De honderden anonieme studenten van 11 Nederlandse lerarenopleidingen wil ik .... 2.2 External, active internal and dynamic internal sources of regulation .
How Student Teachers Learn A psychological perspective on knowledge construction in learning to teach
Ida Oosterheert
1
Reeks Proefschriften en Bundels De Reeks Proefschriften en Bundels is een uitgave van het Universitair Centrum voor de Lerarenopleiding (UCLO), Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Universitair Centrum voor de Lerarenopleiding, UCLO Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Oude Boteringestraat 48/50 9712 GL Groningen
Oosterheert, Ida How Student Teachers Learn: A psychological perspective on knowledge construction in learning to teach Hoe leraren-in-opleiding leren: Een psychologisch perspectief op kennisconstructie bij het leren onderwijzen Proefschrift Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Omslagontwerp: Manja Rijzinga Druk: Shaker Publishing Maastricht ISBN 90 367 1505 9 Copyright 2001 Ida Oosterheert Alle rechten voorbehouden All rights reserved
RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN
How Student Teachers Learn A psychological perspective on knowledge construction in learning to teach
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Psychologische, Pedagogische en Sociologische Wetenschappen aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof. dr. D.F.J. Bosscher in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 15 november 2001 om 14.15 uur door Ida Elizabeth Oosterheert geboren op 26 september 1965 te Harlingen
Promotores:
Prof. Dr. J. J. Peters Prof. Dr. J. D. H. M. Vermunt
Manuscriptcommissie:
Prof. Dr. N. Verloop Prof. Dr. B. P. M. Creemers Prof. Dr. Th. C. M. Bergen
Voorwoord Dit proefschrift gaat over hoe leraren-in-opleiding leren. Aan het geheel is ruim 5 jaar gewerkt. Graag wil ik iedereen bedanken die bedoeld of onbedoeld een positieve bijdrage heeft geleverd aan de totstandkoming ervan. Enkele personen en instellingen wil ik hier expliciet noemen: Allereerst wil ik jou bedanken, Jan Vermunt. Ik heb je ervaren als een zeer toegewijd begeleider. Je maakte je eigen ideeën rond procesgerichte instructie waar door alleen daar te sturen waar dat voor mijn gevoel ook nodig was, door richting te geven voor verdere zelfsturing en door constructief kritisch te zijn. Je wijdde me geduldig in in de ongeschreven regels van de voor mij aanvankelijk nog ondoorzichtige wetenschappelijke wereld. Je gaf heldere feedback op conceptstukken zonder meteen altijd oplossingen te bieden en liet ruimte aan mijn eigen inhoudelijke ontwikkeling. In moeilijkere tijden wist je me moreel te steunen en te motiveren door te gaan, waar ik je bijzonder dankbaar voor ben. John Peters, je hebt mij in het eerste jaar veel vrijheid gegeven in de keuze van het onderwerp en de opzet van het onderzoekstraject, waarvoor ik je zeer erkentelijk ben. Door de door jou geboden vrijheid heb ik me lang bezig kunnen houden met een onderwerp dat mij tot op heden uitermate boeit. Hinne Riddersma, je hebt vanaf jouw aantreden als directeur van het UCLO een belangrijke rol gespeeld in dit project. Je creëerde mogelijkheden, was oplossingsgericht, en dacht daarbij eerder functioneel dan formeel. Je gaf ruimte en vertrouwen. Zo maakte jij het mogelijk dat ik, na jaren ‘latten’ tussen Groningen en Nijmegen, mijn werk grotendeels in Nijmegen kon voortzetten. Dat was echt geweldig. Niet in de laatste plaats wil ik de ICLON-onderzoekers bedanken. Jullie professionele en warme manier van omgaan met elkaar was en is absoluut top. Van de participatie in jullie onderzoeksbijeenkomsten heb ik veel opgestoken en enorm genoten. Nico Verloop, hartelijk dank voor je gastvrijheid en voor de discussies die wij samen voerden. Paulien Meijer, Anneke Zanting en Desiree Mansvelder-Longayroux, voor het delen van zowel de zorgen als de ‘kicks’, en voor jullie discussie en onmisbare feedback. Jan van Driel, dank voor je zinvolle opmerkingen bij de hoofdstukken 1 en 6. De administratieve medewerkers van het UCLO wil ik bedanken voor hun hulpvaardigheid, gezelligheid, en het gemak waarmee telefonisch of per e-mail van alles te regelen viel. Mijn collega’s Theo Witte en Ineke Veldman wil ik bedanken voor hun persoonlijke betrokkenheid en hun openheid. Jaap Buitink, ik heb je als een goede coach ervaren gedurende mijn eerste maanden als docent onderwijskunde. Ik heb veel van jou geleerd, overigens ook al toen ik jouw manier van werken met studenten tijdens een studentassistentschap moest observeren. Niet voor niets droeg kort daarna een congresbijdrage van ons de titel:“What’s the problem with imitation in learning to teach?”. Bij jou kon ik altijd terecht voor advies en informatie over de meest uiteenlopende opleidings- en beleidszaken. Een aantal mensen heeft concreet bijgedragen aan de totstandkoming van dit proefschrift. Heel belangrijk waren de 35 studenten van drie lerarenopleidingen die in het cursusjaar 1995/1996 bereid waren ruim een uur te praten over hoe zij leren onderwijzen. Dank voor het geduldig beantwoorden van vragen waar jullie soms nauwelijks eerder over hadden nagedacht. De honderden anonieme studenten van 11 Nederlandse lerarenopleidingen wil ik bedanken voor hun bereidheid de vragenlijst in te vullen en ook voor de uiterst nauwkeurige wijze waarop zij dat deden. De onderwijs- en stagecoördinatoren van de betrokken opleidingen bedank ik voor hun bereidwilligheid de uitvoering van 1 of 2 van de onderzoeken te managen.
Herman van der Molen en Annediet Smit, jullie bijdrage aan het uittikken van de interviews was zeer welkom, want wat was dat een klus. Remko van der Lei wil ik bedanken voor het snel, accuraat en flexibel invoeren van de data van het laatste onderzoek. Rene Veenstra van het Interuniversitair Centrum voor Sociaal Wetenschappelijk onderzoek (ICS) van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen en Eddie Denessen van de vakgroep Onderwijskunde van de Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen; jullie waren onmisbaar bij het vinden en toepassen van statistische technieken die pasten bij de beantwoording van de onderzoeksvragen. Ik vind het leuk dat uiteindelijk niet alleen de meest gangbare technieken zijn ingezet. Veel dank voor jullie inzet en geduld en voor de immer snelle respons op mijn e-mailtjes. Ook Anne Boomsma en Tom Snijders van het ICS wil ik hartelijk danken voor hun methodologische adviezen. Juliette de Leeuw, jouw verrassende vragen en confronterende helderheid waren met vlagen van vitaal belang voor mijn evenwicht, waarvoor mijn bewondering en dank. Mijn dierbare familie, vrienden en vriendinnen, veel dank voor de steun en de warmte die ik in de afgelopen jaren van jullie kreeg. Ik hoop dat het in positieve zin te merken zal zijn dat ‘het boekje’ nu echt af is. Esmée, je zei een beetje erg vroeg “ik ben even aan het denken” waarop ik me dan schuldig begon te voelen, maar je ondeugende blik daarbij en het enthousiasme waarmee je je in vele activiteiten van geheel andere aard stort, stemmen gerust. Leon, je hebt als belangrijke sparringpartner mijn gedachtegangen regelmatig voorzien van originele invalshoeken en daarmee op een hoger plan gebracht. Ik dank je voor je liefdevolle betrokkenheid en onvoorwaardelijke vertrouwen. Deze gaven mij de energie en volharding die nodig is voor het werken aan zoiets bizars als een proefschrift.
Contents 1
1.1 1.2
1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
2 2.1 2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
General introduction.............................................................. 1
Main purposes and focus of this thesis ............................................. 2 Research on teacher education ..................................................... 3 1.2.1 Knowledge construction in learning to teach ............................. 3 1.2.2 Individual differences in learning to teach ................................ 4 Research questions .................................................................... 5 Overview ............................................................................... 5 Relevance ............................................................................... 6 The context for the present studies ................................................ 6 Chronology in time .................................................................... 7 References .............................................................................. 7
Regulating knowledge growth in learning to teach: The role of dynamic sources .................................................. 11
Introduction ........................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Overview ....................................................................... 12 External, active internal and dynamic internal sources of regulation ........ 13 2.2.1 Internalisation and reconceptualisation................................... 13 2.2.2 Cooperation between two sources of internal regulation .............. 14 2.2.3 Interest, prior knowledge and dynamic self-regulation................. 16 2.2.4 Balancing external, active internal and dynamic internal sources .... 16 2.2.5 Why do student teachers learn as they do? ............................... 17 The pre-attentive assessment of meaning ........................................ 17 2.3.1 Emotion in learning to teach................................................ 17 2.3.2 The risk of dynamic self-regulation ........................................ 18 2.3.3 Self-concept and self-esteem............................................... 19 The three-source theory and the role of teaching experiences ............... 19 2.4.1 Teaching experiences as an external source ............................. 19 2.4.2 Using dynamic sources in teaching and in learning to teach ........... 20 2.4.3 When teaching experiences are not educative........................... 20 2.4.4 When teaching experiences are educative ............................... 21 2.4.5 Differences between student teachers .................................... 21 Conclusions and discussion .......................................................... 21 2.5.1 Implications for teacher education ........................................ 22 2.5.1.1 Building on active and dynamic sources ........................ 22 2.5.1.2 Taking individual differences into account ..................... 24 2.5.2 Further research .............................................................. 25 References ............................................................................. 25
3 3.1
3.2
3.3.
3.4
3.5
Individual differences in learning to teach: Relating cognition, regulation and affect ................................ 31 Introduction ........................................................................... 32 3.1.1 Individual learning............................................................ 32 3.1.2 Components of learning to teach .......................................... 33 3.1.2.1 Mental models of learning to teach ............................. 33 3.1.2.2 Ideal self as a teacher ............................................. 34 3.1.2.3 Cognitive processing activities ................................... 34 3.1.2.4 Regulation ........................................................... 34 3.1.2.5 Emotion regulation ................................................. 34 3.1.2.6 Concerns ............................................................. 35 3.1.3 Research questions ........................................................... 35 Method ................................................................................. 35 3.2.1 Subjects ........................................................................ 35 3.2.2 Selection procedure .......................................................... 35 3.2.3 The interview ................................................................. 36 3.2.4 Data analysis .................................................................. 37 Protocol analysis: learning components and their categories.................. 37 3.3.1 Mental models of learning to teach ........................................ 38 3.3.1.1 Learning conceptions .............................................. 38 3.3.1.2 Regulation conceptions ............................................ 38 3.3.2 Origin and flexibility of ideal self as a teacher .......................... 39 3.3.3 Cognitive activities ........................................................... 40 3.3.3.1 Institutional meetings ............................................. 40 3.3.3.2 The mentor .......................................................... 40 3.3.3.3 Colleagues in the school........................................... 41 3.3.3.4 Own teaching practice: evaluation .............................. 41 3.3.4 Regulation ..................................................................... 41 3.3.5 Emotion regulation ........................................................... 42 3.3.6 Concerns ....................................................................... 42 Homogeneity analysis ............................................................... 43 3.4.1 Description of the five patterns ........................................... 45 3.4.1.1 Reproduction versus meaning .................................... 45 3.4.1.2 Open versus closed ................................................. 45 3.4.1.3 Survival .............................................................. 45 3.4.1.4 Developing or realising a personal teaching style ............ 47 Conclusions and discussion .......................................................... 48 3.5.1 Implications for practice .................................................... 49 3.5.2 Research ....................................................................... 50 References ............................................................................. 50
4
4.1
4.2 4.3 4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7 4.8
5 5.1
5.2
Assessing orientations towards learning to teach ...................... 53 Introduction ........................................................................... 54 4.1.1 Understanding individual learning in learning to teach ................. 54 4.1.1.1 Understanding learning to teach ................................ 54 4.1.1.2 Understanding individual differences ........................... 55 The previous study ................................................................... 56 The present study .................................................................... 57 4.3.1 Context ........................................................................ 57 4.3.2 Research questions ........................................................... 58 Method ................................................................................. 58 4.4.1 Participants.................................................................... 58 4.4.2 The instrument................................................................ 58 4.4.3 Item construction ............................................................. 58 4.4.4 Procedure ...................................................................... 59 4.4.5 Data analyses.................................................................. 60 Results ................................................................................. 60 4.5.1 Principal components analyses ............................................. 60 4.5.2 Scale construction ............................................................ 63 4.5.3 Cluster analysis ............................................................... 65 4.5.3.1 Characterisation of four clusters................................. 65 4.5.4 Concerns ....................................................................... 66 Conclusions and discussion .......................................................... 67 4.6.1 The scales: content .......................................................... 67 4.6.2 The scale structure ........................................................... 68 4.6.3 The clusters ................................................................... 69 4.6.4 A comparison with other studies .......................................... 70 Implications for practice ........................................................... 71 Further research ...................................................................... 71 References ............................................................................ 72
Orientations towards learning to teach and relations to personal and contextual variables .......................................... 75 Introduction .......................................................................... 76 5.1.1 The learner-content-environment interaction ........................... 77 5.1.2 Personal variables ............................................................ 77 5.1.3 Contextual variables ......................................................... 78 5.1.4 Results of two previous studies............................................. 79 5.1.5 Research questions and context ............................................ 79 Method ................................................................................ 80 5.2.1 Subjects ........................................................................ 80 5.2.2 Materials ....................................................................... 80 5.2.3 Procedure ...................................................................... 82 5.2.4 Data analyses.................................................................. 83
5.3
5.4
6
6.1 6.2
6.3
Results ................................................................................. 83 5.3.1 Principal components analysis .............................................. 83 5.3.2 Scale construction ............................................................ 87 5.3.3 Relations between dimensions of learning to teach ..................... 87 5.3.4 A comparison with previous findings ...................................... 88 5.3.5 Cluster analysis ............................................................... 88 5.3.6 The clusters related to other variables ................................... 90 5.3.6.1 Concerns ............................................................. 90 5.3.6.2 Personal and contextual variables ............................... 91 5.3.7 Multinomial logistic regression ............................................. 93 Conclusions and discussion .......................................................... 95 5.4.1 The instrument and dimensions of learning to teach ................... 95 5.4.2 Patterns of learning to teach ............................................... 96 5.4.3 The four orientations compared to findings from other studies ....... 97 5.4.4 Concerns in relation to the four learning orientations .................. 98 5.4.5 The person in relation to the four orientations towards learning to teach ........................................................................ 98 5.4.6 The four orientations in relation to the learning environment ........ 99 5.4.7 Implications for practice .................................................. 100 5.4.7.1 Differential implications ........................................ 100 5.4.8 Recommendations for future research ................................. 101 References ........................................................................... 102
General conclusions, discussion and implications.................... 107 Three empirical studies............................................................ 107 6.1.2 Four orientations towards learning to teach (study III) ............... 109 Summarizing and discussing the findings with regard to the general questions ............................................................................. 110 6.2.1 Which learning activities and regulation strategies are theoretically associated with knowledge growth in learning to teach? ..................................................................... 110 6.2.2 What is the role of emotion in learning to teach? ..................... 111 6.2.3 How do student teachers differ with respect to their mental models of learning to teach, the learning activities and regulation strategies they employ, and emotion regulation? ........ 112 6.2.3.1 Mental models of learning to teach ........................... 112 6.2.3.2 Student teachers’ deliberate activities ....................... 112 6.2.3.3 Student teachers’ non-deliberate activities.................. 113 6.2.3.4 External regulation in student teachers’ learning ........... 114 6.2.3.5 Emotion regulation ............................................... 115 6.2.4 Are mental models, learning activities, regulation strategies, and emotion regulation related within individual student teachers? .... 115 6.2.5 Are the patterns found coherent? ........................................ 116 6.2.6 How do the patterns relate to student teachers’ concerns? ......... 117 6.2.7 What personal variables are associated with ways of learning to teach? ........................................................................ 118 6.2.8 Do subgroups of student teachers with similar learner characteristics perceive the learning environment differently? ..... 119 Learning to teach: Growing as an experiential learner ....................... 119
6.4
6.5
6.3.1 Changing as a learner: Why? And is it possible? ........................ 119 6.3.2 Developing as a learner in learning to teach ........................... 121 6.3.2.1 Presumed order in transitions .................................. 121 6.3.2.2 Alleged zones of proximal development ...................... 121 Implications for teacher education .............................................. 122 6.4.1 General implications regarding the fostering of knowledge growth 122 6.4.1.1 Cognitive activities in learning to teach and implications for practice........................................................ 122 6.4.1.2 Regulation in learning to teach and implications for practice ............................................................ 123 6.4.1.3 Emotion regulation in learning to teach and its implications ....................................................... 125 6.4.1.4 Knowledge growth versus consolidation in practice ........ 125 6.4.2 General guidelines regarding the fostering of growth as a learner . 125 6.4.3 Student-specific implications ............................................ 127 6.4.3.1 Introduction ....................................................... 127 6.4.3.2 Supporting four types of learners .............................. 128 A critical reflection and suggestions for further research .................... 130 References ........................................................................... 131 Samenvatting in het Nederlands ................................................. 137
Chapter 1
General Introduction
Teacher education is at present an extremely vivid, energetic part of the Dutch educational system. The institutes for teacher education are involved in various fundamental reforms, accompanied by considerable changes in the content, methods, and structure of their programmes. Several trends and developments have contributed to or instigated these changes. The shift in content relates to the changing educational and pedagogical role of the teacher in the Netherlands. In conformance with current knowledge on learning, teaching, and child development, the national government and its associated institutes are in favour of a fundamental renewal in the educational system, which implies the fostering of active and self-regulative learning. Elementary and secondary school teachers must focus more on facilitating, supporting, monitoring and evaluating pupils’ interaction with the subject matter and less on merely transmitting subject matter knowledge. Moreover, teachers have become significant agents in pupils’ development as learners; they must prepare their pupils for lifelong learning. As a consequence, the social-emotional dimension of learning processes is becoming more overt and meaningful in teacher-pupil(s) interaction (see National Council of Education, May 2000). New knowledge, skills, and dispositions, responding adequately to these fundamental changes, have to be integrated in teachers’ personal teaching repertoire. In response to this nationwide reform, teacher education has to draw more attention to the psychology of learning, learning to learn, individual differences, communication skills, and pedagogical flexibility. The literature shows, however, that the adoption of a pupil-learning orientation in thinking and action is not self-evident for all (student) teachers (e.g., Kagan, 1992). A second reform concerns the curricular structure of teacher education programmes. During the last five years, the vast majority of teacher education institutes in the Netherlands have adopted some type of initial in-service model of learning to teach. These differ basically from earlier models of teacher education with respect to the role and timing of practice teaching in the curriculum. The common purpose of these programmes is to integrate the praxis-shock into teacher training and to diminish the gap between teaching experiences and meetings at the institute. For these purposes, student teachers start to teach at an earlier stage in the programme, have considerable responsibilities as teachers and, increasingly, have a salary as well. The authentic teaching experiences they bring to the teacher education institute play a more dominant and integrated role in the curriculum. This has various consequences for the role and required expertise of teacher educators and for the methods used. Bearing in mind that field experiences also have several pitfalls (FeimanNemser & Buchman, 1986) and that most student teachers have not learned to involve personal experience in learning, the question is how student teachers use their field experiences differently and how student teachers can be supported so that they benefit optimally from their field experiences. Third, a serious lack of teachers in the Netherlands has recently led to a policy that reinforces the role of practice teaching in teacher education even more. In order to stimulate the enrolment of potential student teachers in teacher education programmes, students with different backgrounds must now be given the opportunity to enrol at almost any time 1
throughout the academic year. As a consequence, learning routes in teacher education are becoming more flexible and individualised (National Council of Education, April 1999; Department of Education, Culture and Sciences, June 2000). Moreover, the majority of aspirant teachers are now starting to function as teachers from the very start of teacher education, under specific conditions. These conditions, depending on the level of prior education and/or prior occupations, involve (1) long-term obligatory guidance in the school and from the teacher education institute; and (2) two assessment procedures, one at the beginning, to ensure a certain level of starting competence of the student teacher, and one assessment at the end, to obtain a teaching competence certificate demonstrating that sufficient competence has been developed as a beginning teacher. One of the specific objectives of the entrance assessment is to determine whether student teachers are capable of further developing their professional competence and their learning competence (Department of Education, Culture and Sciences, July 2000). The question is, however, how professional competence, learning competence, and the ability to further develop should be assessed. The rapid introduction of ICT applications in teacher education is a fourth trend, which is partly a consequence of the current necessity to individualise learning routes. Digital portfolios, learning platforms, and associated applications are increasingly employed to facilitate the individualised learning of student teachers and the educational role of teacher educators. These new educational tools provide solutions, but, as we see it, also generate new problems. One problem concerns the balance between external and internal regulation of learning; student teachers may need a differential approach in this respect, which matches their default strategies.
