lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 663–673

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Experienced teachers’ informal learning: Learning activities and changesin behavior and cognition

Annemarieke Hoekstra a,*, Mieke Brekelmans b,1, Douwe Beijaard c,2, Fred Korthagen d,3

a IVLOS Institute of Education, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80127, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlandsb Department of Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlandsc Eindhoven School of Education (ESoE), Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlandsd CETAR, The Centre for Educational Training, Assessment and Research, VU University, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 19 April 2007Received in revised form1 June 2008Accepted 15 December 2008

Keywords:Teacher learningInformal learningLearning activitiesProfessional developmentTeacher changeWorkplace learning

* Corresponding author. Present address: NAIT InstiStreet NW, Edmonton, AB, Canada T5G 2R1. Tel.: þ1 7

E-mail addresses: annemarh@nait.ca, anne_mariem.brekelmans@uu.nl (M. Brekelmans), douwe.beijf.korthagen@uu.nl (F. Korthagen).

1 Tel.: þ31 030 2534786; fax: þ31 030 2537731.2 Tel.: þ31 40 2474439; fax: þ31 40 2475379.3 Tel.: þ31 20 598 9246.4 All names are pseudonyms.

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.007

a b s t r a c t

In this study on 32 teachers’ learning in an informal learning environment, we analyzed changes inconceptions and behavior regarding students’ active and self-regulated learning (ASL), and relations withthe teachers’ learning activities. Few relations were found between observed changes in behavior andlearning activities. Changes in conceptions appeared to correlate with the activities obtaining new ideas,experimenting with new methods, and reflecting on why certain teaching methods seem to be effectiveand others not. Only one teacher became more ASL-oriented in both behavior and conceptions. Theapparent variation in teachers’ informal learning should lead to differentiated support for teacherlearning in the workplace.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

‘‘Realising that moving towards this new pedagogy is necessary,makes me happy on the one hand but also somewhat tense. Youencounter a continuously changing situation, changing texts,changing approaches to teaching. To work ‘‘on automatic pilot’’really belongs to the past now’’. (Ted4, one of the teachers in ourresearch group)

Teachers like Ted are faced with continuous change and need tolearn how to incorporate new insights into their teaching practice.Ted has not joined a professional development trajectory and hasreceived little support for learning. How do teachers learn in suchan informal learning environment? Although there is a body of

tute of Technology, 11762-10680 4717862.

ke@yahoo.com (A. Hoekstra),aard@esoe.nl (D. Beijaard),

All rights reserved.

literature describing teacher learning in formal learning contexts,little is known yet about the kind of teacher learning that occurs inthe absence of any facilitation for learning (Richardson & Placier,2001). In the study reported on in this article the focus is onexperienced teachers’ informal learning. In this study, informallearning refers to learning in the workplace where systematicalsupport of learning, such as professional development trajectories,is absent. More insight into teachers’ learning in the workplace ishighly important, because in today’s society lifelong learning isbecoming the standard in all kind of professional fields. However,when entering the profession, teachers are usually only incidentallysupported in their learning (Van Eekelen, Vermunt, & Boshuizen,2006; Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001). For experienced teachers,informal learning is usually the only option for learning.

Nevertheless, teachers report that even when learning is notsupported there are all kind of activities they undertake duringwork that they learn from (Dunn & Shriner, 1999; Kwakman, 2003;Lohman & Woolf, 2001). The question then is what this unsup-ported learning through daily work looks like and whether andhow teachers change through this learning. More insight in teacherlearning in an informal learning environment may help to organizesupport for teacher learning in a way that increases activities thatcontribute to desired changes and decreases activities that prevent

A. Hoekstra et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 663–673664

this change. The main question addressed in this study is: What isthe relation between teachers’ learning outcomes and theirlearning activities in an informal learning environment?

The study aims to contribute to understanding teachers’informal learning by combining the insights from two types ofstudies on learning activities. The first type of studies providesinventories of work activities teachers report to learn from, such ascollaborating, reading, and experimenting with teaching methods(e.g., Lohman & Woolf, 2001). The second type of studies focuses onthe mental activities involved in learning (e.g., Mansvelder-Long-ayroux, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007). These insights were the startingpoint for our study in which we collected data during one year from32 experienced teachers who did not join any professional devel-opment program during that year. These data included both qual-itative and quantitative data of teachers’ learning experiences andtheir changes in conceptions and behavior.

2. Context of the study: learning to promote students’ activeand self-regulated learning

In the present study, teacher learning has been studied in thecontext of reforms in secondary education implemented in theNetherlands starting in 1998. These reforms encompassed, amongother things, mandatory change of the curriculum of all subjects,the creation of new subjects and restrictions on the amount of testsper year. Altogether, the reform potentially had a big impact andcertainly was not applauded by all teachers and scholars. (SeeVeugelers, 2004 for a detailed analysis and critique of the imple-mentation of this reform.) Along with these mandatory changes,schools were encouraged to promote students’ active and self-regulated learning (ASL). This new pedagogy involves teachersbecoming facilitators of students’ learning processes and assistingstudents in developing their own learning strategies.

In their study on secondary school teachers’ conceptions ofstudent learning, Bolhuis and Voeten (2004) distinguished threetopics that refer to central issues in research on active and self-regulated learning. These are 1) self-regulation of learning, 2)learning as active construction of knowledge, and 3) the socialnature of learning. These three topics together form the heart of thenew pedagogy of ASL. The notion of self-regulated learning refers tostudents taking charge of their own learning process, by activelyregulating their mental learning activities in order to achieve theirstudy goals (Hofer, Yu, & Pintrich, 1998; Pintrich, 2004; Zimmerman& Schunk, 2001). For teachers this means that they have to takea step back in controlling students’ learning activities. The idea oflearning as the active construction of knowledge (Shuell, 1986)pertains to students who actively engage in a task that will enablethem to construct unique connections between new informationand already existing knowledge. This deviates from teachers’traditional views of subject matter as a ‘‘static body of knowledge’’(Bolhuis & Voeten, 2004, p. 78). For teachers this means that theyhave to accept that not all students will learn exactly the sameknowledge in exactly the same way and that students should beencouraged to actively think about and discuss the subject matter.Moreover, insights regarding the social nature of learning (Putnam& Borko, 1997) should encourage teachers to foster students’collaboration. For most teachers this new pedagogy requiresa profound shift in their teaching and thinking about teaching andlearning.

Previous research into teachers’ conceptions of teaching andstudent learning in the Netherlands indicates that teachers differ inthe extent to which they embrace ASL-oriented conceptions ofteaching and learning (Bolhuis, 2000; Oolbekkink-Marchand, VanDriel, & Verloop, 2006). The innovative context the teachers areworking in also demands and encourages them to change their

teaching practice. This makes the domain of this innovative context(namely the new pedagogy of ASL) an adequate focus for our study,because it enhances our chances of finding instances of anddifferences in teacher learning. This means that our decision tofocus on teacher learning in the context of ASL had a practicalreason. We did not intend to evaluate the reform itself; neither doour data provide a basis for this.

