Disciplinary Differences and University Teachers’ Perspectives: Possibilities of Applying the Teaching Perspectives Inventory Jovana Milutinović 1 , Biljana Lungulov* 2 and Aleksandra Anđelković 3 • Based on the conceptual and empirical framework of five perspectives on teaching and earlier studies that have suggested a link between teach - ing perspectives and teachers’ academic disciplines, this paper aimed to examine the differences in the university teachers’ perspectives from various academic disciplines and faculties. This research also aimed to validate the Teaching Perspectives Inventory on a sample of 526 uni - versity teachers in Serbia. The results confirmed the differences in the university teachers’ perspectives and led to the conclusion that hard sci - ences teachers were more teacher-centred, while soft sciences teachers were more student-centred. Additionally, exploratory factor analysis indicated that the slightly modified version of the TPI is applicable and reliable to use in other educational contexts. However, it can be conclud - ed that research on teachers’ perspectives is limited to specific cultural, educational, and research contexts. Keywords: academic disciplines; hard/soft sciences; higher education; perspectives on teaching; university teachers 1 Department of Pedagogy at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia. 2 *Corresponding Author. Department of Pedagogy at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia; biljana.lungulov@ff.uns.ac.rs. 3 Pedagogical Faculty in Vranje, University of Niš, Serbia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1470 Published on-line as Recently Accepted Paper: December 2022 c e p s Journal disciplinary differences and university teachers’ perspectives 2 Razlike med strokami in stališča visokošolskih učiteljev: možnosti uveljavitve inventarja perspektiv poučevanja Jovana Milutinović, Biljana Lungulov in Aleksandra Anđelković • Na osnovi pojmovnega in empiričnega okvira petih perspektiv pouče- Na osnovi pojmovnega in empiričnega okvira petih perspektiv pouče - vanja ter starejših študij, ki so nakazale na povezavo med perspektivo in akademsko disciplino, ki ji pripada učitelj, je prispevek skušal preiskati razlike med pogledi visokošolskih učiteljev različnih strok in fakultet. Raziskava si je obenem prizadevala validirati inventar perspektiv pouče - vanja na vzorcu 526 visokošolskih učiteljev v Srbiji. Rezultati potrjujejo, da razlike med pogledi visokošolskih učiteljev obstajajo, kar je pripeljalo do zaključka, da znotraj naravoslovnih znanosti prevladuje na učitelja osredinjen pristop, družboslovne vede pa zagovarjajo osredinjenost na študenta. Poleg tega je eksplorativna faktorska analiza pokazala, da je nekoliko spremenjena različica inventarja perspektiv poučevanja upo - rabna in zanesljiva tudi v drugih izobraževalnih kontekstih, lahko pa se sklene, da je preiskovanje učiteljskih pogledov omejeno s kulturnimi posebnostmi ter z izobraževalnimi in raziskovalnimi okoliščinami. Ključne besede: akademske discipline, naravoslovne/družboslovne vede, visoko šolstvo, perspektive poučevanja, univerzitetni učitelji c e p s Journal 3 Introduction Current higher education policies at the international level are directed towards improving the quality of higher education, with a particular focus on the issue of raising the quality of university-level teaching and pedagogical training for university teachers (Aškerc Veniger, 2016; ENQA, 2015; High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education, 2013). The increased need to ensure the quality of teaching placed new demands on university teachers; con - sidering the development of adequate models and programmes through which it is possible to improve the quality of teaching became very important. Re - sults of numerous studies (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Ho et al., 2001; Hubball et al., 2005; Postareff et al., 2007; Potter et al., 2015) showed that well-structured and long-term programmes of pedagogical training of university teachers have a significant influence on ways teachers conceptualise lectures, their approaches to teaching, and students’ approaches to learning. However, it is important to note that university teachers do not repre - sent a homogenous group but rather have different socio-cultural, educational, and professional backgrounds. They project and bring different sets of cultural and professional experiences into the educational environment, as well as their personal values and beliefs. Those experiences, values, and beliefs influence and further shape the way university teachers perceive and understand teaching. In this context, it is presupposed that the conceptions of teaching are influenced, if not determined, by teachers’ personal traits, professional development, special - isation, previous experience, and other socio-cultural variables (Chan, 1994). However, it has not yet been fully determined to what extent these variables can influence teachers’ perspectives on teaching. Earlier studies have suggested a possible link between teaching concep - tions and university teachers’ academic discipline. In several studies, it has been concluded that teaching conceptions of university teachers significantly vary in different disciplines; for example, among respondents from the soft sciences, the conceptual change/teaching approach focused on the student has predomi - nated, while for the respondents from the hard sciences, the most predominant has been the transfer of information/teaching approach focused on the teacher (Kemp, 2013; Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2006; Lueddeke, 2003; Päuler-Kuppinger & Jucks, 2017; Postareff et al., 2008; Stes & Van Petegem, 2014). The research results, therefore, point to the differences between teachers of hard and soft sci - ences and suggest they prefer two rather different and contrasting concepts of teaching: information transmission and conceptual change. This paper, based on a conceptual and empirical framework developed by Pratt (1998), provides disciplinary differences and university teachers’ perspectives 4 a certain level of validation of Pratt’s construct (1992) of five perspectives on teaching and addresses differences in university teachers’ perspectives on teaching, taking into consideration their academic discipline and their faculty affiliation. Conceptual Framework and Use of TPI in Previous Research When researching the efficacy of teaching in higher education, many researchers were focused on the field of examining teachers’ beliefs and sought to define and empirically confirm teaching conceptions (Chan, 1994; Dall’ Alba, 1991; Feiman-Nemser, 1990; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Trigwell