at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e37

Contents lists available

Teaching and Teacher Education

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

Student teachers’ development of learning-focused conceptions

M.F.J. Swinkels a,b,*,1, M. Koopman a,1, D. Beijaard a,1

a Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlandsb Fontys University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 347, 5600 AH Eindhoven, The Netherlands

h i g h l i g h t s

� We investigated how to educate student teachers towards learning-focused teaching.� Conceptions of learning and teaching play a major role in learning-focused teaching.� The designed learning environment: authentic context and task, reflective dialogue.� Conceptions were changed after participation in the designed learning environment.� The change in conceptions was towards more learning-focused conceptions.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 1 June 2012Received in revised form19 March 2013Accepted 22 March 2013

Keywords:Teacher educationConceptions of learning and teachingLearning-focused teachingAuthentic learning environment

* Corresponding author. Fontys University of ApplieAH Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Tel.: þ31 (0)653680

E-mail addresses: m.swinkels@fontys.nl, m.f.j.swinm.koopman@tue.nl (M. Koopman), d.beijaard@tue.nl

1 Tel.: þ31 (0)402473095.

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.003

a b s t r a c t

Student teachers’ conceptions of learning and teaching influence the way they approach situations inteaching practice. To provoke a focus on student learning in student teachers during teacher education,new learning environments are needed. This study reports on results of a newly designed learningenvironment characterized by the use of authentic contexts, authentic tasks and reflective dialogues.Questionnaires, drawings, metaphors and learner reports were used to gain insight into the developmentof student teachers’ conceptions and the influence of the learning environment on this. Results indicatethat the learning environment contributed to more learning-focused conceptions of learning andteaching.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The purpose of this study is to investigate a learning environ-ment for student teachers inwhich they are supported to develop afocus on student learning during teacher education. A focus onstudent learning seems to be a key factor for becoming and being asuccessful teacher (Lidstone & Ammon, 2002). If student teachersmakewhat and how students learn a priority, they can better adjustthe curriculum, pedagogy and lessons to their students’ needs. Forteaching from a student learning perspective, it is essential thattheir conceptions of learning and teaching are directed towardsstudent learning (Pajares, 1992; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001). However,research shows that the attention of many student teachers is

d Sciences, P.O. Box 347, 5600879.kels@tue.nl (M.F.J. Swinkels),(D. Beijaard).

All rights reserved.

directed away from student learning by more prominent classroomdynamics, such as classroom management or instruction, and thatthey tend to develop survival-oriented strategies (Fuller & Bown,1975; Lidstone & Ammon, 2002; Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001).Their focus is more on developing their own professional skills andtheir expertise in transmitting content knowledge than on theirstudents’ learning and knowledge construction (Kember & Kwan,2000).

This teaching- or content-centred focus may be due to thedevelopmental phases student teachers go through. It is frequentlyargued that focussing on student learning is a process that takestime and develops in a sequential order (Lidstone & Ammon, 2002;Zhu, 2003). Student teachers are often thought to progress throughthe following stages of development: being concerned withthemselves and how to survive as teachers; being concerned withthe teaching situation; and finally having concerns that pertainmore to student learning (Fuller & Bown, 1975). This last stage isoften realised after having finished teacher education.

Another reason that student teachers do not focus on studentlearning during teacher education may be found in the way teacher

M.F.J. Swinkels et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e37 27

education is designed, with a curriculum that often stands apartfrom teaching practice itself, and with an emphasis on acquiringsubject and general pedagogical knowledge and skills (Lidstone &Ammon, 2002; Schelfhout et al., 2006). Linking theory and prac-tice with a specific concern for student learning is thus often left tostudent teachers themselves.

Student teachers’ focus appears to be intertwined with theirconceptions of learning and teaching (Pajares, 1992; Patrick &Pintrich, 2001; Prosser & Trigwell, 1997; Schelfhout et al., 2006).These conceptions act as a filter for how they interpret their envi-ronment, their relationship to that environment and the possibleactions in specific situations in their teaching practice (Kember &Kwan, 2000). Student teachers’ conceptions influence what theyconsider to be important to learn and adopt, and direct their con-cerns as beginner teachers. Conceptions also act as a filter throughwhich meaning is assigned to new knowledge and experiences.Student teachers’ conceptions are shaped by their prior experi-ences, before entering teacher education (Holt, 1992). They areoften difficult to change because they are part of student teachers’identities and carry strong personal meanings (Entwistle & Walker,2000). Teacher education’s challenge is to facilitate the change to-wards learning-focused conceptions of learning and teaching instudent teachers (Pajares, 1992; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001). Apromising way might be to stimulate the student teachers tobecome aware of and externalise their conceptions, and to relatethese to what is collectively seen as relevant in a continuous dia-logue with others (Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004; Schelfhoutet al., 2006).

The need to provoke a focus on student learning and developlearning-focused conceptions in student teachers is urgent ingeneral as well as in Technical Teacher Education which is thecontext of this study. Dutch Technical Teacher Education preparesfor vocational education regarding rapidly changing fields in whichself-regulated learning skills are required to keep up professionalexpertise. Current vocational education, in the Netherlands andinternationally, therefore emphasizes the development of students’competencies and their active construction and integration ofknowledge, skills and attitudes (Zimmerman, 2002; Zsiga &Webster, 2007). These innovations confront teachers with newtasks such as guiding students in regulating their own learning andcareer paths. For this, teachers’ focus on student learning is aprerequisite.