3. Conceptual framework of teacher learning

In line with a social-constructivist perspective on learning as anactive process (Shuell, 1990), we studied learning as it occursthrough engagement in learning activities. In educational contextslearning activities are organized by teachers and educators.Learning in the workplace is integrated in the work process andoccurs through work activities (Eraut, 2004; Straka, 2004). Mostconceptualizations of learning imply a relatively lasting change inbehavior or capacity for behavior (Shuell, 1986). In this study wedefine learning as engaging in activities that lead to a change inbehavior and/or cognition. In the ongoing process of learning in theworkplace, we consider learning activities to constitute thelearning process and the resulting change in behavior and/orcognition to be a learning outcome.

3.1. Learning activities

When teachers’ work activities lead to a change in behavior and/or cognition we call these activities learning activities. In our studyof teachers’ learning activities in the workplace we draw on twotypes of studies on (student) teacher learning, one type thatdescribes learning activities primarily at the action level, such ascollaborating and reading, and one type that focuses on the mentallevel of learning activities, such as memorizing and analyzing.

In the past decade a number of scholars have studied informalteacher learning by means of interviews, logbooks, and question-naires in which teachers indicated what kind of activities they learnfrom in the workplace (Dunn & Shriner, 1999; Kwakman, 2003;Lohman & Woolf, 2001; Paredes-Scribner, 1999; Smaller, 2005; VanEekelen, Boshuizen, & Vermunt, 2003). Most of these studiesprovide classifications of activities teachers report to learn from.Taken together, these classifications reveal four major categories ofactivities: 1) learning by experimenting, 2) learning by consideringown teaching practice, 3) learning by getting ideas from others, and4) learning by doing (see also Meirink, Meijer, & Verloop, 2007).Each of these activities can occur individually or in interaction withpeers. Individually undertaken activities include activities such asbrowsing the Internet and reading, but also activities taking placein classroom teaching. Activities undertaken in interaction withpeers include activities such as coffee table discussions on students’attitudes towards certain tasks or topics and observing colleaguesduring their work.

Regarding the first category, experimenting, teachers describethat they try out new instructional methods, new assignments ornew behavior in the classroom (Kwakman, 2003; Lohman & Woolf,2001). The second category, considering own teaching practice,refers to some kind of individual or collaborative reflection on theteaching practice. The third category, learning by getting ideas fromothers, refers to activities such as obtaining ideas for and aboutteaching and learning from the Internet, teacher magazines orother media. This category also includes picking up ideas in inter-action with others, such as colleagues, students, and experts.Regarding the fourth category, learning by doing, the kinds ofactivities involved are less evident. In literature on workplacelearning it is stated that learning in the workplace may be inci-dental (Marsick & Watkins, 1990), unplanned (Straka, 2004), and

A. Hoekstra et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 663–673 665

may even take place beyond learners’ awareness (Eraut, 2004).Teachers, themselves typically refer to such learning as ‘‘learning bydoing’’ or ‘‘learning from experience’’, without specifying how thisprocess takes place. The literature on teachers’ activities in theworkplace does not provide further empirical evidence regardingthe type of activities involved in learning by doing. Eraut (2004)theorizes on possible reactive activities such as noting facts andobserving effects of actions and possible implicit activities such asunconscious expectations and implicit linkage of past memorieswith current experience. To gain more insight into teachers’learning by doing, we have studied teachers’ learning duringteaching (Hoekstra, Beijaard, Brekelmans, & Korthagen, 2007). Thisstudy revealed that two different activities seem to be important inthe teachers’ learning process. One activity during teachingoccurred when teachers sometimes realized that their behavior orteaching method did not have the expected consequence. Teacherswere either happily surprised by the enthusiasm and activity of thestudents or they experienced that their ‘‘good idea’’, or usualteaching behavior, did not work out as they expected. Teachers thusbecame aware of a discrepancy between what they expected andwhat they perceived to happen. In this article this awareness isreferred to as ‘‘experiencing a discrepancy’’. The other activityfound during teaching was struggling with behavior. Whenteachers practiced new behavior, they sometimes struggled withthe tendency to fall back in their old routines.

It does not only matter whether or not a teacher undertakes allthe activities as described above, but also what a teacher thinkswhen undertaking an activity. For instance, regarding learning ininteraction it is argued that teacher collaboration contributes toteacher learning (e.g., Little, 1999). Some studies have shown thatwhen two teachers attend the same meeting, one teacher maylearn a lot while the other may learn nothing (Little, 2002).Teachers’ mental activities involved in the collaboration seem todetermine whether a teacher learns from the collaboration or not.For this reason, the mental level of learning activities was alsoincluded in this study.

A starting point for examining the nature of teachers’ mental levelof activities was a distinction made by Mansvelder-Longayroux et al.,(2007), who discriminated between meaning-oriented and action-oriented learning in her study of student teachers’ reflections asreported in their portfolios. Student teachers who were action-oriented mostly described a situation and then evaluated whethertheir behavior or their teaching method was adequate or not. The aimof their learning was the improvement of their own performance asa teacher. These student teachers were mostly concerned with whatworks and what does not work in the classroom. Some of the studentsreported meaning-oriented learning: learning aimed at under-standing the processes underlying teaching. They asked themselvesquestions such as: Why did it not work as expected? Why did thisinstructional method work so well/not work at all? In other words,when writing their portfolios (action level) they were engaged incritical processing, analyzing, and diagnosing (mental level).

3.2. Learning outcomes

According to our definition, learning outcomes are the changesin cognition and/or behavior (Shuell, 1986) resulting fromengagement in activities. As regards teachers’ cognition, studieshave distinguished between several different types of knowledgeand beliefs, according to their nature, content or both (Munby,Russell, & Martin, 2001). This study particularly concentrates onteachers’ conceptions of teaching and student learning. Klatter(2003) describes conceptions of learning as systems of interrelatedbeliefs about different aspects of learning. Similarly, conceptions ofteaching can be described as systems of interrelated beliefs about

different aspects of teaching. Studies show that teachers’ beliefs donot easily change (Van Driel, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2001; Richardson& Placier, 2001; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002; Yerrick, Parke, &Nugent, 1997). Yerrick et al. describe how teachers assimilate newnotions into their existing belief systems and use new language todescribe their teaching without changing the underlying beliefs.Teachers may for instance be happy to incorporate activatinginstructional formats in their lessons, as they experience that itmotivates the students more than a lecture does. However, thisdoes not necessarily mean that these teachers believe that acti-vating students helps them to construct new knowledge, as theyonly use the format for motivational purposes.

It is remarkable that research on teacher learning is mostlyconcerned with teachers’ change in cognition, seemingly based onthe assumption that behavioral change automatically follows froma change in cognition. This linear relation is not evident (Richard-son & Placier, 2001) and can also work in the opposite direction(Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Zwart, Wubbels, Bergen, & Bolhuis,2007). Hence, we decided not only to consider teachers’ changes inconceptions, but also changes in behavior to be learning outcomes.It is, after all, ultimately the teachers’ behavior that will affectstudent learning. Teachers’ behavior in the context of this study isconsidered as those actions of the teachers that stimulate students’active and self-regulated learning, such as stimulating the studentsto formulate their own opinion, giving students tasks to work oncollaboratively, and discussing with students how to best approacha certain task.

3.3. Research questions

The teachers who participated in our research had differentprior experiences regarding the new pedagogy. We thereforedecided to consider their conceptions and behavior with regard tothis new pedagogy at the start of the study first, before focusing ontheir learning processes.