1.1
Main purposes and focus of this thesis
An adequate response to new developments in teacher education, such as those described above, requires knowledgeable teacher educators and educational designers. They must have developed an understanding of learning to teach and of individual ways of learning in this context. However, until recently, there has been more attention to the outcomes of learning to teach (e.g., practical knowledge, practices) than to what it takes, for a learner, to reach such outcomes. In other words, learning to teach as a psychological process is still poorly understood, particularly in comparison to learning in other educational settings (see, e.g., Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998). The main purpose of this thesis was a) to contribute to a better understanding of knowledge construction -as a psychological process- in learning to teach, and b) to describe how student teachers differ in this process. The focus is thus on knowledge construction processes in learning to teach. It can be considered a major goal of teacher education that student teachers develop their frame of reference on teaching and learning (of a particular subject matter discipline) in accordance with current understanding of what constitutes good teaching and learning. Given the effects of their own educational socialisation (Sugrue, 1997), this basically means that many student teachers have to change their perceptions and understandings of teaching and learning, and that they have to learn to develop their teaching practice accordingly. This means that they have to integrate new information into their perception of, and consequent decision-making in, classroom life. Knowledge growth thus encompasses an expansion and refinement of what student teachers see and hear during their teaching activities.
2
1.2
Research on teacher education
1.2.1
Knowledge construction in learning to teach
In the late 1970s, the time when researchers in the field of higher education increasingly concentrated on individual learning processes, researchers in the field of teaching shifted their attention from the study of teachers’ effective classroom behaviour to the study of teacher cognitions. It became clear that behavioural change in teachers was very hard to accomplish without taking into account their beliefs and knowledge. A new line of research emerged, based on the assumption that teacher behaviour and teacher thinking are tightly linked and influence each other (Clark & Peterson, 1986). Within this cognitive paradigm, the practical focus was on the implementation and testing of curricular interventions that would effectively stimulate student teachers to reconstruct their initial understandings. This ‘teacher cognition’ approach did not, however, meet expectations. First, the effects of curricular interventions aimed at the reconstruction of student teachers’ prior understandings have generally been disappointing or at least differential (Calderhead, 1996; Nettle, 1998; Tillema, 1995). The initial beliefs and understandings of many student teachers do not alter substantially. This problem, often associated with the ‘gap between theory and practice’, is not unique to learning in teacher education. Traditional academic learning environments have similar problems, although they are generally discussed in a different fashion. For example, numerous studies into conceptual change have shown that initial representations of reality are hard to change (Caravita & Halldén, 1994; Vosniadou, 1994). A related problem is that of transfer; what is being learned can often not be applied or transferred to other contexts (Salomon & Perkins, 1989). A second ‘blow’ to the teacher cognition approach was that its basic assumption was increasingly challenged; namely, the presumed close relation between teachers’ thinking and action (e.g., Pajares, 1992; Fang, 1996). In response to the teacher cognition approach, a new line of research emerged in the early 1990s, mostly referred to as research on teachers’ ‘practical knowledge’ (Meijer, 1999; Verloop, 1992). The point of departure is that the nature of teachers’ knowledge base should be taken more seriously; teachers have developed a rich, personal body of knowledge and beliefs, embedded in practice, which does not always correspond to established scientific theories, but which reflects their ‘wisdom of practice’. Instead of marking the gap between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ as a deficit, the gap is more or less accepted, as well as the nature of teachers’ practical knowledge. Systematic mapping of the content of teachers’ practical knowledge, and in particular of what is ‘shared’ in the practical knowledge of large groups of teachers, is thought to provide a source for communication among and with (future) teachers. A political spin-off may be that teachers, like other professionals, can demonstrate the special knowledge base required and used in teaching. Thus far, these initial goals have not been reached. This is to say, the literature on teachers’ practical knowledge shows that teachers think quite differently about almost every topic and that the degree of ‘shared’ knowledge is still uncertain (Meijer, 1999). Most studies reveal that, within a topic, several ‘categories’ of beliefs exist and are shared by subgroups of teachers. A number of studies also report that the more ‘desirable’ (expert-like) belief contents are associated with active and continuous ways of learning and that novice-like beliefs are associated with more undirected ways of (student) teachers’ learning (see, e.g., Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993; Meijer, 1999). This suggests a relation between teachers’ ways of learning and the content of teachers’ practical knowledge (Oosterheert, Vermunt & Denessen, in press). Lately, the process of learning to teach has received more attention from researchers in the field of teacher education (e.g., Buitink, 1998; Johnston, 1994; Korthagen, 1988; 3
Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996; Kubler-La-Boskey, 1993; Leat, McManus, Bramald and Baumfield, 1995; Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998). There is more conviction and agreement among researchers and educators that progress in teacher education depends on the advancement we make in understanding what learning in this context encompasses, and, consequently, what it encompasses for different learners. Only with such knowledge can educators start to think of ways to adequately communicate with and support the learning process of individual students. The often descriptive outcomes of empirical studies on individual learning can also become more meaningful when one has an insight into what the process actually involves. Some researchers focus on charting and describing aspects of individual differences in learning to teach. Others focus on understanding learning to teach as a process. In this thesis, we try to contribute to both and attempt to relate them to each other. 1.2.2
Individual differences in learning to teach
Research on student learning in higher education has shown that students learn in considerably different ways. These various ways of learning, also referred to as ‘approaches’ to learning, learning ‘orientations’, or learning ‘styles’, are often associated with specific conceptions of learning. Conceptions of learning are personal views on learning and teaching which colour the perception of the learning environment and the instructions given. Learning is thus not the direct result of a form of instruction, but is mediated by the learners’ personal interpretation of that instruction. Therefore, differential effects of curricular interventions are now predominantly explained in terms of students’ learning conceptions and associated ways of learning (e.g., Biggs, 1987; Entwistle, 1988; Vermunt, 1996; Vermetten, Vermunt & Lodewijks, 1999). In addition, increasing evidence exists to suggest that the origin of learners’ orientations towards learning is largely affective (Frijda, 1986; Niemivirta, 1999; Thompson, 1994). Thus, a preferred way of learning also reflects how a learner affectively copes with various situations encountered in a given context. We hypothesise that in learning to teach in particular, preferred ways of learning are associated with, and can be largely explained by, affective variables. Three characteristics of learning in this context contribute to this hypothesis. These are 1) prior knowledge: student teachers bring a relatively large amount of prior knowledge to their learning; 2) multiple sources: there are many different information sources, of which classroom experience plays a central role, and 3) impact: learning has consequences for functioning in daily practice and often also for the ‘self’. Only in the last decade has student teachers’ learning become the subject of research in the field of teacher education. Most studies focussed on one or two particular aspects of student teachers’ learning (Johnston, 1994; Zanting, Verloop, Vermunt & van Driel, 1998; Korthagen, 1988; Leat, McManus, Bramald and Baumfield, 1995). Kubler-Laboskey (1993) was one of the first to consider multiple aspects of student teachers’ learning within a single study, characterizing student teachers’ way of learning as a whole (see also Buitink, 1998). This broader approach, also labelled a ‘pattern-approach’ (Niemivirta, 1999), is essential, in our view, in understanding individual learning and serves as the point of departure for our work, as is reflected in our research questions.
4
1.3
Research questions
Two theoretical (1 and 2) and six empirical research questions (3 to 8) were formulated: 1. Which learning activities and regulation strategies are associated with knowledge growth in learning to teach? 2. What is the role of emotion in learning to teach? 3. How do student teachers differ with respect to their mental models of learning to teach, the learning activities and regulation strategies they employ, and emotion regulation? 4. Are mental models, learning activities, regulation strategies, and emotion regulation related within individual student teachers? 5. If so, are the patterns of learning to teach coherent? 6. If so, how do these patterns relate to student teachers’ concerns? 7. What personal variables are associated with ways of learning to teach? 8. Do subgroups of student teachers with similar learner characteristics perceive the learning environment differently?
1.4
Overview
The theoretical questions 1 and 2 are central in Chapter 2, which introduces the outlines of a theory of learning in which the interaction of cognition, regulation, and affect is central. The theory also provides explanations for why some (student) teachers develop their frame of reference on teaching and learning, whereas others do not, or do so to a lesser extent. Parts of this theory function as hypotheses (in retro-perspective; see below) for the subsequent empirical studies. Chapters 3 to 5 concern the empirical part of the thesis. In Chapter 3, a qualitative interview study of 30 secondary student teachers is described. It provides the first exploratory answers to questions 3 to 6, derived from extensive analysis of interview transcripts. To extend the results of the qualitative study, a questionnaire was developed to measure individual ways of learning to teach on a larger scale. The questionnaire drew on the quotes and categories that had emerged in the first study and was administered to 169 secondary student teachers. Chapter 4 reports on the development and psychometric properties of this instrument. Also, it also compares the findings to the results of the first study. Chapter 5 reports on a survey study of 382 student teachers of a subsequent student generation. A revised version of the pilot questionnaire was used for this study. In addition, several scales measuring personal(ity) characteristics and perceived contextual variables were included. Chapter 5 thus sheds more light on the role of the ‘person’ in different ways of learning to teach, and as such provides answers to research questions 7 and 8. Finally, Chapter 6 discusses the findings of the thesis as a whole. The results of the empirical studies are discussed in light of the theory in Chapter 2 and current developments in research on teacher education. Implications for the practice of teacher education and suggestions for future research emerge from this discussion.
5
1.5
Relevance
The relevance of this study is practical as well as theoretical. From a practical point of view, if student teachers in a given learning environment differ with respect to the learning activities they tend to employ of their own accord, the main question for teacher educators shifts from ‘what works’, to ‘what works at this moment for this student teacher’. Individualised learning routes, a more prominent role of personal teaching experiences in curricular activities, and the imposed changing role of the teacher underpin such a shift in attention. Teacher educators must, for example, find a balance between external regulation and self-regulation in the learning of different student teachers. In order to communicate and educate effectively and to provide learning opportunities in the zone of students’ proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978; see also Vermunt & Verloop, 1999), teacher educators need knowledge of (1) how student teachers learn differently and (2) how these differences may be more or less beneficial to knowledge growth in learning to teach. Thus, they need to develop an understanding of what it takes for different student teachers to learn to teach (KublerLaBoskey, 1993; Nettle, 1998). This thesis aims to contribute to such knowledge. The scientific relevance of this thesis is that it contributes to the knowledge base on learning processes in a higher vocational setting. Moreover, the inclusion of cognitive, regulative, and affective learning components in all three studies, and of a variety of personrelated characteristics in the third study, makes for a comprehensive picture of individual learning. We are aware that theory and the results of empirical studies may not directly lead to educational applications. However, both can help us to make the first vital step: becoming aware of hitherto unknown and therefore unrecognisable aspects of student teachers’ learning. Teacher educators may start to see and hear more and more relevant things in their interaction with their students. They may start to see what their differences are and try to find ways to adequately respond to them. This is an imperative step towards better practice.
1.6
The context for the present studies
The three empirical studies were carried out in the context of initial in-service teacher education. Common elements in these programmes are the following: -
Student teachers are given the opportunity to function as teachers over a relatively long period of time; observation of their teaching by others rarely occurs. As a consequence, a praxis-shock can take place during teacher education and can be intensively supported if necessary Regular meetings with the mentor teacher ensure that practical problems are solved and that questions can be answered Weekly activities with fellow students and educators are organised to support and stimulate further learning, building as much as possible on actual experiences and related concerns.
Despite the fact that initial in-service teacher education was still in an experimental phase at the time of the first study (1995), its specific features were not treated as an intervention, but only as a prerequisite to study learning. At the time the subsequent studies were carried out (1998-2000), initial in-service teacher education had become the dominant model in the Netherlands, although it appeared in various forms. A major difference concerns the 6
organisation of the main “independent teaching period”. Some institutes have opted for a limited number of days or hours a week covering a whole school year (‘ribbon’) , whereas others have decided on one or more intensive teaching periods of a few weeks or months (‘block’). Both types of in-service teacher education were involved in our studies. Students had a mentor teacher in their school and participated in institutional activities at least weekly. In the first two studies, four and three secondary teacher education institutes were involved, respectively. In the last study, in which eight institutes participated, we also involved primary school student teachers.
1.7
Chronology in time
The development of the theory presented in Chapter 2 took several years with a few ‘breaks’ in the process. Its current form was reached at the time when the third empirical study was prepared. Therefore, the hypotheses that are formulated in Chapter 2 are not linearly worked out in the empirical studies that follow in the Chapters 3 to 5. Because of this, the reader may at first experience a ‘gap’ when proceeding from Chapter 2 to 3. This gap will diminish, however, in the course of reading the subsequent chapters, in particular when reaching the integrative chapter, Chapter 6. The theory presented in Chapter 2 had only vague contours at the time when the first empirical study was prepared and conducted (1994/1995). At that time it was still general in nature, assuming that cognitive, regulative, and affective components of learning are related in individual learning. Some progress had been made with respect to understanding the role of emotion in learning. Aspects of all of these components were effectively involved in the first study (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001). However, the relation between cognition, regulation, and affect was not understood to the same extent as presented in the theoretical chapter. The theory thus serves only partly as the basis for the three empirical studies. The influence of the theory increases, however, across these studies; a larger theoretical scope, exceeding the theoretical basis of the three individual studies, is unmistakable in the discussions of their findings. The theory also influenced the design of the third study, in which, for example, person-related constructs were included. Since the three empirical studies are cumulative, emerging theoretical insights could not influence the development of the questionnaire. In the final chapter, the findings of the three empirical studies are discussed in light of the theory presented in Chapter 2 and other theories. Considerable attention will also be paid to the implications of our findings for teacher education.
References Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Buitink, J. (1998). In-functie opleiden en in-functie leren van aanstaande leraren [Teaching and learning in initial in-service teacher education]. Doctoral dissertation. Groningen University, The Netherlands. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 709-725). New York: MacMillan. 7
Caravita, S. & O. Halldén, (1994). Re-framing the problem of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, (1) pp. 89-111. Clark, P. & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan. Department of Education, Culture and Sciences (June 2000). Maatwerk 2 - Vervolgnota over een open onderwijsmarkt. [Continuation report 2 on an open educational market]. The Netherlands. Department of Education, Culture and Sciences (July 2000). Tijdelijke uitvoeringsregeling interim zij-instroom leraren primair onderwijs en voortgezet onderwijs. [Temporary implementing order side-intake primary and secondary teachers] In: Uitleg, Gele katern [In: Explanation, Yellow quire]. The Netherlands. Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students' approaches to learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 21-51). New York: Plenum Press. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38, (1), 47-65. Feiman-Nemser, S. & Buchmann, M. (1986). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. In: J.D. Raths & L.C. Kratz (Eds), Advances in Teacher Education, Vol. 2, (pp. 61-74), Norwood, NY: Ablex. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnston, S. (1994). Experience is the best teacher; or is it? An analysis of the role of experience in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 199-208. Kagan, D.M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62 (2), 129-169. Korthagen, F. A. J. (1988). The influence of learning orientations on the development of reflective teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers' professional learning (pp. 35-50). London: Falmer Press. Korthagen, F., & Lagerwerf, B. (1996). Reframing the relationship between teacher thinking and teacher behaviour: Levels in learning about teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 2, 161-190. Kubler LaBoskey, V. (1993). A conceptual framework for reflection in preservice teacher education. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 23-38). London, Falmer Press. Leat, D., McManus, L., Bramald, R., & Baumfield, V. (1995, September). Learning from classroom experience: Some attributes of successful student teachers. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Bath, England. Meijer, P. (1999). Teachers’ practical knowledge – Teaching reading comprehension in secondary education. Doctoral dissertation. Leiden University, The Netherlands. National Council of Education (April 1999). Lerarenbeleid: kwaliteit voor vandaag én morgen. [Policy on teachers: quality for today ánd tomorrow]. Advise to the Department of Education, Culture and Sciences on the Note “Tailor-made education for tomorrow: The perspective of an open educational market”. National Council of Education (May 2000). Samenhangend geheel lerarenopleidingen. [Coherent whole of teacher education programmes]. Advise to the Department of Education, Culture and Sciences. Nettle, E. B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practice teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 193-204.
8
Niemivirta, M. (1999, August). Habits of mind and academic endeavors – The role of goal orientations and motivational beliefs in school performance. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Göthenborg, Sweden. Oosterheert, I.E. & Vermunt, J.D. (2001). Individual differences in learning to teach relating cognition, regulation, and affect. Learning and Instruction, 11 (2), pp.133-156. Oosterheert, I. E., Vermunt, J. D & Denessen, E. (in press). Assessing orientations to learning to teach. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, (3),307-332. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer : Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113-142. Sugrue, C. (1997). Student teachers' lay theories and teaching identities: Their implications for professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20 (3), 213225. Thompson, T. (1994). Self-worth protection: review and implications for the classroom. In: Educational Review, 46, (3), 259-274. Tillema, H. H. (1995). Changing the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers: a training study. Learning and Instruction, 5, 291-318. Verloop, N. (1992). Praktijkkennis van docenten : Een blinde vlek in de onderwijskunde [teachers practical knowledge: A blind spot in educational theory]. Pedagogische Studiën, 69 (6), 410-423. Vermetten, Y.J., Vermunt , J.D. & Lodewijks, J. (1999). A longitudinal perspective on learning strategies in higher education: Different viewpoints towards development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 221-242. Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25-50. Vermunt, J.D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, (1), pp. 45-69. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J. & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, (2), 130-178. Zanting, A., Verloop, N., Vermunt, J.D., & Van Driel, J.H. (1998). Explicating practical knowledge: An extension of mentor teachers’ roles. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21, 9-26.
9
10
Chapter 2
Regulating Knowledge Growth in Learning to Teach: The Role of Dynamic Sources 1
Curricular interventions in teacher education aimed at stimulating knowledge growth in teaching and learning often yield disappointing or differential effects. In an attempt to explain these findings, this article introduces a theory of student teacher learning in which the interaction of regulation, emotion, and self-esteem is central. It is argued that three sources of regulation have to play a role in learning to teach: external sources to provide new (conceptual) information, active internal sources to deliberately and effortfully focus on (new) information, and dynamic internal sources to spontaneously reconceptualise initial understandings. Furthermore, it is suggested that the ability or readiness of student teachers to effectively involve all three of these sources in their learning may depend on how emotionally risky it is for them to change their perception of reality. This risk seems to be lower for learners with high self-esteem. Implications for teacher education are discussed.
