A psychometric analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) and a proposal for a Spanish version (S-ATI-20)

  • Fuensanta Monroy University of Murcia
  • José L. González-Geraldo University of Castilla-La Mancha
  • Fuensanta Hernández-Pina University of Murcia
Keywords: Approaches to teaching, questionnaire, inventory, teaching process, higher education, university


Background: Recent educational research has explored how university teachers approach their teaching. One of the most widely used instruments is Trigwell and Prosser´s (2004) Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI). There is, however, scarce research on the Spanish version of this questionnaire. This paper aimed: 1) to analyse the reliability and structural validity of two existing versions of ATI in Spanish language, and 2) to present a proposal for a new Spanish version of ATI, and to measure its reliability and validity. Method: The samples comprised university and trainee teachers from two Spanish universities. Results: Reliability coefficients, factor structures, and item loadings of the two existing Spanish versions of ATI were evaluated. Some coincidental outcomes suggested that a revised ATI in Spanish was required, thus a new version (S-ATI-20) was presented and tested on a new sample. Conclusions: The results suggest questionnaires should be suitably translated and item wording carefully adapted. Factor analyses moderately support a two-scale model, but a lack of correlation between approaches suggests alternative approaches to teaching models might be worth considering. This paper presents preliminary results which should be taken with caution, but S-ATI-20 may serve as a tool for self-reflection in faculty development.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Fuensanta Monroy, University of Murcia

Fuensanta Monroy holds a PhD in Education and teaches English for specific purposes as well as research methodology at the University of Murcia (Spain). Her research interests focus on approaches to teaching, approaches to learning, and factors which may play a role in teaching and learning.

José L. González-Geraldo, University of Castilla-La Mancha

José L. González-Geraldo teaches and researches Theory and History of Education at the University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). His PhD involved the SAL theory, approaches to teaching and the emerging European Higher Education Area (EHEA). He is currently interested in what makes higher education higher and any type of postmodern turn regarding historiography.

Fuensanta Hernández-Pina, University of Murcia

Fuensanta Hernández-Pina is professor of Education and Head of Department of Educational Research Methodology of University of Murcia (Spain). Her current research interests are institutional assessment, university teaching and learning, and educational research methods. She has over 100 publications on approaches to learning, self-regulated learning, assessment centres, research methodology, and EFQM model.


Ato, M., López, J. J., y Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3), 1038-1059.

Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Buela-Casal, G., Sierra, J.C., Carretero-Dios, H., & De los Santos-Roig, M. (2002). Situación actual de la evaluación psicológica en lengua castellana. Papeles del Psicólogo, 83, 27-33.

Cambridge dictionaries online. (2014). Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Congost Mestre, N. (2012). Aspectos socioculturales en la traducción de cuestionarios de salud estadounidenses. Panacea. Revista de Medicina, Lenguaje y Traducción, 13(35), 91-98.

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.

Furnham, A. (1990). Faking Personality Questionnaires: Fabricating Different Profiles for Different Purposes. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 9(1), 46-55.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87-100.

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), 16-26.

González Geraldo, J. L. (2010). Optimización de procesos educativos en el E.E.E.S. (Doctoral Thesis, Universidad de Castilla La Mancha, Spain), Ediciones de la UCLM, ISBN 978-84-8427-771. Retrieved from https://ruidera.uclm.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10578/1441/TESIS%20FINAL%20ENCUADERNADA.pdf?sequence=1

González Geraldo, J. L., Del Rincón, B., & Del Rincón, D. (2011). Estructura latente y consistencia interna del R-SPQ-2F. Reinterpretando los enfoques de aprendizaje en el EEES. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 29(2), 277-294.

González Geraldo, J. L., Trevitt, C., Carter, S., & Fazey, J. (2010). Rethinking the Research-Teaching Nexus in Undergraduate Education: Spanish laws pre- and post-Bologna. European Educational Research Journal, 9(1), 81-91.

Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20-33.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R.., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.

Hernández Pina, F., Maquilón Sánchez, J. J., & Monroy Hernández, F. (2012). Estudio de los enfoques de enseñanza en profesores de educación primaria. Revista de Curriculum y Formación del Profesorado, 16(1), 61-77.

Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics´ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.

Kember, D., & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469-490.

Kjellgren, K. I., Hendry, G., Hultberg, J., Plos, K., Rydmark, M., Tobin, G., & Säljö, R. (2008). Learning to learn and learning to teach - Introduction to studies in higher education. Medical Teacher, 30, 239-245.

Kirton, M. J. (1991). Faking Personality Questionnaires: A Response to Furnham. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 10(4), 315-317.

Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 285-298.

Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. J. (Eds.) (1984). The experience of learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N.J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36-55). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Meyer, J. H. F., & Eley, M.G. (2006). The Approaches to Teaching Inventory: A critique of its development and applicability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 633-649.

Monroy Hernández, F. (2013). Enfoques de enseñanza y de aprendizaje de los estudiantes del Máster Universitario en Formación del Profesorado de Educación Secundaria (Doctoral Thesis, Universidad de Murcia, Spain). Retrieved from http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/117259/TFMH.pdf?sequence=1

Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2005). Sistema de clasificación del método en los informes de investigación en Psicología. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 5(1), 115-127.

O’Connor, B. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32, 396-402.

Oliveira Reis, L. (2009). Traducción de los cuestionarios para su uso en investigación multicultural. Actas urológicas españolas, 33(1), 5-7.

Pedrosa-de-Jesus, M. H., & da Silva Lopes, B. (2011). The relationship between teaching and learning conceptions, preferred teaching approaches and questioning practices. Research Papers in Education, 26(2), 223-243.

Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 557-571.

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(1), 37-48.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to teaching inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 405-419.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics´ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217-231.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2004). Methodological issues in questionnaire-based research on student learning in Higher Education. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 347-358.

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Ferrando, P. J., Paiva, M.O., Lourenço, A., Cerezo, R., & Valle, A. (2013). Approaches to teaching and approaches to studying relationships: A two-level structural equation model for biology achievement in high school. Metacognition and Learning, 8.1, 47-77. Doi: 10.1007/s11409-013-9095-6.

Spector, P. (2001). Research methods in industrial and organisational psychology. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viwesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (pp. 10-26). London: Sage.

Stes, A., Coertjens, L., & Van Petegrem, P. (2010). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: impact on teaching approach. Higher Education, 60, 187-204.

Stes, A., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). Approaches to teaching in higher education: Validation of a Dutch version of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Learning Environment Research, 13, 59-73.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996a). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers´ approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77-87.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996b). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275-284.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409-424.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 349-360.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university sciences. Higher Education, 27, 75-84.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Waterhouse (1999). Relations between teachers´ approaches to teaching and students´ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.

Zhang, L. F. (2001). Approaches and Thinking Styles in Teaching. The Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 547-561.

How to Cite
Monroy, F., González-Geraldo, J. L., & Hernández-Pina, F. (2014). A psychometric analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) and a proposal for a Spanish version (S-ATI-20). Anales De Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 31(1), 172-183. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.31.1.190261
Developmental and Educational Psychology