Accepting the importance of conceptions for enhancing a focuson student learning, the main question that underlies this study ishow we can effectively change student teachers’ conceptions in alearning environment in Technical Teacher Education in theNetherlands that was constructed to meet the goals of fostering astronger and earlier focus on student learning. The findings mayhave important implications for other teacher education pro-grammes, because focussing on student learning might be seen asthe core of a teacher’s expertise and professionalism which shouldnot be postponed or left as the student teacher’s own concern aftergraduation.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Student teachers’ conceptions

Conceptions can be seen as personal ideas or beliefs, in thisstudy regarding learning and teaching. Conceptions evolve throughexperiences in specific contexts in such a way that earlier forms co-exist and interact with more sophisticated ones. This process ofinteraction between conceptions and experiences continuouslyleads to a more elaborate framework of conceptions (Entwistle &Peterson, 2004; Pajares, 1992). Conceptions are instrumental in

interpreting educational situations and in the planning of anddeciding about appropriate behaviour (Pajares, 1992; Prosser,Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994). Conceptions are thus relational to stu-dent teachers’ intentions and teaching strategies, and are generallyconsistent with their teaching practices (Donche, 2005; Kember &Kwan, 2000; Prosser & Trigwell, 1997). Experiences in teachingpractice not only contribute to more elaborate conceptions; theymay also cause changes therein. Student teachers (STs), however,tend to accept and integrate the kind of information that fits, anddoes not conflict with existing conceptions (Patrick & Pintrich,2001).

Research on conceptions of learning and teaching shows thatthey are mostly described in terms of a continuum ranging fromconceptions that focus on knowledge transmission by the teacherto conceptions that focus on facilitating learning by the student(Kember, 1997). Transmissive conceptions can be described as be-ing content- and outcome-oriented, with a teacher-defined cur-riculum, and knowledge acquisition being most adequatelyachieved through transmission by experts. Learning-focused con-ceptions can be described as oriented towards students’ learningprocesses; teaching is regarded as facilitating learning and asprocess-oriented, with a curriculum in which students are stimu-lated to (co-)determine learning goals, to be active learners, and inwhich knowledge acquisition is achieved through active con-struction (Hermans, van Braak, & van Keer, 2008; Kember, 1997;Trigwell & Prosser, 1996). Learning-focused conceptions thusrepresent relevant elements of a constructivist model of learning.

During teacher education STs’ pre-existing conceptions tend tobe difficult to change through instruction (Patrick & Pintrich, 2001),so other ways have to be sought. To accomplish change of con-ceptions, these usually tacit conceptions have to be accessible.Conceptions can be addressed when they are externalized, shared,and reflected upon in a dialogue with others. Subsequently theymay be restructured and internalized in a different way, and thismay lead to change (Patrick & Pintrich, 2001), in this study pref-erably towards learning-focused conceptions. The change can beenhanced particularly if STs relate their conceptions explicitly totheir teaching practice, and investigate the implications of theirconceptions for student learning and their own teaching (Eley,2006; Tynjälä, 2008). This process can be promoted by a reflec-tive dialogue with others, thus being confronted with differentperspectives on student learning.

Another way that might promote learning-focused conceptionsis through actively involving STs in real educational contexts byassigning them inquiry-oriented tasks concerning student learning.These confrontations stimulate reflection upon what STs think andknow about teaching and student learning. Possible discrepanciesbetween STs’ conceptions, their knowledge and the possibilities foracting in the actual school context will encourage them to revisetheir conceptions, knowledge and strategies in order to fit thecontext. This is a process of contextualisation (Guile & Young, 2003;Patrick & Pintrich, 2001). In this process they assign specificmeanings to the concepts in use in the context, meanings which aredistinct from other possible meanings that arise in other situations(van Oers, 1998b). Learning in real educational contexts thus in-volves a continuous process of abstracting, reflecting and choosingnew contextualisations within actual environments (van Oers,1998b). Simultaneously, the new conceptual framework willchange STs’ perceptions of contexts and the possible ways to act inthose contexts. van Oers (1998a) defines this as a process ofcontinuous progressive re-contextualisation. The reflective dia-logue stimulates these activities. Fig. 1 shows the characteristics ofa learning environment that are supposed to bring about the pro-cess of continuous progressive re-contextualisation, a change inSTs’ conceptions and a focus on student learning.

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the study.

M.F.J. Swinkels et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e3728

2.2. A learning environment focused on changing student teachers’conceptions

Until now little research has been done on how to designlearning environments in teacher education that encouragelearning-focused conceptions of learning and teaching. In thisstudy, STs’ learning to teach can be defined as a process ofcontinuous progressive re-contextualisation that preferably takesplace in authentic contexts in which realistic tasks are used, and inwhich reflective dialogues evoke the change towards learning-focused conceptions and a congruent focus on student learning ina functional way (van Oers, 1998a; van der Sanden & Teurlings,2003). A learning environment (LE) on the basis of the combina-tion of these characteristics was designed for the third-year STs ofthe bachelor programme of an institute for Technical Teacher Ed-ucation. The characteristics will be described below (more concreteexamples of the characteristics are described in Section 3.3).

2.2.1. Reflective dialogueA reflective dialogue is defined here as a reflection on teaching

practice eliciting externalisation and exchange with others of con-ceptions, knowledge and experiences regarding learning andteaching. Reflective dialogues, in this study with peers and teachereducators, may support STs in revising their conceptual frameworkbecause of a better awareness of their conceptions and a betterunderstanding of student learning. Such a dialogue might forinstance be about an aspect of student learning, for instance self-directed learning, how a teaching strategy might induce this instudents, and what conceptions underlie this concept and strategy.This dialogue makes STs go beyond their individual frames ofreference and makes them consider new, preferably learning-focused, conceptions and knowledge about teaching (Kne�zi�c,Wubbels, Elbers, & Hajer, 2010; Marsick, 2001). In this study stu-dent learning and ways to induce this form the explicit content ofthe reflective dialogue. Actually, it is this combination of explicitlydiscussing how to promote student learning, and STs externalisingtheir conceptions that may support STs’ change in conceptions. Thedevelopment of learning-focused conceptions can furthermore beenhanced by the teacher educators modelling the behaviour that isaimed for (Richardson,1996; Schelfhout et al., 2006), for example byusing a specific educational approach in their lessons, and explain-ing it in the light of their own conceptions, whichmay induce betterinsight for the STs into its relevance and how to put it into practice.