1
Oosterheert, I.E. & Vermunt, J.D. Regulating knowledge growth in learning to teach: the role of dynamic sources. Manuscript submitted to Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice (currently under revision).
11
2.1
Introduction
Researchers’ understanding of the learning-to-teach process is still in its infancy. We have a poor understanding of what it takes for someone to learn to teach and are just beginning to explore the learning-to-teach process as a whole (Carter, 1990; Kagan, 1992; Kubler LaBoskey, 1993; Buitink, 1998). The purpose of the present article is to determine what it takes for student teachers to regulate knowledge growth in teaching and learning. We describe teacher knowledge as a - partly tacit - interpretative frame of reference, consisting of beliefs, images, and procedural and conceptual knowledge, which guides student teachers deliberate thinking about teaching and learning, and their deliberate and non-deliberate perception, decision taking, and action during teaching. In this, we are close to what is commonly referred to as teachers’ practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Meijer, 1999). We will use the terms ‘frame of reference’, ‘understandings’ and ‘knowledge’ as equivalents. Knowledge growth in learning to teach is the development and change of students’ existing frame of reference. We conceive of it as a qualitative rather than as a quantitative change; the processing of (new) information results in a reconceptualisation of prior understandings (Marton, Dall’Alba & Beaty, 1993; Iran-Nejad, 1990). The theoretical point of departure here is that of situated cognition. Reynolds, Sinatra, and Tamara (1996) have stated that situated cognition theory has not yet been able to offer an explanation of how individuals deal with prior knowledge when they are confronted with new experiences, or how internal mechanisms are involved in learning. The present article was undertaken to contribute to a greater understanding of the internal mechanisms involved in learning to teach and how these relate to the behavioural and environmental sides of student teachers’ learning (see also Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998). Since the 1970s, the decade in which Lortie (1975) indicated the persistent influence of student teachers’ own educational socialisation on their teaching, the majority of research on teacher education has been focussed on changing student teachers’ prior knowledge and beliefs. Although the various attempts to increase the influence of teacher education on their thinking and action resulted in more insight into, for example, mentoring styles and the relation between practice and theory, the effects of curricular interventions were repeatedly disappointing or at least differential; some student teachers change and develop their existing knowledge, whereas others do not (Calderhead, 1987; Kubler LaBoskey, 1993; Nettle, 1998; Tillema, 1995). The origin of these differences is still poorly understood. This article starts from the assumption that more understanding of what the learning-to-teach process entails makes it possible to understand what it takes for different student teachers to engage in this process (see also Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993; Nettle, 1998).
2.1.1
Overview
This article will suggest building blocks of a theory about the regulation of knowledge growth in learning to teach. The fairly new perspective that will be introduced puts, in our view, a new light on troublesome issues in the domain of teacher learning, such as the relation between theory and practice, the role of field experiences in learning to teach and the nature of teachers’ practical knowledge. The theory also clarifies why some (student) teachers develop their frame of reference on teaching and learning, whereas others do not, or do so to a lesser extent. Part one (section 2.2) introduces the theory of regulation proposed by Iran-Nejad and his colleagues (1990; 1992), which will be applied to the context of learning to teach. The theory assumes that three sources of regulation have to play a role in changing existing understandings of reality: external sources, active internal sources and 12
dynamic internal sources. Two of these, the external and active sources, are very commonly accepted in the current literature (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989; Howard-Rose & Winne, 1993; Vermunt, 1996). The theory however adds a third source, dynamic internal regulation, which is relatively new. We will discuss how and why the three sources of regulation are presumed to work together in learning to teach. The second part (2.3) hypothesises about the role of a subtle mechanism that may explain why some learners do not use the three sources effectively in their learning. Part three (2.4) discusses how the proposed theory relates to the role of field experiences in learning to teach. Finally, implications for teacher education and for further research are discussed in section 2.5. It should be noted that, although specific parts of the theory proposed in this article are increasingly supported by empirical evidence, the theory as a whole is still rather hypothetical in nature. The second part in particular, where learners’ affective functioning is integrated into the first part of the theory, is still largely theoretical. Therefore, directions for empirical research are given at the end. In our explication of the theory, a distinction is made between external and internal sources of regulation. External sources of regulation are sources outside the learner that may provide information to learners, such as teacher educators, fellow students, the literature, mentors, and teaching experiences. These may all function as external sources of regulation. Internal sources of regulation, on the other hand, refer to capacities of the human brain to process information and to reconstruct existing knowledge. We also use the terms selfregulation and internal regulation. These are equivalents, but internal regulation is sometimes used to oppose it to external regulation. Most central to the theory is the distinction between active and dynamic sources of regulation. This distinction is extensively discussed below.
2.2
External, active internal and dynamic internal sources of regulation
2.2.1
Internalisation and reconceptualisation
In the last two decades, considerable attention has been paid to the ways in which learners regulate their learning. Many empirical studies show that effective learners are essentially self-regulating (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989; Howard-Rose & Winne, 1993). Generally, descriptions of self-regulative learners emphasise the learners’ deliberate allocation of attention to the learning task at hand, to the learning strategies to be chosen, and to purposeful monitoring and evaluation of the process and results (Flavell, 1979; Winne, 1995a; Vermunt, 1996, 1998). Although characterised mostly by such words as strategic, goal-oriented, purposeful and reflective, the nature of self-regulation as exclusively deliberate has recently been questioned by some researchers. Winne (1995b) argues that all learners, including novices, regulate their learning, though not necessarily optimally, and that self-regulation “can be automatic and non-deliberate once the learner has automated procedural knowledge that recognises when to regulate and what to do” (Winne, 1995b). According to Iran-Nejad (1990), both views stem from the assumption that learning is an “incremental internalisation of knowledge” and that it occurs only when being confronted with external input. External input can, in these views, only be internalised under external control or under the active control of the individual learner. A view on self-regulation where information is only internalised and where learning only occurs under external or active control does, however, not account for an explanation of various unresolved issues in cognitive psychology, such as Bereiter's (1990) ‘learning 13
paradox,’ Festinger’s (1957) observation that humans tend to resolve cognitive inconsistency, ‘postdiction-based learning’ (Iran-Nejad, 1990), young children’s high proficiency in learning (Iran-Nejad, 1990), and the relation between interest and learning (Hidi, 1990). Therefore, in the past ten years, a new view on self-regulation has emerged, suggesting that the deliberate processing of information is often helpful, but may not be the rule in learning. A growing number of theoretical as well as empirical studies demonstrate that the human brain can better be conceived of as a multi-source processor (Hidi, 1990; Iran-Nejad, 1990; Iran-Nejad, McKeachie & Berliner, 1990; Johnson & Hasher, 1987). Building on cognitive theories of how the human nervous system works, Iran-Nejad (1990) proposed an internal source of regulation that accounts for simultaneous processing of multiple sources: dynamic self-regulation. Dynamic self-regulation is described as the capacity to delegate attention to multiple subsystems of our brain. A reconceptualisation of knowledge, conceived of as a qualitatively different (richer or more accurate) perception of a phenomenon (Marton, Dall'Alba & Beaty, 1993) is assumed to ultimately occur under this dynamic control. According to Iran-Nejad (1990), the outcome of such learning is rather holistic and not categorical. When learners are aware that reconceptualisation has taken place, they can, for example, say, ‘Now I see!’ On the other hand, active self-regulation, which accounts for the more commonly known - sequential, attention-allocated processing, primarily leads to internalisation and its outcome is rather specific and categorical. Table 1 shows the most salient characteristics of active and dynamic regulation extracted from Iran-Nejad’s (1990) theory. 2.2.2
Cooperation between two sources of internal regulation
In effective constructive learning, the two forms of regulation work together. Under dynamic control, the deliberately or non-deliberately internalised information is spontaneously used to reconceptualise former understandings. Active regulation is the explicit focus of the learner on specific details of this (emerging) understanding. There is some evidence that active learning activities contribute to learning “to the extent that they influence the activity of dynamic sources” (Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992). Active self-regulation thus plays an important but restricted role in learning. In other terms, in constructive learning, we can actively look for a connection (e.g. the cause, consequence or function of something), by actively analysing, relating, structuring, etc., but we cannot actively make the connection. The ultimate connecting process itself is a (bio)dynamic process that takes place outside the realm of active control and only under specific conditions. Once the connection we look for has been established, we ‘see’, understand, or grasp it. In meaningful learning, the brain thus provides spontaneous suggestions about reality (possibly, but not necessarily as a consequence of deliberate thought), which can then be actively checked by our ratio.
14
Table 1: Characteristics of active and dynamic self-regulation; after Iran-Nejad (1990) Active self-regulation
Dynamic self-regulation Processing
Slow Effortful, deliberate Sequential Attention allocation
Rapid Spontaneous, non-deliberate Simultaneous Attention delegation Nature of information being processed
Conceptual Important Reducing complexity
Sensorial Interesting Leaving complexity intact Learning experience
Internalisation Knowing Effort
Reconceptualisation Understanding Ease
We will provide some examples to illustrate the cooperation between the two internal sources. As the first example, think of a person who has finished reading a very interesting paper while feeling that he has not fully captured the central idea as yet. He takes the paper again, reads the notes he made in the margins, and puts the central concepts and their interrelations in a scheme. While overlooking the scheme, or even in the course of creating it, suddenly and spontaneously, the central idea becomes clear and a new understanding emerges, relating and making meaningful all the concepts and their interrelations. In this example, active regulation is used to structure the central concepts in the book. This is an intermediate phase, initiated by the experience of the learner that full understanding had not yet taken place; dynamic sources could not (yet) come up with a reconceptualised understanding. And, effectively, as soon as enough additional active processing has been done, dynamic sources take control and reconceptualisation takes place. If there is more prior knowledge connected to it, the newly acquired understanding may generate many more spontaneous reconceptualisation processes. A similar process occurs in ‘post-diction stories’ (Iran-Nejad, 1992). In these stories, a surprising cue, provided at the end of the story, puts a totally different light on the story as a whole. Within the proposed theory, this last cue generates the rapid, effortless, and spontaneous reinterpretation of previously provided cues and the story as a whole. We can also imagine situations in which individuals rely on dynamic regulation, while deliberately relinquishing active control. This is the case when individuals decide to stop searching for their lost keys, trusting that in a few minutes they will suddenly know where they are. In that case, they let go of the (active, systematic) search for their keys, and know that ‘something’ will happen after all (dynamically) that may result in, for example, the sudden appearance of an image in their mind of the lost keys on the refrigerator. Similarly, a student teacher may spontaneously recognise a new phenomenon in her classroom, e.g., fear of failure, which was (conceptually) introduced at a university meeting, although no deliberate attention had been given to it since, neither by her nor by anyone else. It is only then that she experiences understanding.
15
2.2.3
Interest, prior knowledge and dynamic self-regulation
As noted, in the present theory, the contribution of active learning strategies to learning is presumed to be limited to the extent that they influence the activities of dynamic sources (Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992). Thus, for new understanding to take place, at least dynamic sources have to be involved in learning. Also, there is growing evidence that curiosity and intrinsic interest are related to the use of dynamic sources in learning (Hidi, 1990). In the latter example above, new (conceptual) information awakened the interest of a student teacher, but this interest could not be satisfied immediately, as she needed more -in this casesensory information, to reach full understanding. She let go of active control, but, as soon as relevant (sensory) information (a pupil showing signs of fear of failure) corresponding to her interest (what is fear of failure and what does it look like?) passed by, attention was spontaneously allocated to it and reconceptualisation took place. Thus, for dynamic sources to become effectively involved in the process, interest is presumed to be a prerequisite. In addition, Iran-Nejad & Cecil (1992) assume that the more prior knowledge a learner has in a specific domain, the more likely it is that interest is involved in learning about this domain because, in their view, it is the potential of a (surprising) reconceptualisation that causes interest. Thus, the more prior knowledge a learner has, the more there is, potentially, to be reconceptualised, and the more likely it is that new information arouses the learners’ interest (Iran-Nejad & Cecil, 1992). Potentially, because evidently, the relatively large amount of prior knowledge of student teachers should then cause the learning-to-teach process to be a relatively unproblematic process, while it is exactly their prior knowledge that seems to cause the problems. We will pay more attention to this paradox below. 2.2.4
Balancing external, active internal and dynamic internal sources
Iran-Nejad & Chissom (1992) argue that learning occurs best in a “non-habitual, creative mode of functioning.” In a creative mode of functioning, dynamic internal, active internal, and external sources of control cooperate in a fashion most suitable for the particular learning context. In their view, learning that occurs predominantly under external control is rather reactive and often characterised by immediate responses to external events (e.g., an ad hoc search for solutions). Learning that occurs predominantly under active control is characterised by selective attention (in learning to teach, for example, ‘Does this work?’), self-questioning (e.g., ‘What went well/wrong?’), prediction (e.g., ‘This will work’) and a procedural, habitual approach to learning (e.g., Looking back on action, addressing attention to relevant events, searching for alternatives, retaining what works / forgetting what does not work). A predominance of dynamic regulation in learning, in their view, implies alert attention (initial openness to all experiences), curiosity, post-diction (i.e., “the spontaneous reinterpretation of previously learned events with the benefit of hindsight”) and spontaneous engagement in learning (impetuses to engage in learning are various and can appear at all times). The first two sources of control correspond to Bereiter's (1990) acquired ‘passive school-work module’ and ‘active intentional learning module’, respectively. The nonhabitual, spontaneous learning module, in which the three sources of control cooperate functionally, is called the ‘interest-creating discovery module’ (Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992). In order to chart and better understand individual differences in learning to teach, we conducted an extensive interview study among 30 student teachers (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001; see Chapter 3). The results indicate that student teachers learn quite differently. Interestingly, we found that most student teachers learn in a habitual, intentional way; they look back on action, pay attention to problems of performance and search for practical 16
solutions ‘here and now’. This relatively large group seems not to question the limits of their existing frame of reference; better actions or solutions to problems are primarily found within existing understandings of reality, unless external sources succeed in broadening their minds. Another small group reported a self-initiated search for conceptual information, experiences of hindsight learning (see above), and ‘non-understanding.’ The learning of this group comes closest to the interest-creating discovery mode, in which the three sources cooperate. Finally, we found some student teachers who learn predominantly under external control. These student teachers are predominantly concerned with survival and are rather undirected in their learning. 2.2.5
Why do student teachers learn as they do?
Some evidence exists supporting the hypothesis that for most learners, also in academic learning, initial understandings remain basically the same (see Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992). This is to say that, apparently, dynamic sources do not serve their learning. Our study also suggests that most student teachers rely predominantly on active sources of regulation (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001). Active sources are used to find solutions and suggestions to improve practice, not to develop their understanding of teaching and learning. It is likely that the existing beliefs of these students remain unaltered. The small, undirected group in our study depends foremost on external sources for their learning and their use of active internal sources is very limited. The question that arises is why some learners limit themselves in their learning by predominantly using only two sources, or but a single source, of regulation. One way to address this problem is to look at teacher education itself. Several common practices in teacher education may not be beneficial for student teachers. In our discussion and implications section, we will point out several presumably ineffective practices and propose other practices that may be more promising in terms of effective teacher education. However, we first focus on the students themselves. Differences between learners with respect to their regulation will remain, despite contextual changes, as long as these contextual changes are the same for all. This is so, because learners have different experienced histories, which have resulted in different personal preferences, goals, and action tendencies which are largely involved in learning (Niemivirta, 1999; Vermetten, 1999). IranNejad (1990) also conceives of dynamic processing as a “spontaneous selective attention mechanism in itself, facilitated by prior knowledge and learning habits.” It is, however, unclear what exactly the role of prior knowledge and learning habits is when dynamic processing does not serve constructive learning. In the next section we hypothesise about the role of a subtle mechanism, connected to prior knowledge and the affective system, which is probably also operating in the dynamic domain, and which may explain, to a large extent, why some learners do not profit from the power of (active and) dynamic internal sources.
2.3
The pre-attentive assessment of meaning
2.3.1
Emotion in learning to teach
Recently, several psychologists and neurophysiologists have adopted a view on information processing in which affective variables, such as emotion, are better understood as a functional rather than as a structural phenomenon. In a structural view on emotion, emotional responses are viewed as rather fixed and universal in a given situation. Within a functional view, emotions are elicited as a reaction to events relevant to the individual's concerns 17
(Frijda, 1986; 1987). The emotional system directs attention to those events or situations that relate to the fulfillment or threat of personal concerns and to the necessity of an adaptation. During learning, learners assess the (subjective) significance of the situations they are in, and specific action tendencies are consequently aroused and activated. As we see it, these significant ‘situations’ may not only refer to aspects of the learning environment or the difficulty of a task (Boekaerts, 1995), but also to the content to be learned. It is assumed now that humans, when processing new information, can be near the grasping of a new understanding and already ‘feel’ the implications, so to speak, for their concerns. So, preattentively, individuals can assess whether the outcomes of learning, or even the consequences of it, are desirable and worth the effort (Frijda, 1986; Krohne, Hock, & Kohlmann, 1992; Posner & Rothbart, 1992). For instance, it is conceivable that the learning process towards understanding ‘independent learning’ is inhibited when student teachers, (without being aware) judge themselves for not being independent learners. The consequences of understanding independent learning (e.g., lower self-esteem) cannot be dealt with. Or, students who have just passed the survival stage may not process information which disturbs (the relief about) the balance they just carefully built up: new information should not yet implicate changes in their teaching behaviour . In this respect, reproductive learning (predominant use of external and active internal sources) is less ‘risky’ than constructive learning (use of three sources). In reproductive learning, facts and ideas remain unconnected to each other and to the self, while constructive learning implies the ‘risk’ of reconceptualisation. This may be frightening because it may generate a ‘domino effect’ (Rogers, 1969, cited in McCarthy & Schmeck, 1988). Relatively small changes in one’s perception of reality entail the risk of generating many more changes which may be profound. We have argued that in learning to teach, this domino effect is extremely manifest because, in this domain, reconceptualisation has direct and often fundamental implications for daily personal functioning and the self (Oosterheert, 1998b). The finding that a shift in concerns does not automatically continue to take place in all student teachers can also be explained from its potential implications; subsequent concerns may imply increasing changes in the self. Survival then is a very fundamental concern, shared by all student teachers, while concerns with respect to student teachers’ own effectiveness in promoting pupils’ learning (see Fessler and Christensen, 1992; Fuller, 1969) may involve so many changes in the self that a shift towards such concerns does not (automatically) take place. 2.3.2
The risk of dynamic self-regulation
The domino effect that Rogers (1969) points at is, as we see it, illustrative of what may happen when dynamic sources are involved in learning. Unlike active self-regulation, dynamic self-regulation has the potential of initiating a sequence of surprising closures, resulting from simultaneous activity in multiple local sources of the brain. In parallel, it is assumed now that emotions are elicited by the simultaneous activity of various components of the neuronal system (Fox; 1994; Frijda, 1986; Iran-Nejad, Clore & Vondruska, 1984). It is thus very likely that the emotional system is involved in dynamic regulation. Iran-Nejad & Cecil (1992) conceive of interest and anxiety as the dynamic control factors, (albeit without perceiving interest as an emotion). The ultimate determinant of (deep) learning, even under the best educational circumstances, thus resides in the (emotional) responses of the learner to the (consequences of the) outcome of learning. Positive implications are generally approached whereas negative implications can be avoided (Krohne, Hock, & Kohlmann, 1992; Frijda, 1986). Differences between learners are then more pronounced in the regulation of negative emotions and their associated implications. 18
Although Iran-Nejad and his colleagues, to our knowledge, do not explicitly involve the role of imagery in their theory, we are inclined to think that their description of dynamic sources supports the idea that the generation of an image, through imagery, is at least part of, or even the essence of, dynamic processing. There is a good deal of evidence that imagery should no longer be regarded as a unitary psychological function but as the product of a complex system of interrelating, simultaneously functioning components in the brain (Richardson, 1999). The emotional system is also involved in the imagery process, in particular in the selection of what is ‘looked for’ (Ellis, 1995). This is in line with our hypothesis that dynamic processing in particular is emotionally risky for learners; learners may become more alert to the consequences of what they are learning, when they, literally, build up, through imagination, new representations of reality. 2.3.3
Self-concept and self-esteem
The degree to which learners allow (intense) emotional experiences and are able to accept and deal with specific kinds of emotions is related to how they judge these emotions in relation to their self-concept (Frijda, 1986). Self-concept refers to what we know or believe about ourselves; self-esteem to how we feel about ourselves (McCarthy & Schmeck, 1988). It has been demonstrated that learners with a high tolerance for emotional arousal are more likely to accept what their learning arouses (Krohne et al., 1992). And high tolerance for emotional arousal is related to high self-esteem. To put it differently, learners regulate the emotions aroused during learning differently, (partly) as a function of their self-esteem. Thus, some learners may approach threatening situations, taking the subjective ‘risks’ for granted and dealing with them, while others tend to avoid them. For the context of learning to teach, Oosterheert (1998a) found big differences in the way beginning student teachers regulate what ‘bad lessons’ do to them. Among other things, they differ in appraisal, acknowledgement of emotions, and emotion intensity. In particular in learning to teach, where learning has consequences for daily functioning and the self differences in emotion regulation are perhaps more pronounced (see also Leat, et al. 1995; Nias, 1989). To conclude, we assume that the higher student teachers’ self-esteem is, the lower their anxiety for surprising reconceptualisations, and the more ready they are to engage in a way of learning in which attention is freely delegated to dynamic sources. This implies that information from external sources is also more freely, though not uncritically, used to ‘feed’ the activities of active and dynamic sources.
