Conceptions of teaching have traditionally been described in terms of two qualitatively different orientations: a teacher-centred/content-oriented category (further divided into Impartation of information; and Transmition of structured knowledge), and a student-centred/learning-oriented category (divided into Facilitation of understanding; and Conceptual change/Intellectual development) (Kember, 1997). Later studies have identified two main approaches to teaching: a) a conceptual change and student-focused (CCSF) approach; and b) an information transmission and teacher-focused (ITTF) teaching approach (Trigwell, Prosser, & Taylor, 1994).

Studies have shown there is strong evidence that the ways teachers approach their teaching may be related to how their students approach their learning (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Gow&Kember, 1993; Rosário et al., 2013; Trigwell& Prosser, 2004; Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999). Thus, a student-centred approach to teaching is related to a non-surface (deep) approach to learning, while a teacher-centred approach is associated with a surface approach (Gow&Kember, 1993; Trigwell, et al., 1999). This relation may in turn influence the quality of learning results, as it has been confirmed that students´ approaches to learning are related to learning outcomes (Biggs, 1990; Marton&Säljö, 1984; Prosser et al., 1994).

Educational researchers interested in gaining a deeper insight into teaching and approaches to teaching have traditionally focused on quantitative methods. One of the most widely administered instruments is the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI), developed and revised by Trigwell and colleagues (Trigwell, Prosser, & Ginns, 2005). The advantages of quantitative research are several, the main one being its potential for “collecting numeric data from a large number of people using instruments with preset questions and responses” (Creswell, 2012, p. 13). The advantage of participants responding self-report measures is clear, as there is no observation in which a researcher’s bias may interfere, or interaction with an interviewer who may influence reactions and responses. On the other hand, as a noncognitive instrument that measures preference, attitudes or perceptions about teaching, ATI and similar instruments may be susceptible to two sources of error: response set (when participants select the same answer for all items, or respond in a way that is socially acceptable or desirable), and faking (when participants give inaccurate responses deliberately) (McMillan, 2012, p. 162). Alternatively, researchers may wish to combine quantitative and qualitative methods and implement mixed-method (McMillan, 2012) that would overcome the limitations of the other two methods and yield stronger results. They “provide more a thorough understanding of a research problem because of the opportunity to examine multiple forms of data that are more comprehensive than data that might be collected via either quantitative or qualitative methods alone” (p. 318).

The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods has been used in educational research, particularly in the study of the phenomenon of learning. There is scarce research of this type in teaching, which would help validate quantitative and qualitative results and shed light on the survey-based responses. It is timely that data obtained via quantitative and qualitative methods are compared in order to ensure researchers are administering the right tools. Furthermore, the importance of teacher training is clear, as it has been shown in the literature. 

This study will be designed to examine trainee teachers´ opinions about and approaches to teaching. The aims will be: a) to measure the approaches to teaching of Spanish trainee teachers by means of a survey (a revised version of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory); b) to explore trainee teachers´ perspectives of the phenomenon of teaching by means of a open-ended questions; and c) to compare both types of responses, and analyse any convergence which would allow a better understanding of this phenomenon.

- BIGGS, J. B. (1990). Teaching for desired learning outcomes. In N. J. Entwistle (Ed.), Handbook of Educational Ideas and Practices (pp. 681-693). London: Routlegde. - CRESWELL, J.W. (2012). Educational Research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Education. - ELEY, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23(3), 231-254. - 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, 87-100. - GOW, L., & KEMBER, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20-33. - KEMBER, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics´ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275. - 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., & 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. - MCMILLAN, J.H. (2012). Educational Research. Fundamentals for the consumer. Boston: Pearson. - MONROY, F., GONZÁLEZ-GERALDO, J.L., & HERNÁNDEZ-PINA, F. (2015). A psychometric analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) and a proposal for a Spanish version (S-ATI-20). Anales de Psicología, 31, 1, 172-183. - PROSSER, M., TRIGWELL, K., & TAYLOR, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics´ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217-231. - 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, 44-77. - 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, F. (1999). Relations between teachers´ approaches to teaching and students´ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.