More specifically, our research questions were:

1. How can the teachers be positioned by their conceptions andbehavior regarding ASL at the start of the study?

2. Did the teachers’ conceptions and behavior regarding ASLchange in the course of one year? And if so, how?

3. What activities did the teachers report to have learned fromduring this year?

4. To what extent can the changes in conceptions and behavior berelated to the activities reported by the teachers?

4. Method

4.1. Participants

For this study 32 experienced teachers from 21 different schoolsin larger and medium size cities in the Netherlands were recruitedvia school principles and teachers’ subject matter communities’mailing lists. A minimum of five years of teaching experience wasrequired to make sure that teachers were not working at a novicelevel. All these teachers taught in the upper grades of secondarypre-university schools in the Netherlands (students aged 15–18).There were one to four teachers per school. Teachers joined theresearch voluntarily. Table 1 gives a summary of the teachers’subject matter, gender, age, and teaching experience.

4.2. Data collection

In October 2004 and one year later, in October 2005, theresearch participants filled out a questionnaire regarding their

Table 1Participant characteristics (N¼ 32).

Characteristics

Subject matter (n) Language or arts (13) Sciences (14) Social studies (5) Total (32)

Gender (n) M (5) F (8) M (9) F (5) M (5) F (0) M (19) F (13)

Age (M, SD) 52.6 (6.3) 44.1 (9.3) 48.3 (11.6) 47.0 (11.0) 46.2 (6.6) – 48.9 (9.2) 45.2 (9.6)Experience (M, SD) 28.4 (6.5) 19.6 (9.4) 23.9 (12.3) 15.9 (10.1) 16.0 (8.4) – 23.0 (10.7) 18.2 (9.4)

Note. M¼male, F¼ female.

A. Hoekstra et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 663–673666

conceptions pertaining to stimulating active and self-regulatedstudent learning. This questionnaire is further referred to as thequestionnaire on ASL conceptions. They also received questionnairesto be filled out by their students regarding the teacher’s ASLstimulating behavior, further referred to as the student question-naire on ASL behavior. Each teacher was asked to distribute thisquestionnaire in one class in the same grade level both in 2004 and2005. For example, if one teachers’ grade 10 class filled out thequestionnaire in 2004, in the following year the questionnaire wasdistributed to her new grade 10 class. The questionnaire was onlydistributed after the teacher had taught a class for at least 10 weeks.If possible the teachers collected data from several different classlevels in 2004 to ensure that a comparable class could fill out thequestionnaire in 2005. In the period between the two measure-ment moments, the teachers were also asked to report six times ontheir learning experiences regarding students’ active and self-regulated learning via email to be sent to the first author. Afrequency of more than six reports per teacher was considered toomuch of a burden for the teachers who voluntarily joined thisstudy. Every six weeks, teachers received a reminder and a deadlinefor sending their learning experience reports.

4.2.1. Questionnaire on ASL conceptionsIn order to measure teachers’ conceptions of teaching and

learning in the context of the reform, a questionnaire was devel-oped with three scales, representing the three underlying topics ofself-directed learning (see Section 2). These scales will be furtherreferred to as: student regulation, construction, and collaboration.Items for the scales student regulation and construction weredeveloped based on Vermunt and Verloop’s (1999) inventory ofstudents’ learning activities. The scale on student regulation refersto the importance of students’ affective and cognitive regulatoryactivities for student learning, whereas the scale on constructionrefers to the importance of students’ cognitive activities for studentlearning. The scale collaboration measures the extent to whichteachers agree with the importance of collaboration for studentlearning. Teachers could score all items on a 5-point Likert scaleranging from (1) absolutely disagree to (5) absolutely agree. Toobtain optimal scales, a large group of items was pre-tested ina pilot study involving 74 experienced teachers. Certain items wereremoved to obtain reliability scores larger than 0.70. The new scaleswere retested on a group of 94 experienced teachers. Again itemswere deleted from the scales following the same criteria. The reli-ability scores (Cronbach’s alpha) of the resulting scales variedbetween 0.73 and 0.89 (Cronbach’s alpha). Table 2 providesexamples of items, numbers of items per scale, and the reliabilityscores (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scales, based on a dataset of the 32teachers who joined the present study.

4.2.2. Student questionnaire on ASL behaviorFor the measurement of teacher behavior, a student question-

naire has been developed along the same topics as the question-naire measuring teachers’ conceptions. In many research projectsstudent perceptions of teachers’ behavior have proven themselvesto be reliable (D’Apollonia & Abrami, 1997). And since student

scores are based on at least 10 weeks of experience with thisteacher, the scores represent a more general impression ofa teachers’ behavior than the impression an observer would be ableto give based on observations of a few lessons. The items of thequestionnaire of teachers’ conceptions were reformulated in termsof teacher behavior. Students could score all items on a 5-pointLikert scale, ranging from (1) This teacher hardly ever does this to (5)This teacher almost always does this. The questions were discussedwith different groups of students in several construction rounds.Subsequently, the questionnaire was distributed among 100students to pilot the instrument, and based on the outcomes scaleswere further refined. Based on a new dataset of 139 groups of 94teachers, a number of items were removed to obtain optimal reli-ability of scale scores (Cronbach’s alpha’s between 0.78 and 0.96).Table 3 provides examples of items per scale, numbers of items perscale, and the reliability scores (Cronbach’s alpha) based on thegroups of students of the dataset of the 32 teachers involved inthe present study. For each scale, reliability scores represent theinternal consistency of the class average scores in 2004 and 2005.As the first author regularly observed lessons of six of the teachers,she was able to confirm that the scores on the student questionnaireon ASL behavior of these six teachers were in accordance with herimpression of the teachers’ ASL behavior.

4.2.3. Teachers’ learning experience reportsSix times during the school year, the teachers were invited to

report, by email, a learning experience related to the promotion ofactive and self-regulated learning of students in as much detail aspossible. For efficiency reasons it was decided to collect writtenreports instead of interview data. At the start of the study theteachers received some instruction on the kind of informationneeded to examine both the mental and action level of theirlearning activities. Not only reports of successful experiences wereexplained to be welcome, but also disappointing experiences,general reflections on ASL, incidents in the classroom that makea teacher think, etcetera. In order to obtain a comprehensiveoverview of the teachers’ activities, teachers were asked to writea coherent report about their learning experience. To stimulate thatteachers would not only report concrete actions in their story, theyreceived a yellow card, to be kept in their agenda, with a list ofquestions such as: What did you learn? What were your thoughtsbeforehand, during and afterwards? What did you want to achieve?Who was involved in the situation? These questions were asked tohelp teachers think of different aspects to include in their reportson their learning experience.

4.3. Data analysis

The complete analytical framework is thoroughly embedded intwo years of collaborative data analysis within a larger researchgroup that studied teachers’ learning in several different contexts(Bakkenes, Vermunt, & Wubbels, 2007; Meirink, 2007; Zwart et al.,2007). In this larger research project teacher learning was studiedin a trajectory of collaboration in interdisciplinary teams (Meirinket al., 2007), a trajectory of reciprocal peer coaching (Zwart,

Table 2Questionnaire on ASL conceptions, items, scales and reliability scores.