et al., 1994). Their analysis resulted in a significant agreement on certain features; catego - ries used independently by different researchers to describe conceptions about teaching have shown a high level of concordance. Drawing from previous re - search, Pratt (Pratt, 1992; Pratt, 1998; Pratt & Collins, 2000) developed a con- Pratt, 1998; Pratt & Collins, 2000) developed a con- Pratt & Collins, 2000) developed a con- & Collins, 2000) developed a con- Collins, 2000) developed a con - ceptual framework consisting of five perspectives on teaching. In the paper that led to the development of that framework, Pratt (1992, p. 203) defined concep - tions about teaching as cognitive representations of the way teachers think and understand the concept of teaching. Those conceptions are rooted in cultural, societal, historical, and personal frameworks of meaning, and they represent a lens through which teachers observe teaching and learning. Pratt would later use the term ‘teaching perspectives’ (Pratt, 2002; Pratt & Associates, 1998), em- Pratt, 2002; Pratt & Associates, 1998), em- 2002; Pratt & Associates, 1998), em- Pratt & Associates, 1998), em- ), em- phasising that perspectives represent an intertwined set of beliefs and intentions that guide and justify teachers’ actions (the five perspectives are: Transmission, Apprenticeship, Developmental, Nurturing, and Social Reform). Based on these premises, the TPI instrument was developed ( Teaching Perspectives Inventory). The TPI instrument has found wide application in research in many countries on samples of respondents who belong to various cultural contexts and speak different languages ( Collins & Pratt, 2011). For the subject of this research, the studies focusing on determining differences in the teaching per - spectives of teachers from different faculties and academic disciplines are par - ticularly relevant. Thus, the research conducted by Rotidi et al. (2017) on the subsamples of Greek university teachers and university teachers from other countries (the international sample was drawn from the TPI database) aimed to examine the differences in perspectives between teachers of different fac - ulties as clustered in Biglan’s typology (Biglan, 1973). It was determined that Greek teachers from soft disciplines scored higher on the Social Reform, De - velopmental, and Nurturing perspectives compared to the teachers from hard c e p s Journal 5 disciplines. Nevertheless, this research concluded that although disciplinary differences are real, they are small compared to potential interpersonal differ - ences or even international differences (Rotidi et al., 2017, p. 11). In the study involving teachers from a research university in the south - ern United States (Deggs et al., 2008), it was determined that significant differ - ences between teachers of different faculties were only present with respect to the apprenticeship perspective. Another research study conducted at the Autonomous University of Yu- catan in Mexico (Canto y Rodríguez & Burgos Fajardo, 2011) also showed that there are differences between teachers in regards to the representation of cer - tain teaching perspectives; teachers from the Faculties of Social Science and Architecture, Art and Design scored higher on the Developmental perspec - tive, while the Nurturing perspective was shown to be more dominant with respondents from the Faculty of Health Sciences and Architecture, as well as the Faculty of Art and Design. A study conducted at Oklahoma State University (Matofari & Edwards, 2017) showed that there are certain differences in perspectives among teachers from different faculties; teachers from the College of Arts and Sciences had significantly higher scores on the Developmental perspective compared to the teachers from other faculties. The Present Study and Research Aim Large individual differences in the experience and competence in teach - ing exist among university teachers in Serbia, since a vast number of them did not acquire any education or training in pedagogy, didactics, or teaching meth - ods throughout their careers. Consequently, a traditional approach to teaching and prioritising basic knowledge and the content rather than how that knowl - edge is passed on to others negatively affects the teaching work and its results. Although the TPI is a widely used instrument for examining teaching perspectives in many countries and in different populations, no study has been conducted in Serbia to validate this instrument on a sample of university teach - ers. The first goal of this research was to examine the factor structure of the TPI while assuming that the original five-factor structure of the questionnaire would be confirmed. The second goal was to determine the reliability of the Serbian version of the TPI, and it was assumed that high reliability would be confirmed as in previous studies (Chan, 1994; Collins & Pratt, 2011). The third research goal was to explore the differences in teaching perspectives among university teachers in relation to the academic discipline and their faculty disciplinary differences and university teachers’ perspectives 6 affiliation. Based on the results of previous studies (Canto y Rodríguez & Bur - gos Fajardo, 2011; Deggs et al., 2008; Matofari & Edwards, 2017; Rotidi et al., 2017), it was hypothesised that the academic discipline and faculty would have influenced the university teachers’ perspectives on teaching. Method Participants The research sample consisted of a total of 526 university teaching staff, specifically 65.8% (N = 346) teachers and 34.2% (N = 180) associates. The par - ticipants were teachers and associates from eleven faculties within two public universities in Serbia; 342 (65%) from the University of Novi Sad and 184 (35%) from the University of Niš, with 57.2% (N = 301) female and 42.8% (N = 225) male respondents. The sample was suitable and based on the socio-demograph - ic characteristics of the participants, it was concluded that all representative groups of university teachers in Serbia were included; teachers of all academic titles, different ages and different lengths of work experience in teaching at the university level. According to the official data provided by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (Republički zavod za statistiku Republike Srbije, 2021), about 15% of the teaching staff employed at the University of Novi Sad and the University of Niš participated in this research. When it comes to the classification of university teachers from differ - ent academic disciplines, the predominant model is Biglan’s three-dimensional classification (Biglan, 1973), according to which the sciences are divided into Hard/Soft, depending on their methodological rigour and