2.2.2. Authentic contextIn this study we define authentic context as an educational

environment in real teaching practice that demands professional

decisions and actions regarding learning and teaching. Real lifesituations may result in seeing gaps and discrepancies in STs’strategies, knowledge and conceptions (Engeström, 1987). Being inan authentic context enables them to investigate and re-examinetheir conceptions of learning and teaching as well as the practicalimplications of those conceptions. For instance, when investigatingself-directed learning, they might reconsider how they view stu-dent learning and infer from that what their students’ learningtasks should look like. The central issue in this learning process isthe ability to give meaning to specific situations and to invokeadequate practical knowledge, skills and attitudes to interpret anddeal with them. The question of adequate conceptions and func-tional knowledge can particularly emerge when STs are confrontedwith real life issues and tasks (Tynjälä, 2008). Engaging STs inpractical activities may facilitate a change in their conceptionsbecause they wish to fit to the particular situation they are con-fronted with.

2.2.3. Authentic taskWe define an authentic task as a task which is relevant in a given

educational context with a focus on specific aspects, which in thisstudy concern student learning. An authentic task represents thecomplexity of teaching. In teacher education, authentic tasks oftenmainly relate to preparing (series of) lessons (Schelfhout et al.,2006). In our study, we choose to construct an authentic task thatconsists of designing a part of an educational programme for theschool and investigating aspects of student learning relevant forthis design as well as the effectiveness of the designed programme.Engaging STs in such authentic tasks asks from them to analyse aproblem, search for theories, hypothesize solutions, collect andanalyse data, and evaluate their starting-points. If the authentictask is focused on how students can be stimulated to learn, and onwhich aspects in a LE may support this, STs are forced to makeexplicit and reconsider their own pre-existing conceptions aboutlearning and teaching. This process asks for reflection and inter-pretation of educational situations and the exploration of thenecessary knowledge and skills, and decisions about appropriateteaching behaviours (van Oers, 1998a). Explicitly raising studentlearning as learning content in the programme, for example bymeans of supplying and discussing articles about self-directedlearning, and relating these insights to their school contexts, willencourage STs to acquire and restructure relevant knowledge aboutlearning and teaching and to adapt these to the situation and thesubject they want to teach (Lidstone & Ammon, 2002; Schelfhoutet al., 2006).

2.2.4. Continuous progressive re-contextualisationAuthentic tasks, practice in authentic contexts, and reflection

are common characteristics of many teacher education pro-grammes, but are often mainly related to workplace learning andless to systematic reflection on and contextualisation of academicknowledge about student learning (Woolfolk Hoy &Murphy, 2001).Moreover, STs’ often reflect only on their practical experiences,without explicitly taking into account their conceptions and ac-quired knowledge (Patrick & Pintrich, 2001). In the LE designed forthis study, making use of a combination of these characteristics inan integrated way may help STs bridging theory and practice anddeveloping learning-centred conceptions. The authentic task,authentic context, and reflective dialogue may thus reinforce eachother and affect the process of continuous progressive re-contextualisation on two levels. On a process-oriented level, STs’conceptions may become explicit and challenged, especially byconfrontation with the practical implications (contextualising) oftheir conceptions in the reflective dialogue (Kne�zi�c et al., 2010).Similarly, their design task combined with the implementation of it

M.F.J. Swinkels et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e37 29

in actual practice and their reflection on this may provoke STs’linking theory to practice (Woolfolk Hoy & Murphy, 2001). On acontent-oriented level, student learning serves as explicit subjectfor both the authentic task and the reflective dialogue. If a task isundertaken by STs, for instance designing a series of workshopsprovoking the integration of theory and practice in studentsregarding “becoming a car mechanic”, the various ways this specificsubject can be taught in a specific context could be investigated anddiscussed. Topics for dialogue might be the practical pros and consof teaching methods, the presuppositions that underlie STs’educational designs, and the possible effects of the design on theirstudents’ learning. These findings might in turn affect STs’ knowl-edge and conceptions (re-contextualising). Simultaneouslyaddressing STs on both a process-oriented and a content-orientedlevel, may direct STs towards a focus on their students’ learningthrough stimulating a process of interrelating theory on studentlearning, externalised conceptions and teaching practice.

2.3. Research questions

The followingmore specific research questions will be answeredin this study:

1. How are student teachers’ conceptions of learning and teachingchanged after the programme?

2. To what extent do learning experiences of student teachersreflect a focus on student learning?

3. Which characteristics of the learning environment have influ-enced the conceptions of learning and teaching and the focus ofthe student teachers?

3. Method

3.1. Design of the study

The present study is based on a pre-testepost-test design andwas carried out in the context of a programme for STs entitled“Student Learning in Vocational Education”. This programme wascarried out in the teacher education institute and the students’practice schools simultaneously. In total, the programme took placein one semester (February 2010eJuly 2010). To investigate theimpact of the programme, data were collected with the same in-struments before and after this programme.

3.2. Participants

The research took place in an Institute for Technical TeacherEducation which is part of a University of Applied Sciences in theNetherlands. This institute provides a bachelor degree for teachingtechnical subjects in vocational education, in domains like auto-motive technology, building and construction technology, andmechanical and electrical engineering.

STs are trained to teach students in technical vocational edu-cation. In technical vocational education students develop com-petencies necessary for starting their working careers in technicalprofessions. There are two levels of vocational education in theNetherlands, that is Pre-Vocational Secondary Education (PVSE;ages from 12 to 16) and, subsequently, Senior Secondary VocationalEducation (SSVE; ages approximately between 16 and 20). STs fromthe Technical Teacher Education Institute are trained to teach thesestudents technical skills and knowledge, often within competence-based learning environments. These environments focus on, forinstance, stimulating students’ self-directed learning and activeconstruction of knowledge, skills and attitudes by means of job-oriented tasks (Zimmerman, 2002).

