Disciplinary differences and university teaching

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries] On: 8 August 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 917007328] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Studies in Higher Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713445574 Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching Ruth Neumann To cite this Article Neumann, Ruth(2001) 'Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching', Studies in Higher Education, 26: 2, 135 — 146 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03075070120052071 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070120052071 Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Studies in Higher Education Volume 26, No. 2, 2001 Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching RUTH NEUMANN Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ABSTRACT In the past decade the importance and quality of teaching have received increased attention from policy makers as well as from higher educationalists. However, studies of university teaching and learning essentially remain focused on generic aspects, thus belying their complexity and diversity. This is in contrast to the recognition that academics identify most strongly with their discipline. Further, Becher’s classic study of Academic Tribes and Territories demonstrated the strong interconnection between disciplinary culture and disciplinary knowledge. This article draws together existing, but largely scattered, research Ž ndings on teaching and learning under an established framework of broad disciplinary classiŽ cations. In doing so, it examines the nature of teaching, teaching and learning processes, and teaching outcomes across the different disciplines. The picture presented demonstrates scope for future macro, meso and micro level studies to seek explana- tions for systematic disciplinary differences. It suggests how the results of this research can be used to inform institutional and government policy to make the governance of higher education fairer and more effective. Introduction The quality of teaching has received continuing attention in the past decade, within the context of political recognition of its importance in a market-focused environment. Now, not only higher educationalists, but also institutional and government policy makers talk fre- quently about the quality of teaching. Studies of the academic reward system, however, still show a perception that teaching is undervalued (see for example Boyer, Altbach & Whitelaw, 1994; Ballantyne, Bain & Packer, 1999). Further, knowledge about teaching often appears to be taken for granted, with discussions and decision-making at times appearing to be based on past personal experiences. Consequently policy makers feel competent to talk about teaching, but its complexity is rarely acknowledged and aspects of university teaching are still under- examined. Policy making and discussion need to take place within the context of knowledge about research in higher education teaching rather than in either a vacuum or a context-free environment. Studies on university teaching have largely focused on generic aspects of teaching methods, student learning, curriculum development and assessment (Hativa, 1997; Dunkin, 1986). However, the issue of whether, and how, teaching varies across the various disciplines has received limited attention (Hativa & Marincovich, 1995; Hativa, 1997; Quinlan, 1997). In his in uential study of academic work across six disciplines in UK and US universities, Becher (1989) noted that only some aspects of disciplinary variation had been examined. These included the contention that research and not teaching had received attention, and, that within research, disciplines representing hard pure Ž elds (i.e. science and in particular ‘big science’) have been well documented, when compared with the other Ž elds of hard ISSN 0307-5079 print; ISSN 1470-174X online/01/020135-12 Ó 2001 Society for Research into Higher Education DOI: 10.1080/0307507012005207 1 D o w n lo ad ed B y: [ Un iv er si ty o f Ho ng K on g Li br ar ie s] A t: 1 5: 59 8 A ug us t 20 10 136 R. Neumann applied (technologies), soft pure (humanities and social sciences) and soft applied (the social science-based professions—see also Biglan 1973a, 1973b). Thus, despite the acknowledged importance of teaching, and the large body of research on teaching, the role of disciplines in shaping teaching is a relatively new focus. It is, however, a focus which has important implications for a better understanding of practice and the formulation of meaningful policy. This article examines the existing research on disciplinary differences in university teaching, using the Biglan–Becher typology of disciplines, and highlights policy implications for institutions and governments. Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and Learning While research in school education has for some time examined teaching in different subject areas (see for example Shulman, 1987), in respect to higher education Quinlan (1997) notes that researchers have overlooked educational beliefs about the discipline. The teaching portfolios project commenced by the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE) in the early 1990s (Anderson, 1993; Edgerton, Hutchings & Quinlan, 1991) could be con- sidered the starting point for recognition that, within universities, different disciplines combine generic aspects of teaching in ways quite speciŽ c to the discipline. This project, which has been a springboard for others within the AAHE and, more recently, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, has been important in exploring the subtleties and complexities of teaching in speciŽ c disciplinary contexts. It is surprising that the discipline-speciŽ c context of teaching has been overlooked, since academics identify most strongly with the discipline (Becher, 1989; Clark, 1984; Quinlan, 1997). Some recent studies, predominantly North American, have started to address this issue. From them a picture is emerging on the nature of teaching, the processes used and teaching outcomes. Another emerging area lies in relating student learning to disciplinary values and cultures. The Nature