2.4
The three-source theory and the role of teaching experiences
2.4.1
Teaching experiences as an external source
It has been noted that we still lack a theoretical foundation for the potential contributions and limits of teaching experience to learning to teach (McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996). For example, we do not fully understand why amount of experience does not predict expertise and why some student teachers cannot recall new learning experiences soon after a basic competence in teaching has been achieved (Calderhead, 1987; Desforges, 1995; FeimanNemser & Buchmann, 1986). We have argued, building on Iran-Nejad’s theory, that three sources of regulation have to be involved in constructive learning and that 19
reconceptualisations take place, ultimately, under delegated, dynamic control. However, until now, the role of teaching experiences in this process has received very little attention. This section aims at clarifying how the three sources of regulation, in particular dynamic sources, relate to teaching experiences. But first, we have to make clear the distinction between ‘using dynamic sources in teaching’ and ‘using dynamic sources in learning to teach’. 2.4.2
Using dynamic sources in teaching and in learning to teach
Teaching experience is an important external source in learning to teach which provides basically sensory information. During teaching, teachers’ senses are simultaneously and undeliberately activated by what happens in classroom life, and most of their decisions and actions require no deliberate thought; they take place ‘in-action’ (Schön, 1987). Very likely, it is the power of dynamic sources that accounts for this capacity to act in multi-source, complex environments such as the classroom (see Doyle, 1977; Iran-Nejad, McKeachie, & Berliner, 1990). All student teachers thus use dynamic sources in teaching. However, this is not to say that all students use dynamic sources for the purpose of new learning. It is in this respect that student teachers may differ. Teaching experiences can only be educative when dynamic sources become involved in a specific way. 2.4.3
When teaching experiences are not educative
Classroom teaching experiences offer a great deal that is potentially educative for students; after all, it is in the teaching situation that students can experience, see, and hear what teaching and learning is about. Commonly, student teachers are also very positive about the contribution of teaching experiences to their learning (e.g., Johnston, 1994). However, it has also been demonstrated that “..once adjustments have been made to the immediate demands of the classroom, teachers tend to close down rather than to open up in the face of experience” (Desforges, 1995). The same holds for many student teachers (Calderhead, 1987; Lampert & Clark, 1990). From the three-source theory of regulation it follows that, when this occurs, students 1) are inclined to rely exclusively on dynamic sources for their teaching; only dramatic contextual changes may force them to change existing habits and knowledge; 2) tend to ignore new information from external sources; and 3) use active internal sources only to solve practical problems in teaching, not to further develop their knowledge base. To illustrate this: we have already argued that interest is a prerequisite for dynamic sources to become effectively involved in learning. This also implies that if, during teaching, interest is not involved in the perception and interpretation of classroom experiences, learning cannot take place. Without interest, or ‘desire’ (Ellis, 1995), there is mere perception, based on prior knowledge, and nothing else. Another way to put this is to state that “every looking-at must be accompanied by a corresponding looking-for” (Ellis, 1995; see also Marcel, 1983). One cannot (start to) see things that one is not looking for. The latter is comparable with learning to appreciate and understand art or a specific music genre; it is partly dependent on the willingness to understand what there is to be seen and heard. A lay person perceives the surface features, a knowledgeable person perceives what’s beyond, because (s)he has learned where to look for. Likewise, teaching experiences fail to be educative when existing knowledge is taken for granted and the desire to see something new is absent. Then, the perception of classroom life tends towards self-confirmation.
20
2.4.4
When teaching experiences are educative
To acquire a new perception of (parts of) classroom reality, dynamic sources have to be ‘fed with’ information that arouses interest. This can occur under active internal control, e.g., when student teachers perceive and define their teaching problems not only as problems of performance (how to?), but also as problems of understanding (why, what is it?), which in its turn may make them search for (conceptual) information from other external sources. It can also occur when students succeed in relating new conceptual or sensory information to their own experiences and vice versa. External sources, such as teacher educators and mentor teachers, can become involved by providing information that relates to existing (implicit or explicit) needs and problems, or that challenges students’ existing understandings. If students undertake such learning activities and also can face the consequences of learning outcomes (see above), teaching practice serves the purpose of learning to teach. During teaching, dynamic sources are then permanently alert to detect the experiences connected to current questions and puzzlements. Spontaneous insights during or after teaching, related to a particular teaching experience, then indicate that a reconceptualisation has taken place; from now on, in their classroom, students perceive more or something in a different way. 2.4.5
Differences between student teachers
Very likely, as a result of previous academic schooling, student teachers are used to relying predominantly on active internal sources of regulation (Iran-Nejad, 1990). As they enter teacher education, they may react differently to a learning environment where personal experiences are an important information source. One can imagine student teachers who perceive this new context to be so different from previous ones that they also dramatically change their learning habits; they suddenly start to rely almost exclusively on dynamic regulation. These student teachers may soon reach a point that they do not learn much any more as they profit insufficiently from external and active internal sources of regulation. At the other extreme, there may be student teachers who continue to learn predominantly in an active, intentional way; the richness of the new context does not alter their learning. Their focus remains selective and their strategies analytical and procedural. These student teachers may improve aspects of their teaching performance without reconceptualizing their understandings of teaching and learning. There is some evidence that most student teachers react in this way (Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993; Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001). A third group may be able to reactivate or still possess the capacity to profit maximally from both external sources as well as from active and dynamic internal sources. Their learning is constantly fed by both teaching practice and information from other sources, as their interest is in improving teaching through acquiring a better understanding of teaching and learning.
2.5
Conclusions and discussion
In this article, a three-source theory of regulation in learning to teach was put forward which adds, in our view, an important ingredient to current understandings of what it takes for a learner to develop and change existing knowledge. What is new in this theory is the emphasis on the dynamic capacities of our brain. The theory implies that without the involvement of dynamic internal sources, knowledge construction does not occur. It thus challenges those researchers within the constructive paradigm who emphasise that knowledge construction in learning to teach can occur in an active and systematic way (e.g., Calderhead, 1989) and is in 21
line with researchers who have also pointed at the (partly) perceptual and dynamic nature of teacher knowledge and learning (Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996; see also Prawat & Floden, 1994). Although the dynamic aspect of the theory proposed and worked out in this article is still in need of more empirical support, it clarifies the limitations of practitioners valuing practice as the most important source of their learning, and of teacher educators and researchers stressing the importance of ‘reflection’ without acknowledging the indispensability of the dynamic quality of the human brain. Student teachers have to develop and change a great deal of their knowledge, action tendencies, and learning habits as they enter teacher education. An important external source in this process is their own teaching experience. They profit most from their teaching experience, when they use their own internal sources for the purpose of understanding, as well as other external sources to discover what more there is to be perceived and done in teaching and learning. Our discussion on the role of emotion in learning has lend some theoretical support to Iran-Nejad and Ortony’s (1984) hypothesis that dynamic processing is “a spontaneous selective attention mechanism in itself, facilitated by prior knowledge and learning habits.” We discussed how significant but subtle this pre-attentive mechanism possibly is and how learners’ affective functioning is very likely to be involved in it. Prior knowledge may facilitate constructive learning only to the extent that the emotional risk for learners to perceive things differently is not too high. As a consequence, we are inclined to think that learning habits in which learners spontaneously allocate and delegate attention to relevant (prior) information are perhaps more likely to be found in learners who do not control blocking emotions (Boekaerts, 1995; Vermunt, 1996), but have enough self-esteem to accept and approach them (see, e.g., Frijda, 1986; Leat et al., 1995). The fundamental nature of the theory makes it possible to consider its value for other learning contexts, such as academic learning. Although generally discussed in a somewhat different fashion, the latter field also has its “theory-practice” problem. For example, the abundant literature on conceptual change shows that initial representations of reality are hard to change (Caravita & Halldén, 1994; Vosniadou, 1994). A related, classic problem is that of transfer; what is being learned can often not be applied or transferred to other contexts (Salomon & Perkins, 1989). The present theory explains these findings as an overestimation of the power of external and active internal sources of regulation. Active self-regulation can be very helpful, but never sufficient in conceptual change. In teacher education as well as in academic learning, dynamic internal sources should become much more involved in the learning process. The next section draws more attention to what this may imply, in particular for teacher education. 2.5.1
Implications for teacher education
To foster the balance in student teachers' learning described above, teacher education has, in our view, a complex but indispensable task to fulfil. Existing practices may not be as efficient as they seem to be, and other practices must be invented to help and stimulate student teachers to further develop their perception and understanding of teaching reality. We propose several changes on the basis of the present theory. 2.5.1.1
Building on active and dynamic sources
In the last two decades, researchers within the field of learning to teach have emphasised the necessity for student teachers to learn actively and intentionally. ‘Reflection’ has been the dominant term for referring to such deliberate learning activities, regardless of whether they are directed to examining thoughts, knowledge, beliefs, actions, situations, feelings, or images (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1986; Johnston, 1994; Korthagen, 1993; Kubler 22
LaBoskey, 1993; Munby & Russell, 1996; Tann, 1993; Wubbels, 1992). However, the effects of curricular inventions aimed at stimulating such reflective activities were often disappointing or at least differential (Grossman, 1992; Nettle, 1998). In the present theory, this can be explained by that fact that active processing is not a guarantee nor always necessary in constructive learning. Practices building on active self-regulation alone have several disadvantages. First, they are often procedural, cyclical and therefore prescriptive in nature (e.g., Korthagen, 1998); thinking and acting in a fixed manner chains the flexible mind of learners who effectively use the three sources of regulation of their own accord. Reflection heuristics may frustrate rather than help such learners. On the other hand, student teachers who depend on external regulation may benefit from approaches that at least stimulate them to use the internal sources of regulation they are equipped with. Second, activating approaches bear the risk of giving students the false impression that teaching events causing puzzlement, uncertainty, or curiosity, can always can be satisfactorily solved or become meaningful in the present. The three-source theory implies that a reconceptualisation of understanding cannot always occur ‘here and now’. It often takes time and/or new experiences before new conceptual information can be related to sensory information deriving from personal experiences (and vice versa). Thus, when confronted with a problem, students at least need to know that learning may take place later, often suddenly, while undertaking other activities. Third, many of the activating approaches start with the problems students encounter in their own teaching. Although this seems logical, it has, in our view, a pitfall (see also FeimanNemser & Buchmann, 1986). The trouble with teaching experiences as a starting-point is that, when a subsequent shift in concerns does not occur (see above), new and fundamentally different problems in teaching are not experienced and approached either. Teaching practice does not continue to arouse new problems and questions in all student teachers. Therefore, we suggest that the problems student teachers encounter in their own teaching experiences should not always function as a starting-point for activities (compare Munby & Russell, 1996), although they should always be part of it. Student teachers have to be confronted with new sensory and conceptual information that stimulates the emergence of new concerns and interests. Fourth, building on active sources alone forces students to break reality and their prior knowledge into pieces, and forces them to focus on only one thing at a time. Besides the fact that this conflicts with their daily experiences, it also causes their existing knowledge, which normally functions in larger units (e.g., Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996; Marcel, 1983), to be less easily accessible for restructuring (see below). In order to accomplish fundamental changes in prior knowledge and thus involve dynamic sources in learning, existing prior knowledge should also be activated as it probably functions most effectively in the mind of learners, namely, as larger wholes (see also Bereiter, 1990; Iran-Nejad, 1994; Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996; Marcel, 1983). One little change then triggers the rest of the whole, resulting in the spontaneous generation of more changes (see, for example, our examples in part I of this article). The idea of working with larger prior knowledge units (metaphors, images, gestalts) is not new. One decade ago, to overcome transfer problems in the preparation of teachers, Prawat (1992) proposed a curriculum around ‘big ideas,’ based on the assumption that ‘the best way to facilitate transfer is to ensure that the particular element of knowledge is well learned to begin with’. Following this line of reasoning, we can think of student teachers who, when entering teacher education, start to explore, in many different ways (not only through discussion; see e.g., Wubbels, 1992), the essence of fundamental ideas governing education, for example, When is learning learning?, When is teaching teaching?, What can be learning outcomes? Another way to promote the use of dynamic sources is to facilitate that teaching experiences can be connected almost immediately to conceptual information and experiences 23
from others. Then, the three sources of regulation have a better chance of cooperating effectively. An important condition to achieving this is that teaching practice and institutional meetings alternate frequently (see also Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996). Since many teacher education programs still separate teaching practice (sensorial information) from theory (conceptual information), - intervals of several weeks are very common - it is likely that reconceptualisation of prior understandings can take place only long after the introduction of conceptual information (and vice versa). Very likely, only a few student teachers are able to bridge this ‘organised’ gap between conceptual information and the sensory world of classroom life since they can rely on dynamic internal sources for (later) spontaneous learning. Most student teachers however, need an environment in which learning is much more facilitated and thus organised differently. Another way to transform teacher education into a place where existing knowledge can be further developed is to stimulate mentor teachers to focus on explicating why they (the mentors) act and think as they do. However, like many student teachers, few mentor teachers are inclined to do so of their own accord (Eliott & Calderhead, 1994; Feiman-Nemser & Beasley, 1996). For several reasons, explicating personal understandings is somewhat unnatural, difficult, or undesirable for mentor teachers (Zanting, Verloop, Vermunt & Van Driel, 1998). Therefore, mentor teachers may need guidance and training on a long-term basis. After all, with respect to knowledge construction, mentor teachers and student teachers have basically the same point of departure; however, mentor teachers can work from a larger amount of teaching experience. 2.5.1.2
Taking individual differences into account
Interest. When interest is involved in learning, the use of dynamic sources is promoted. It is therefore vital for teacher educators to take into account individual students’ approximate zone of development in this respect; what are they ready for? However, not every student may be able to explicate new interests; they remain implicit until the -for them‘appropriate’ information passes by (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001). These students need external guidance to become aware of and explicate their new areas of development, so as to be better able to take the process in their own hands. Especially those students who tend not to develop new interests at all should, in our view, be continuously challenged and stimulated to expand their horizon. Non-rational approaches may be more efficient for this group of students. Ways of learning to teach. A changing context may foster automatic changes in students’ learning (Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992), but this is not likely to occur easily in all students (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001; Kubler LaBoskey, 1993; Perkins, 1992). Therefore, taking into account and paying attention to actual learning habits merits much more attention than is usually the case in teacher education today. In the long run, this may be more effective than a content-guided and/or problem-based curriculum alone. For example, differences with respect to emotion regulation may explain why only particular student teachers labeled as ‘reflective’ profit from interventions directed at the promotion of reflection (see Korthagen, 1993). To facilitate the development of new perspectives on teaching and learning, we consider non-judgmental and explicit attention to the affective side of learning to teach and teacher knowledge extremely important (Leat et al. 1995; McCarthy & Schmeck, 1988). After all, learning to learn (to teach) is, as we have argued here, a much more fundamental change than, for example, learning a few new skills. Teacher educators. In order to take individual ‘default’ learning habits into account, we believe that attention to the learning-to-teach process should be integrated into all activities in teacher training. To achieve this, teacher educators need sufficient knowledge of the learning-to-teach process and of how students may engage differently in it. Moreover, 24
they must be able to function as role models with respect to how they learn (Prawat, 1992). Even then, for many student teachers, growing as a learner still may take years rather than months. It is thus important to start it early in teacher education and to continue structural support during the first in-service years (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). 2.5.2
Further research
Currently, there is growing consensus among researchers and educators that knowledge cannot be transmitted directly to the learner. Learning depends on the learning activities that students employ (Iran-Nejad, McKeachie & Berliner, 1990). The dominant view on such activities is that they are deliberately and intentionally undertaken. This aspect of the constructive paradigm has also been adopted in teacher education (see e.g., Prawat, 1992; Tillema, 1995; Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). The theory proposed in this article suggests that the human mind may be able to function in a richer and more economical (easy) way. Given its potential implications for educational psychology and practice, we believe that the study of non-deliberate processing strategies of learners is a promising line of research. A deeper understanding is needed of what dynamic processing encompasses and how it relates to active processing. Also, future studies could attempt to shed more light on the internal and external conditions under which dynamic processing is likely to serve the purpose of learning. Although it is now acknowledged that growing as a learner involves more than improving “information management” (see Ackermann, 1998), the incorporation of affective variables in theories on human cognitive development is still scarce (see, e.g., special issue Learning and Instruction, August, 1998). The present analysis provides some theoretical support for the idea that the dynamics of human cognitive functioning and growth cannot be understood without taking into account such affective variables as self-esteem and emotion. More research should be directed at the relation between emotion and cognition in learning. In particular, studies on learners’ external, active internal, and dynamic internal source-use in relation to their affective functioning can contribute to greater understanding of what learning, and learning to learn, encompass for different learners. Research on solutions in teacher education is needed, in our view, at the level of learning to learn to teach (see also Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993; Leat et al., 1995; Nettle, 1998). The development, testing, and evaluation of curricular changes in teacher education, aimed at stimulating students to learn differently, is important in this respect. The affective side of development and change, as well as initial learning habits, should then be taken into account.
References Ackermann, E.K. (1998). New trends in cognitive development: Theoretical and empirical contributions. Learning and Instruction, 8, 375-385. Bereiter, C. (1990). Aspects of an educational learning theory. Review of Educational Research, 60, 603-624. Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotivation theories. Educational Psychologist, 30, 195-200. Buitink, J. (1998). In-functie opleiden en in-functie leren van aanstaande leraren [Teaching and learning in initial in-service teacher education]. Doctoral dissertation. Groningen University, The Netherlands.
