness between their research and teaching. Teacher edu-
cators in the study considered that their main task is to educate the
future generation of teachers. Based on that, further discussion
about how research could be beneficial for their teaching and in-
tegrated to their teaching is needed. Research and teaching are not
necessarily in a conflicting relation for teacher educators (Hattie &
Marsh, 1996; Robinson & McMillan, 2006). However, researchers
have been concerned that factors discouraging the research-
teaching nexus may exist (Brew, 2010; Hill & Haigh, 2012).
Teacher educators are under the pressure to become research-
active and build their researcher identity, which may cause role
conflict (Chetty & Lubben, 2010; Colbeck, 1998; Hill & Haigh, 2012).
In the context of Chinese teacher education, teacher educators have
been encouraged to conduct research and publish academic papers
for several years (Zhou & Reed, 2005). While in the present
research context, many teacher educators perceived themselves
more of teachers than researchers. Thus, there might be a conflict
between the institutions' requirements for teacher educators'
engagement in research work and teachers’ own preference to-
wards teaching. Furthermore, the research-teaching nexus may be
seen as self-evident and automatic, and because of this, the need to
reflect on and improve the research-teaching nexus might be
ignored (Robertson & Blackler, 2006). Teacher educators in the
present study considered a close relationship between their
research and teaching, nevertheless, this leads us to think in depth
about how the research-teaching nexus is actually implemented in
their practice.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Methodological limitations and reflections of the study
Firstly, the sample of the study may have been biased because
the data were collected on a voluntary basis, and thus it is possible
that those who were more interested and concerned about their
teaching returned the questionnaire. Secondly, only two teachers'
universities were involved in the study. A sample with broader
representation of teachers' universities would strengthen the
transferability of the results. Furthermore, the low correlations
between the items of ATI-R (Trigwell et al., 2005) in the present
study could influence the reliability and validity of the analysis and
indicated that a bigger sample size is required in the future studies.
Thirdly, though Chinese university teachers' approaches to teaching
have been explored with the Approaches to Teaching Inventory
(ATI: Trigwell & Prosser, 2004), no similar “paradox” in teachers'
teaching or variation in factor structure of the inventory was found
(Han et al., 2015; Hu et al., 2014; Zhang, 2009). This might indicate
that the findings in the present study were limited to the particular
research context and participants. Further work is needed to
ascertain the extent to which the results could be generalised.
Meanwhile, the results concerning teacher educators' perceptions
of the closeness of their research and teaching and researcher/
134 Y. Cao et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136
teacher role were limited and only presented a general picture,
because only two items were developed in the study. Furthermore,
the results in the study were based on the participants’ self-
reporting and there was limited knowledge of how they con-
ceptualised the issues investigated. Finally, the present study
applied a quantitative methodology. Though the ATI-R (Trigwell
et al., 2005) showed good reliability and validity in the study, ex-
tra caution is needed when interpreting the results, especially
when the questionnaire is applied in a new cultural context.
6.2. Implications of the research on future studies
Our study provides new insights into research on teacher edu-
cators' approaches to teaching, which has been scarce. However,
more evidence is needed to enrich our knowledge in this area.
Firstly, to get a better understanding of teacher educators with a
dissonant approach to teaching, interviews and qualitative analyses
could be added. Secondly, previous studies indicate that teachers'
pedagogical training could influence their approaches to teaching
(Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Postareff et al., 2007). Unfortunately, in the
present study, the limited variation of short training duration
restricted us to exploring the relationship between teacher edu-
cators' approaches to teaching and pedagogical training. Thirdly,
research exploring student teachers' experiences and perceptions
of their teacher educators’ approaches and practices of teaching in
teacher education would be relevant.
6.3. Implications of the research on practice of teacher educators
The ATI-R (Trigwell et al., 2005) could be used to detect teachers'
approaches to teaching and to monitor teachers' change and
development in their approaches to teaching. However, it is
important to acknowledge that teaching is dependent on the
context, and therefore it is necessary to check the factor structure of
the inventory and consider the specific teaching context when
applying the inventory. After having an insight into teachers' ap-
proaches to teaching, pedagogical training could be organised for
them to further develop their teaching. The training programmes
should be tailored to the target group's actual needs to enhance the
impact (Stes & Van Petegem, 2014). For example, in the present
study, the student-focused teacher educators stressing information
transmission is not necessarily a negative phenomenon. The
important task is to improve these teachers' teaching skills on how
to guide student teachers' active learning and processing of the
information. Furthermore, teacher educators with a dissonant
approach to teaching might be confused about their teaching and
experience more negative emotions than teachers with a conso-
nant approach to teaching (Postareff & Lindblom-Yl€ anne, 2011).