Ten STs in their third year of teacher education participated inthis study. Because of the use of reflective dialogues, a group size often STs was chosen. They formed a representative selection on thebasis of discipline, background and age. After an introduction of thestudy, in which anonymity of the participants was guaranteed, allSTs agreed to participate. All STs were male. On average they were23.6 years old, their ages ranged from 20 to 28. They were STs fromtwo different departments, namely Automotive, and Building andConstruction Technology. Their training lasts four years. In the firsttwo years great emphasis is placed on the study of their subject andon more general aspects of teaching such as school organisation,the curriculum and classroom management. In the last two yearsthe emphasis is placed on how to promote student learning andhow to design adequate programmes to facilitate this.

3.3. Programme and learning environment

During one semester, STs participated in a learning communityat the institute for half a day a week and in a school for one day perweek. The programme was both process-oriented and content-oriented. Pertaining to the process, STs were engaged in activitiesregarding educational design and research, teaching, and reflection.The content concerned aspects of student learning such as cogni-tive and meta-cognitive learning activities, motivation, and self-regulated and collaborative learning. Learning content wasrelated to teaching practice by means of authentic tasks and con-texts. The STs were coached by teacher educators of the instituteand by mentors in schools by means of reflective dialogues. Thesecharacteristics will be described below.

3.3.1. Authentic taskThe authentic task was presented at the start of the semester

and was aimed at focussing STs’ attention on relevant aspects oftheir students’ learning and relating theoretical notions to practicalsituations. The task entailed: (1) designing (a part of) an educa-tional programme for the students at their practice school, (2)performing practice-orientated research as a basis for the devel-opment of the programme, (3) carrying out this programme in theirpractice school, (4) investigating the effects of the programme ontheir students’ learning, and (5) reflecting on and discussing theirfindings and experiences with others. By giving this kind of designtask STs were forced to work out autonomously how to promotestudent learning instead of focussing mainly on teaching strategies.Besides they were challenged to integrate theory and practice. Anexample of such a task is the design of a series of lessons regardingthe characteristics and use of building materials. When designingthese lessons STs were encouraged to expand their knowledge on,for instance, how to promote deeper learning in students or theirstudents’ preferred learning strategies. They could do this usingvarious sources of literature, by questioning their mentors, andusing the feedback of their peers. Systematic research methodswere used to underpin their findings. Subsequently they had tointegrate this acquired knowledge in their design and their teach-ing strategies. At the end of the task the STs had to account for theirdesign, and reflect critically on their own learning process andconceptions of learning and teaching.

3.3.2. Authentic contextSeven practice schools (3 PVSE; 4 SSVE) were involved. The

number of students in STs’ classrooms varied from 12 to 20. Re-quirements for participating schools were: (1) the availability of amentor who was willing to coach by means of reflective dialogues,(2) opportunities for STs to develop and teach a relevant educa-tional programme, and (3) opportunities to investigate the effectsof this programme on the students’ learning. During their

Table 1Scales, number of items, reliability and sample items of the questionnaire.

Scales Numberof items

a Sample item

Conceptionsof learning

Transmissive 11 0.74 “Learning meansthat learning contentis being transmitted”

Constructivist 15 0.82 “Most importantin learning is studentsregulating their ownlearning processes”

Conceptionsof teaching

Transmissive 8 0.74 “The most important taskof the teacher is transmitting

M.F.J. Swinkels et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e3730

internship the STs were encouraged to work together in pairs andcritically reflect on each other’s work. Six STs worked in pairs, whilefour worked individually.

3.3.3. Reflective dialogueIn this study, the main part of the interaction between teacher

educators or mentors and ST’s occurred in reflective dialogues. Inthese dialogues, ST’s were stimulated to reflect about their con-ceptions about learning and teaching, about the acquired knowl-edge involved, and about their experiences. Teacher educators ormentors encouraged reflection by asking questions and providingfeedback, taking the experiences STs gained through the authentictask and in the authentic context as a starting point for discussions.

All the teacher educators and mentors involved were instructedbeforehand about how to carry out a reflective dialogue. Thereflective dialogue of teacher educators or mentors included, forexample, asking STs questions about what they wanted to achievewith their students and why, how they intended to do this, andwhich decisions underlay the programme they wished to developand execute. It was important that, through these questions, the STswere encouraged to find their own solutions and to investigatethese critically, instead of being given possible answers. Forexample, STs searching for methods to stimulate students to learndeeply about constructional design might be asked what kind ofstudent behaviour was aimed for, what they expected to see, andhow these expectations related to their conceptions on studentlearning. More concretely, in this study the design for a projectabout the use of environmental energy in which PVSE studentswere stimulated to increase their self-directed learning, was criti-cally questioned by their teacher educator from the perspective ofeducational psychology and the STs’ underlying conceptions abouthow they view students’ learning. Simultaneously, the mentor inthe school discussed the structure of their design in view of stu-dents’ prior knowledge and skills. The process of reflecting on andintegrating these various considerations, resulting from the com-bination of task and dialogue, was supported by the teachereducator.

3.4. Instruments

In most research on conceptions of learning and teaching, in-terviews, reports, and questionnaires are used (Donche, 2005;Entwistle & Peterson, 2004; Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001; Trigwell& Prosser, 1996). Other ways of investigating these conceptionsinclude using drawings (Katz et al., 2011; Mensah, 2011). In thisstudy, various methods were used to map out the richness andcomplexity of the process of change in STs’ conceptions, namelyquestionnaires, drawings, and metaphors. Learner reports wereused to gain insight into the STs’ learning experiences and howthese were influenced by the LE.

