- HEC 2016

Learning Cultural Specifics of Universities of Teacher Education
Starting point
Higher education institutions (HEI) like traditional universities have been established in all European
countries for hundreds of years. Therefore learning cultural traditions and habits at HEI have been
corroborated and thus influence actions, activities and attitudes of learning culture members (e.g. students, lecturers, headmasters) (Kreckel, 2006). A new type of HEI was implemented within the Swiss
educational system about 15 years ago. In the course of tertiarisation of teacher training so-called
universities of teacher education (UTE) which exclusively focus on corresponding study paths were
introduced.
UTE face a lot of challenges such as competition among HEI, several reforms, accreditation procedures, new empirical insights concerning learning and teaching and so forth. As a result they are
forced to develop and shape their organisational structures and processes of learning and teaching
(Tettenborn & Herzog, 2009). The conception and realisation of such changes can only be successful
if the existing learning culture is taken into account (Schneider et al., 2009). To do so, knowledge
about learning culture at UTE is needed. Previous studies cover some learning cultural aspects of
teacher training such as motivational aspects or interaction processes between students and lecturers
(e.g. Becher, 1989; Neumann, 2001; Multrus, 2005). But most of those were conducted at traditional
universities. In conclusion, no studies that profoundly analyse learning culture especially at UTE or at
similarly focused HEI have been carried out so far.
Research questions
Referring to the outlined lack of research and owing to the necessity that purposeful development of
organisational aspects and teaching and learning procedures at UTE should be based on empirical
assured findings, the presented study intends to describe learning culture at UTE and to illuminate
their specific learning cultural conditions by comparison with two other groups (prospective teachers
educated at traditional universities and university students of business administration). Accordingly,
the aim of the presentation is to identify learning cultural specifics of teacher training in general and
also of teacher training in specialised UTE.
In more detail the research is oriented towards the following questions:
1. Which characteristics describe learning culture at UTE?
2. Are there significant learning cultural differences between UTE and the two comparison
groups?
Theoretical framework
The functionalist perspective (Schultz, 1995) on learning culture as well as the so-called dynamic approach (Friebe, 2005) to learning culture serve as theoretical base for the presented paper. They both
understand learning culture as a complex and dynamic model of shared values, beliefs and underlying
assumptions shared by their members. Therefore learning culture offers orientation and identification
and in this way guides actions, activities and attitudes. The two approaches also assume that learning
culture can be shaped to a certain extent. But it is bound to consideration of the existing learning culture. So the description and understanding of the existing learning culture is required.
Moreover, the functionalist and dynamic approaches postulate the possible existence of subcultures
within an organisation. Learning culture at HEI therefore can be heterogeneous. With regard to research methods both approaches prefer analyses realised with the help of a predefined model of
learning culture containing learning cultural dimensions. Referring to that learning culture always obtains an individual, a group and an organisational dimension. These dimensions in turn can be subdivided in several subdimensions and indicators. Accordingly, learning culture can be described as a list
of learning cultural elements (Schultz, 1995; Friebe, 2005).
Based on the drafted understanding of learning culture, a definition of the term “learning culture”
(Jenert et al., 2009) is provided that is tailored to the specific conditions of HEI and that covers the
above-mentioned main attributes and premises to which both approaches refer.
Methods
Data was gathered by using the so-called learning culture inventory that is tailored to the specific conditions of HEI (Gebhardt, 2012). The development of the inventory started with specifying the concept
of learning culture for the purpose of HEI. In the course of concept specification three dimensions of
learning culture were identified (an individual, a pedagogic-interactional and an organisational dimension). Subsequently these dimensions were broken down into 25 indicators and operationalised into
several items. The item pool was generated by using and adapting existing scales or phrasing new
items. All items are worded as statements so that respondents are asked to announce their degree of
agreement for each item on a five-point Likert scale with options from "I totally agree" to "I totally disagree". While phrasing and adapting items, current recommendations were followed. The design of the
questionnaire also meets with common standards (Oppenheim, 2005; Diekmann, 2007; Schnell, Hill &
Esser, 2005).
The validity and reliability of the learning culture inventory was proven several times with different
samples (Gebhardt, 2012, 2015).
While data of students in traditional universities were collected in 2010, the study at an exemplary
chosen UTE was carried out in 2014. The factor structure and the reliability of the assumed scales
were confirmed again.
The sample includes 2906 students: 356 prospective teachers that study at traditional universities,
1815 students that study business administration at university and 735 students from a UTE. Allocation by gender is nearly balanced as 57 % of the participating students are female and 43 % are male.
The students are on average 22.91 years old (standard deviation = 4.02). The age varies between 17
and 54 years. Students' number of study terms range between 1 and 20.