25
Calderhead, J. (1987). The quality of reflection in student teachers' professional learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 10, 269-278. Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher education, Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, pp. 43-51. Caravita, S. & O. Halldén, (1994). Re-framing the problem of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, (1) pp. 89-111. Carter, K. (1990). Teachers' knowledge and learning to teach, in: W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: MacMillan. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experienced and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19, (5), 2-14. Desforges, C. (1995). How does experience affect theoretical knowledge for teaching? Learning and Instruction, 5, 385-400. Doyle, W. (1977). Learning in the classroom environment: An ecological analysis. Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 51-55. Elliott, B., & Calderhead, J. (1994). Mentoring for teacher development: possibilities and caveats, in: D. McIntyre, H. Hagger & M. Wilkin (Eds), Mentoring: perspectives on school-based teacher education (pp. 166-189). London: Kogan Page. Ellis, R.D. (1995). Questioning consciousness. The interplay of imagery, cognition, and emotion in the human brain. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Beasley, K. (1996). Discovering and sharing knowledge: inventing a new role for cooperating teachers. Unpublished manuscript. MI: Michigan State University, East Lansing. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1986). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation, in: J.D. Raths & L.C. Kratz (Eds.), Advances in teacher education, Vol. 2 (pp. 61-73). Norwood, NY: Ablex. Fessler, R., & Christensen, J. (1992). The teacher career cycle: Understanding and guiding the professional development of teachers. (Boston: Allyn & Bacon). Festinger (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. Fox, N.A. (1994). Dynamic cerebral processes underlying emotion regulation. In: Monographs of the society for research in child development, 59, 2-3, 152-166. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frijda, N. H. (1987). Comment on Oatley and Johnson-Laird's 'Towards a cognitive theory of emotions'. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 51-58. Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226. Grossman, P. L. (1992). Why models matter: An alternate view of professional growth in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 62, 171-179. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-571. Hochberg, J. (1970). Attention, organization and consciousness, in: D.I. Mostofski (Ed.), Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis (pp. 99-124). New York: Appleton Century Crofts. Howard-Rose, D. C., & Winne, P. H. (1993). Measuring components and sets of cognitive processes in self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 591-604. Iran-Nejad, A. (1990). Active and dynamic self-regulation of learning processes. Review of Educational Research, 60, 573-602.
26
Iran-Nejad, A. (1994). The Global Coherence Context in Educational Practice: A Comparison Piecemeal and Whole-Theme Approaches to Learning and Teaching. Research in the Schools, 1, (1), 63-76. Iran-Nejad, A., McKeachie, W. J., & Berliner, D. C. (1990). The multisource nature of learning: An introduction. Review of Educational Research, 60, 509-515. Iran-Nejad, A. & Cecil, (1992). Interest and Learning : A Biofunctional Perspective, in: A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds.) The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 297-332). Iran-Nejad, A., & Chissom, B. S. (1992). Contributions of active and dynamic self-regulation to learning. Innovative Higher Education, 17, 125-136. Iran-Nejad, A. & Ortony, A. (1984). A biofunctional model of distributed mental content, mental structures, awareness, and attention. Mind and Behavior, 5, 171-210. Iran-Nejad, A., Clore, G. L., & Vondruska, R. J. (1984). Affect: A functional perspective. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 279-310. Johnson, M. K., & Hasher, L. (1987). Human learning and memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 631-668. Johnston, S. (1994). Experience is the best teacher; or is it? An analysis of the role of experience in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 199-208. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher beliefs. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65-90. Korthagen, F.A. J. (1993). Two modes of reflection. Teacher & Teacher Education, 9, 317326. Korthagen, F.A.J. (1998). Realistic teacher education aims, methods and outcomes. Paper presented at the joint meeting of EARLI-Sigs: “Educating expert minds for the 21st century” Leiden, The Netherlands. Korthagen, F., & Lagerwerf, B. (1996). Reframing the relationship between teacher thinking and teacher behaviour: Levels in learning about teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 2, 161-190. Krohne, H. W., Hock, M., & Kohlmann, C. (1992). Coping dispositions, uncertainty and emotional arousal. In K. T. Strongman (Ed.), International review of studies on emotion, Vol 2 (pp. 73-98). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Kubler LaBoskey, V. (1993). A conceptual framework for reflection in preservice teacher education, in: J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 23-38). London, Falmer Press. Lampert, M. & Clark, C. M. (1990). Expert knowledge and expert thinking in teaching: A response to Floden and Klinzing. Educational Researcher, 19 (5), 21-23. Leat, D., McManus, L., Bramald, R., & Baumfield, V. (1995, September). Learning from classroom experience: Some attributes of successful student teachers. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Bath, England. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: An approach to the relations between phenomenal experience and perceptual processes. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 238-300. Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277-300. McCarthy, P., & Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Students' self-concepts and the quality of learning in public schools and universities, in: R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press.
27
McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences, in: J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. Vol. 2. New York: MacMillan. Meijer, P. (1999). Teachers' practical knowledge. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University, The Netherlands. Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1996, April). Theory follows practice in learning to teach and in research on teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Nettle, E. B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practice teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 193-204. Nias, J. (1989). Teaching and the self, in: M.L. Holly & C.S. McLoughlin (Eds.) Perspectives on teachers’ professional development. London, Falmer Press. Niemivirta, M. (1999, August). Habits of mind and academic endeavors – The role of goal orientations and motivational beliefs in school performance. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Gothenburg, Sweden. Oosterheert, I.E. (1998a, May). Learning to teach: Individual differences in the learning process. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Dutch Educational Research Association, Enschede, The Netherlands. Oosterheert, I.E. (1998b, August). Learning styles in learning to teach. Paper presented at the conference of the EARLI-Sigs 'Higher education' and 'Teaching and teacher education', Leiden, The Netherlands. Oosterheert, I.E. & Vermunt, J.D. (2001). Individual differences in learning to teach relating cognition, regulation, and affect. Learning and Instruction, 11, (2), 133-156. Perkins, D. N. (1992). What constructivism demands of the learner, in: T.M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Posner, I. & M. K. Rothbart (1992). Attentional mechanisms and conscious experience, in: A.D. Milner & M.D. Rugg (Eds.), The Neuropsychology of consciousness (London, Academic Press). Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 354-395. Reynolds, R. E., Sinatra, G. M., & Tamara, L. J. (1996). Views of knowledge acquisition and representation: A continuum from experience centered to mind centered. Educational Psychologist, 31, 93-104. Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). Imagery. Hove: Psychology Press. Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer : Rethinking mechanisms of a neclected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113-142. Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tann, S. (1993). Eliciting student teachers' personal theories, in: J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development. (London: Falmer Press). Vermetten, Y. (1999). Consistency and variability of student learning in higher education. Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, The Netherlands. Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25-50. Vermunt, J.D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149-171. Vermunt, J.D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280. 28
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, (1), pp. 45-69. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J. & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, (2), 130-178. Winne, P. H. (1995a). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173-187. Winne, P. H. (1995b). Self-regulation is ubiquitous but its forms vary with knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 30, 223-228. Wubbels, T. (1992). Taking account of student teachers' preconceptions. Teacher and Teacher Education, 8, 137-149. Zanting, A., Verloop, N., Vermunt, J.D., & Van Driel, J.H. (1998). Explicating practical knowledge: An extension of mentor teachers’ roles. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21, 9-26. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice. New York: Springer.
29
30
Chapter 3
Individual Differences in Learning to Teach: Relating Cognition, Regulation and Affect 2
The purpose of this study was to describe individual differences in learning to teach. Thirty secondary student teachers were interviewed about several components of their learning: mental models of learning to teach, learning activities, regulation in general, emotion regulation in particular, ideal self as a teacher and concerns. The interviews were qualitatively analysed, resulting in the identification of three to five categories per component. Homogeneity analysis demonstrated that many of these categories are related within individuals. Five orientations to learning to teach were discerned; an openmeaning orientation, a closed-meaning orientation, an open-reproduction orientation, a closed-reproduction orientation, and a survival orientation. The five orientations may be indicative of how progress in the quality of individual learning evolves.
2
Oosterheert, I.E. & Vermunt, J.D. (2001). Individual differences in learning to teach: relating cognition, regulation and affect. Learning and Instruction, 11, (2), 133-156. 31
3.1
Introduction
Until recently, many studies on teacher education have focussed on the effectiveness of curricular changes in teacher education programmes. Less attention has been directed to understanding the learning process to be fostered in teacher education (Carter, 1990; Kubler LaBoskey, 1993). As a result, researchers as well as teacher educators have little knowledge of the process of learning to teach and of the learners in that process. The aim of the present study was to describe how student teachers differ in the process of becoming a teacher. In addition, it aimed at charting how several components of learning are related within individual learners. It can be considered a major goal of teacher education that student teachers learn to develop and change their existing frame of reference in accordance with current understandings of what constitutes good teaching and learning. Given the effects of their own (educational) socialisation (Sugrue, 1997), this basically means that many student teachers have to change their understandings of teaching and learning, and that they have to learn to change and develop their teaching practice accordingly. In searching for how student teachers engage in this process, we extracted several components of learning from the literature, which have proven to be important indicators of individual differences in learning. An interview study was conducted to identify student teachers’ differences with respect to these indicators. In addition, a multiple correspondence technique was used to map relations between the components within individuals. 3.1.1
Individual learning
Attention to individual differences in the learning-to-teach process is of recent date. Over the past ten years, a number of categories have emerged from research on reflection, such as ‘alert novices’ and ‘common-sense thinkers’ (Kubler LaBoskey, 1993) and ‘internally oriented’ and ‘externally oriented’ student teachers (Korthagen, 1988). In these and other studies (e.g., Kourilsky, Esfandiari & Wittrock, 1996; Robinson, Noyes & Chandler, 1989), differences in student teachers’ learning are often described as being differences in attitudes. Student teachers differ, for example, in their ‘willingness to take risks’, the extent to which they are ‘philosophically inclined’, ‘enterprising’ or ‘motivated to do well’, or in their ‘reflective attitude’. The present study investigates which learning activities are related to such differences and how they are related to other components of learning to teach. Within the field of academic learning there is a longer tradition regarding the study of individual learning. Since the late seventies, a considerable number of studies have been conducted to describe and categorise these differences, qualitatively as well as quantitatively. The most commonly used concepts in these studies have been approaches to learning and studying (e.g., Entwistle, 1988), orientations to learning and studying (e.g., Entwistle, 1988; Lindblom-Ylänne,1999), learning styles (e.g., Messick, 1994; Vermunt, 1998) and, since the beginning of the 1990s, study orchestrations (Meyer, 1991). ‘Approach to learning’ refers to a context- and content-dependent way of learning (Marton & Säljö, 1984). Students’ approaches to learning are closely related to their conceptions of learning (Entwistle, 1988) and can be roughly divided into two different categories: surface learning and deep learning (Lindblom-Ylänne, 1999). When students’ approaches to learning show consistency across situations, and when motivational aspects are explicitly included, the term ‘orientation’ is generally used (Entwistle, 1988; Lindblom-Ylänne, 1999). Both ‘orientation’ and ‘learning style’ as conceptualised by Vermunt (1998) and adopted by others (Slaats, Lodewijks & Van der Sanden, 1999), emphasise the role of a student’s perception of a situation and 32
motivational orientation in his or her learning. In these concepts, individual learning is conceived of as an internally coherent interaction with the learning environment, i.e., learning activities are systematically linked to learning conceptions and motivational orientations. The term ‘orchestration’ was introduced to emphasise that individual ways of learning are viewed as a response to a perceived contextual setting, which may result in coherent as well as dissonant orchestrations (Meyer, 2000). Although full consensus on the use of the previous terms has not been reached (compare e.g., Entwistle, Messick, and Vermunt), authors agree upon the relational character of learning in educational settings. They all show a preference for the broader (use of) terms, indicating mutual interaction between learner and environment. We also clearly take a relational perspective to learning and use the term ‘approach’ to refer to individual aspects of student teachers’ learning. Combinations of approaches will be called orientations. 3.1.2
Components of learning to teach
In his review on taxonomies of learning components, Pintrich (1994) concluded that the common elements are the students’ knowledge base, their procedural skills, their selfregulation of learning, and their motivation and affect. These elements can be found as well in the work of other researchers (e.g., Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). Our first criterion for the selection of relevant components was therefore to include prior knowledge, cognitive/regulative and affective/motivational components of learning. We view this as a general, domain-independent criterion. Our second criterion was nested in the first: the components should do justice to the context of learning to teach. In our view, learning to teach differs from learning in academic (higher) education with respect to: 1) prior knowledge: student teachers bring a relatively large amount of prior knowledge to their learning; 2) sources: there are many different information sources, of which classroom experience plays a central role; and 3) impact: learning has consequences for daily life. These considerations are worked out below, where each of the 6 selected components are described and justified in more detail. 3.1.2.1
Mental models of learning to teach
A mental model of learning can be viewed as a coherent whole of learning conceptions (Vermunt, 1998). It reflects how learners conceive the nature and progress of knowledge and learning, the learning objectives, themselves as learners, and the task division between themselves and others. Learning can for example be conceived as ‘intake of knowledge’, or ‘construction of knowledge’ (Vermunt, 1996). Mental models are generally strongly associated with the learning activities students undertake (Entwistle, 1988; Slaats et al., 1999; Vermetten, Vermunt & Lodewijks, 1999). In the field of teaching and teacher education, researchers have predominantly focussed on (student) teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning (e.g., Prawat, 1992). Studies regarding conceptions of teaching in particular, have already been subject to a review (Kember, 1997). Until today, student teachers’ conceptions of learning to teach remained practically unexplored. Given the focus of the present study on student teachers’ own learning and not on that of their pupils, we were particularly interested in how they conceive the nature and progress of knowledge and learning in learning to teach, and their own and others’ role in this process. There is some evidence suggesting that most student teachers conceive of thinking activities as not important to their learning to teach, although differential findings have been found as well (Calderhead, 1996).
33
3.1.2.2
Ideal self as a teacher
Before entering a teacher education program, many student teachers have developed an ideal self as a teacher originating from their former (educational) socialisation (Sugrue, 1997). This self-image as a teacher is supposedly strongly related to their self-image as a learner (Hollingsworth, 1989). Numerous studies have indicated the persistence of prior images and beliefs in teacher education (Kagan, 1992); other studies demonstrate differential effects (Nettle, 1998). In developing a functional knowledge base, student teachers, in our view, have to reconstruct their existing frame of reference, by balancing prior beliefs about teaching and learning, present classroom reality (see also Nettle, 1998), and, we would add, information from other sources. In the present study, ‘ideal self as a teacher’ was included as the second knowledge component. However, our focus was not on the content, but on how it has developed. Beijaard & De Vries (1997) found that to some extent change in (teacher) beliefs can be predicted by the different ways in which they have developed their actual beliefs. Origin (prior teacher, mentor, institutional activities, combinations) and flexibility (degree of openness to further development and change) of student teachers ‘ideal self as a teacher’, were considered indicative of how persistent the role of initial understandings was, and they were expected to be related to student teachers’ approaches to learning. 3.1.2.3
Cognitive processing activities
Cognitive processing activities are those thinking activities that directly lead to learning results, in terms of attributes such as knowledge, understanding and skill. The quality of the learning process thus largely depends on which of these activities students undertake most frequently (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). In research on academic learning, some consensus has been reached on how to describe cognitive activities. A deep processing strategy, for example, involves cognitive activities such as relating, structuring and critical processing, and stepwise processing involves activities such as memorising and repeating (Vermunt, 1996). Insights from higher academic learning however, cannot automatically be transferred to the domain of learning to teach. It is therefore important, in our view, to start by charting which cognitive activities student teachers actually undertake in teacher education. 3.1.2.4
Regulation
Theorists increasingly agree that learning should be conceived of as an inherently selfregulative process, at least, as far as meaningful learning (as opposed to rote learning) is concerned (Biggs, 1996). Here, learners construct internal knowledge representations on the basis of the meaning they attach to their experiences. In our view, in learning to teach, knowledge growth can also only occur, -ultimately- under the internal control of the learner. Student teachers have to use and relate information from many different sources; their own teaching practice, the teaching practice of others, information from educators, the literature, mentors, peers, pupils. It is likely that student teachers regulate the use of these sources differently. 3.1.2.5
Emotion regulation
A growing number of researchers include affective variables, such as emotion, in their studies on learning and development (Boekaerts, 1995; Hargreaves, 1998; Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993, Leat, et al., 1995). The currently dominant view on emotion is a functional one; emotions are elicited as a reaction to events relevant to the individual's concerns (Frijda, 1986, Iran-Nejad, Clore & Vondruska, 1984). They point the individual to something relevant and asses the necessity of an adaptation. It is therefore prior knowledge plus its connection to personal concerns that are involved in learning. When learning has implications for daily life, or for the perception of oneself as a person, as in learning to teach, basic concerns are more likely to be involved. As there is also some evidence that students 34
regulate their emotions in different ways (Leat et al., 1995), emotion regulation was included as an affective component of their learning. 3.1.2.6
Concerns
A shift in concerns is generally considered a sign of progress in learning to teach (Kagan, 1992). It evolves roughly from concerns of the self to concerns with respect to didactics to concerns with respect to pupils’ learning. We wondered whether student teachers’ concerns are related not only to what they learn, but also to how they learn. 3.1.3
Research questions
An interview study was conducted to answer the following questions: 1. How do student teachers differ with respect to the learning components described above? 2. Is it possible to come to a categorisation with respect to these differences? 3. If so, how do different categories relate to one another within individuals? 4. Can these potentially related categories be considered indicative of particular orientations to learning to teach?
3.2
Method
3.2.1
Subjects
Thirty Dutch secondary student teachers from different subject areas and four different institutes for teacher education participated in this study. All subjects took part in an initial in-service programme, the purpose of which was to connect knowledge growth in learning and teaching directly to personal teaching experiences. At the time of the interview, all the student teachers had been teaching independently for about three months (maximally 14 hours a week). Other sources, such as mentors (in their school), weekly institutional meetings, the literature, and fellow students, were available or organised to stimulate and enhance their learning. 3.2.2
Selection procedure
Four Dutch teacher education institutes were selected on the basis of two criteria. They must have an initial in-service programme and the four institutes together should represent different parts of the country. The first four institutes approached were willing to participate. In these institutes, small groups of 8-12 student teachers (diverse in terms of age, gender and subject taught) exchange and analyse teaching experiences under the supervision of a teacher educator, on a weekly basis. During one of these meetings, the student teachers got a letter, informing them about the context and purpose of the study in general, and inviting them to consider participation in an interview. Student teachers could permit their educator to give their telephone number to the researcher. In addition, two ‘strong’ student teachers (as perceived by their educator) were personally asked to participate, which they did. This was intended to increase the chances of having the more ‘constructive’ learners in our data-set, who are generally thought to be relatively small in number. In total, 38 telephone numbers were gathered. Of these, 32 were called, of which 30 were willing to participate. The other
35
two turned out to be too busy. The interviews took place within three weeks after the call, all by the same interviewer, generally at the students’ home. 3.2.3
The interview
The interviewer first explained that the goal was to learn how student teachers think about and experience learning to teach. The study’s focus on individual differences was not made explicit. Students were encouraged to take their time, to return to a previous question, to give examples, to tell anecdotes, to ask for more clarity, and to report everything they thought of, even if it seemed obvious, odd, or unimportant. All interviews progressed in a semistructured way and lasted approximately one hour. They were all tape-recorded with the permission of the participants. No compensation was given for their participation. The interview schedule consisted of several open-end core questions and a number of suggestions for follow-up questions. Five pilot interviews preceded the final version. The following questions and strategies were directive for the interview: (a) Mental models. The pilot studies revealed that student teachers, when confronted with questions such as “what is, in your view, learning to teach”, or “what does it mean to learn to teach”, started to give their teaching conceptions. Therefore, in the final interviews, they were asked to look back on their experiences in teacher education, and to report how they think progress in teaching occurs and what “kind of outcome” such a process entails. We thus decided to explicitly ask for the how and the what dimension in their learning conceptions, and stuck close to their own experiences. With respect to regulation conceptions, we asked: “what, in your opinion, should be the task of a mentor/educator/ yourself in learning to teach?” (b) Ideal self as a teacher. “Do you have an image of how you would like to teach? Do you know where this image comes from? Do you think this image will ever change?” (c) Cognitive activities. In learning to teach, one activity generates the other; there is seldom a clear beginning and end to learning tasks. We therefore took the most important information sources as a starting point for our questions, taking into account that some overlap in answers would be inevitable. We asked student teachers which activities they engage in with their mentor, during/after institutional activities, with colleagues at school, and with respect to their own teaching practice. Follow-up questions were directed at detecting the role of the reported activity within their learning process (see Robinson, Noyes & Chandler, 1989). For example, the phrase “I ask for feedback” generated questions such as “what do you mean by feedback?” and “when are you satisfied with the feedback?”. (d) Regulation. Questions regarding regulation were mostly asked in connection with the reported cognitive activities. These regarded ‘impetuses’ to engage in cognitive activities (“what makes you do that?”), the balance between internal and external regulation (“did you consult that book on your own accord?”). Monitoring was asked about separately (“are there moments when you realise that you have learned something?”) (e) Emotion regulation. The core question was: “how do you experience a lesson that went really wrong?” A suggestive introduction served the goal of normalising bad lessons and reporting about them: “I assume that you have experienced a lesson that went really wrong?”. (f) Concerns. “Is there an aspect of your teaching that you are particularly occupied with, at present?”