objectivity, Pure/ Applied, according to their orientation towards application, and Life/non-Life, depending on whether the disciplines deal with the research of living or non- living subject matter. Regarding the classification of sciences into hard and soft, it is important to note that, based on the revised Biglan classification model (Stoecker, 1993), the teachers from the health sub-discipline are generally more similar to soft sciences than to hard sciences in terms of different pedagogical dimensions (Aškerc Veniger & Kočar, 2018). Furthermore, in the context of the division of sciences into Hard/Soft and Pure/Applied, some studies (Lindblom- Ylänne et al., 2006) show that university teachers from hard and soft sciences are particularly polarised. Using these results, as well as the classifications of disciplines in previous research dealing with teaching approaches (Lindblom- Ylänne et al., 2006; Mladenovici et al., 2022; Stes & Van Petegem, 2014; Trigwell & Prosser, 2020), the classification of teachers from different disciplines was done in the manner indicated by Biglan’s classification (Becher & Trowler, 2001; c e p s Journal 7 Biglan, 1973). The structure of the sample with regard to faculties and hard/soft sciences is shown in Table 1. Table 1 Structure of the Sample with Regard to Faculties and Hard/Soft Sciences Hard/Soft sciences and faculties N % 526 100 Hard sciences 368 70 Technical Sciences 110 20.9 Mechanical Engineering 17 3.2 Medicine 134 25.5 Agriculture 39 7.4 Sciences 57 10.8 Technology 11 2.1 Soft sciences 158 30 Sport and Physical Education 30 5.7 Economics 18 3.4 Philosophy 77 14.6 Education 25 4.7 Law 8 1.5 Instrument The instrument used in the research was the TPI ( Teaching Perspectives Inventory) by Pratt (Collins & Pratt, 2011; Pratt, 1998) with previously obtained permission and consent of the author. The original instrument was translated into Serbian by experts in the field of educational sciences and university teach - ing using the back-translation method, which is most often recommended for the validation of instruments in cross-cultural research (Cha et al., 2007). The instrument consisted of 45 items that examined five perspectives on teaching, which were assessed on a five-point Likert scale (1=never, 5=always; 1=strong - ly disagree, 5=strongly agree). Additionally, the instrument was structured through three subscales; each one contained 15 items that examined the Beliefs, Intentions, and Actions of teachers. The data of the original study conducted by the authors of the instrument Collins and Pratt (2011) indicated satisfac - tory psychometric properties, and the values of the Cronbach ’s alpha for each of the subscales were: Transmission (.72), Apprenticeship (.73), Developmental (.70), Nurturing (.82), and Social Reform (.83), with an average value of .76. Additionally, in the original study (Collins & Pratt, 2011, p. 366), psychometric disciplinary differences and university teachers’ perspectives 8 characteristics of the instrument were also checked using factor analysis, which confirmed the five-factor solution that explained the 39.7% of the variance. Research Design Data collection was conducted online during November and December 2019, and participants could anonymously complete the questionnaire when it suited them best within three weeks. Participation in the research was volun - tary. Before completing the questionnaire, participants were informed about the goals, needs, and importance of the research. Data were analysed using the SPSS software package version 25. Results All subscales determined in our study had a normal distribution (Skew - ness and Kurtosis <1), except for the Apprenticeship subscale (Skewness = -1.24 and Kurtosis = 2.43); the mean values ranged from 3.57 to 4.52 (Table 2). Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of the TPI on the Sample Consisting of University Teachers in Serbia Perspective N Minimum Maximum M SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s a Transmission 526 3.14 5.00 4.45 0.43 -.64 -.27 .71 Apprenticeship 526 1.83 5.00 4.52 0.45 -1.24 2.43 .75 Modelling 526 1.25 5.00 4.26 0.63 -.76 .32 .70 Nurturing 526 1.22 5.00 3.67 0.77 -.47 -.15 .86 Social Reform 526 1 5.00 3.57 0.87 -.63 .01 .87 Factor Structure of the TPI In order to validate the TPI, exploratory factor analysis was applied using the principal components method and given Promax factor rotation. Bartlett ’s test of sphericity (χ 2 = 9889,63; p < .01) was statistically significant, which indicated the justification of the data compression procedure. The Kai - ser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) indicator of representativeness was .924, suggesting that sampling was adequate and that the representativeness of the question - naire was high. Horn ’s parallel analysis was used as a criterion for extracting the numbers of factors, and it was determined that five factors have a characteristic root value higher than that which would be obtained on the basis of random values obtained on analogue data. A five-factor solution that explained the c e p s Journal 9 questionnaire variance of 45.93% was adopted. Results of the Exploratory Fac- Exploratory Fac - tor Analysis (E FA) indicated that some items should be omitted from further analyses and the scale was reduced accordingly (Table 3). Table 3 Factor Matrix with Factor Loadings on Five Factors of the TPI Items Transmission Apprenticeship Modelling Nurturing Social Reform T6 I want students to achieve good results on the test as a result of my teaching .762 T4 My job is to present the content and prepare the students for the exams .703 T1 I cover planned content very precisely and at a prede- termined time .583 T5 I expect students to possess good knowledge of infor- mation related to the subject .580 T3 I make it clear to my students what knowledge they need to possess .491 T2 I carefully follow the course content and objectives .464 T7 Learning can be improved if the goals are determined in advance .312 A1 I put my course in the practical or applied context .771 A5 I expect students to know how to apply the content from my subject in a real situation .637 D4 My intent is to help students develop more complex ways of thinking .636 A4 My intent is to demonstrate how to behave or what to do in realistic scenarios .628 D6 I want students to see how complex and intertwined things are .429 A2 I apply the skills and methods of an efficient lecturer .357 A7 To be an effective teacher, one must be an effective practitioner .776 A8 The best way to learn it is through work with good practitioners .756 A9 Knowledge and its application cannot be separated .593 T9 For a teacher to be efficient, they first must be an expert in the area they teach .431 N2 I encourage the expression of feelings and emotions during lectures .897 disciplinary differences and university teachers’ perspectives 10 Items Transmission Apprenticeship Modelling Nurturing Social Reform N3 I share my feelings and expect my students to do the same .830 N7 It is important to me to acknowledge my students’ emotional reactions .714 S2 During lectures, I put more focus on values rather than knowledge .707 N6 When teaching, I try to establish a balance between caring and setting challenges .638 A3 I organise classes so beginners can learn from the more experienced students were .503 N8 When teaching, my priority is building students’ self- confidence .434 N5 I expect students to improve their self-esteem through my lectures .351 S5 I expect students to be dedicated to changing our society .836 S8 Individual learning is not enough without a social change .815 S3 I help students notice the need for change in the society .773 S7 My teaching is focused on social changes rather than an individual student .753 S6 I want my students to become aware of things they take for granted in our society .736 D8 Teaching should be focused on the development of qualitative changes in thinking .519 Regarding the reliability of the Serbian version of the instrument, the values of Cronbach ’s alpha showed that all five subscales had satisfactory or good reliability, with the Social Reform subscale having the highest reliability (.87) and the Modelling subscale the lowest (.70), while the reliability of the scale as a whole was .91 (Table 2). Additionally, good reliability was found for all three subscales related to Beliefs (.79), Intentions (.78), and Actions (.77). Based on Pearson ’s correlation coefficient, it was concluded that there was a positive correlation between all latent factors ranging from low (.15) to moderate (.55) and no correlations above .85 were registered. Teaching Perspectives regarding the Disciplinary Differences In order to determine the differences in the perspectives on the teach - ing of teachers from different academic disciplines, the MANOVA procedure c e p s Journal 11 was conducted (Table 4). Respondents were assigned to a group of hard or soft sciences based on the faculty at which they were employed. The model as a whole was statistically significant (F(5,520) = 6.798, p = .000), and statistically significant differences were registered in the perspectives of Social Reform and Nurturing. The soft sciences teachers had higher scores on these perspectives compared to the hard sciences teachers. Table 4 Differences in the Perspectives on Teaching Depending on the Hard/Soft Sciences Perspective Sciences M SD F df df error p Transmission Hard 4.47 0.42 3.30 1 524 .070 Soft 4.39 0.44 Apprenticeship Hard 4.52 0.46 0.18 1 524 .673 Soft 4.53 0.40 Modelling Hard 4.29 0.62 3.10 1 524 .079 Soft 4.19 0.66 Nurturing Hard 3.62 0.79 5.39 1 524 .021 Soft 3.78 0.68 Social Reform Hard 3.45 0.89 22.70 1 524 .000 Soft 3.83 0.72 The impact of academic disciplines on teaching perspectives was addi - tionally examined regarding the faculties where the teachers worked. MANOV A was applied, and the model as a whole was statistically significant (F(60,2387) = 2.151, p = .000). Statistically significant differences were registered in all five teaching perspectives. In order to determine the differences in each perspective among teachers from various faculties, the Scheffe post hoc test was applied. The results are presented only for those faculties where statistically significant differences were found (Table 5). disciplinary differences and university teachers’ perspectives 12 Table 5 Differences in Perspective on Teaching Based on Faculties Perspective Faculty of M SD F df df error p Transmission Sport and Physical Education 4.52 0.45 3.74 10 510 .000 Philosophy 4.32 0.46 Technical Sciences 4.31 0.43 Medicine 4.59 0.37 Economics 4.33 0.34 Sciences 4.40 0.44 Agriculture 4.59 0.35 Apprenticeship Philosophy 4.48 0.39 2.77 10 510 .002 Technical Sciences 4.41 0.54 Medicine 4.66 0.38 Sciences 4.39 0.41 Modelling Philosophy 4.05 0.72 2.88 10 510 .001 Technical Sciences 4.13 0.67 Medicine 4.45 0.52 Economics 4.11 0.41 Sciences 4.24 0.65 Agriculture 4.34 0.63 Education 4.48 0.60 Nurturing Sport and Physical Education 3.95 0.71 2.87 10 510 .001 Philosophy 3.68 0.70 Technical Sciences 3.46 0.82 Medicine 3.83 0.73 Education 3.98 0.52 Sciences 3.40 0.73 Agriculture 3.72 0.73 Social Reform Sport and Physical Education 3.76 0.83 3.28 10 510 .000 Philosophy 3.89 0.67 Technical Sciences 3.40 0.91 Medicine 3.53 0.94 Education 3.74 0.60 Sciences 3.20 0.80 Agriculture 3.62 0.73 Law 4.02 0.91 c e p s Journal 13 Discussion Numerous studies indicated the importance and role of teachers’ beliefs and perspectives on teaching (Dall’Alba, 1991; Collins & Pratt, 2011; Feiman- Nemser, 1990; Kemp, 2013), and the results confirmed that there is a correla - tion between these beliefs and teachers’ actions in the direct teaching practice (Kember & Kwan, 2000; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001). However, in the educational context of Serbia, there is an obvious lack of stand - ardised instruments for examining the perspectives on teaching and teacher beliefs, especially in the context of higher education. Having this in mind, our first goal of this research was to validate the TPI as a widely used instrument in international studies and to examine the possibility of its application in the educational context in Serbia. The EFA results indicated that after reducing the scale, the five-factor structure of the instrument was obtained as originally assumed, but it differed from the original factor structure (Collins & Pratt, 2011) and was more similar to scale validations in other studies (Chan, 1994; Lake & Matters, 2009; Misieng, 2013). In our study, it was found that the four extracted factors, as well as most of the items that these factors gathered , corresponded to the original structure of the scale. However, the factor related to the Developmental perspective was not extracted separately, as six items from this subscale were omitted due to low load - ings and high cross-saturation, and the remaining three items belonged to the other subscales (Apprenticeship and Social Reform). Such results were obtained during the adaptation of the TPI in the Portuguese population as well, where four factors were also extracted, and the items related to the Developmental subscale were distributed to other factors (Rebelo et al., 2007, as cited in De Lima et al., 2014, p. 219). Additionally, a four-factor scale structure was determined in a study in New Zealand, with the Developmental subscale being reduced the most and attached to the Apprenticeship subscale (Brown et al., 