To investigate the first research question mainly descriptive statistics were used (Field, 2005; Punch,
2009). The second research question was tackled with analysis of variance (general linear models). In
doing so, possible influence caused by other factors (e.g. gender, age, students’ number of study
terms) was controlled through consideration of covariates (Bortz, 2005). Similarly Bonferroni-correction
was applied in order to control the accumulation of alpha error through multiple comparisons (Nachtigall & Wirtz, 2009; Rost, 2007). To state results more precisely the effect size η2 of significant differences among the three student groups was also evaluated (Cohen, 1988). By applying post-hoc analyses the found significant differences were investigated in more detail (Field, 2005).
Findings and conclusion
In summary the results of the survey show significant differences among the three compared student
groups concerning nearly all scales of learning culture (exception: intrinsic motivation to study). In this
regard a lot of significant differences are of small effect size, whereas four differences are mediumsized (formative feedback, chances of participation, extent of competition between students, extent of
cooperation between students) and three are large-sized (extrinsic motivation to study, proactive
learner role, students’ degree of freedom of study organisation).
Findings of post-hoc analyses indicate learning cultural specifics for prospective teachers (irrespective
if they study at a traditional university or at a specified UTE) on the one hand. So for example future
teachers comparatively use more elaboration learning strategies and less rehearsal learning strategies, experience more formative feedback and feel more hope in contrast to students of business administration. On the other hand, post-hoc analyses give hints that there are typical learning cultural
characteristics for UTE. In this context students report a larger extent of boredom, more chances of
participation, more possibilities for extracurricular activities and a lower extent of competition between
students. Furthermore they feel comparatively less fearful and use metacognitive learning strategies to
a quite low extent. Students at UTE can also be specified by their relative small amounts of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation for learning.
In the discussion it will be exemplified how based on the reported findings a programme of further
education, which is tailored to the lecturers of the analysed UTE, could look like. Additionally a critical
reflection on the presented study is provided, in which its strengths and weaknesses will be addressed
and future research questions will be raised.
References
Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories. Milton Keynes: SHRE and Open University Press.
Bortz, J. (2005). Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Heidelberg: Springer.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Diekmann, A. (2007). Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Reinbek:
Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (and sex, drugs and rock`n`roll). London u. a.:
Sage.
Friebe, J. (2005). Merkmale unternehmensbezogener Lernkulturen und ihr Einfluss auf die Kompetenzen der Mitarbeiter (Dissertation, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg).
Gebhardt, A. (2012). Lernkulturen an Hochschulen. Entwicklung eines Lernkultureninventars und Analysen lernkultureller Phänomene. Bamberg: Difo.
Gebhardt, A. (2015). Erste Einblicke in die lernkulturellen Spezifika Pädagogischer Hochschulen. Präsentation am Jahreskongress 2015 der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Bildungsforschung.
St.Gallen, Schweiz.
Jenert, T., Zellweger Moser, F., Dommen, J. et al. (2009). Lernkulturen an Hochschulen. Theoretische
Überlegungen zur Betrachtung studentischen Lernens unter individueller, pädagogischer und
organisatorischer Perspektive. St. Gallen: Institut für Wirtschaftspädagogik.
Kreckel, R. (2006). Universitätskulturen. In R. Fikentscher (Hrsg.), Europäische Gruppenkulturen:
Familie, Freizeit, Rituale (S. 99-120). Halle (Saale): Mitteldeutscher Verlag GmbH.
Multrus, F. (2005). Identifizierung von Fachkulturen über Studierende deutscher Hochschulen. Ergebnisse auf der Basis des Studierendensurveys vom WS 2000/01. Konstanz: Arbeitsgruppe
Hochschulforschung.
Nachtigall, C. & Wirtz, M. (2009). Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung und Inferenzstatistik. Statistische Methoden für Psychologen. Teil 2. Weinheim u. a.: Juventa.
Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching. Studies in Higher Education,
26 (2), 135-146.
Oppenheim, A. N. (2005). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London,
New York: Continuum.
Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods in Education. Los Angeles u. a.: Sage.
Rost, D. H. (2007). Interpretation und Bewertung pädagogisch-psychologischer Studien. Eine Einführung. Weinheim u. a.: Beltz.
Schneider, R., Szczyrba, B., Welbers, U. & Wildt, J. (2009). Einleitung. In R. Schneider, B. Szczyrba,
U. Welbers & J. Wildt (Hrsg.), Wandel der Lehr- und Lernkulturen (S. 5-11). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
Schnell, R., Hill, P. B. & Esser, E. (2005). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. München u. a.:
Oldenbourg Verlag.
Schultz, M. (1995). On Studying Organizational Cultures. Diagnosis and Understanding. Berlin u. a.:
Walter de Gruyter.
Tettenborn, A. & Herzog, S. (2009). Qualifizierung von Dozierenden an Pädagogischen Hochschulen:
Eine Einleitung mit offenen Fragen. Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 27(1), S. 81-83.

Download Report