Scale Examples of items (translated from Dutch) Number of items a 2004 N¼ 32 a 2005 N¼ 32

Student regulation CognitiveStudents learn better, if they themselves assesswhether the learning process evolves according to plan.It is important that I as a teacher ask the studentshow they think to address a task effectively.

20 .89 .90

AffectiveStudents learn better if they are aware of their emotions.It is important that I as a teacher stimulate the studentsto think about what they like to do and what they like less.

Construction Students learn better if they themselves createlinks between components of the subject matter.It is important that I stimulate students tounderpin their own opinion.

7 .82 .84

Collaboration Students learn better if they think about theirtasks together with their peers.It is important that I as a teacher let the studentsregularly collaborate.

7 .85 .82

A. Hoekstra et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 663–673 667

Wubbels, Bolhuis, & Bergen, 2008) and an informal learning envi-ronment (Hoekstra et al., 2007).

4.3.1. Analysis of teachers’ learning experience reportsWithin the larger research project, several sub-studies used

detailed analytical frameworks to analyze teachers’ learningexperience reports (Meirink et al., 2007; Zwart et al., 2008). For thedevelopment of our analytical framework these frameworks wereadjusted to fit the context of an informal learning environment.One of the aspects teachers reported in their learning experiencereports was what they had learned. The analysis of the teachers’reports started with highlighting these reported learningoutcomes, according to a procedure described by Zwart et al.(2007). Next, the combination of activities was coded that accord-ing to the teachers’ report contributed to this outcome. Forinstance, if a teacher reported to have experimented with a studenttask on peer assessment, which led her to learn that students learna lot from assessing each others’ work, ‘‘students learn a lot fromassessing each others’ work’’ was highlighted as a learningoutcome, while the experiment was coded as a learning activity. Asour study focused on teachers’ learning in an informal learningenvironment, special attention was paid to activities involved inlearning by doing (see Section 3.1 of this article). Each activity wascoded to be either undertaken individually by the teacher or in

Table 3Student questionnaire on their teachers’ ASL behavior, items, scales and reliability score

Scale Examples of items(translated from Dutch)

Stimulating studentregulation

CognitiveThis teacher asks us how we think weshould address a task.

AffectiveThis teacher encourages us to think about howwe can deal with feelings of anxiety and uncer

Stimulating construction This teacher stimulates us tounderpin our own opinion.

Stimulating collaboration This teacher gives us collaborative tasks.

interaction with colleagues. Also, the nature of the teachers’ mentallevel of activities involved was coded as action-oriented ormeaning-oriented. In case the nature could not be determinedbecause of a lack of information, the mental level was coded asnone reported. Thus codes were created for six modes of eachcategory as displayed in Table 4 for the category of experimenting.

To increase the internal validity of the analysis, the coding ofactivities was conducted independently by the researchers of thelarger project (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). The resultsobtained by each of them were compared. In case of differences,these were discussed until agreement was reached.

4.3.2. Analysis of changeTo analyze teachers’ change the Reliable Change Index (RCI) was

used (De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, Bagby, Rolland, & Rouillon, 2006;Jacobson & Truax, 1991). The RCI allowed us to determine whichpart of the score difference between scale scores at the start andend of the study represents teachers’ change and which part is anartifact of the inaccuracy of the questionnaires.

Teachers’ change scores on the student questionnaires of ASLbehavior were obtained from the difference between class averagescores from two different groups of students for each of the threescales. This change in behavior could theoretically representa teacher’s natural variation in behavior in two different groups of

s.

Number of itemsper scale

a 2004 Classlevel N¼ 54

a 2005 Classlevel N¼ 32

8 .84 .84

tainty.

5 .81 .78

7 .88 .90

Table 4Six modes of a category of activities.

Experimenting Nature of mental activities

Action-oriented Meaning-oriented No mental activities reported

Individually mode 1 mode 2 mode 3In interaction mode 4 mode 5 mode 6

A. Hoekstra et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 663–673668

students and thus not represent a change in behavior over time.However, the following test indicates that this is not likely. 17teachers collected data from two classes of students at the start ofthe study. We compared the absolute difference between classes ofthese teachers measured concurrently at the start of the study, withthe difference between classes measured at the start and end of thestudy. In 94% of the cases where the RCI indicated a change over time,the teacher’s absolute change score over a year’s time was largerthan this teacher’s difference in class average scores measuredconcurrently at the start of the study. Because differences betweenconcurrent classes are on average within ranges of measurementerror, using RCI indices overcomes the problem of comparing scoresof different classes. Thus, change scores recognized by the RCI are anindication for a real change in behavior over time.

4.3.3. Relating change scores to activitiesBecause we are interested not only in which learning activities

are reported by teachers, but also in the frequencies with whichthey occur, we counted how many times each activity occurred. Forthose teachers who did not send in six learning experience reports,the individual frequencies of their activities were corrected for thenumber of learning experience reports they sent. In order to relateactivities to changes in conceptions, the learning activities perteacher were counted and thus quantified so that they could berelated to the quantitative data on teachers’ change. Four clusters ofteachers were created based on their initial and their change scoreson the questionnaire on ASL conceptions. Similarly, four clusters ofteachers were distinguished based on their initial and changescores on the student questionnaire on ASL behavior. To relatelearning activities to the change scores, we conducted ANOVAs tofind out whether the groups of teachers differed in the type of andthe frequencies with which they reported learning activities.

5. Results

5.1. Teachers’ position at the start of the study

Our first question refers to teachers’ initial conceptions andbehavior regarding ASL. To study this, we decided to divide teachersinto groups based on their position relative to other teachers. Fourgroups of teachers were distinguished based on teachers’ scores onthe questionnaire on ASL conceptions. 1) ASL-oriented teachers withabove average scores on all three scales, 2) Collaboration orientedteachers with above average scores on collaboration andconstruction, but not on student regulation 3) Construction orientedteachers with above average scores on construction, but belowaverage on student regulation and collaboration and 4) Teachers in

Table 5Teachers’ conceptions and behavior at the start of the study.

Teachers by score pa

Teachers by score pattern on ASL conceptions scales ASL-oriented

Group 1: ASL-oriented 5Group 2: Collaboration oriented 3Group 3: Construction oriented 1Group 4: Little ASL-oriented 3

Total 12

the category little ASL-oriented with below average scores on allthree scales. Multivariate analysis indicated that the groups scoresignificantly different from each other on the questionnaire on ASLconceptions (Wilks’ L¼ 0.513; F(9/63.428)¼ 2.224; p¼ 0.032).

The 32 teachers were also divided in three different groups,based on the students’ scores of their behavior. Unlike the groupdivision based on the teachers’ conceptions, a group with aboveaverage scores only on the construction scale could not be distin-guished. Hence three groups were created: A group of teacherswith ASL-oriented behavior, with collaboration oriented behavior,and a group with little ASL-oriented behavior. Multivariate analysisindicated that these three groups scored significantly different fromeach other on the student questionnaire on ASL behavior (Wilks’L¼ 0.359; F(9/63.428)¼ 3.684; p¼ 0.001).