2009). The modified scale contained 31 items that were distributed into five fac - tors: Transmission, Apprenticeship, Modelling, Nurturing, and Social Reform. These factors accurately represent the whole scale of teaching perspectives, as they include four factors from the original scale (Collins & Pratt, 2011) and a fifth factor that has been extracted and described in another study (Chan, 1994). The Apprenticeship perspective factor was divided into two factors, both of which relate to practice but have been found to measure two different con - structs: Apprenticeship-Practice and Apprenticeship-Modelling (Chan, 1994). The first factor identified in our study included six items from the original scale and was related to the Transmission perspective, which was based on the disciplinary differences and university teachers’ perspectives 14 belief that certain knowledge and teaching content should be effectively and ac - curately transmitted to students (Pratt, 1998). The second factor was related to the Apprenticeship perspective, and it included four items from the original scale as well as two additional items. These items indicated that learning is best realised through practical application and that knowledge and practice are inseparable concepts (Chan, 1994). The third factor gathered three items from the original Apprenticeship subscale and one more item, which all indicated that ‘the role of the teacher was to function as a role model, to demonstrate desirable ways and values of working’ (Chan, 1994, p. 145). Accordingly, the third factor is called Modelling. The fourth factor contained six items from the original subscale cor - responding to the Nurturing perspective and two additional items. All items in - dicated that teachers are committed to creating an environment that provides support to all students but also a challenge in terms of progress and learning (Pratt & Collins, 2000). The fifth factor referred to the Social Reform perspective and contained five items from the original subscale, which all implied the focus of teaching on influencing changes in society (Pratt & Collins, 2000). The differences found in our research regarding the factor structure of the TPI in relation to the original structure can be explained by the fact that in - dividual items are interpreted differently by different respondents. An example of this is the item Good teaching of the content is like performing a theatrical play, which could be misinterpreted or even negatively interpreted in the education - al context in Serbia. Also, items that had high cross-saturation, when translated into Serbian, could content-wise refer to several perspectives on teaching. Such findings may indicate that certain items have different meanings for respond - ents in Serbia compared to respondents in English-speaking countries, which is the most common challenge when translating and adapting instruments in a cross-cultural context (Cha et al., 2007; Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011). The second goal of the research was to examine the reliability of the Serbian version of the TPI, and it was determined that the modified scale satis - fied other psychometric criteria. The reliability of the whole scale was very high (.91), with good reliability of all three subscales related to Beliefs, Intentions and Actions (above .70), as well as good reliability of all five subscales related to teaching perspectives (above .70). Such data were also obtained during scale validation in other populations (Chan, 1994; Misieng, 2013) and indicated that the degree of similarity of all retained items in the revised questionnaire was high and had the same unique subject of measurement. It was also found that all selected factors positively correlated with each other in the range from low (r = .15) achieved by the factors Transmission and Social Reform to moderate correlations (r = .55) between the factors Nurturing and Social Reform, which c e p s Journal 15 is in line with data by the authors of the scale (Collins & Pratt, 2011). Moderate and low correlations are indicators that the extracted factors in the modified version of the scale present different constructs, with each one of them measur - ing a different perspective on teaching. Examining the latent structure of the TPI, it can be concluded that uni - versity teachers in Serbia very clearly recognise and define their role as a teach - er who transmits teaching content, cares for students, pays attention to social values, and connects university teaching with practice and work in a real-life context. However, an additional isolated factor related to the perspective of the teacher as an expert who guides students and models their learning processes indicates that in the educational context in Serbia the role of teachers and their importance in higher education has been more emphasised, which was found in research in another educational context (Canto y Rodríguez & Burgos Fa - jardo, 2011). In this sense, this research represents a contribution to the valida - tion of the TPI in other social and cultural circumstances since, in addition to similarities with the original study, it also indicates certain specifics that occur in different educational contexts and cultural traditions. Academic Disciplines and Teaching Perspectives Studies and research indicate the existence of different epistemic cul - tures in the production of knowledge of researchers and scientists belonging to different academic disciplines (Knorr Cetina, 1999), the connection between culture and knowledge of a particular academic discipline and academic tribes and territories (Becher & Trowler, 2001), and even the differences among sci - entists belonging to the same academic discipline (Horowitz et al., 2019). In addition to research and scientific approaches, such differences are reflected in the teaching process, since university teachers use those teaching methods that reflect the epistemological assumptions of their academic discipline (Neu - mann et al., 2002) and with which they identify the most (Neumann, 2001). Differences depending on academic discipline have also been identified when it comes to perspectives on teaching (Deggs et al., 2008; Rotidi et al., 2017), as well as teaching approaches that are teacher-centred or student-centred (Kemp, 2013; Lueddeke, 2003; Päuler-Kuppinger & Jucks, 2017). Accordingly, the third goal of this research was to examine the differ - ences in teaching perspectives among teachers of different academic disciplines and different faculties. Statistically significant differences were identified be - tween teachers from hard and soft sciences regarding the Nurturing and So - cial Reform perspectives, with teachers of soft sciences scoring