3.4.1. QuestionnaireFor the questionnaire, validated items regarding conceptions of

learning (Leeferink2) and teaching (Hermans et al., 2008) wereused. The questionnaire was administered to a group of STs(N ¼ 170), including the ten participants in this study. The ques-tionnaire consisted of 41 items rated on a five-point Likert scale(1 ¼ completely disagree; 5 ¼ completely agree). Factor analysisregarding this study confirmed a two-factor structure, i.e. a trans-missive and a constructivist learning and teaching style. Thetransmissive style can be described as being oriented towards

2 Unpublished document, permission to use and publish granted by H. Leeferink,2011.

content and teaching, with the teacher being perceived as an experttransmitting knowledge. The constructivist style can be describedas oriented towards students actively constructing knowledge andregulating their own learning processes; the teacher is regarded asfacilitating students’ learning processes. The two dimensions wereuncorrelated. The reliability of all scales of the questionnaire wassufficient. Table 1 gives an overview of the scales, their Cronbach’sAlphas and sample items per scale.

3.4.2. MetaphorsMetaphors regarding conceptions of learning and teaching

(Leeferink2) were added to the questionnaire. The theoreticalconstructs of the questionnaire also underlay the metaphors. Themetaphors were first presented to a test group of STs; elevenmetaphors were interpreted unambiguously. In the present studythe STs were asked to choose which metaphor best representedhow students should learn. Metaphors T1, T2 and T3 representedtransmissive conceptions, Metaphors C1 and C2 constructivist ones.Next the STs were asked which metaphor was the worst at repre-senting how students should learn. The same procedure was fol-lowed for metaphors about how students should be taught.Metaphors T1, T2 and T3 represented transmissive conceptions,and Metaphors C1, C2 and C3 constructivist ones. In order to checkif the metaphors were interpreted correctly, we asked the STs toexplain their answers. Table 2 gives an overview and description ofthe scales, and the metaphors.

3.4.3. DrawingsThe STs were asked to make drawings about: (1) students while

they are learning and (2) themselves while they are teaching. Thedrawings were used to gain insights into STs’ conceptions oflearning and teaching. STs were given 30 min to make the twodrawings on a blank piece of paper (A3 size). In order for the re-searchers to be able to interpret the drawings correctly, the STswere asked to briefly describe what was happening in the drawing,to mention five core concepts that were important for what washappening in the drawing and to say what they would like to addwhich could not be expressed in the drawing.

3.4.4. Learner reportsLearner reports were used to gain insight into STs’ learning

experiences and their focus, and to find out which characteristics ofthe programme and LE had influenced their learning experiences.In the course of the programme the STs were asked fortnightly, bymeans of five questions, to report on their relevant learning expe-riences regarding: (1) what they learnt, (2) how they learnt, (3) theeffect of the learning experience in terms of what it brought about

facts and insights”Constructivist 7 0.72 “Students should be given

room to determine their ownlearning goals”

Table 2Metaphors and underlying constructs.

Scales Scale description Metaphors

Conceptionsof learning

Transmissive Content- and outcome-orientedlearning; content and/or strategiesdefined and transmitted by teacher

T1: Learning is like using toolsT2: Learning is like laying bricksT3: Learning is like filling an empty stomach

Constructivist Process-oriented learning; self-regulationby students; students as active learners

C1: Learning is like designing and maintaining a gardenC2: Learning is like travelling in an unknown country

Conceptionsof teaching

Transmissive Content- and outcome-oriented;teacher regulating learning; knowledgedefined and/or transmitted by teacher

T1: Teaching is like fitting out a workroom(for instance a kitchen or a garage) in which studentsdo jobs or make gearT2: Teaching is like guiding pupils through an unknowncity while stimulating their commitment and enthusiasmbut mapping out and controlling their routeT3: Teaching is like passing on an inheritance by transferringteachers’ possessions to students

Constructivist Process-oriented teaching; facilitatingstudent learning; stimulating self-regulationby students; stimulating active learning

C1: Teaching is like organising a climbing expeditionin which students have to collaborate to finish successfullyC2: Teaching is like organising a searchin which students should discoverand determine their routeC3: Teaching is like making availablea scenery that students have to fit outand tend to autonomously, with the teachermonitoring students’ activities meticulously

M.F.J. Swinkels et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e37 31

in the ST, (4) the way they used what they had learnt in the school,and (5) which characteristics of the programme or LE had influ-enced the learning experience. The number of learner reportssubmitted per participant varied from five to nine.

3.5. Data analysis

3.5.1. QuestionnairesFor each ST, mean scores per dimension, i.e. transmissive and

constructivist, were calculated for the conceptions of teaching andlearning. Pre-test and post-test scores per ST were compared to seeif there was a meaningful difference before and after the pro-gramme. The cut-off point for meaningful changewas decided to bea difference of a half standard deviation (SD) between pre- andpost-test score of each ST.

3.5.2. MetaphorsFor each ST the choices for the metaphors for learning and

teaching were scored, using a priori determined labels for eachmetaphor, i.e. transmissive or constructivist. Pre-test and post-testpreferences of each ST were subsequently compared.

3.5.3. DrawingsFor each ST the drawings were analysed in several phases,

following an inductive method. First, the drawings about learningand teachingwere fully described by going to and from the raw datauntil the description was considered saturated. Then labels wereascribed to the descriptions and subsequently compared with theanswers to the supplementary questions to decide if the drawingshad been interpreted correctly. A category systemwas developed asit emerged from the labels and overarching themes were chosen todecide for each student whether and how a change in conceptionshad occurred. Theory on conceptions formed the bases for thischoice (see Section 2.1). Lastly, the drawings made before and afterthe programme were compared to see if there was a difference.

3.5.4. Learner reportsTo analyse the learner reports, an inductive method was fol-

lowed. The learner reports were first divided into segments; a newsegment started when a different subject was introduced. Subse-quently labels were ascribed to these segments. Statements

regarding the five questions of the learner report were coded usingcategories such as student or teacher control, the relation betweentheory and practice, and the role of motivation for student learningprocesses. Statements regarding the characteristics of the LE thatwere described as influential on these learning experiences werelisted and categorized. The characteristics of the LE, i.e. authenticcontext, authentic task and reflective dialogue, were used as over-arching categories.