of Teaching Many studies of academic work examine differences in teaching based on different academic levels and institutional type. Variation by discipline is often a component of such studies, but it is rarely the major focus. An important starting point is an appreciation of how the nature of teaching varies across disciplines. While some aspects, such as the importance of tutorials in the humanities and laboratory experimentation in science and technology, appear self-evident, a picture of the pattern of teaching in different Ž elds is important in illuminating the extent of diversity, and may be important in understanding or exploring reasons for different processes and outcomes. Some recent studies have highlighted disciplinary differ- ences not only in types of teaching, but also in hours of contact and preparation time, as well as in research supervision and undergraduate teaching loads. Lectures, tutorials and seminars, laboratory practicals, Ž eld trips and practicums are the main teaching modes within universities. The lecture method seems to pervade all disciplines as the dominant mode of teaching (Ballantyne et al., 1999). It is not surprising to learn that academics in the humanities spend the most time on lectures, seminars and tutorials, that academics in the natural sciences, technology and medicine spend most time on laboratory teaching, exercises and Ž eld trips, and that academics in technological disciplines spend much time on lectures and little on seminars (Ballantyne et al., 1999; Hativa, 1997; Smeby, 1996). In considering actual teaching and preparation time, Smeby’s (1996) national study of Norwegian research universities found that academics spent on average 21.1 hours a week D o w n lo ad ed B y: [ Un iv er si ty o f Ho ng K on g Li br ar ie s] A t: 1 5: 59 8 A ug us t 20 10 Disciplinary Differences 137 teaching, of which 8.9 hours represented face-to-face teaching and 12.2 hours were spent on preparation. In a closer examination of disciplinary variation, Smeby found considerable differences in disciplinary practice. For example, he found that academics in soft pure disciplines spend most time on teaching, and that those in hard applied disciplines spent the least time. Those in soft pure disciplines spend most time on preparation (see also, Clark, 1987). In terms of actual time spent, academics in soft pure Ž elds spent 2.2 hours preparing one teaching hour, academics in hard pure Ž elds 1.2 hours, and those in hard applied areas only 0.9 hours. Thus, while academics in soft pure and hard applied Ž elds spent more time on teaching than academics in the other disciplines, in hard applied areas this time was mostly spent on face-to-face teaching, while for humanities academics preparation comprised a large proportion of teaching time. Interestingly, although student–teacher ratios vary by discipline group, this does not appear to affect the amount of time used for teaching. Finally, there is considerable disciplinary variation between undergraduate and post- graduate teaching. Academics in soft pure Ž elds teach more at undergraduate level than academics in other disciplines, while those in hard applied Ž elds spend an average of one quarter of their time on supervision. Academics in soft pure Ž elds spend the least amount of their time on supervision, although social scientists spend more time on supervision than humanities academics, primarily because they enrol a greater total number of students and also offer more subject majors. Importantly, academics in hard pure and hard applied Ž elds see their research supervision as integrated with their own research (Biglan, 1973b; Clark, 1987; Smeby, 1996). A recent review of humanities research in Australia noted that postgraduate supervision ‘imposes a particularly onerous burden of responsibility’ since it is less ‘dovetailed with the academic’s own research agenda than is the case in most other disciplines’ (Australian Research Council, 1998: xix). An extensive study of graduate education in the UK (Becher, Henkel & Kogan, 1994) highlights the variation in the supervisory process and research education experience of postgraduate students. Becher and his colleagues reveal that there are sharp differences between hard pure and soft pure disciplines. Postgraduate research education in hard pure disciplines is deeply rooted in the organisation of research itself. The supervisory process is a group-based apprenticeship model. In soft pure Ž elds a model of individual apprenticeships is the norm, with student research not necessarily linked closely to an academic supervisor’s research. However, Becher et al. highlight the variation within disciplines as well, pointing to an emerging tendency in some disciplines (economics and sociology are cited) to offer more collective modes of study, along the lines of hard pure disciplines. In re ecting on the Ž ndings of his national survey, Smeby concludes that the differences in time spent on teaching and type of teaching indicate genuine differences between the disciplines due to paradigm status and speciŽ city of language. However, he questions Clark’s (1987) ‘epistemological determination of work’ and challenges the disciplines to consider whether they could learn from each other’s practices. He concludes that we need to understand how disciplinary differences affect academics’ use of time for teaching. Indeed, a fruitful area for future research lies in comparative national studies of disciplinary variation in teaching, to examine similarities and differences in national cultural patterns. Teaching Preferences and Practices An understanding of teaching processes within and across the disciplines involves knowledge of the culture and context in which teaching occurs and the attitudes of academics (and students) about teaching, educational goals, values, philosophies and orientations. Various D o w n lo ad ed B y: [ Un iv er si ty o f Ho ng K on g Li br ar ie s] A t: 1 5: 59 8 A ug us t 20 10 138 R. Neumann studies have started to shed light on how academics in different disciplines go about their teaching and their perceptions of the curriculum. Academics in soft disciplines tend to indicate a greater preference for teaching while those in hard areas show signiŽ cantly greater