Thus, pedagogical training could be organised for them to develop
their teaching to be more student-focused. The training pro-
grammes should guide all teacher educators to be reflective, not
only on how they approach teaching, but also concerning how their
particular approaches to teaching influence the way their students
approach learning.
As university academics, teaching and conducting research
constitute most teacher educators' main workload. However, con-
flicts may occur, for example as shown in the study, between
teachers' self-positioning as more of teachers and the university's
value-orientations for teachers to conduct more research. One
suggestion to reduce the conflict would be to build a close rela-
tionship between research and teaching both at the institutional
and individual level. At the institutional level, universities need to
consider their developing strategies first and then provide the
teachers with support to encourage their engagement in research
and teaching. For example, proper workload should be arranged for
teachers to keep a balance between these two tasks. Teacher edu-
cators' efforts to integrate research and teaching could be rewarded
by the funding system (Brew, 2003; Colbeck, 1998). Furthermore,
universities need to build a scholarly community that does not view
teachers separately as the ones who teach and the ones who
conduct research (Brew, 2010). Indeed, a community of practice
could be built for teacher educators to increase their research
capability, especially for those who consider themselves less as
researchers. A culture of research and integrating research in
teaching in teacher education needs to be encouraged (Hill &
Haigh, 2012).
At the individual level, teacher educators need to consider the
possibilities to link research and teaching in their everyday work. A
deep reflection on their views of research and teaching is needed
before they take actions to link research and teaching (Brew, 1999;
2010). Furthermore, teacher educators need to relate research with
teaching in a student-focused way, such as involving students in
research (Brew, 2002, 2006; Pan et al., 2014). Sufficient support
from the university to give individual teachers more control over
their own teaching and research would be important. Teacher ed-
ucators then could decide in which specific ways to link their
research and teaching appropriately to make the two tasks not to
obstruct each other. For example, they could design the curriculum
to involve more of the elements of research in teaching (Brew,
2010). Changes in teacher educators’ perceptions and actions of
enhancing the relationship between research and teaching are
pivotal, meanwhile challenging (Brew, 2006). All the endeavours to
link research and teaching need to build on what teacher educators
already have as strength (Robinson & McMillan, 2006), for instance,
their perceptions of a student-focused approach to teaching.
Funding
This work was supported by the Chinese Scholarship Council.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks go to Feifei Han from University of Sydney for her
translation of the revised version of Approaches to Teaching In-
ventory from English to Chinese.
References
Arreman, I. E. (2005). Research as power and knowledge: Struggles over research in
teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 31, 215e235.
Baeten, M., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., Parmentier, E., & Vanderbruggen, A. (2016).
Student-centred learning environments: An investigation into student teachers'
instructional preferences and approaches to learning. Learning Environments
Research, 19, 43e62.
Berry, A. (2004). Self study in teaching about teaching. In J. J. Loughran,
M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-
study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1295e1332). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
Biggs, J. (1996). Approaches to learning of Asian students: A multiple paradox. In
J. Pandey, D. Sinha, & D. P. S. Bhawuk (Eds.), Asian contributions to cross-cultural
psychology (pp. 180e199). New Delhi, India: Sage Publication India Pvt Ltd.
Brew, A. (1999). Research and teaching: Changing relationship in a changing
context. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 291e301.
Brew, A. (2002). Research and the academic developer: A new agenda. International
Journal for Academic Development, 7, 112e122.
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and implications for
inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education
Research and Development, 22, 3e18.
Brew, A. (2006). Learning to develop the relationship between research and
teaching at an institutional level. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 107,
11e22.
 Y. Cao et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136
Brew, A. (2010). Imperatives and challenges in integrating teaching and research.
Higher Education Research and Development, 29, 139e150.
Brew, A., & Boud, D. (1995). Teaching and research: Establishing the vital link with
learning. Higher Education, 29, 261e273.
Cao, Y., Postareff, L., Lindblom, S., & Toom, A. (2018). Teacher educators' approaches
to teaching and the nexus with self-efficacy and burnout: Examples from two
teachers' universities in China. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44, 479e495.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245e276.
Chetty, R., & Lubben, F. (2010). The scholarship of research in teacher education in a
higher education institution in transition: Issues of identity. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 813e820.
Coate, K., Barnett, R., & Williams, G. (2001). Relationships between teaching and
research in higher education in England. Higher Education Quarterly, 55,
158e174.
Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., Mclntyre, D. J., & Demers, K. E. (Eds.). (2008).
Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing
contexts (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The
report of the AERA Panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Colbeck, C. L. (1998). Merging in a seamless blend: How faculty integrate teaching
and research. The Journal of Higher Education, 69, 647e671.
Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: A re-
examination of fuller's concerns-based model of teacher development. Teach-
ing and Teacher Education, 19, 465e482.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis:
Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical
Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10, 1e9.