higher on these perspectives. These results indicated that teachers in Serbia who belong to the disciplinary differences and university teachers’ perspectives 16 social sciences and humanities are more focused on referring to the impor - tance of social change, as well as on caring for students compared to teachers of natural, technical, and technological sciences. Very similar results were ob - tained in a study conducted on a population of Greek teachers, for which it was found that teachers of soft sciences had higher results in the Nurturing, Social Reform, and Developmental perspectives (Rotidi et al., 2017). In contrast, in the same research, hard sciences teachers from the international sample/TPI database had higher scores on these perspectives than teachers of soft sciences, which was contrary to previous and expected findings. Some authors have pointed out that there are correlations between the perspectives of Transmission and Apprenticeship and that these two concepts are related and teacher-centred, while the perspectives of Nurturing, Social Reform, and Developmental are interrelated and student-centred (Chan, 1994, p. 100). Our findings are consistent with the findings of other studies (Kemp, 2013; Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2006; Lueddeke, 2003), which confirmed that the teachers of soft sciences have a more student-centred perspective than teachers of hard sciences. The identified differences could be explained by the fact that teachers in different disciplines had gone through different processes of sociali - sation and education and accordingly adopted different concepts of teaching (Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001), as well as that students (un)willingly accept the norms of teaching and learning that exist in certain disciplines (Jarvis-Selinger et al., 2007). The differences between academic disciplines are even more observable when comparing teachers from different faculties. In this case, statistically sig - nificant differences are recognised in all five perspectives on teaching, which further confirms the findings that there are differences between academic dis - ciplines regarding the teaching perspectives (Deggs et al., 2008). The results again point to the conclusion that there are differences between teachers of soft and hard sciences, which is the most common variable in research on differ - ences between disciplines (Kember & Leung, 2011), although exceptions have been observed in some perspectives. These differences may be the result of soft science teachers being more focused on teaching and learning, while hard sci - ence teachers could be more research-oriented (Neumann, 2001). The perspective of Transmission and the approach to teaching as knowl - edge transmission were the least present among teachers from the Faculty of Technical Sciences and the Faculty of Philosophy and the most among teachers from the Faculty of Medicine. These results were not surprising given that ‘health disciplines require students to acquire a body of basic knowledge which is rea - sonably well established’ (Kember & Leung, 2011, p. 294). The Apprenticeship c e p s Journal 17 perspective, which implies that learning is best realised through practical ap - plication, was the least present among teachers from the Faculty of Sciences and the most among the teachers from the Faculty of Medicine. The reason for such differences can be found in the structure of study programmes, since practi - cal skills are developed in medical students through clinical and professional practice, which is not the case in natural science study programmes (Kember & Leung, 2011). The teacher as a significant factor in modelling the learning process is a perspective that was the least present at the Faculty of Philosophy but surprisingly the most at the Faculty of Education, although both faculties belong to the soft sciences and study-related fields. Teachers from the Faculty of Education, in our research, had very strong Nurturing, Modelling, and Social Reform perspectives, which confirmed the results that ‘teachers who had peda - gogical experience, knew their job expectations and had a nurturing personal - ity perceived themselves as role models’ (Chan, 1994, p. 170). The Nurturing perspective was most prevalent among teachers from the Faculty of Education, as it was in previous research (Matofari & Edwards, 2017), followed by the Fac - ulty of Sport, which was confirmed by pre-service teachers of physical educa - tion (Hyndman, 2014) and the least among teachers from the Faculty of Sci - ences. These results further confirmed the findings that student-centeredness is more present in soft science and medicine teachers than in hard science teach - ers (Kember & Leung, 2011; Kemp, 2013; Neumann, 2001). Regarding the per - spective of Social Reform, expectations were confirmed, and the approach to teaching focused on social change was most present among the teachers from faculties belonging to soft sciences (Law, Philosophy, Education, Sport). Such results have been confirmed in other studies (Rotidi et al., 2017), since teaching at these faculties implies a high level of discussion, the exchange of opinions, and the development of critical thinking (Kember & Leung, 2011). It is important to point out that teachers from the Faculty of Medicine had higher scores in almost all dimensions compared to other teachers (except for the Social Reform dimension). Such results can be justified by the fact that medical science teachers associate teaching more with practice, perceiving themselves as role models given that they are experts in practice, that due to the nature (and the epistemic culture) of the discipline a significant amount of information is transmitted during teaching but also that it is also a nurturing profession, which affects the attitude towards students (Kember & Leung, 2011). In contrast, it is interesting that teachers from the Faculty of Sciences had statistically significantly lower scores on all perspectives compared to other teachers, especially on the perspectives of Nurturing and Social Reform, which was confirmed by the results regarding pre-service teachers (Jarvis-Selinger et al., 2007). The explanation can disciplinary differences and university teachers’ perspectives 18 be found in the fact that science teachers concentrate more on conveying already grounded theories through a method of teaching that is predominantly focused on giving lectures, which reduces the nurturing approach and provides limited opportunities for students to discuss and develop practical skills (Kember & Le - ung, 2011). The results of our research indicate that a thorough understanding of key concepts of teaching and learning