preference for research (Biglan, 1973b; Clark, 1987). However, these stated preferences for teaching and research are problematic, since, for example, a stated preference for research over teaching cannot be taken as a lack of interest, or incompetence, in teaching, or even a dislike of teaching (Neumann, 1996). To highlight the complexity of interpreting statements of preference, it is worth noting that Biglan’s study (1973a, 1973b) found that, although academics in pure areas stated greater preferences for research than those in applied areas, they did not spend more time on research. Indeed, the difference between stated preferences may be explained by variation in the approach to postgraduate research training. Biglan suggests that because postgraduate training in hard areas occurs in the actual research setting, academics view this teaching more as research and hence indicate a greater research preference. Drawing on Kuhn (1962), Biglan suggests that this is a necessary part of the socialisation process in disciplines with a strong paradigm. In disciplines which lack a strong paradigm (soft areas) research tends to be more independent and idiosyncratic. Hence postgraduate research students gain more from independent study than from working closely with a supervisor. Different values and emphases have also been found in relation to curriculum and assessment issues (Braxton, 1995; Smart & Ethington, 1995), as well as different conceptual structures and knowledge validation methods (Donald, 1995). Donald (1983) noted that hard pure Ž elds had tightly structured courses with highly related concepts and principles. Soft pure Ž elds had open course structures and were loosely organised. In considering educational goals, Braxton (1995) found that hard disciplines place greater importance on student career preparation and emphasise cognitive goals such as learning facts, principles and concepts. Soft areas place greater importance on broad general knowledge, on student character development and on effective thinking skills such as critical thinking. Hativa (1997) found that soft pure Ž elds placed greater importance on creativity of thinking and oral and written expression, while hard pure and hard applied Ž elds placed strong emphasis on ability to apply methods and principles. Student assessment re ects these differing goals. Hard areas require memorisation and application of course material, while soft disciplines are more likely to have exam questions requiring analysis and synthesis of course content (Braxton, 1995; Smart & Ethington, 1995). While all disciplines rely heavily on written examinations at undergraduate level, reports on practical work are used only in hard pure Ž elds and oral presentations only in the humanities. Multiple Choice Questions are favoured in applied but not in pure Ž elds (Warren Piper, Nulty & O’Grady, 1996). In their detailed and large-scale study, Warren Piper et al. also found that hard pure and hard applied disciplines weighted examinations more strongly than soft pure Ž elds, which in turn favoured continuous assessment. Soft pure Ž elds use essays, short answer papers and project reports more widely as assessment tasks. However, the social sciences also use practical work and—though to a lesser extent than in hard pure Ž elds—numerical calculations. Warren Piper et al. also examined the interaction between discipline and class size on selection of assessment method. They concluded that there is some evidence that class size is a factor in the selection of assessment method in examinations, but that the discipline remains an important in uencing factor. In relation to examination practices, marking guidelines are used more in soft pure Ž elds and less in hard pure ones (in mathematics least of all). The same pattern was found in relation to guidelines on the distribution of grades and the practice of double marking of examination scripts. This D o w n lo ad ed B y: [ Un iv er si ty o f Ho ng K on g Li br ar ie s] A t: 1 5: 59 8 A ug us t 20 10 Disciplinary Differences 139 would suggest that there is less contention about ‘right and wrong’ and the presentation of evidence in Ž elds with a strong paradigm. Programme review is seen as an instrument for the improvement of teaching and learning in soft disciplines but given limited attention by academics in hard disciplines (Braxton, 1995; Smart & Ethington, 1995). Biglan (1973b) noted that scholars in both applied and hard disciplines are more inclined than those in soft pure Ž elds to collaborate with colleagues on teaching. Stark, Lowther, Bentley and Martens (1988) found that disciplines exercise stronger in uence than institutional, career and external factors in curriculum development and planning, but Lattuca and Stark (1994) added that disciplines differed in values and attitudes towards various aspects of curriculum. They concluded in their content analysis of twelve different disciplines that: typically hard and pure Ž elds where a common paradigm is acknowledged, are adept at discussing curricular coherence but Ž nd the idea of critical perspectives to be unfamiliar, if not uncomfortable … typically soft, pure Ž elds, show the reverse patterns: helping students develop critical perspectives is their forte, but acceptance of multiple paradigms seems to be associated with reluctance to describe coherence. (p. 407) In regard to classroom teaching practices, hard Ž elds place stronger emphasis on student research experience in teaching undergraduates, while soft Ž elds focus on student growth and development, discussion, oral and written communication skills. Hativa (1997) found that academics in soft pure and soft applied (education) Ž elds present their students with more recent knowledge than academics in hard pure and hard applied areas. Among the soft pure Ž elds, the social sciences presented the most current knowledge, contrasting strongly with hard pure Ž elds which presented the ‘oldest’. This practice is argued to be related to the hierarchical structure of knowledge in hard pure Ž elds, where the more current knowledge is taught at senior undergraduate levels. Teaching Approaches An interesting line of recent US research favours case studies involving detailed observation and interviewi