Dai, W., & Goodwin, L. (2013). Research on the impact of Chinese teacher prepa-
ration reform on teacher candidates' quality after the 1990s. In X. Zhu, &
K. Zeichner (Eds.), Preparing teachers for the 21st century (pp. 201e213). Berlin,
Germany: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
De Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis
with small sample size. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 147e181.
Elen, J., Lindblom-Yla €nne, S., & Clement, M. (2007). Faculty development in
research-intensive universities: The role of academics' conceptions on the
relationship between research and teaching. International Journal for Academic
Development, 12, 123e139.
Fuller, F., & Bown, O. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education
(74th yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 25e52).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Geschwind, L., & Brostro €m, A. (2015). Managing the teaching-research nexus: Ideals
and practice in research-oriented universities. Higher Education Research and
Development, 34, 60e73.
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their
teaching skills, their approaches to teaching and the approaches to learning of
their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5, 87e100.
Goh, P. S. C., Wong, K. T., & Hamzah, M. S. G. (2014). The approaches to teaching
inventory: A preliminary validation of the Malaysian translation. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 16e26.
Goubeaud, K., & Yan, W. (2004). Teacher educators' teaching methods, assessment,
and grading: A comparison of higher education faculty's instructional practices.
The Teacher Educator, 40(1), 1e16.
Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: The
case of the built environment discipline. Studies in Higher Education, 29,
709e726.
Guo, S. (2005). Exploring current issues in teacher education in China. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 51, 69e84.
Han, X. (2012). Big moves to improve the quality of teacher education in China. On
the Horizon, 20, 324e335.
Han, J., Yin, H., & Wang, W. (2015). Exploring the relationship between goal ori-
entations for teaching of tertiary teachers and their teaching approaches in
China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16, 537e547.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 507e542.
Hill, M. F., & Haigh, M. A. (2012). Creating a culture of research in teacher education:
Learning research within communities of practice. Studies in Higher Education,
37, 971e988.
Hu, Y., Van Der Rijst, R., Van Veen, K., & Verloop, N. (2014). ‘And never the two shall
meet’? Comparing Chinese and Dutch university teachers about the role of
research in teaching. Higher Education, 68, 607e622.
Kyna €slahti, H., Kansanen, P., Jyrha €ma €, R., Krokfors, L., Maaranen, K., & Toom, A.
(2006). The multimode programme as a variation of research-based teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 246e256.
Lai, M., Du, P., & Li, L. (2014). Struggling to handle teaching and research: A study on
academic work at select universities in the Chinese mainland. Teaching in
Higher Education, 19, 966e979.
Leung, M. Y., Lu, X., Chen, D., & Lu, M. (2008). Impacts of teaching approaches on
learning approaches of construction engineering student: A comparative study
between Hong Kong and mainland China. Journal of Engineering Education, 97,
135e145.
Li, D. (1999). Modernization and teacher education in China. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 15, 179e192.
Li, M. (2010). From teacher-education university to comprehensive university: Case
135
studies of east China normal university, southwest university and yanbian
university. Frontiers of Education in China, 5, 507e530.
Li, J. (2012). The Chinese model of teacher education: Retrospects and prospects
over a century. Frontiers of Education in China, 7, 417e442.
Lindblom-Yla €nne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to
teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Ed-
ucation, 31, 285e298.
Livingston, K., McCall, J., & Morgado, M. (2009). Teacher educators as researchers. In
A. Swennen, & M. Van Der Klink (Eds.), Becoming a teacher educator: Theory and
practice for teacher educators (pp. 191e203). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Lopes, A., Boyd, P., Andrew, N., & Pereira, F. (2014). The research-teaching nexus in
nurse and teacher education: Contributions of an ecological approach to aca-
demic identities in professional fields. Higher Education, 68, 167e183.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Lucas, L. (2007). Research and teaching work within university education de-
partments: Fragmentation or integration? Journal of Further and Higher Edu-
cation, 31, 17e29.
Lunenberg, M. (2010). Characteristics, scholarship and research of teacher educa-
tors. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of
education (pp. 676e680). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role
model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 586e601.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor
analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84e99.
Miles, R., Lemon, N., Mitchell, D. M., & Reid, J. (2016). The recursive practice of
research and teaching: Reframing teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 44, 401e414.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (1995). 教师资格条例
[ordinance of teacher qualification]. Retrieved from http://www.jszg.edu.cn/
portal/policy_regulation/whole_policy?id¼232.
Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disci-
plinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27,
405e417.
Nilsson, P., & Loughran, J. (2012). Developing and assessing professional knowledge
as a science teacher educator: Learning about teaching from student teachers.