3.5.5. Within- and cross-case analysisFor each ST the data per instrument were summarized and

displayed in a matrix (within-case analysis). The rows representedthe data from the questionnaires, metaphors, drawings and learnerreports. The columns represented the time: before, during and afterthe programme. Representative quotes from the learner reportswere added. Subsequently the data in the matrix were comparedand combined, followed by an investigation into which resultscorroborated each other and which differed. This resulted in aportrait for each participant of: (1) the ST’s (change in) conceptions,(2) the main topics of the ST’s learning experiences and their ef-fects, (3) whether a focus on student learning was developed, and(4) which characteristics of the LE the ST described as influential onhis learning experiences. Each portrait was illustrated with repre-sentative quotes from the learner reports. In the Results section wewill describe such a portrait into more detail.

To compare the 10 portraits, they were analysed cross-case. Amatrix was developed to display the data of all 10 participantstogether (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The participants representedthe rows of the matrix. The columns successively represented: (1)the degree and direction of change of conceptions per instrument,(2) the topics related to the change of conceptions as apparent inthe drawings, (3) the degree of congruence between the three in-struments regarding conceptions, (4) topics of the learning expe-riences as they were apparent from the learner reports, and (5)influential characteristics of the LE mentioned in the learner re-ports. The topics of the learner reports were compared with thoseof the drawings to see if the same topics emerged. This was deemednecessary to decide if the characteristics of the LE described asinfluential on the learning experiencesmight apply to the change inconceptions as seen in the drawings. Each column was studied inorder to draw conclusions regarding the three research questions.

Table 4Summary of the results of the metaphors per ST.

ST Conceptions of learninga Conceptions of teachingb

Best Least Best Least

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

1 Peter T1 T1 T3 T2 T2 C3 C3 T32 Josh T2 C1 C1 T3 T2 T2/C3c T1 T33 John C2 C1 T3 T3 T2 C3 T3 T34 Simon T1 T1 T3 C2 C3 C2/C3c T1 T3

M.F.J. Swinkels et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e3732

3.5.6. ReliabilityIn line with an audit procedure (cf. Akkerman, Admiraal,

Brekelmans, & Oost, 2006), the reliability of all coding processes,as well as the justifiability and acceptability of the analyses, werechecked by another researcher. The raw data, coded data, categorysystem, the results per instrument and per case, portraits, andconclusions were placed at the disposal of the auditor. The mannerin which the data were gathered and analysed was judged to beaccurate and acceptable.

5 Colin T2 C1 C2 T3 C3 C1 C3 T26 Victor C2 C1 T3 T3 T2 T2 T3 C17 Willy C1 C1 C2 C2 C3 C3 C2 T28 Philip C2 C2 T2 T2 T2 C1 T3 T39 Jack C2 T1/C2c T3 T3 T2 T1/C2c T3 T310 Barry C2 C2 T3 T3 T2 C2 T3 T3

a Conceptions of learning: transmissive: T1, T2, T3; constructivist: C1, C2.b Conceptions of teaching: transmissive: T1, T2, T3; constructivist: C1, C2, C3.c Despite instructions some ST chose two metaphors when asked which meta-

phors represented best how students should learn or be taught.

4. Results

In the following sections the changes in STs’ conceptions perinstrument, their learning experiences and focus on studentlearning, and the characteristics of the LE that have influenced theconceptions will be described respectively. Because of the smallnumber of participants and the level of variability within thisgroup, the results will further be described on an more qualitativeand individual level. To provide more insight into what actuallyhappened, one ST will be described as a case.

4.1. STs’ change in conceptions

4.1.1. QuestionnaireTable 3 shows that for both thepre-test andpost-test the scores of

all constructivist conceptions were on average higher than of thetransmissive conceptions. Also, transmissive teaching scores wereconsiderably lower than transmissive learning scores, whileconstructivist teaching scores were just a bit higher than construc-tivist learning scores. Regarding transmissive conceptions of learningand teaching the pre-test showed a mean score of 3.08 for learningand 2.67 for teaching. At post-test, STs’ transmissive conceptionsshowed a mean score of 2.81 for learning and 2.48 for teaching.Regarding constructivist conceptions of learning and teaching, thepre-test showed amean score of 3.40 for conceptions about learningand 3.54 for teaching. At post-test constructivist conceptions oflearning had a mean score of 3.41, and of teaching of 3.63.

Looking at the changes that occurred (accepting a cut-off pointof a half SD as meaningful change) regarding transmissive concep-tions, seven STs showed less transmissive conceptions of learningafterwards, one showed more. Four STs showed less transmissiveconceptions of teaching, two showed more, four remained almostthe same. Constructivist conceptions of learning averagely remainedthe same, but four STs showed more constructivist conceptionsafterwards and two showed less (four remained almost the same).Regarding constructivist conceptions of teaching: three STs showed

Table 3Summary of the results of the questionnaire per student teacher (ST) on a scale from 1 t

ST Conceptions of learning

Transmissive Constructivist

Pre Post Pre

1 Peter 3.45 2.82 3.002 Josh 2.91 2.55 3.673 John 2.91 2.82 2.934 Simon 2.91 2.55 3.675 Colin 3.90 2.55 3.406 Victor 3.27 3.00 3.407 Willy 3.55 2.91 3.538 Philip 2.36 2.09 3.339 Jack 2.45 3.77 3.8010 Barry 3.09 3.00 3.27

Mean 3.08 2.81 3.40SD 0.45 0.42 0.27

more constructivist conceptions afterwards, and four showed less.Three STs didn’t show a meaningful change.