unequivocally depends on the character - istics of different domains of knowledge, academic disciplines and social milieu and that ignoring these differences leads to weakening related university prac - tices and policies (Neumann et al., 2002). Conclusions As in all studies of this type, certain limitations should be mentioned. In this research, university teachers completed a questionnaire on a voluntary basis, which may mean that answers were collected from teachers who are certainly very interested and motivated to teach. Additionally, a significantly smaller number of respondents from some faculties participated in the re - search, which led to having a less representative sample and a lower representa - tion of some faculties. However, it is important to emphasise that in addition to the identified differences between teachers of different academic disciplines, this research also has an additional value because it represents an analysis of perspectives on teaching in different educational and social contexts and thus contributes to previous studies and validation and application of the TPI in other countries. Although the research is limited to specific cultural, educational, and research contexts, the significance of this study is reflected, in addition to its scientific contribution, in the practical implications of the research findings. First, the inclusion of five perspectives on teaching and the TPI scale in univer - sity teacher education programmes could provide additional support to teach - ers in initiating a process of reflection on their teaching beliefs that guide and justify their work. This could further contribute to changing the initial beliefs of university teachers and making adequate changes to the teaching objectives in order to improve teaching practice (Chan, 1994). Taking into account the con - ceptual framework of five perspectives on teaching (Pratt, 1992), which speaks in favour of the justification of a pluralistic approach to teaching, meaning the view that there is no universal answer to the question of what ‘good teaching’ is, the results of this research can serve as guidelines for creating and modify - ing programmes for acquiring the teaching competencies of university teach - ers. Since the results of this research clarify the differences in perspectives on c e p s Journal 19 teaching, this paper emphasises the need to consider different social, cultural, and epistemic contexts of higher education and their close connection with scientific research when designing activities related to the professional develop - ment of university teachers. Future research that would address university teachers’ beliefs, inten - tions, and actions should further gather data on teachers’ daily practice us - ing observational and interview techniques, including assessments by other teachers and students. Since this research examined the differences between assumptions and beliefs about the teaching of university teachers from differ - ent academic disciplines, future research should investigate the relationships between perspectives on teaching university teachers and other personal and socio-cultural variables. Acknowledgement This work was partly supported by the Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research of Vojvodina, Republic of Serbia, within the project ‘Pedagogical, psychological and sociological dimensions of improv - ing the quality of higher education: Opportunities and challenges’ [grant no. 142-451-2527/2021-01/1]. References Aškerc Veniger, K. (2016). University teachers’ opinions about higher education pedagogical train - ing courses in Slovenia. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal – CEPS Journal 6 (4), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.57 Aškerc Veniger, K., & Kočar, S. (2018). The impact of academic discipline on university teaching and pedagogical training courses. Croatian Journal of Education , 20(4), 1261–1298. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v20i4.2718 Becher, T., & Trowler, P . R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. SRHE and Open University Press. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology , 57(3), 204–213. Brown, G. T., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2009). Assessment policy and practice effects on New Zealand and Queensland teachers’ conceptions of teaching. Journal of Education for Teaching , 35(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470802587152 Canto y Rodríguez, J. E., & Burgos Fajardo, R. J. (2011). Perspectivas acerca de la enseñanza de docentes de Educación Superior [Perspectives on higher education teacher education]. Educación y Ciencia, Cuarta Época, 2(4/39), 7–18. disciplinary differences and university teachers’ perspectives 20 Cha, E. S., Kim, K. H., & Erlen, J. A. (2007). Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 58(4), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04242.x Chan, C. H. (1994). Operationalization and prediction of conceptions of teaching in adult education [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of British Columbia. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0055533 Collins, J. B., & Pratt, D. D. (2011). The teaching perspectives inventory at 10 years and 100,000 respondents: Reliability and validity of a teacher self-report inventory. Adult Education Quarterly, 61(4), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713610392763 Dall’ Alba, G. (1991). Foreshadowing conceptions of teaching. In B. Ross (Ed.), Research and develop- ment in higher education (Vol. 13, pp. 293–297). HERDSA. De Lima, M. P ., Rebelo, P . V ., & Barreira, C. (2014). Teacher development: Contributions of educa - tional biography and personality. Journal of Adult Development , 21(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-014-9193-y Deggs, M. D., Machtmes, L. K., & Johnson, E. (2008). The significance of teaching perspectives among academic disciplines. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4 (8), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.19030/ctms.v4i8.5559 ENQA. (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). https://enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives. In W . R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 212–233). Macmillan. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787404040463 High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education (2013). Report to the European Com- mission on improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fbd4c2aa-aeb7-41ac-ab4c-a94feea9eb1f Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42(2), 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017546216800 Horowitz, M., Y aworsky, W ., & Kickham, K. (2019). Anthropology’s science wars: Insights from a new survey. Current Anthropology, 60(5), 674–698. https://doi.org/10.1086/705409 Hubbal, H., Collins, J., & Pratt, D. (2005). Enhancing reflective teaching practices: Implications for faculty development programs. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35 (3), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v35i3.183514 Hyndman, B. P . (2014). Exploring the differences in teaching perspectives between Australian pre- service and graduate physical education teachers. Journal of Physical Education and Sport , 14(4), 438–445. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2014.04067 c e p s Journal 21 Jarvis-Selinger, S., Collins, J. B., & Pratt, D. D. (2007). Do academic origins influence perspectives on teaching? Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 67–81. Kember, D. A. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X Kember, D., & Kwan, K. P . (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to con - ceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026569608656 Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y . (2011). Disciplinary differences in student ratings of teaching quality. Research in Higher Education, 52(3), 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9194-z Kemp, S. J. (2013). Exploring the use of learner-focused teaching approaches in different academic disciplines. Journal of Further and Higher Education , 37(6), 804–818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.684041 Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680539 Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: A study of disci - plinary variation and ‘teaching-scholarship’ . Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 213–228. https://doi. org/10.1080/0307507032000058082 Matofari, F. N., & Edwards, M. C. (2017). Teaching perspectives of faculty members at an 1862 land- grant university: A snapshot of one institution with implications for improving instruction at all. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension , 5(1), 101–112. Misieng, J. (2013). Translation, adaptation and invariance testing of the Teaching Perspectives Inven- tory: Comparing faculty of Malaysia and the United States [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South Florida. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4921 Mladenovici, V ., Ilie, M. D., Maricuțoiu, L. P ., & Iancu, D. E. (2022). Approaches to teaching in higher education: The perspective of network analysis using the revised approaches to teaching inventory. Higher Education, 84(2), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00766-9 Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070120052071 Neumann, R., Parry, S. & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405–417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0307507022000011525 Postareff, L., Katajavuori, N., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Trigwell, K. (2008). Consonance and dis - sonance in descriptions of teaching of university teachers. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701794809 Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.013 disciplinary differences and university teachers’ perspectives 22 Potter, M. K., Kustra, E., Ackerson, T., & Prada, L. (2015). The effects of long-term systematic edu- cational development on the beliefs and attitudes of university teachers. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369204200401 Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Educa- tion, 2002(93), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.45 Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Krieger Publishing. Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. B. (2000). The teaching perspectives inventory (TPI). In T. J. Sork, V . Chapman & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual adult education research (pp. 346–350). The University of British Columbia. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2000/papers/68 Päuler-Kuppinger, L., & Jucks, R. (2017). Perspectives on teaching: Conceptions of teaching and epistemological beliefs of university academics and students in different domains. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417693507 Republički zavod za statistiku Republike Srbije [ Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia ]. (2021). Visoko obrazovanje 2020/2021 [Higher education 2020/2021]. Republički zavod za statistiku Republike Srbije. https://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G2021/Pdf/G20216006.pdf Rotidi, G., Collins, J., Karalis, T., & Lavidas, K. (2017). Using the Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI) to examine the relationship between teaching perspectives and disciplines in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(5), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1159289 Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138620 Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004130031247 Stoecker, J. L. (1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 451–464. Sousa, V . D., & Rojjanasrirat, W . (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x Stes, A., & Van Petegem, P . (2014). Profiling approaches to teaching in higher education: A cluster- analytic study. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.729032 Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139219 Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2020). Exploring university teaching and learning: Experience and context. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v20i4.2718 Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P . (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching First Y ear University science. Higher Education, 27(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01383761 c e p s Journal 23 Biographical note Jov ana Milutinović, PhD, is a full professor in the field of pedagogy at the Department of Pedagogy at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia. Her research interests include: contemporary theories of education, higher education, quality of education, constructivist pedagogy. Biljana Lungulov, PhD, is an associate professor in the field of peda - gogy at the Department of Pedagogy at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia. Her research interests include: higher education, educational policies, didactics, quality of education. Aleksandra Anđelković, PhD, is an associate professor in the field of pedagogy at the Pedagogical Faculty in Vranje, University of Niš, Serbia. Her research interests include professional development in education, quality of education, higher education, teachers’ beliefs and reflexivity, teaching practices.