36
3.2.4
Data analyses
The 30 interviews were first transcribed verbatim, resulting in 750 pages of transcript. These were read completely. The interviews were then divided into 10 segments, representing quotes referring to elements of the aforementioned 6 components of learning: conceptions of learning to teach; regulation conceptions; ideal self as a teacher; cognitive activities with respect to four sources of information: institutional meetings, their mentor, colleagues at school, and their own teaching practice; regulation; emotion regulation; and concerns. Cognitive activities were thus to be found in four different segments. Some quotes were copied, if they fit in more than one segment. No quotes were removed, to maintain their context-boundness. For the same reason, the relation between quotes and subjects was also retained; each component was analysed for the person that reported about it. A verbal data processor was used to analyse the components separately, for all subjects. For example, conceptions of learning to teach were first analysed for 30 subjects, then regulation conceptions for 30 subjects, etc. For each component, reading and rereading during an iterative coding process resulted in discriminative combinations of codes, which were called categories. The codes and categories emerged from a constantly improving overview of the essence(s) of a component in all thirty subjects. Although decontextualisation had not taken place physically, the procedure resembles very much what Marton (1986, p.34) describes as “each quote has two contexts in relation to which it has been interpreted; first the interview from which it was taken, and second, the ‘pool of meanings’ to which it belongs”. The categories were described as accurately as possible and labelled with a number. Their typical codes were described as well, and exemplified by characteristic quotes. The next phase was to examine how different categories related to one another within individuals. Homogeneity analysis (HOMALS), also known in the literature as multiple correspondence analysis, was used for this purpose. HOMALS stands for HOMogeneity analysis by means of Alternating Least Squares. This iterative procedure examines the relationship between (nominal) categorical variables, so as to divide cases, in casu student teachers, into homogeneous subgroups and to provide information about the characteristics of these subgroups (Gifi, 1981; de Heus, van der Leeden & Gazendam, 1995). Object scores and category quantifications are the most important outcomes of the procedure. Object scores are values assigned to cases (individuals), and category quantifications are the average of the object scores for all objects in a single category. Both can be graphically presented in a multidimensional scatterplot. The number of dimensions have to be chosen by the researcher; 1, 2 or 3 dimensions often provide the best solutions. It should be noted that HOMALS is foremost a descriptive technique. It does not account for the calculation of parameters or reliability measures. Results obtained with HOMALS thus cannot be generalised to cases not included in the analysis.
3.3
Protocol analysis: learning components and their categories
The results of the protocol analysis indicate that student teachers differ on the components of learning that are central in this study. This subsection outlines the main differences between student teachers with respect to each learning component. A number was assigned to each category, as well as, in most cases, a label characterising the essence of the category. The quotes have been translated from Dutch. Note that, in our descriptions, we make a difference between solutions and suggestions. A solution refers to an immediate answer to an actual experienced problem, while a suggestion refers to an answer to a potential situation, or to an 37
alternative on what is already known. Another distinction we make is between finding and asking/searching. We found that some students basically find answers; they tend not to search or ask for them in an active way. 3.3.1 Mental models of learning to teach 3.3.1.1
Learning conceptions
During the interview, not every student teacher was immediately able to take the abstraction level of a learning conception. These students started to tell about their learning activities and concluded with a recapitulation, such as “but it is mostly trial and error; you keep what works and you forget what doesn’t”. It may be that in a relatively new learning environment such as a teacher education programme, learning conceptions have not been developed to the same extent as is the case in academic learning. The four main conceptions of learning to teach we identified are as follows: (1) Learning by doing. You learn to teach by practicing teaching. You hardly realise that you are learning and what you learn cannot be captured in words. You just know that things gradually go better. “(..) it is mostly learning by doing... You absorb everything that comes from outside and you process it partly unconsciously. In this respect, I’m someone who learns through observing, watching, just absorbing and eh... this is how I have always worked and so far, it has been rather successful. I am someone who does things without asking questions, that’s for sure.”
(2) Developing a personal teaching style by trial and error. You try to find out which teaching style suits you best, by trial and error. When something works out well, you keep it. When it doesn’t, you forget it. (3) Improving teaching performance by shifts in objects of attention. Learning to teach is a constant improvement of your teaching performance. Attention is automatically directed to new aspects of teaching performance when other aspects have become less important. “(...) Yes, I appreciate it when others observe me in my classroom and point out my blind spots. (...) When a specific problem has been solved, then a new problem appears automatically, a new problem that needs a little attention. And that’s the sign for me that I am making progress - that my objects of attention are shifting all the time.”
(4) Raise consciousness, address attention, integrate, let go. Learning to teach is actively trying to become aware of and understand what there is to be seen and heard in teaching. You try to integrate new insights into your teaching until you can ‘let them go’. 3.3.1.2
Regulation conceptions
(1) External solutions on demand. Student teachers must teach a lot and ask for ad hoc solutions to severe problems. “To be honest, I think what is argued and said (in TE) is generally rubbish. It is of extremely little value. And I have to admit, it is also... eh very hard to do anything about it. You have to experience it yourself. Yes, and if there are problems, when I think yes, well, now I have to ring the bell.”
38
(2) Self-regulated performance improvement. Student teachers themselves have to notice and solve problems. Teacher educators and the mentor have to provide practical suggestions, preferably only when student teachers ask for it. Nothing should be imposed on them. Student teachers must evaluate their lessons; they have to determine what went wrong or well, and what works well for them and what doesn’t. (3) Externally regulated performance improvement. Teacher educators and the mentor have to provide as many practical suggestions as possible. Conceptual information must be (made) as concrete as possible. Student teachers must evaluate their lessons; they have to determine what went wrong or well, what works well for them and what doesn’t, and to search and ask for suggestions. (What is, in your view, your own task in learning to teach?) “Eh... well, I think that’s very hard to... I am of course the one that is becoming a teacher! But...it is certain that during these meetings, when we exchange experiences,...look, you can also learn from discussions with other student teachers. You can get ideas there. You can exchange problems you encounter in teaching. (...)” (So, you think its important to exchange experiences?). “Yes, so that you can learn from each other”. (What can you learn from others?) “Indeed, that they have done something to solve that particular problem, that you know better how to deal with it...”
(4) Externally regulated knowledge construction and self-regulated performance improvement. These student teachers appreciate it when others make their experiences more meaningful, through relating conceptual information to concrete experiences. Student teachers must interpret situations and search for causes, but they view this as a very difficult task. (5) Self-regulated knowledge construction and performance improvement. While the process is conceived of as highly self-regulative, these student teachers appreciate externally provided information and support. Information does not always have to be immediately functional. Teacher educators and/or the mentor should also support them emotionally. 3.3.2
Origin and flexibility of ideal self as a teacher
(1) Prior experiences as a pupil (implicit). During the interview, these student teachers become aware that they have a (vague) image of how they want to teach. Prior experiences as a pupil appear to be -implicitly- the only source of their teaching. It is not open to development or change. “Well, in one way or another.... you teach automatically.... in a certain way. Without being able to verbalise explicitly for yourself how you do it. I think that one person has the tendency to start with a monologue right away, while another person automatically lets the pupils almost teach themselves”.
(2) Prior experiences as a pupil (explicit). These student teachers have an ideal self as a teacher originating from their own experiences as a pupil. From the very start of their teacher education program, they work towards the realisation of that image. Ongoing bad experiences during the realisation of this image may give rise to changes in their ideal self. (3) Teacher education. At the start of teacher training, these student teachers had no clear image of themselves as teachers. They gradually followed the prescriptions and suggestions
39
provided in teacher education and ‘bought in’ the practical consequences of changes in their schools. It is open to development and change. (4) Interaction between field experiences, prior knowledge and information from other sources. It has been developed during teacher education, with growing experience and participation in institutional activities and their school. It is open to development and change. 3.3.3
Cognitive activities (activities student teachers engage in with/with respect to..)
3.3.3.1
Institutional meetings
(1) The first category represents students who report that, during institutional meetings, they only find solutions to actual, already experienced problems in teaching practice. (2) Others report that they gather practical suggestions, become aware of their own experiences, problems, and classroom behaviour, and are stimulated to think: “You come together and someone asks something like eh... What was your goal in that lesson? What did you want to achieve? They ask in such a way that you start to think about it: What did happen? What was the situation? That is what helps me most.”
(3) A third category represents student teachers who, during institutional meetings, experience that conceptual information is related to concrete experiences (under external control). They recognise and welcome information that is connected to their implicit problems of understanding and gather practical suggestions. “Well, those systems we learned, those behaviour systems, they gave me a whole new attitude in relation to the pupils. I see much better that it is not the pupils who are wrong, but that it is all in the game (of the school system). (...) This is the insight that causes me to be a different person as a teacher, because I play the game in a different way. Yes, it’s hard to explain, but for me this is true.”
(4) These students relate conceptual information to concrete experiences (also on their own initiative) and take into account that a connection between new information and their own teaching practice cannot always be made immediately. During or after institutional meetings new interests are aroused and new insights emerge. 3.3.3.2
The mentor
(1) Some student teachers have little contact with their mentor and only ask for solutions to ad hoc problems. (2) Other students evaluate their teaching performance with their mentor, without analysis. They gather practical suggestions and solutions, validate their own solutions, and evaluate performance in terms of what went wrong or well. (3) A third group also analyses teaching experiences with their mentor, exchanges and discusses interpretations of events, and becomes aware of experiences, problems, and behaviour. “If he has ideas about how the situation... indeed what the situation is, if he interprets it differently than me, then I like to hear it from him.”
40
3.3.3.3
Colleagues in the school
(1) ‘Undirected observant’ student teachers listen and observe in an undirected way, process information on their own, and do not actively engage in discussions or other activities at their own initiative. (2) ‘Concrete Communicative’ students listen actively to discussions, especially to hear other teachers’ opinions about the practical consequences of innovations. They may cautiously- share their opinions with other teachers. (3) ‘Participating & reflective’ student teachers participate as full members of the teaching staff as much as possible. They are involved in discussions and school-wide activities and develop theories about what they see and hear. 3.3.3.4
Own teaching practice: evaluation
(1) When evaluating a lesson, the object of evaluation of some student teachers is basically (a global impression of) how the subject matter came across. They have no intentions for the next lesson and their attributions are external. (2) These students’ object of evaluation is the classroom climate in relation to a global impression of pupils’ learning. They keep what works and forget what does not, search for alternative actions and their attributions are predominantly internal. “Then you think; How did I do it? Oh, well, then I will do it in the same way next time.”
(3) A few students engage in a deep analysis of pupils learning. They search for causes of events, consult other sources to find better answers than they can think of on their own and attribute internally. 3.3.4
Regulation
(1) External solutions on demand. These student teachers cling tenaciously to their own field experiences and can hardly report on regulation. They rarely have plans for their next lesson(s). They monitor uncontrollable situations in their lessons, which is also the only impetus to learn. (2) Self-regulated performance improvement. The activities of these student teachers are directed to evaluating their teaching performance, not to expanding their interpretative frame of reference. Impetus to learn stems mainly from their own teaching experiences. They use external information only when it feels good immediately. They monitor what goes well/wrong in their teaching, what deserves (more) attention, and what kind of suggestions would be valuable to them. (3) Externally regulated performance improvement. The activities of these students are directed to evaluating their teaching performance. They are not directed to expanding their interpretative frame of reference. Impetus to learn stems mainly from their own and others’ teaching experiences. They monitor what goes well/not well in their teaching performance, what deserves (more) attention and what kind of suggestions would be valuable to them. (4) Externally regulated knowledge construction and self-regulated performance improvement. These students try to connect the information from other sources to their own teaching experiences, but conceive of it as difficult; it usually requires external support to be successful. They do not search for conceptual information themselves, but recognise it when it is connected to their implicit problems of understanding. They monitor a (non)successful application, recognition of conceptual information in practice or vice versa, and more understanding of a phenomenon or situation. 41
“It is particularly during these meetings that you become aware of many things (..) In the beginning, when you observe the first lessons, you do not know which aspects you can pay attention to. After the meetings, you can, for example, say, I’ll go watch the pupils while they are doing the exercises, to see eh... how they think.”
(5) Self-regulated knowledge construction and performance improvement. These student teachers connect, on their own initiative, information from different sources. Impetus to learn can be their own teaching problems, a perceived lack of understanding when interpreting their experiences, as well as information from other sources. They search for conceptual information themselves. They are aware that it often takes time and/or new experiences before information can become meaningful. They monitor a (non)- successful application, recognition of conceptual information in practice or vice versa, (suddenly) more understanding of a phenomenon or situation, more self-knowledge, or a sense of integration. 3.3.5
Emotion regulation
(1) Avoiding. These student teachers do not report emotions and avoid looking at difficult situations, unless these situations are totally out of control. Attributions are dominantly external. (How do you feel about a lesson that went really wrong?) “Eh... at that very moment you don’t like it, but it is not that... well, you just want to teach and not after 15 or 30 minutes”. (But when you leave your classroom, does it stick with you or do you forget things quickly?) “No, I forget things very quickly. At that very moment in class it bothers you, but they (pupils) become the victims themselves anyway... because they have to do the assignments.” (And what do you do after class?) “...Nothing.” (You observe it and...) “I observe it and I think that... well, in the next lesson, you can tell them that you did not appreciate their behaviour very much... (..)”
(2) Secondary emotions. Frustration or being ‘fed up’ were reported. Their emotional state endures relatively briefly and is not experienced as intense. To get things off their mind, they like to talk to someone. Finding practical solutions for the next lesson is important in emotion reduction. External solutions are welcome and attributions are dominantly internal. (3) Primary emotions. A part from secondary emotions, anxiety and powerlessness were reported. Their emotional state lasts quite a while and is experienced as intense. Student teachers themselves are the object of the emotional experience; e.g., they feel they are being thrown upon their own resources or surprise themselves. Finding a solution after a situation analysis and emotional support are important in emotion reduction. Internal attributions are dominant. 3.3.6
Concerns
(1) Discipline. The dominant concern is discipline. (2) Discipline and didactics. The dominant concerns are discipline and the expansion of their performance repertoire. (3) Pupils’ learning. Their dominant concern is understanding pupils’ learning and their effectiveness in promoting pupils’ learning. This includes concerns with didactics. Concerns with discipline may be present as well.
42
3.4
Homogeneity analysis
A homogeneity analysis was carried out on the category numbers of the 30 student teachers. Figure 1 shows the object scores of a solution in two dimensions. Students that look alike in their learning are plotted close to each other. The object scores are plotted in a parabolic pattern. HOMALS often produces such patterns, also known as ‘horseshoe’-patterns. Generally, horseshoe-patterns indicate an underlying one-dimensional structure in the data. The first dimension in such cases should be considered the only relevant dimension, and the second dimension as an artefact of the first, often indicating extreme and moderate positions on the first dimension (de Heus et al., 1995). Most objects in our study take a moderate position, at the high middle, while 7 objects take the more extreme positions (lower). Figure 1:
Object scores of 30 student teachers
Figure 2 shows the exclusive presence or dominance of the categories of these three groups. Patterns A and C are almost homogenous, while the categories in pattern B indicate great diversity. Given the broad array of categories belonging to pattern B, we considered it worthwhile to examine the diversity in pattern B more closely. The components that have five different categories are regulation conception and regulation activities (see Figure 2); these would split the middle pattern (B) into three individual patterns. Our next step was therefore to make five groups of student teachers on the basis of these components of learning, and to examine their other categories. Figure 3 shows the resulting patterns. The numbers represent the exclusive presence or dominance of these categories (at least 67%) in that group of students.
43
Figure 2: Three patterns of learning to teach Components Knowledge Components
Cognitive/Regulative Approaches
Affective/Motivational Approaches Mean Fit*
learning conception regulation conception ideal self as a teacher formal meetings mentor teacher colleagues in school evaluating own teaching regulation emotion regulation concerns
Pattern A N=3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pattern B N=23 2/3 2/3/4 2/3/4 2/3 2 1 2/3
Pattern C N=4 4 5 4 4 2/3 3 3
1 1 1 90%
2/3/4 2 1/2 91%
5 3 3 85%
*Of all persons within a pattern, the mean percentage of categories corresponding to the categories that are representative for that pattern, i.e., the numbers in Figure 2.
The mean fit of the three new patterns (Figure 3), has decreased, but not substantially. Category 2 of ‘cognitive activities school’ has disappeared, because it does not dominate any of the new patterns. From the object scores, we identified the student teachers corresponding to the dots and have added five circles to indicate which student teachers fit best in which pattern (see Figure 1). Patterns B, C, and D are close to each other; differences between them are, as discerned, relatively small. For almost 80% of the student teachers, the percentage of categories corresponding to the numbers of their pattern (Figure 3), is 73% or higher. Most of them have a fit higher than 80%. A few student teachers fit in one pattern just a little better (50-65%) than in another. From the HOMALS-analysis we conclude that student teachers learn differently and that 3 or 5 patterns of learning can be distinguished. Closer examination of the content and internal coherence of these patterns is needed to decide which division is most informative and functional (next section). Figure 3:
Five patterns of learning to teach. Components Pattern A N=3 Knowledge learning conception 1 Components regulation conception 1 ideal self as teacher 1 Cognitive/Regulative formal meetings 1 Approaches mentor teacher 1 colleagues in school 1 evaluating own 1 teaching regulation 1 Affective/Motivation. emotion regulation 1 Approaches concerns 1 Mean fit* 90%
Pattern B N=7 2 2 2 1/2 1/2 1 2
Pattern C N=9 2 3 2/3/4 2 2 1 2
Pattern D N=7 3 4 4 3 2 1 3
Pattern E N=4 4 5 4 4 2/3 3 3
2 1/2 1/2 84%
3 2 2 79%
4 2 3 82%
5 3 3 85%
*Of all persons within a pattern, the mean percentage of categories corresponding to the categories that are representative for that pattern, i.e., the numbers in Figure 3.