The overall pattern is that a subgroup of six STs (1e6) showed anincrease in constructivist and a decrease in transmissive concep-tions of learning and teaching; a subgroup of four STs (7e10)showed a decrease in their (initially relatively strong) constructivistconceptions, while their transmissive ones remained almost equal.An example of a change towards constructivist conceptions is Colin,decreasing in his transmissive scores from 3.90 to 2.55 on learning,and from 3.75 to 2.88 on teaching. His constructivist scoresincreased from 3.40 to 3.67 for learning, and from 2.29 to 3.57 forteaching. At the pre-test, for instance, he filled in ‘2’ (disagreeing)for the item “Students learn best when theywork according to theirown learning goals” (constructivist item), while at the post-test hefilled in ‘5’ (completely agreeing) for this item. Also, looking at atransmissive item, at the pre-test he filled in ‘4’ (agreeing) for theitem “learning means that knowledge is being transmitted to you”,while at the post-test he filled in ‘2’ (disagreeing) for this item.

4.1.2. MetaphorsIn the metaphors (see Table 4), regarding the pre-test concep-

tions of learning, six STs chose a constructivist metaphor that rep-resented best how students should learn, four chose a transmissivemetaphor. Seven STs chose a transmissive metaphor that repre-sented this least. Regarding pre-test conceptions of teaching, onlythree STs chose constructivist metaphors representing best howstudents should be taught. Seven STs chose transmissivemetaphorsrepresenting this least.

o 5.

Conceptions of teaching

Transmissive Constructivist

Post Pre Post Pre Post

3.40 3.13 3.38 2.57 2.713.73 2.13 1.13 4.00 4.713.53 2.25 2.13 3.00 3.863.93 2.38 2.38 4.14 4.293.67 3.75 2.88 2.29 3.573.40 2.13 2.13 3.14 3.293.47 3.13 2.75 3.71 3.432.67 2.75 1.50 4.00 3.403.33 2.75 3.63 4.71 3.713.00 2.25 2.88 3.86 3.293.41 2.67 2.48 3.54 3.630.34 0.51 0.75 0.72 0.53

Fig. 2. Drawing of student teacher while he is teaching (Barry, pre-test).

M.F.J. Swinkels et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e37 33

Looking at the changes in the choice of the metaphors regardingthe conceptions of learning, two STs showed a shift towards moreconstructivist conceptions after the programme compared to thepre-test when asked which metaphors represented best how stu-dents should learn. Regarding the conceptions of teaching, six STsshowed a shift towards more constructivist conceptions after theprogramme. Mainly the same shifts were visible when asked whichmetaphors represented leasthowstudents should learn or be taught.

An example of a ST with a constructivist shift is Josh, who at thepre-test chose ”Learning is like laying bricks” (T2) as the metaphorwhich represents best how students should learn, while choosing“Learning is like designing and maintaining a garden” (C1) at thepost-test. Precisely this lastmetaphorwas chosen by him at the pre-test to represent least how students should learn. At the post-test hechose “Learning is like using tools” (T1) as representing this least.

Overall STs either maintained or moved towards constructivistperspectives after the programme, ending up with only two STswith transmissive conceptions of learning and one with trans-missive conceptions of teaching.

4.1.3. DrawingsOverall the pre-test scores show more transmissive than

constructivist elements in the drawings (81 vs. 54; see Table 5).Regarding the pre-test drawings of learning, seven STs showedmore transmissive than constructivist elements; only one (Willy)showed clearly more constructivist elements. Regarding teaching,also seven STs showed more transmissive elements, while threeshowed more constructivist ones.

Regarding the post-test drawings about learning, all STs showedmore constructivist elements compared to the pre-test. Nine STsshowed less transmissive elements. Regarding the drawings aboutteaching, eight STs showed more constructivist elements in thedrawings after the programme, one showed less (Colin), and oneshowed no difference (Willy). Eight ST showed less transmissiveelements afterwards, two showed slightly more. Fig. 2 displays anexample of Barry’s pre-test drawing about teaching, demonstratingmainly transmissive elements, such as the teacher transmittingcontent with the help of a smart board, and a student learning byfrontal instruction. His post-test drawing about teaching showsmainly constructivist elements, such as self-directed learning,practice-oriented tasks, and the teacher as coach (Fig. 3). Thisinterpretation was guided by Barry’s description of what washappening in the drawing.

Overall STs ended up with a considerable shift towardsconstructivist conceptions of learning and teaching, and with adecrease in transmissive conceptions. In fact, four STs showed notransmissive elements in their post-test drawings at all. The most

Table 5Summary of the results of the drawingsa per ST.

ST Conceptions of learning

Transmissive Constructivis

Pre Post Pre

1 Peter 4 0 22 Josh 3 0 13 John 6 3 24 Simon 4 2 45 Colin 7 2 36 Victor 7 0 57 Willy 0 2 68 Philip 3 0 19 Jack 8 0 410 Barry 1 0 2

Total 43 9 30

a The digits represent the number of transmissive or constructivist codes that were as

important changes in the drawings concerned the role of theteacher,which changed fromthe transmission of knowledge in frontof the classroom towards the coaching of students while learningcollaboratively. Furthermore, conceptions changed from teachertowards student control and a greater attention to students’ self-regulated learning and ownership. Also the way subject matter isdealt with changed from STs transmitting knowledge to studentsactively constructing knowledge. At post-test, STs’drawings showeda stronger relation between theory and practice than at pre-test.

4.1.4. Summary of ST’s changes in conceptionsOverall we can say that for six STs the change in conceptions is

consistent across the measures (1e6), meaning a shift towardsmore constructivist conceptions and diminishing of transmissiveconceptions, though in the metaphors one of them remainedalmost the same (Victor). For the others (7e10) there is evidence ofthe same change in the drawings and in the metaphors of teaching(in the metaphors of learning they remained constructivist). But forthese four, the questionnaire also showed a change towards lessconstructivist conceptions, while the transmissive ones showeddiverse scores.