The groups of teachers based on ASL conceptions do not signif-icantly differ in age (F(3/27)¼ 1.224; p¼ 0.272) or years of teachingexperience (F(3/27)¼ 1.224; p¼ 0.320), type of subject they teach:language and arts, sciences or social studies (contingency coeffi-cient (CC)¼ 0.249, approx. p¼ 0.909) or gender (CC¼ 0.105,approx. p¼ 0.949). Moreover, the groups of teachers based on ASLbehavior do also not significantly differ in age (F(3/27)¼ 1.026;p¼ 0.397), years of teaching experience (F(3/27)¼ 2.048;p¼ 0.130), subject taught (CC¼ 0.361, approx. p¼ 0.570) or gender(CC¼ 0.188, approx. p¼ 0.558).

Regarding the starting position of the teachers, Table 5 showsthat five teachers were already ASL-oriented in their conceptionsand behavior at the start of the study, while seven could beconsidered to be little ASL-oriented in conceptions and behavior.For a number of teachers conceptions and behavior did not corre-spond. Four teachers’ conceptions were ASL-oriented, while theirbehavior is little ASL-oriented, whereas three teachers are littleASL-oriented in conceptions, but according to their students showASL-oriented behavior.

In sum, it can be concluded that at the start of the study participantsconsiderably differed in the extent to which they were ASL-oriented inconceptions and behavior. For two thirds of the teachers conceptionsand behavior seem to be in line with each other. Membership of groupsbased on ASL conceptions or ASL behavior could not be related to age,years of teaching experience, subject taught or gender.

5.2. Teacher change

Pertaining to the second research question the data show thatafter a year 11 teachers had not changed in conceptions or behaviorand only one teacher became more ASL-oriented both in concep-tions and behavior. Seven teachers remained ASL-oriented in theirconceptions while five teachers remained ASL-oriented in theirbehavior. Six teachers remained little ASL-oriented in conceptionswhile 11 teachers remained little ASL-oriented in their behavior.

Table 6 provides an overview of the changes of all teachers bothin their conceptions and behavior. In this overview a teacher whosescores became significantly higher (as assessed with the RCI, seeSection 4.3.2) on at least one of the three scales is considered tohave become more ASL-oriented. A teacher who scored

ttern on ASL behavior scales

Collaboration oriented Little ASL-oriented Total

0 4 91 2 60 3 43 7 13

4 16 32

Table 6Number of teachers changed in conceptions and in behavior.

Change in behavior

Change in conceptions More ASL-oriented Not changed Less ASL-oriented Total

More ASL-oriented 1 4 2 7Not changed 4 11 6 21Less ASL-oriented 0 3 1 4

Total 5 18 9 32

A. Hoekstra et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 663–673 669

significantly lower on at least one of the three scales is consideredto have become less ASL-oriented.

Table 6 shows that two teachers showed an inconsistent changeas they changed towards more ASL-oriented conceptions buttowards less ASL-oriented behavior. Ten teachers changed inbehavior, but not in conceptions. Of these teachers four becamemore ASL-oriented and six became less ASL-oriented in behavior.Seven teachers changed in conceptions, but not in behavior. Ofthese teachers four became more ASL-oriented, while three becameless ASL-oriented in conceptions.

As regards teachers’ change scores, it can be concluded that onlyone teacher became more ASL-oriented in conceptions and behaviorand 11 teachers did not change at all. Two thirds of the teacherschanged in conceptions or behavior. However, these changes are notalways consistent and include teachers that became less ASL-oriented.

5.3. Teachers’ activities

To answer the third research question, the teachers’ learningexperience reports were analyzed. The 32 teachers reported 167learning experience reports in total. The minimum number oflearning experience reports was two, sent by one teacher. Themaximum number was nine, also sent by one teacher. As explainedin Section 4 each learning experience report consisted ofa description of a number of activities and events, coherentlyreported in relation to a certain learning outcome. In the 167reported learning experiences, a total of 246 activities could bedistinguished.

Table 7 shows how often an activity was found in the learningexperience reports of all 32 teachers together. These numbers arefollowed by a number between brackets that denotes how manyteachers reported this mode of the activity at least once.

5.3.1. ExperimentingAlmost all teachers (27) reported to have experimented at least

once. These experiments were mostly combined with an action-oriented mental level of activities. For instance, Alisson, a French

Table 7Frequencies of activities reported.

Mode of learning activity

Individual I

Main category of activities Meaning-oriented Action-oriented No orientationreported

M

Experimenting 10 (7) 37 (21) – 8Considering own teaching

practice38 (20) 22 (15) – 1

Experiencing discrepancies – – 45 (19) –Struggling with behavior 3 (3) 8 (6) – –Getting a new idea

from others7 (5) 18 (12) 2 (2) 5

Total 58 85 47 2

Note. Number between brackets indicates number of teachers who reported this activity

teacher wrote about a learning experience in which she experi-mented with ‘‘student lessons’’, where students prepare to teach andthen teach a part of the lesson. Alisson reported that she got theimpression that the students thought they learnt well this way, andthat they liked it. Alisson concluded: ‘‘I am positive about this teachingmethod and I will use it again’’. As Alisson did not report any thoughtson why she thought that the ‘‘students lessons’’ worked well, hermental level of activities can be considered action-oriented: itworked, so I will do it again. Alisson was one of the teachers who hadbecome more ASL-oriented in her conceptions after the year.

Experiments occurred mostly by teachers individually in theclassroom. Some teachers reported to have experimented incollaboration with peers. For instance Robert, a science teacher,who was ASL-oriented in his behavior and collaboration oriented inhis conceptions at the start of the study, was struggling with thenew requirements to have students realize what science really is.He describes that students have a simplistic idea of science: you aska question, undertake an experiment and then you know theanswer. Together with his science colleagues he developed anassignment for which groups of students had to conduct a studyand consider the role of theory, hypothesis, and experiment in thestudy. Students had to present their results to the whole group. Allscience teachers tried the assignment with the students and theyexperienced that students discussed the quality of each others’work almost in the same terms as general criteria for good research.The colleagues were happy with this result and decided to do thesame next year. After a year Robert had remained ASL-oriented inhis behavior and collaboration oriented in his conceptions.

5.3.2. Considering one’s own teaching practiceConsidering one’s own teaching practice was the most frequently

reported activity. These activities occurred either in combinationwith experimenting or with getting new ideas, or they occurred ontheir own. For instance Ted, an English teacher, reported that he wasworried about the low level of critical thinking of the students andtheir lack of knowledge about what was going on in the worldaround them. He had been considering the role of education insociety and what this means for his own teaching. He had read twonewspaper articles that helped him think about his own teachingpractice. One article argued that students should become more self-responsible and the second article reported about another school inthe Netherlands where students were regularly tested on currentnews issues. Ted discussed the matter with his students, who toldhim that they would like to actively practice their English skillsinstead of following the book. Ted then decided that he would bringmore news and controversial matters into the classroom, which hisstudents could discuss together in English or summarize in writtenEnglish. Ted concluded his report by stating that such changes are

n interaction with peers

eaning-oriented Action-oriented No orientationreported

Total timesreported

Relativefrequency %

(4) 7 (7) – 62 (27) 251 (8) 12 (8) 3 (2) 86 (30) 35

– 6 (3) 51 (22) 21– – 11 (9) 4

(4) 2 (2) 2 (2) 36 (21) 15

4 21 11 246 100

at least once.