44
3.4.1
Description of the five patterns
This subsection addresses the content of the patterns and their internal coherence. Their essential differences are outlined in Table 1 and presented in brief in Figure 4. The labels assigned to the patterns have already been included. They will be subsequently clarified, along with their main differences. We have been using the term ‘pattern’ to describe combinations of categories within persons. From now on, the term ‘orientation’ will be used instead. It indicates the consistency in individual approaches across situations and the broad variety of components involved. 3.4.1.1
Reproduction versus meaning
Most student teachers can be divided into two groups; reproduction- or meaning-oriented student teachers. Reproduction-oriented student teachers are directed to the improvement of performance through the gathering of ‘cut-and-dried’ practical suggestions; ‘How to...?’ and ‘What works?’- reasoning is dominant in their learning. These student teachers do not question the limitations of their existing interpretative frame of reference and (therefore) do not experience non-understanding. The suggestions they gather remain unconnected and of equal importance. Meaning-oriented student teachers are aware that their interpretative frame of reference is limited. They are also directed at improving their performance through the acquisition of a better understanding of teaching and learning. Apart from procedural information, they are also interested in conceptual information that clarifies and structures their experiences. This bipolarity in our findings, reproduction versus meaning, is consistent with what has been found by others (Biggs, 1987; Marton & Säljö, 1984; Entwistle, 1988) and inconsistent with studies discerning a third, ‘application directed’ orientation (see, e.g., Vermunt, 1996). What we have found however, is that all student teachers are somehow directed to application (see also Slaats et al., 1999). Given the inextricable necessity to act in teaching, this is not a surprising result. More interesting is that student teachers carry out different learning activities to find their applications, that they use them differently, and that their applications seem qualitatively different. This is consistent with differences found among application-oriented learners in academic learning; they differ with respect to the cognitive and regulative activities they carry out (see Vermunt, 1996). 3.4.1.2
Open versus closed
In turn, the two groups can be divided into two subgroups with respect to how they approach their problems. The labels ‘open’ and ‘closed’ indicate these differences. ‘Open’ means that individuals acknowledge -to themselves and eventually to others- that they have a problem; either a problem of performance (open reproduction- or open meaning-oriented) or a problem of understanding (open meaning-oriented). The problem is stated, clarified, communicated and acted upon. ‘Closed’ means that a problem remains implicit, until it is solved externally; the solution ‘passes by’ and is recognised as meeting the learners’ implicit needs. 3.4.1.3
Survival
The fifth orientation, labelled a ‘survival’ orientation, encompasses learning by doing without objects of learning. It is only barely directed to learning; survival is the dominant concern.
45
Table 1: Characterisations of five orientations to learning to teach A. Survival: These student teachers are not directed to improving their performance or to developing their frame of reference on teaching and learning. External information is appreciated when it provides a solution to an already experienced severe problem. They define problems as external; mainly as a problem of their pupils. Emotional experiences are avoided. B. Closed Reproduction: These student teachers are self-regulative in the improvement of their performance towards the realisation of their ‘ideal self as a teacher. They are not directed to understanding the meaning behind actions and events. External information is appreciated when it solves an already experienced problem and when it feels good immediately. They define a problem as something that has still to be effectuated. They avoid emotional experiences or have secondary emotions which often function as impediments to learning. C. Open Reproduction: These student teachers rely heavily on external regulation for the improvement of their performance towards the development of a personal teaching style. They are not directed to understanding the meaning behind actions and events. They define problems as problems of performance. Secondary emotions are part of their process and stimulus to learn. D. Closed Meaning: These student teachers are self-regulative in the improvement of their performance, and depend on external regulation for the development of their frame of reference on teaching and learning. They define problems as problems of performance. They recognise conceptual information that is connected to their implicit problems of understanding. Secondary emotions are part of their process and stimulus to learn. E. Open Meaning: These student teachers are highly self-regulative in their learning. To improve their own effectiveness in promoting pupils’ learning, they try to improve their understanding of teaching and learning, using all sources. Problems are defined as problems of performance and of understanding. Primary emotions are part of their process and stimulus to learn.
46
Figure 4: Orientation/
Five orientations to learning to teach: Main differences Survival
Closed Reproduction
Open Reproduction
Closed Meaning
Open Meaning
Mental Model
learning by doing
developing a personal teaching style by trial & error
developing a personal teaching style by trial & error
improving teaching performance by shifts in objects of attention
active knowledge construction and integration in practice
ldeal Self (origin & flexibility)
prior experiences (implicit) inflexible survival approach
prior experiences (explicit)
TE-programme (or see B/D)
field experiences TE-programme
field experiences TE-programme
inflexible surface approach
flexible surface approach
flexible surface and deep approach
flexible deep approach
ask ad hoc for practical solutions
find practical suggestions/solutions
ask & find practical suggestions/ solutions
ask & find practical suggestions/solutions find conceptual. info
ask & find conceptual info, analyse events, exchange interpretations
relate teaching experiences and ext. suggestions to implicit ideal self
relate teaching experiences and ext. suggestions to explicit ideal self
relate teaching experiences and ext. suggestions to (feelings about) the results
relate T-P (external)
relate T-P (also self)
surface evaluation, no intentions
surface evaluation, keep/forget, search alternative actions
surface evaluation, keep/forget, search alternative actions
try deep evaluation, search for causes (difficult)
deep evaluation, search causes, consult external sources
external solutions on demand
self-regulated imagerealisation
externally regulated performance improvement
ext. regulated knowl. construction/ self-regulated performance improvement
self-regulated knowl. construction and performance improvement
impetus in own practice
impetus in practice and external suggestions
impetus in practice and external suggestions
impetus in practice, external suggestions and external conceptual information
impetus in practice, external suggestions and conceptual information
Emotionregulation
avoidance external attributions
approach (secondary) or avoidance internal and external attributions
approach (secondary) internal attributions
approach (secondary) internal attributions
approach (secondary and primary) internal attributions
Concerns
pupil discipline
pupil discipline didactics
pupil discipline didactics
pupil learning didactics discipline
pupil learning didactics discipline
Component
Cognitive Processing Activities
Regulation
Note: TE= Activities organised/facilitated by the teacher education institute. T-P= Relating Theory (conceptual information on teaching and learning) & Practice (teaching experiences)
3.4.1.4
Developing or realizing a personal teaching style
The component ‘Ideal Self as a Teacher’ (see figure 4) reveals that, although orientation-Band-C student teachers have the same learning conception, orientation C students are directed towards developing a personal teaching style (which is still open) whereas orientation B students are directed towards realizing a personal teaching style (which they have in mind). Developing or realising a personal teaching style is apparently related to different regulation preferences, learning activities, etcetera.
47
3.5
Conclusions and discussion
We conclude that there are differences in the way student teachers learn. Moreover, the vast majority show coherence in their learning; mental models are strongly associated with their approaches to learning. They tend to carry out those activities they think are important in learning to teach, or use external sources to carry them out. However, contrary to what has been found among learners in other settings (Slaats et al., 1999; Vermunt, 1996), not all students consider it important that all possible learning activities be carried out. These students consider some learning activities, in particular those associated with knowledge construction, of minor importance. These activities should not necessarily be carried out by themselves, or somebody else. Contextual differences may provide explanations for these findings. First, there is the old theory-practice gap, which is more salient in teacher education than in non-vocational settings. When conceptual information is repeatedly presented without reference to its representation in teaching, especially those student teachers who, by default, dislike ‘theory’, or are not able to make the connection with practice themselves, are confirmed in their beliefs or disappointed. Second, in teacher education, assessment standards are often, for various reasons, (still) less coercive than in academic settings. It may thus be less compelling for student teachers to become (externally) motivated to reconstruct their knowledge. The third contextual difference regards, in our view, the impact of meaningful learning in learning to teach. Contrary to reproduction-oriented learning, meaning-oriented, deep learning implies the ‘risk’ of reconceptualisation. This may be very daunting, because it may trigger a ‘domino-effect’ (Rogers, in McCarthy & Schmeck, 1988). Changing the perception of a relatively tiny bit of classroom reality may generate many more changes, if not profound alterations in the perception of oneself and ones’ ‘being in the world’ (see also Nias, 1989). In learning to teach, this domino effect may be extremely manifest, because reconceptualisation of prior knowledge in this domain, has direct and often fundamental implications for daily personal functioning. It may be therefore, that in learning to teach, the outcomes of learning seem, incorrectly, disappointing in comparison to academic learning (Oosterheert, 1998). In sum, many of the student teachers in our study are not directed at changing and developing their existing frame of reference, and their learning environment does not challenge their learning habits either, at least not in a productive way. In lining the five orientations up, from A through E, including their underlying categories, the problem arises how to interpret the relationship between the categories. In his review on conceptions of teaching, Kember (1997) concludes that there are differing views as to this relationship; some authors suggest that it should be seen as hierarchical, implying that characteristics present in lower order categories are present in all other categories, whereas others view categories as qualitatively different. Although further research is needed to verify the findings of our study, we believe that, with regard to several components in our study, the two positions do not exclude each other. With respect to the components conceptions, and cognitive/regulative activities, the subsequent categories may be interpreted as hierarchical as well as qualitatively different. For example, ‘learning by doing’ is a view of learning to teach that all students share, but it functions differently in the four conceptions. For some students it is the only way (A), for others it is an inextricable part of the process, serving to better understand and improve classroom teaching (E). Likewise, learning activities carried out by orientation A students may also be carried out by other students, but function within a different set of activities and purposes. These categories may thus be interpreted as hierarchical, but also, from a functional perspective, as qualitatively different. The same holds for ‘concerns’; they seem to be hierarchical, but the dominant concern may cause the 48
others to function differently in student learning. In orientation E, for example, a concern for pupils’ discipline may also serve the purpose of their learning, while in A it stands alone and may serve student teachers own well-being only. The categories referring to ‘actual ideal self’ and ‘emotion regulation’ seem to exclude each other, indicating qualitative differences. However, they may appear to be hierarchical as well, when examined more extensively. The preceding discussion implies an ordinal perspective: the highest orientations, encompassing independent knowledge construction and a concern for pupils’ learning, are supposed to be superior (see Kember, 1997; Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). This ordinal perspective, as well as the overlap in orientations and the aforementioned ‘horseshoepattern’, indicating positions on a continuum rather than mutually exclusive orientations, call for a developmental perspective on the results. Our study suggests that student teachers take different positions on a continuum, from survival to open meaning, with respect to which they may be able to change. The finding that some students fit in one pattern almost as well in another -near- pattern, supports this hypothesis. The results already enable us to say something about how transitions between orientations may occur and how boundaries between them should be interpreted. The homogeneity analysis demonstrated that orientations A and E are relatively far from B, C and D. This suggests that the strongest boundaries are between A and B and between D and E. These two transitions may thus be the hardest to make, while transitions from B to C to D may occur more gradually. As noted above, given the distances between the orientations, it is questionable whether we have in fact found five orientations. When taking into account that orientation D also encompasses an open reproduction orientation (only the search for meaning occurs in a closed way), the biggest differences between student teachers in this study are perhaps best captured in three labels: ‘survival’, ‘reproduction’ and ‘open meaning’. Nevertheless, orientations B, C and D are in our view sufficiently different and coherent to consider them, as far as this study is concerned, as separate orientations to learning. Further research should examine the boundaries between orientations. The same holds for the boundaries between categories. Although our finding of different numbers of categories (three to five) per component is not uncommon, we do not rule out the possibility that in our study, this may be (partly) due to the relatively extensive inquiry into regulative and cognitive activities, whereas other components, such as emotion, were examined less extensively. With respect to the generalisability of the results, it must be born in mind that in this study, the orientations of a limited number of student teachers, namely 30, not entirely randomly selected, were investigated. Moreover, the students participated in an initial inservice programme, which is very common in the Netherlands, but, to our knowledge, not in other places. Finally, the restriction to the HOMALS procedure is that results cannot be generalised to cases other than those included. 3.5.1
Implications for practice
The present study indicates that most student teachers are not directed to knowledge construction beyond their existing frame of reference. Students with orientations other than ‘open meaning’, are not directed at (A, B, C) or do not succeed in (D) expanding their frame of reference. If future teachers have to be prepared for life-long learning, they need to develop the ability and habit to reconsider existing interpretations and action repertoires and to construct knowledge on their own accord. Curricular changes in teacher education, aimed at stimulating such processes, have yielded disappointing or differential effects (Calderhead, 1996; Tillema, 1995). The major focus in these studies has been on changing student teachers’ prior beliefs through explicating these beliefs, creating cognitive conflicts and the 49
like. We think that students experience and interpret such instructional measures differently, as a function of their actual orientation to learning to teach (Oosterheert, 1998; Vermunt, 1996). A more effective way of changing teacher beliefs may therefore be to focus more on changing students’ mental models of learning to teach and their associated learning habits. It seems that many student need -differential- guidance towards orientations in which reconceptualisations are more likely to occur. This means that teacher educators need knowledge of the learning-to-teach process and their learners, as well as the knowledge and skills to effectively educate different learners. The results presented here may serve as a step forwards to a growing awareness of the reality of learning to teach. 3.5.2
Research
Since the 1970s, the majority of research on teacher education has been focussed, in one way or another, on changing student teachers’ prior beliefs. This approach has enhanced our understanding of teaching, mentoring styles, the development of knowledge in teaching, and the relation between theory and practice. However, solutions in teacher education may be more effective at the level of learning to learn to teach (see also Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993; Nettle, 1998). Research directed at developing a better understanding of what it takes for different student teachers to learn to construct knowledge in this field, may better help us find ways to promote learning and ongoing learning in teacher education. In this respect, it is important that the generalisability of the orientations we have found be tested. A large-scale study on the basis of the present one is actually in preparation. Additionally, orientations should be further investigated in different teacher education settings. Transitions between orientations should be detected during and after teacher education as well as the possibility of ‘skipping’ an orientation. Another issue is the start of a transition; is there a component of learning which tends to change first? If so, this component may be closely related to what the first dimension in our study represents. Finally, studies directed at detecting contextual determinants of changes in orientations bring us back to changing the practice of teacher education. Most likely, there is not one, but a variety of determinants, depending on students’ initial orientation.
References Beijaard, D., & de Vries, Y. (1997). Building expertise: a process perspective on the development or change of teachers' beliefs. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20, (3), 243-256. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Biggs, J. B. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347-364. Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotivation theories. Educational Psychologist, 3, (4), 195-200. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology Carter, K. (1990). Teachers' knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Education (pp. 291-310). New York:Macmillan.
50
Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students' approaches to learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 21-51). New York: Plenum Press. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gifi, A. (1981). Homals User’s Guide. Leiden, Department of Data Theory. Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, (8), 835-854. Heus, P. de, van der Leeden, R., & Gazendam, B. (1995). Toegepaste data-analyse. Lemma BV, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 160-189. Iran-Nejad, A., Clore, G. L., & Vondruska, R. J. (1984). Affect; a functional perspective. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, (3), 279-310. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62 (2), 129-169. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, (3), 255-275. Korthagen, F. A. J. (1988). The influence of learning orientations on the development of reflective teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers' Professional Learning. (pp. 3550) Philadelphia: Falmer. Kourilsky, M., Esfandiari, M., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Generative teaching and personality characteristics of student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12 (4), 355-363. Kubler LaBoskey, V. (1993). A conceptual framework for reflection in pre-service teacher education. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualising reflection in teacher development (pp.23- 38), London, Falmer Press. Leat, D., McManus, L., Bramald, R., & Baumfield, V. (1995, September). Learning from classroom experience: Some attributes of successful student teachers. Paper presented at the ECER-conference, Bath, England. Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1999). Studying in a traditional medical curriculum – study success, orientations to studying, and problems that arise. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki, Finland. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsel, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36-55). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography - A research approach to understanding different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28-49. McCarthy, P., & Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Students' self-concepts and the quality of learning in public schools and universities. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 131-156). New York: Plenum Press. Messick, S. (1994). The matter of style: Manifestations of personality in cognition, learning, and teaching. Educational Psychologist, 29 (3), 121-136. Meyer, J. H. F. (1991). Study orchestration: The manifestion, interpretation and consequences of contextualised approaches to studying. Higher Education, 22, 297316. Meyer, J. H. F. (2000). An empirical approach to the modelling of dissonant study orchestration in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, (special edition), 15, 5-18. Nettle, E. B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practice teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 (2), 193-204. 51
Nias, J. (1989). Teaching and the self. In: M.L. Holly & C.S. McLoughlin (Eds.) Perspectives on teachers’ professional development. pp.155-171. London, Falmer Press Oosterheert, I. E. (1998). Learning styles in learning to teach. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the EARLI-sigs ‘Higher Education’ and ‘Teaching & Teacher Education’, Leiden, The Netherlands. Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Continuities and discontinuities: Future directions for research in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 29 (3), 137-148. Prawat, R. S. (1992) Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education,100, (3), 354-395. Robinson, W. P., Noyes, P., & Chandler, P. (1989). Motivational and attitudinal predictors of judged quality of novice primary teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5 (3), 179-187. Slaats, A., Lodewijks, H. G. L. C., & van der Sanden, J. M. M. (1999). Learning styles in secondary vocational education: disciplinary differences. Learning and Instruction, 9 (5), 475-492. Sugrue, C. (1997). Student teachers' lay theories and teaching identities: Their implications for professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20 (3), 213225. Tillema, H. H. (1995). Changing the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers: a training study. Learning and Instruction, 5, 291-318. Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt , J. D. & Lodewijks, H. G. (1999). A longitudinal perspective on learning strategies in higher education: Different viewpoints towards development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 221-242. Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25-50. Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149-171. Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence & friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280.
52
Chapter 4
Assessing Orientations to Learning to Teach 3
Background. An important purpose of teacher education is that student teachers develop and change their existing knowledge on learning and teaching. Research on how student teachers variously engage in this process is scarce. In a previous study of 30 student teachers, we identified five different orientations to learning to teach. Aims. Our aim was to extend the results of the previous study by developing an instrument to assess orientations to learning to teach at a larger scale. The development and psychometric properties of the instrument are discussed. The results with respect to how student teachers learn are compared to the results of the qualitative study. Sample. Participants in this study were 169 secondary student teachers from three institutes which had all adopted an initial in-service model of learning to teach. Methods. On the basis of extensive qualitative study, a questionnaire was developed to assess individual differences in learning to teach. Factor-, reliability-, and nonparametric scalability analysis were performed to identify reliable scales. Cluster analysis was used to identify groups of students with similar orientations to learning to teach. Results. Eight scales covering cognitive, regulative and affective aspects of student teachers’ learning were identified. Cluster analysis indicates that the instrument discriminates well between student teachers. Four of the five previously found patterns were found again. Conclusions. The four orientations found in relatively uniform learning environments indicate that student teachers need differential support in their learning. Although the instrument measures individual differences in a reliable way, it is somewhat one-sided in the sense that items representing constructive ways of learning dominate. New items forming a broader range of scales should be created.