In S. M. Bullock, & T. Russell (Eds.), Self-studies of science teacher education
practices (pp. 121e138). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Paine, L. (1995). Teacher education in search of a metaphor: Defining the rela-
tionship between teachers, teaching and the state in China. In M. B. Ginsburg, &
B. Lindsay (Eds.), The political dimension in teacher education: Comparative per-
spectives on policy formation, socialization and society (pp. 76e98). London &
Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307e332.
Pan, W., Cotton, D., & Murray, P. (2014). Linking research and teaching: Context,
conflict and complementarity. Innovations in Education & Teaching International,
51, 3e14.
Postareff, L., Katajavuori, N., Lindblom-Yla €nne, S., & Trigwell, K. (2008). Consonance
and dissonance in descriptions of teaching of university teachers. Studies in
Higher Education, 33, 49e61.
Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Yl€ anne, S. (2008). Variation in teachers' description of
teaching: Broadening the understanding of teaching in higher education.
Learning and Instruction, 18, 109e120.
Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Yl€ anne, S. (2011). Emotions and confidence within
teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 799e813.
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Yl€ anne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical
training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23,
557e571.
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Yla €nne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2008). A follow-up study of the effect
of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 56,
29e43.
Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2003). Dissonance in experience
of teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher
Education, 28, 37e48.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to
teaching inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 405e419.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2014). Qualitative variation in approaches to university
teaching and learning in large first-year classes. Higher Education, 67, 783e795.
Rajuan, M., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2008). Student teaches' perceptions of their
mentors as internal triggers for learning. Teaching Education, 19, 279e292.
Robertson, J. (2007). Beyond the ‘research/teaching nexus’: Exploring the
complexity of academic experience. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 541e556.
Robertson, J., & Blackler, G. (2006). Students' experiences of learning in a research
environment. Higher Education Research and Development, 25, 215e229.
Robinson, M., & McMillan, W. (2006). Who teaches the teachers? Identity, discourse
and policy in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 327e336.
Shi, X., & Englert, P. A. J. (2008). Reform of teacher education in China. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 34, 347e359.
Stes, A., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2008). Student-focused approaches to
teaching in relation to context and teacher characteristics. Higher Education, 55,
255e267.
Stes, A., & Van Petegem, P. (2014). Profiling approaches to teaching in higher edu-
cation: A cluster-analytic study. Studies in Higher Education, 39, 644e658.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and
136 Y. Cao et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019) 125e136
Bacon.
Tight, M. (2016). Examining the research/teaching nexus. European Journal of Higher
Education, 6, 293e311.
Toom, A., Krokfors, L., Kyn€ aslahti, H., Stenberg, K., Maaranen, K., Jyrha €ma€, R., …
Kansanen, P. (2008). Exploring the essential characteristics of research-based
teacher education from the viewpoint of teacher educators. In B. Åstrand,
E. Eisenschmidt, B. Hudson, M. Lampere, & P. Zgaga (Eds.), Proceedings of second
annual teacher education policy in Europe network (TEPE) conference: Mapping
the landscape and looking to the future (pp. 166e179). Slovenia: University of
Ljubljana.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to
teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 409e424.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a
revised approaches to teaching inventory. Higher Education Research and
Development, 24, 349e360.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to
teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75e84.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' ap-
proaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37,
57e70.
Tubic, T., & Hamilog lu, K. (2009). Linking learning styles and teaching styles. In
A. Swennen, & M. Van Der Klink (Eds.), Becoming a teacher educator: Theory and
practice for teacher educators (pp. 133e144). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
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, 854e869.
Vanassche, E., & Kelchtermans, G. (2014). Teacher educators' professionalism in
practice: Positioning theory and personal interpretative framework. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 44, 117e127.
Watkins, D. (2000). Learning and teaching: A cross-cultural perspective. School
Leadership & Management, 20, 161e173.
Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and
contextual influence. Hong Kong/Melbourne. Comparative Education Research
Centre/Australian Council for Educational Research.
Yogev, S., & Yogev, A. (2006). Teacher educators as researchers: A profile of research
in Israeli teacher colleges versus university departments of education. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 22, 32e41.
Yuan, R., & Lee, I. (2014). Understanding language teacher educators' professional
experiences: An exploratory study in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 23, 143e149.
Zhang, L. (2009). Occupational stress and teaching approaches among Chinese ac-
ademics. Educational Psychology, 29, 203e219.
Zhou, J. (2014). Teacher education changes in China: 1974-2014. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 40, 507e523.
Zhou, J., & Reed, L. (2005). Chinese government documents on teacher education
since the 1980s. Journal of Education for Teaching, 31, 201e213.
Zhu, H. (2010). Curriculum reform and professional development: A case study on
Chinese teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 36, 373e391.