A. Hoekstra et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 663–673670

necessary but that it brings more stress as it requires the teacher toconstantly change: in other words, it requires that he as a teacher‘‘could not teach in ‘automatic pilot mode’ anymore’’. This learningexperience report has two major activities: considering one’s ownteaching practice and getting new ideas from others (newspaper andstudents) in combination with a meaning-oriented level of mentalactivities. Ted’s conceptions had become more ASL-oriented at theend of the study.

5.3.3. Getting a new idea from othersIn the former example Ted obtained new ideas from a news-

paper article and from his own students. Two thirds of the teachersreported learning experiences that involved new ideas from others.These ideas would come from the media, from peers, from thestudents and sometimes from magazines for teachers. Often theideas were followed by action-oriented thoughts. For instance inthe case of Miranda who had become more ASL-oriented inconceptions after the year. Miranda teaches Dutch, the mothertongue of the students. She reported that in a magazine for teachersof Dutch she had found an interesting lesson format, wherestudents assess each others’ work. Miranda decided to use thisformat in the classroom. This activity of getting a new idea fromothers was considered to have an action-oriented mental level.

5.3.4. Learning by doingIn the analysis of the learning activity reports we could distin-

guish between two types of learning by doing. The first type isexperiencing a discrepancy. Teachers were confronted with unex-pected events. Pascal reports that a week before the last schoolexam he created an overview for the students with what they hadto know and know how to do. He had expected many questionsregarding the overview in the last lesson. To his disappointmenthalf the class did not show up and the other half did not seem toointerested (negative discrepancy). Pascal thus did not have suchhigh hopes for the final, but he decided not to change the level ofdifficulty. To his surprise the students scored reasonably high onthe final (positive discrepancy). He concludes his report: ‘‘Appar-ently the students are sufficiently able to take responsibility for theirown learning, as long as they know what is expected from them.’’Pascal was one of the teachers whose conceptions became moreASL-oriented over the year. Two thirds of the teachers reported tohave experienced discrepancies while teaching. These experiencesoften led to either experiments or to further consideration of one’sown teaching practice.

The second type of learning by doing is struggling with behavior.Only nine teachers reported this activity. Patty, for instance, is anEnglish teacher who became less ASL-oriented in her conceptions.She reports that she wanted her students to read the book ‘‘A Kiss

Table 8Average frequencies of activities per cluster of teachers based on change scores in conce

Main category of learning activity

Experimentinga Considering Learning by doing Gettiideas

Cluster ofteachers

N Experiencingdiscrepancies

Strugglingwithbehaviora

1 RemainedASL-oriented

7 2.6 5.4 2.0 0.1 0.5

2 Became moreASL-oriented

7 3.5 4.1 1.6 0.0 2.3

3 Did not change 14 1.6 3.3 1.8 0.5 1.04 Became less

ASL-oriented4 1.1 3.8 2.9 1.1 0.8

a Clusters differ significantly in the average number of reported learning activities (p<b These numbers represent the total amount of activities that involved a meaning-orie

before Dying’’ from Ira Levin. Patty had pointed out to the studentsthat they would have to read it on their own. After watching themovie of the book, she initiated a discussion about the differencesbetween the movie and the book so as to find out whether studentshad started reading the book and to warn the students that watchingthe movie would not suffice. About this warning she writes: ‘‘I wantedto move away from guided reading to independent reading, but some-where in the process I decided to intervene’’. So even though Pattywants to loosen the regulation, she felt inclined to once more takeover control over the students’ learning activities. Other teachersreported that they struggled with behavior and succeeded. Nicole, forinstance, sometimes succeeded in suppressing the behavioraltendency to intervene in student discussions.

In sum, the analysis of the teachers’ learning experiences showsthat the 32 research participants reported to have been engaged inactivities that in previous research are associated with teacherlearning (see Section 3.1). Each category of activities derived from theliterature was reported, however, not with the same frequency. Mostactivities were undertaken individually: alone or in the classroom withstudents, while one quarter of the activities reported occurred ininteraction with peers or experts.

5.4. Relation between activities and changes in conceptionsand behavior

To answer the fourth research question, the frequency and typeof activities reported by teachers who changed, were compared tothe activities reported by teachers who did not change. For thiscomparison four clusters of teachers were created.

5.4.1. Relation between activities and changes in conceptionsThe first cluster consists of teachers who were ASL-oriented at

the start of the study (group 1, Table 5), and remained so (no changeaccording to RCI index). These teachers were considered asa distinct group, because none of the teachers who were ASL-oriented in their conceptions became more ASL-oriented in theirconceptions, indicating a ceiling effect in the questionnaire on ASL-conceptions. Apart from this, it can be argued that the teachers whowere ASL-oriented at the start of the study, were not expected tochange anymore regarding the domain of the pedagogy of ASL.Cluster 2 includes the teachers who became more ASL-oriented intheir conceptions. Cluster 3 consists of those teachers who werecollaboration oriented, construction oriented or little ASL-oriented atthe start of the study (groups 2–4, Table 5) and who did not changein conceptions. Cluster 4 consists of those teachers who becameless ASL-oriented in their conceptions.

Table 8 shows the average frequencies of activities reported percluster of teachers. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that

ptions.

Orientation of mental activities Individual and collaborative activities

nga

Meaning-orientedb Action-orientedb All individualactivities

All collaborativeactivities

4.1 4.4 7.8 1.2

4.3 5.7 8.2 2.2

2.1 4.2 5.4 2.81.5 5.3 8.6 0.3

0.05).nted or action-oriented mental level of activities.

A. Hoekstra et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 663–673 671

the four clusters of teachers differed significantly in the frequencieswith which they reported experimenting (F(3/28)¼ 4.188;p¼ 0.014), struggling with behavior (F(3/28)¼ 3.287; p¼ 0.035)and getting ideas (F(3/28)¼ 3.116; p¼ 0.042).

Regarding the activities reported by the teachers who did notchange (cluster 3), the table shows that these teachers neverthelesshave reported activities that in literature on teacher learning areconsidered as learning activities. For this cluster of teachers,undertaking these learning activities however did not contribute toa change in ASL conceptions.

Regarding the activities reported by the teachers who becamemore ASL-oriented in their conceptions, the data show thatcompared to the other clusters, these teachers did experiment anddid get ideas from others more often. They did not report to havestruggled with behavior. A closer inspection of the data (not visiblein the table) revealed that for these teachers, getting ideas usuallyinvolved an action-oriented mental level of activities, whileexperimenting usually involved a meaning-oriented mental level ofactivities.

As regards the teachers who became less ASL-oriented in theirconceptions, the data show that these teachers reported to havestruggled with their behavior the most, and on average alsoexperienced more discrepancies. These teachers, moreover, did notreport many meaning-oriented mental levels of activities, or muchcollaboration.

In sum it can be concluded that the activities teachers report in thecontext of their learning experiences do not always contribute toa change in conceptions, at least not within a year. Getting ideas fromothers involving an action-oriented mental level of activities, andexperimenting involving a meaning-oriented mental level of activitiescan be related to a change in conceptions congruent with the reform. Acombination of relatively much struggling with behavior and experi-ences of discrepancies, without much experimenting or interactionwith peers, seems to contribute to a change incongruent with thereform.