3
Oosterheert, I.E., Vermunt, J. D. & Denessen, E. (in press). Assessing orientations to learning to teach. British Journal of Educational Psychology (March 2002). 53
4.1
Introduction
Since Lortie (1975) highlighted the influence of teachers’ own educational socialisation on their teaching, the major focus in the field of teacher education has been on finding ways to change student teachers’ prior beliefs. The effects of curricular changes, aimed at stimulating student teachers to reconstruct their prior beliefs and knowledge, however, have been disappointing and inconsistent; some student teachers profit from these interventions, others do not or only to a lesser extent (Calderhead, 1996; Nettle, 1998; Tillema, 1995). In research on academic learning, where the study of individual learning has a longer tradition, differential effects of curricular changes are now predominantly explained in terms of students’ actual learning preferences and orientations. The way students experience and interpret (new) aspects of their learning environment depends on their views of, preferences for and orientations towards learning in a given educational context (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001; Vermetten, Vermunt & Lodewijks, 1999). There is also growing evidence that the origin of learners’ orientations towards learning is largely affective (Niemivirta, 1999; Thompson, 1994). This is to say, that variables in the affective domain cause learners to prefer the employment of specific learning activities and regulation strategies above others. For example, some learners may develop self-handicapping strategies (e.g., procastination, low goal-setting) to protect their sense of self-worth (e.g., Thompson, 1994). 4.1.1
Understanding individual learners in learning to teach
If learners, in a given learning environment, differ with respect to the learning activities they tend to employ, the question for teacher education is thus not only ‘what works’, but also ‘what works at this moment for this student teacher.’ Particularly with short interventions, as teacher education programmes tend to be, it seems important to take the ‘default’ learning habits of the student teachers into account. Enrolment in a teacher education programme also implies an adaptation to a learning environment where personal experiences suddenly are an important resource. Several recent studies have demonstrated that the need to adapt to a new learning environment may cause ‘periods of friction’ in students’ learning, in which they tend to show incoherent learning behaviour (Lindblom-Ylänne, 1999; Vermetten et al., 1999). In order to educate effectively, or provide learning opportunities in the zone of students’ proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978; see also Vermunt & Verloop, 1999), teacher educators thus need knowledge of (1) how student teachers differ in using their learning environment, and of (2) how these differences may be more or less beneficial to learning to teach. Educators must better understand what it takes for different student teachers to learn to teach (see also Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993; Nettle, 1998) and which activities help different learners grow in this process. 4.1.1.1
Understanding learning to teach
In an attempt to improve our understanding of learning to teach, we investigated what it takes for student teachers to regulate their use of various information sources, including their own teaching experiences (Oosterheert & Vermunt, submitted). Several building blocks with their origin in cognitive theories of how the human nervous system works were proposed for a theory of learning to teach (e.g., Iran-Nejad, 1990; Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992; Frijda, 1986; Marcel, 1983). In addition to external sources, two internal sources of self-regulation were suggested to be involved in learning to teach: active and dynamic self-regulation (Oosterheert & Vermunt, submitted). Active self-regulation is a deliberate and intentional focus on specific details of new (experiential) information and one’s (emerging) 54
understandings. This is the kind of information processing that is predominantly emphasised in the literature on self-regulation (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989; Howard-Rose & Winne, 1993; Winne, 1995) and in the literature on reflection, as was pointed out by, for example, Korthagen (1993). However, active self-regulation is here assumed to play only an intermediate role in the process of understanding new information. The contributions of active learning strategies to knowledge construction are increasingly being recognised as limited to the extent that they influence the activity of dynamic sources (Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992). Iran-Nejad and his colleagues have proposed dynamic self-regulation as the spontaneous delegation of attention to multiple independently and simultaneously functioning mind sources, which may reframe existing understandings. A learner can actively engage in deliberate activities to reach understanding, but the insight emerges dynamically. Thus, active self-regulation alone cannot generate a reconceptualisation of prior knowledge, whereas dynamic self-regulation can. A predominant reliance on dynamic self-regulation is, however, ineffective for student teachers, as they then become dependent on the richness of the context they are in; they themselves do not actively search for and use new information. We therefore concluded that student teachers must learn to use both active and dynamic sources of self-regulation. Information from external sources (e.g., teacher educators, mentor teachers, own experiences, books) should be used to ‘feed’ the activities of active and dynamic sources. In addition, we argued that the ability or readiness of student teachers to involve external sources as well as active ánd dynamic sources in their learning, may depend on how emotionally risky it is for them to change their perceptions of classroom reality. Research shows this risk for learners with high self-esteem to be significantly lower (Oosterheert & Vermunt, submitted). 4.1.1.2
Understanding individual differences
During the last decade, researchers have increasingly addressed their attention to student teachers’ learning. Some studies focussed on student teachers’ beliefs about the role of specific information sources in their learning to teach, such as their own field experiences (Johnston, 1994) or their mentor teacher (Zanting, Verloop, Vermunt & van Driel, 1998). Others have focussed on the relations between students’ personality/attitudinal characteristics and (judged) teaching behaviour (Kourilsky, Esfandiari & Wittrock, 1996; Robinson, Noyes & Chandler, 1989). For example, being ‘enterprising’, showing a ‘willingness to take risks’ and being ‘mature’ have been found to be associated with progressive ways of teaching. Others have examined student teachers’ actual activities in greater detail. For example, Korthagen (1988) distinguishes ‘internally oriented’ student teachers who tend to learn by means of reflection and ‘externally oriented’ student teachers who tend to build on the support and advice of others during their learning. With respect to the affective side of learning to teach, Leat, McManus, Bramald and Baumfield (1995) have found that ‘strong’ student teachers tend to deal differently with bad lessons than ‘weak’ student teachers. Strong student teachers acknowledge any negative emotions after bad lessons and attribute internally whereas ‘weak’ student teachers do the opposite. Kubler-Laboskey (1993) was one of the first to consider multiple aspects of student teachers’ learning within a single study, and came up with a continuum from ‘common-sense thinkers’, via ‘alert novices’ to ‘pedagogical thinkers’, to characterise individual student teachers.
55
4.2
The previous study
In keeping with this broader approach, we conducted an interview study among 30 Dutch secondary student teachers (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001). The purpose of the study was to (1) systematically map individual differences in learning to teach and (2) improve our understanding of student teachers’ individual learning by examining how the cognitive, regulative and affective components of learning interact within individuals. In this respect, we aimed at contributing to a more integrated theory of learning to teach, starting from a “..whole- person view of human learners as individuals (Snow, Corno & Jackson, 1996; see also Niemivirta, 1999; Vermetten et al., 1999). The following broad components of learning to teach were considered in our previous study: mental models of learning to teach, cognitive processing activities, and regulation strategies including emotion regulation. For the interviews, the components were divided into eight underlying aspects of learning to teach. In addition, each student teacher’s predominant ‘concern’ was considered (Fuller, 1969). The responses of the student teachers with respect to these components were qualitatively analysed, resulting in the identification of three to five categories per component. Homogeneity analyses showed the different categories to be related to each other within individuals. Five distinct patterns of categories could be discerned. Two were construed as ‘reproduction’ oriented and two as ‘meaning’ oriented. The reproduction orientations are aimed at the improvement of performance by gathering ‘cut-and-dried’ practical suggestions while the meaning orientations are aimed at the improvement of performance by also developing a better understanding of teaching and learning. The different orientations can be divided according to how student teachers approach the problems they encounter. ‘Open’ learners acknowledge that they have a problem, communicate about it and act upon it. ‘Closed’ learners may use information that ‘passes by’, but do not bring their problems out into the open. The fifth pattern represents a ‘survival’ orientation, and encompasses an undirected way of ‘learning by doing’, accompanied by ad hoc adaptations to serious problems (see here below). In the end, the following groups could be distinguished (see Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001). Open meaning student teachers are highly self-regulative. To improve their teaching effectiveness, they try to improve their understanding of teaching and learning using all sources; problems are defined as problems of performance and understanding; deep emotions (e.g., anxiety and powerlessness) may be part of this process and a stimulus to learn. Closed meaning student teachers depend on external regulation for the development of their frame of reference on teaching and learning. They define problems as problems of performance but spontaneously recognise conceptual information connected to their implicit problems of understanding; secondary emotions (e.g., frustration, being fed up) are part of their learning process and function as stimuli to learn. Open reproductive student teachers rely heavily on external regulation to improve their performance and try to develop a personal teaching style. They are not directed at understanding the significance of their actions and events. They define problems as problems of performance; secondary emotions play a role in their learning and function as stimuli to learn. Closed reproductive student teachers are selfregulative with regard to the realisation of their ‘ideal self as a teacher’; they are not directed at understanding the significance of their actions and events; external information is appreciated in so far as it helps solve an already experienced problem and feels good immediately. These student teachers define their problems as problems of performance. Their problems indicate an experienced discrepancy between their actual teaching and a well-established image of teaching and of being a teacher. In the light of this image, 56
something has still to be dealt with effectively. They avoid emotional experiences or have secondary emotions which are often an impediment to their learning. Finally, survivaloriented student teachers are not concerned with improving their performance or developing their own frame of reference on teaching and learning; external information is appreciated when it provides a solution to an already experienced severe problem; these student teachers define problems mainly as problems on the part of their pupils; survival is the dominant concern and emotional experiences are avoided. A restriction on these results was their poor generalisability. First, the number of students involved in this study was limited (n=30). Second, homogeneity analyses do not allow for much generalisation (de Heus, van der Leeden & Gazendam, 1995). To extend the results, we therefore developed an instrument to measure approaches to learning to teach on a larger scale. Based on the qualitative study, the first version of this instrument was administered to 169 secondary student teachers. The development and psychometric properties of the instrument will be discussed in the present article. Thereafter, the results with respect to how student teachers learn, will be compared to the results of the first study.
4.3
The present study
4.3.1
Context
The focus of the study was not on the effects of an educational intervention. We treated the existing curriculum and methods as a given, and not as the object of study itself. In order to control for any differences in the curricula, it was thus important to find students enrolled in relatively uniform settings. It was also important to find learning environments without a clearly structural ‘gap between theory and practice’ in the form of ‘practice in school’ separate from ‘meetings at the institute’. For this purpose, environments in which all the sources of information were tightly linked, were sought. Three institutes which had all adopted an initial in-service model of learning to teach were selected. In The Netherlands, a growing number of teacher education institutes are opting for some type of in-service programme. The common purposes of these programmes are twofold. First, they aim at providing the opportunity to student teachers to go through the first independent teaching period during teacher education, with adequate support. The idea is that after having passed this crucial and often unpleasant stage, in which student teachers experience the complexity of ‘real teaching’, there is more space in the student teacher for further learning. Second, the programmes aim at connecting knowledge growth with regard to learning and teaching as directly as possible to personal teaching experiences. In order to do this, student teachers are given the opportunity to function as full teachers (but with a limited number of teaching hours; 6-10 per week) during a relatively long period of time (an average of 5 months up to a year). Observation of others in their classroom is rare. Students have their mentor teacher in their school and spend at least one day a week at the teacher education institute, where fellow students and educators help and stimulate them to learn further. Although the emphasis is on their own teaching development, the student teachers may also participate in staff meetings, be (partly) responsible for the contact with the pupil parents and participate in innovative activities of the school. In order to obtain a representative sample of secondary (in-service) student teachers in The Netherlands, we selected both students enrolled in university programmes (UP) and students enrolled in higher vocational programmes (VP). The three teacher education
57
institutes we selected (one VP and two UP) were from three different geographical parts of the country. 4.3.2
Research questions
The research questions guiding the present study were as follows: 1. What is the underlying structure of the instrument? 2. Can different patterns of learning be distinguished with the instrument? 3. To what extent do these resemble the patterns found in the first study?
4.4
Method
4.4.1
Participants
The participants were 169 Dutch secondary student teachers enrolled in initial in-service programmes; 93 VP students from one higher vocational institute, and 76 UP students from two universities. Of the total group, 80% of the students were between 21 and 26 years of age. There were more women than men (2:1). Students representing the alpha-disciplines (modern and ancient languages) were larger in number (45%) than students in the betadisciplines (19.5%) (sciences and information technology), gamma-disciplines (26.6%) (e.g., health education, history, geography) and arts (8.3%) (e.g., drawing, drama, music). This was at the time of the study a fairly common distribution in Dutch secondary teacher education. Analysis of variance showed that the VP and UP groups did not differ with respect to the number of hours they taught per week. At the time of the study, 24.3% of the total group had taught independently for 3 to 6 months; 69.2% for more than 6 months; and 6.6% for less than two months. In other words, 93.4% of our sample involved students likely to have passed the survival stage (see below). No individuals were excluded from the analyses. 4.4.2
The instrument
To develop the questionnaire items, we drew on actual statements from the interviews with the student teachers in our previous study. The items should represent the essence of the different categories associated with the eight aspects of learning to teach and the additional aspect “concern”. It should be noted that the categories in the first study were developed within persons; that is, the relation between statements and participants was retained during the protocol analysis. As a consequence, in our previous study, several categories are cumulative; one category may involve another. Each set of items representing a category in the previous study was thus not -a priori- expected to form the underlying structure of the instrument in the present study (cf. Slaats, Lodewijks & van der Sanden, 1999; Vermunt, 1996). The underlying structure of the total item-set was still to be discovered. 4.4.3
Item construction
The construction of the items occurred in four steps. First, items were constructed on the basis of the category descriptions. The ‘codes’ associated with a category and the representative statements were taken as the start. Second, an initial set of items was administered to four student teachers in a pilot study, resulting in the omission of such terms 58
as ‘trial and error’ and ‘evaluation’, because of their negative connotations and normative use during institutional meetings. The recommendations of the students themselves were used to find alternatives. The students also provided helpful comments with respect to the cover letter, lay-out and instruction. Third, a similar pilot procedure was followed with a group of nine (university) teacher educators, both individually and in small groups. One issue raised in this group was the risk of semantically determined scales; items may simply cluster according to the information sources mentioned in the items, regardless of the learning activities employed. We nevertheless decided to choose one term for most sources of information due to between and within institute differences with respect to the terms used. We also decided to include a short introduction to the terms in the questionnaire and instructed the educators to explicitly point out the importance of reading this introduction to their students. Fourth, 3 to 6 items per category were made definitive, resulting in a total of 103 items. The first 38 items from the questionnaire related to mental models of learning to teach; the next 52 items related to learning activities including regulation and concerns; and the last 13 items related to emotion regulation in particular. Tables 1 through 3 list the items that remained after the analyses. The items were scored on Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree) for the first 38 items and from 1 (does not hold true for me) to 5 (holds true for me) for the remaining items. Each concern was represented by one item only. For example, the concern ‘pedagogy’ was measured by the item: “At present, I am basically occupied with finding methods and teaching materials by which I can improve my teaching”. The questionnaires were accompanied by a cover letter shortly explaining the background and purpose of the study. Teacher educators were given a letter explaining the purpose of the study and the conditions under which the questionnaire was supposed to be filled out.
4.4.4
Procedure
At the time of the study, all of the participants had at least two to three months of experience with ‘independent teaching.’ We chose this particular point of time for our study, because we assumed that differences in how students learn are more likely to be found and more pronounced after the first months of independent teaching than during. During the first months, most students are preoccupied with establishing a balance in their teaching; their predominant concern is (at least) to survive. We were interested in how students go about their learning after this stage. The literature shows that for some students this stage provides a basis for further learning, while for others it does this only to a lesser extent (Buitink, 1998; Calderhead, 1996; Tillema, 1995). The questionnaire was distributed to the student teachers during small-group meetings and accompanied by a brief introduction from the teacher educator. Participation was voluntary and the student teachers were not rewarded for their participation in whatever form. The student teachers were not asked to give their names and addresses. Most of the student teachers (about 60%) were given time to complete the questionnaire during the meeting. The rest were asked to complete the questionnaire at home. The teacher educators who distributed the questionnaires also collected them, put them immediately in a big envelope, and returned them to the central contact person from their institute. The educators also reported how many questionnaires were distributed to start with. The contact individuals sent the questionnaires back to the researcher. The response rate was 72% for both the VP and UP groups.
59
4.4.5
Data analyses
Principal component analyses were applied to the answers provided by the 169 student teachers to investigate the dimensionality of each part the questionnaire separately: (1) mental models, (2) learning activities & regulation and (3) emotion regulation. The ‘concerns’ items were not included in these analyses, because concerns are not, in this study, considered as part of, but rather as related to ways of learning. To identify sets of items with a high degree of interconnectedness, we applied reliability analyses (Cronbach’s alpha) and also computed scalability coefficients to select homogeneous sets of items from the questionnaire. The scalability coefficients were based on the nonparametric probabilistic scalogram method of item analysis developed by Mokken (1970). The scalability coefficient computed to measure the homogeneity of items is called Loevinger’s H-coefficient, which indicates the degree of scalability for items within a particular scale. By default, a lower bound of .30 is to identify an acceptable set of items (Molenaar, 1991). With respect to the reliability analyses, the reliabilities should be optimal in the sense that (further) deletion of items would not lead to a considerable increase in the alphas. The combination of factor analyses and scalogram analyses leads to well-distinguished sets of items with a relatively high degree of interconnectedness. This approach, however, may also result in a severe selection of items, and thus, a reduction in number of items to be used further.
4.5
Results
4.5.1
Principal components analyses
Mental models of learning to teach
Based on the percentage explained variance and the resulting scree plot, the data suggest a one-dimensional representation for the mental models of student teachers. Many of the items did not meet our criteria for internal consistency (scalability coefficient must be greater than .30; reliability must be optimal for the selected items). After removal of the weak items, one dimension with 10 items was found to represent the mental models of the student teachers (Cronbach’s alpha = .79; Loevinger’s H = .38). Component analysis of these ten items showed 41.2% of the item variance to be explained by one dimension (additional explanation with two dimensions 13.9%; three dimensions 9.9%; and four dimensions 8.2%). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. The items on this single dimension refer to learning activities such as analysing, thinking in general, seeking causes, interpreting, becoming aware and trying to understand. The students themselves should engage in such activities, and the mentor teacher and teacher educators should guide and stimulate them in this process. Emotional support from the mentor teacher and/or teacher educators is appreciated. As a whole, this dimension can be interpreted as a constructive view of learning to teach; student teachers actively develop their own interpretive frame of reference, with the support, knowledge and experience of others. We have thus labelled this dimension ‘developing a frame of reference’.
60
Table 1: Pattern coefficients for principal component analysis, communalities (h2) and explained percentage of variance for mental models of learning to teach (N=163). Items Pattern h2 coefficient Developing a frame of reference • I appreciate the help of teacher educators in analysing lesson situations .45 .74 which I do not understand. • I consider it important that teacher educators or the mentor teacher .45 .70 stimulate me to think about my teaching practice. • If something doesn’t work out well in a lesson, I believe I must search for .30 .67 causes. • I think that teacher educators or the mentor teacher should provide .39 .67 emotional support. • Learning to teach in my view implies that I try to understand how I can .34 .62 stimulate a learning process in pupils. • I think it is important that the mentor teacher tell me why (s)he interprets a .49 .59 specific teaching situation in a specific way. • I consider it important that others make me aware of my teaching .54 .57 behaviour. • Learning to teach means for me that I myself try to develop insight into .33 .55 how pupils learn within my subject discipline. % variance explained 41.21 41.21
Learning activities
The principal component analyses applied to those items pertaining to learning activities and regulation resulted in five dimensions. The relative gain of explained variance decreased with six or more dimensions, and a good interpretation of these five dimensions was possible. The principal component analysis with five dimensions explained 53% of the variance, as can be seen from Table 2. Learning activities 1. The item with the highest loading on the first dimension (.77) refers to theory experienced as useful. The other items indicate that externally provided conceptual information is actively used; it is explicitly and successfully related to practice. We therefore labelled this dimension actively relating theory to practice. Learning activities 2. The second dimension represents items referring to a proactive use of the mentor teacher; students ask mentor teachers for practical suggestions, for the mentors’ interpretations of a particular lesson situation and for comments on their performance. The suggestions are always, in one way or another, useful. The domain to which the items refer is restricted to the students’ own teaching. As the dimension pertains to both surface and deep strategies, we have labelled it proactive, broad use of mentor. Learning activities 3. The third dimension represents items referring to consultation of (experienced) colleagues at school to obtain alternative practical suggestions and expand one’s reference base. Two items refer to active participation in discussions, without reference to intention. We nevertheless consider these intentional as well, because it is generally quite easy to not participate actively in such informal discussions. A high score on this dimension thus indicates intentional engagement in discussions with teachers to develop one’s own views and ideas about teaching. The label we have chosen is developing views/ideas through discussion.
61
Table 2: Pattern coefficients for varimax rotated principal component analysis, communalities (h2) and explained percentage variance for learning activities (A). (N=153) (Loadings >= .30 and