5.4.2. Relation between activities and changes in behaviorAs regards the relation between activities and changes in

behavior, the data show (see Table 9) that this relation is lessstraightforward. As with conceptions cluster 1 teachers areteachers who were are already ASL-oriented and remained so(ceiling effect). The clusters based on teachers’ behavior differedsignificantly in the average frequency with which considering one’sown teaching practice was reported. Cluster 4 teachers, whobecame less ASL-oriented in behavior, most often reported toconsider their own teaching practice. It is striking that the clustersdo not differ significantly regarding the frequencies with whichteachers reported to have experimented. Closer examination (not

Table 9Average frequencies of activities per cluster of teachers based on change scores in behav

Main category of learning activity

Experimenting Consideringa Learning by doing Gettiideas

Cluster ofteachers

N Experiencingdiscrepancies

Strugglingwithbehavior

1 RemainedASL-oriented

5 3.0 3.6 1.4 0.4 1.0

2 Became moreASL-oriented

5 2.2 2.8 1.6 0.2 0.8

3 Did not change 13 1.8 2.7 1.6 0.6 1.64 Became less

ASL-oriented9 2.2 6.7 3.0 0.2 1.4

a Clusters differ significantly in the average number of reported learning activities (p<b These numbers represent the total amount of activities that involved a meaning-orie

visible in table) shows that teachers who became more ASL-oriented in behavior, most often involved meaning-oriented mentallevel of activities when experimenting, while the cluster 1 andcluster 4 teachers most often involved an action-oriented mentallevel of activities in their experiments.

The data also show that teachers in cluster 4 mostly reportedactivities they undertook individually and reported very littleactivities undertaken in collaboration.

In sum, these data indicate that the relation between the reportedlearning activities and changes in behavior is not straightforward. Verytentatively we could conclude that a focus on individual activities, andexperimenting involving mostly an action-oriented mental level ofactivities, and often considering one’s own teaching practice can berelated to a change towards less ASL-oriented behavior. More collab-orative activities and experimenting involving a meaning-orientedmental level of activities can be related to a change towards more ASL-oriented behavior.

6. Discussion

6.1. Teacher learning and teacher change in the context of reform

In the past decades in the Netherlands educational reform hasbecome the rule rather than the exception and teachers areconstantly required to change. We have aimed to describe teacherlearning under the circumstances that teachers commonly findthemselves: a context in which they are largely left on their own tounderstand and implement the requirements and practical applica-tions of an ambitious reform. The learning process of the teachers wasstudied regarding one particular domain of teaching: a new pedagogyof stimulating students’ active and self-regulated learning (ASL). Thefindings show that experienced teachers who are not supported byany type of professional development trajectory vary a lot in theextent to which they change in conceptions and behavior regardingthe reform and also in the direction of this change. Some teachersbecame less reform oriented throughout the year, which could berelated to teachers’ individual struggles with reform related teachingpractices. Other teachers were highly successful in collaborativelyimplementing some changes in their own teaching practice, andsome of these teachers also became more ASL-oriented in theirconceptions. The findings show that the new pedagogy is ambitiousand a difficult conception for teachers to understand as it isa considerable departure from traditional teacher–student relation-ships. Research into teacher learning regarding other domains, mayreveal other dynamics of learning activities and outcomes. Thesedynamics may depend on the level of difficulty or ambitiousness ofthe learning domain. For instance, the introduction of a new conceptin the subject matter content of the science curriculum may require

ior.

Orientation of mental activities Individual and collaborative activities

ng Meaning-orientedb Action-orientedb All individualactivities

All collaborativeactivities

3.3 4.7 6.5 2.7

2.8 3.2 5.2 2.6

2.0 4.2 5.7 2.34.2 6.2 10.0 0.9

0.05).nted or action-oriented mental level of activities.

A. Hoekstra et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 663–673672

a less ambitious departure from teachers’ regular teaching routinesthan the change towards stimulating ASL. Dynamics of activities andoutcomes may also depend on the extent to which teachers addressa learning domain independently or in collaboration (Meirink, 2007).

6.2. Implications for research into teacher learning

By relating self-reported learning activities to changes inconceptions and behavior measured in a standardized way bymeans of questionnaires, we have aimed at studying whetherworkplace activities that in former studies were considered to belearning activities do contribute to a change in conceptions and/orbehavior. Our findings confirm that what teachers themselvesreport to be activities in the workplace they learn from, fora number of teachers indeed seem to contribute to a change inconceptions or behavior. The fact that a meaning-oriented mentallevel of activities can be related to a change in conceptions as wellas behavior, confirms the importance of reflection as advocated bynumerous authors (e.g., Korthagen & Kessels, 1999).

Where teachers’ learning activities were formerly studiedprimarily on an action level or on a mental level, we have aimed atstudying both levels simultaneously and in relation to each other.Our findings indicate that it seems to matter what orientation ofthe mental level of activities is involved in a certain type of activity:experimenting involving a meaning-oriented level and gettingideas from others involving an action-oriented level of mentalactivities can be related to a change towards more ASL-orientedconceptions. This shows that it is worthwhile to take the relationbetween the action and mental level of activities into account infurther studies on teacher learning.

As regards the methodology of research into teacher learning inan informal learning environment, the use of student question-naires to measure teachers’ behavior and changes in behaviorseems to be promising. However, the results of this study show thatthe relation between the activities teachers reported during a yearand teachers’ changes in their behavior is not very straightforward.This might be due to the fact that we have relied on teachers’ ownreports of their learning experiences. Other studies, in which dataon teachers’ learning experiences were gathered in the same way,show that teachers mostly reported a change in cognition asa learning outcome (Meirink et al., 2007). Teachers may be moreinclined to perceive a change in cognition to be a learning outcome,rather than a change in behavior. Since learning in the workplacepartially remains implicit (Eraut, 2004), it is also possible thatteachers have not been aware of the activities that have contributedto a change in their behavior. As teacher learning does not onlyinvolve changes in cognition, but also changes in behavior, researchmethods should be developed that better examine the activities ofteachers that lead to a change in behavior. Methods that onlyinvolve teachers’ own reports do not seem to suffice.

6.2.1. Alone or in collaboration?Because of the small number of collaborative activities reported,

we could not distinguish whether the teachers with differentchange scores differed regarding the type and level of collaboration.Also teachers did not report in detail about the nature of theircollaboration. Typically they would say something like: ‘‘I did this bymyself’’ or ‘‘I did this with my colleagues’’. Collaborative activitiesdepend on whether colleagues are available for support andcollaboration. To better understand how individual teachers’learning is supported by collaborative activities in the workplace,the study of individual teachers’ activities should be combined witha study into the social and organizational factors that influencelearning in the workplace (Paredes-Scribner, 1999). This could, forinstance, be realized by relating the social aspects of learning

activities and social structures in the school (e.g., Jurasaite-Harbi-son, 2008) with the individual as well as the mental level ofactivities.

6.3. Limitations of the study

There are reasons to limit the conclusions to the particular situ-ation examined in this study. The first reason is that the picture ofinformal learning as is reported by the 32 teachers in this study maybe more ideal than it is for the average teacher in the Netherlandswho does not receive support for learning. This is because most ofthe 32 teachers’ motivation to join the study was that they wanted topay more attention to their own learning. The 32 teachers may thushave been more motivated to learn than the average teacher.

A second limitation is that in a naturally occurring informallearning environment, teachers are not asked to report about theirlearning experiences. At the end of the period of data collectionmany teachers reported that among all the activities they learnedfrom during the year, writing the learning experience report wasone of their more important learning activities. Teachers reportedthat they normally do not take the time to really consider theirlearning. Could it be, now that teachers actually took the time, theyhad a chance to consider their experiences in a more meaning-oriented way? This may also be the reason that thinking activitieswere most often reported. The learning experience reports werenevertheless a very valuable resource as they reveal teachers’ ownattributions regarding their learning and the reform.

In other words, the study shows how teachers learn if they areencouraged to write about their learning experiences. This may beas close as we can get to studying teachers’ everyday learning in aninformal setting. The fact that these experienced teachers trulystruggled to bring about real change in their classrooms shows usonce more how ambitious the new pedagogy is and what it meansfor teachers’ daily practice.

6.4. Practical implications

The most important implication of this study is that teachersdiffer in the way they learn informally within the context of thereform. Support for teacher learning should therefore be differen-tiated. Those teachers, who are continuously experimenting andcollaborating, should be encouraged in their endeavors. Theirlearning should be facilitated by giving these teachers ampleopportunities to interact with peers, to report about their learningand to access resources for learning. As for the teachers who workmore isolated and who experience more unexpected events andstruggle, we believe these teachers should be able to experimentwith new practices in a safe learning environment, where theirinterpretation of classroom situations is guided and where theirimmediate concerns are addressed. A teacher educator, ora colleague who adopts the role of peer–coach (Zwart et al., 2008)could give feedback on teachers’ learning experiences and thispeer-coach could help teachers see the relation between their ownbehavior and what the students do, by asking questions thatstimulate a meaning-oriented mental level of activities such as:Why did your teaching approach have these consequences? Whataspects of your behavior were relevant for this consequence andwhat aspects of the students’ behavior? A teacher educator mayalso provide alternative interpretations of classroom situations.

From the perspective of encouraging life-long learning, teachersmay also be helped to improve their informal ways of learning, byencouraging them to use a greater variety of tools for learning, suchas: Asking for peer feedback, reflecting in a meaning-oriented way,trying out new materials together with colleagues, and scanningthe environment for new ideas.

A. Hoekstra et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 663–673 673

In conclusion, we could say that the exploration of teachers’informal learning, reported on in this study, indicates that a teach-er’s focus on new practices in combination with a meaning-oriented mental level of activities may be the most conducive ofteacher change in conceptions in line with reform efforts.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Inge Bakkenes, JacobieneMeirink, and Rosanne Zwart for their great collaboration in datacollection and analysis. In addition we would like to thank theanonymous reviewers for their suggestions for improving thisarticle.

This research was funded by The Netherlands Organization forScientific Research (NWO) (Project no. 411-01-253).

References

Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J., & Wubbels, Th. Teacher learning in the context of innova-tion: The learning activities of experienced teachers. Paper presented at the 12thBiennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, August2007.

Bolhuis, S. (2000). Naar zelfstandig leren: wat doen en denken docenten?. [Towards self-directed learning: What do teachers do and think?] Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant.

Bolhuis, S., & Voeten, M. J. M. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of student learning andown learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10, 77–98.

Clarke, D. J., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professionalgrowth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.).London: Routledge Falmer.

D’Apollonia, S., & Abrami, P. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction.American Psychologist, 55, 1198–1208.

De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K., Bagby, R. M., Rolland, J. P., & Rouillon, F. (2006).Assessing and interpreting personality change and continuity in patientstreated for major depression. Psychological Assessment, 18, 71–80.

Dunn, T. G., & Shriner, C. (1999). Deliberate practice in teaching: what teachers dofor self-improvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 613–651.

Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Educa-tion, 26, 247–273.

Hoekstra, A., Beijaard, D., Brekelmans, M., & Korthagen, F. (2007). Experiencedteachers’ informal learning from classroom teaching. Teachers and Teaching:Theory and Practice, 13, 191–208.

Hofer, B. K., YuSh, L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Teaching college students to be self-regulated learners. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulatedlearning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 57–85). New York/London:The Guilford Press.

Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: a statistical approach todefining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 59, 12–19.

Jurasaite-Harbison, E. Teachers’ work-based learning in the school community: Howteachers in the United States and Lithuania grow professionally within their schoolcultures. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Associationannual meeting, New York, March 2008.

Klatter, E. (2003). Thinking about learning. Development of learning conceptionsduring the transition from primary to secondary education. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changingthe pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28, 4–17.

Kwakman, C. H. E. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professionallearning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149–170.

Little, J. W. (1999). Teachers’ professional development in the context of high schoolreform: Findings from a three-year study of restructuring schools. Berkeley, CA:University of California.

Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: openingup problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 18, 917–946.

Lohman, M. C., & Woolf, N. H. (2001). Self-initiated learning activities of experi-enced public school teachers: methods, sources, and relevant organizationalinfluences. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7, 59–74.

Mansvelder-Longayroux, D. D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio asa tool for stimulating reflection by student teachers. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 23, 47–62.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the work-place. London/New York: Routledge.

Meirink, J. A. (2007). Individual teacher learning in a context of collaboration in teams.Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University, the Netherlands.

Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers’ individuallearning in collaborative settings. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13,145–164.

Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how itdevelops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 877–904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. W., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2006). Secondary anduniversity teachers’ perspectives on self-regulated learning. In F. Oser,F. Achterhagen, & U. Renold (Eds.), Competence oriented teacher training: Oldresearch demands and new pathways (pp. 219–236). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

Paredes-Scribner, J. (1999). Professional development: untangling the influence ofwork context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35,238–266.

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self--regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16,385–407.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: implications of new views ofcognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbookof teachers and teaching (pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbookof research on teaching (pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American EducationalResearch Association.

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of EducationalResearch, 56, 411–436.

Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research,60, 531–547.

Smaller, H. (2005). Teacher informal learning and teacher knowledge: theory,practice and policy. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood, &D. Livingstone (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy (pp. 543–568).New York: Springer.

Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of EducationalResearch, 72, 387–431.

Straka, G. A. (2004). Informal learning: genealogy, concepts, antagonisms andquestions. [Electronic version]. ITB Forschungsberichte, 15, 1–17.

Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development andreform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137–158.

Van Eekelen, I. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Vermunt, J. (2003). Self-regulation in highereducation teacher learning. Higher Education, 50, 447–472.

Van Eekelen, I. M., Vermunt, J., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2006). Exploring teachers’ willto learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 408–423.

Verloop, N., Van Driel, J. H., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and theknowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35,441–461.

Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning andteaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257–280.

Veugelers, W. (2004). Between control and autonomy: restructuring secondaryeducation in the Netherlands. Journal of Educational Change, 5, 141–160.

Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rootedchange: the ‘‘filtering effect’’ of teachers’ beliefs on understanding trans-formational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81, 137–159.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academicachievement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zwart, R. C., Wubbels, Th., Bergen, Th. C. M., & Bolhuis, S. (2007). Experiencedteacher learning within the context of reciprocal peer coaching. Teachers andTeaching: Theory and Practice, 13, 165–189.

Zwart, R. C., Wubbels, Th., Bolhuis, S., & Bergen, Th. C. M. (2008). Teacher learningthrough reciprocal peer coaching: an analysis of activity sequences. Teachingand Teacher Education, 24, 982–1002.