4.2. STs’ learning experiences and focus on student learning

The learning experiences described in STs’ learner reports gavemore insight into the character and content of the changes inconceptions, and thus the focus of STs. Overall, the content of the

Conceptions of teaching

t Transmissive Constructivist

Post Pre Post Pre Post

6 3 0 0 79 5 0 0 37 4 2 1 89 4 1 6 95 6 7 3 2

15 6 1 4 99 5 0 4 48 1 0 3 78 0 1 3 8

14 4 0 0 1090 38 12 24 67

cribed to the drawing.

Fig. 3. Drawing of student teacher while he is teaching (Barry, post-test).

M.F.J. Swinkels et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e3734

learning experiences described in the learner reports corre-sponded with the topics seen in the post-test drawings. Corre-sponding constructivist elements emerged in both measures, suchas the necessity to integrate theory and practice. Only few remarkswere made from a transmissive perspective in the learner reports.All STs showed a focus on student learning in their descriptions.

The descriptions particularly dealt with STs’ concern for stu-dents’ processes of deep learning and how to stimulate theirthinking, reflection, and explication processes. For instance:

Because a student wants to explain something, he reflects aboutwhat he knows about the subject matter. He then structures hisknowledge in order to be able to explain it to his peer. In commu-nicating he goes through the subject matter again. Because of thisprocess, deep learning takes place (John, learner report (LR) 2).

Also the search for teaching activities that would enhance theprocess of deep learning in students was often mentioned, forinstance:

Students have to acquire their own answers for [practical]problem-based tasks. By acquiring their knowledge autonomously,the information sinks in better, and thus deep learning may bearoused (Victor, LR 7).

The learning experiences in the learner reports further con-cerned the role of affective learning activities and how to connectwith experiences of students. Furthermore, an emphasis could benoticed on students’ learning processes regarding relating andintegrating theory and practice.

Some STs, for instance Jack and Barry, also explicitlydescribed the activities of the teacher educator as being effectivefor their own learning process. They mentioned to have adoptedthese activities themselves in their own teaching. This mightindicate that the modelled behaviour had an influence on theirteaching.

This especially concerned activities as discussing with andexplaining to peers, and learning by practical tasks while relatingthese to theoretical concepts, for instance:

What I also learned is that if students are doing practical tasks, theyare open for new information. When they take up a practical taskyou can tell them anything about the subject matter, howeverprofound, and they will listen attentively. In my opinion this is thebest way to teach (Barry, LR 4).

In the learner reports of four STs the descriptions of theirteaching activities were also phrased from the perspective of theirdevelopment as a teacher and of their teaching skills, besides beingfocused on student learning, for instance:

My knowledge about designing an educational arrangement hasincreased enormously. Learning processes of students are more inmy focus of attention because of the learning process I wentthrough. Before I often looked at things I found important, but it ismore important to look at what a student already knows and whatI can teach them more (Jack, LR 7).

4.3. Influencing characteristics of the LE

Regarding the characteristics in the LE that STs reported to haveinfluenced their learning experiences (see Table 6), most STsattributed their learning experiences to observation of and inter-action with students (pertaining to the authentic context), theirteaching activities and the design task (pertaining to the authenticcontext and task), the research task and their participation in thelearning community, including the contents that were dealt withtherein (pertaining to the authentic task), and dialogue with others(pertaining to the reflective dialogue). All students mentionedteaching activities, participation in the learning community andcontents raised, and the dialogue.

The combination of design task and teaching activities wasvisible in the learner reports of nine STs. The following exampleshows how this combinationworked out on STs’ learning processes,also pointing out the role of the reflective dialogue in which theconcept of deep learning was introduced:

Through having acquired an overview on the whole project [to bedesigned], it is easier to design a learning concept for the whole[project]. Every subject fits in and has meaning for my stu-dents.This way you are able to design and bring about deeplearning in students (Victor, LR 5).

Across learner reports the combination of task, teaching activ-ities, and reflection by means of a dialogue together is mentionedoften as stimulating their learning process or changing their way ofthinking about learning and teaching (see Table 6).

In contrast to the majority of STs, three STs (Willy, Philip, Barry)did notmention the interactionwith students as influential on theirlearning experiences. John mentioned neither design, nor researchtask.

4.4. The case of Simon

To provide more insight into the results and in how a ST learntduring the programme, we elaborate on the results of Simon (seeTable 7). Simon is a twenty year old ST in Automotive Technology.

Table 6Summary of the results regarding reported influential characteristics in learner reports.

ST ACa AC and ATb At RDc

Observation Interactionwith students

Teachingactivities

Designtask

Researchtask

Learningcommunity & content

Dialogue

1 Peter X X X X X X X2 Josh X X X X X X3 John X X X X X4 Simon X X X X X X X5 Colin X X X X X6 Victor X X X X X X X7 Willy X X X X X8 Philip X X X X X9 Jack X X X X X X X10 Barry X X X X X X

a AC: contributing to authentic context.b AT: contributing to authentic task.c RD: contributing to reflective dialogue.

M.F.J. Swinkels et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e37 35

His internship was, together with a co-ST, at a SSVE school withclasses of 20 students. He designed a series of competence-basedlessons about electro-kits. Simon focused on motivating students,because this seemed to be a problem in his classes, and on inte-grating theory and practice in his lessons, since he hypothesisedthis to be a possible solution. After doing research on competence-based learning, motivation, and the perceptions of his students oftheir programme, he decided to use a practice-oriented approachand new authentic tasks in his lessons, and evaluated the resultsafterwards.

Simon’s case shows how changes in conceptions were apparentafter the programme in some measures but not in others. Aconstructivist shift is visible in his conceptions of learning in thequestionnaire and drawings; the metaphors however show littlechange. Simon’s written explanation to his (post-test) choice forthe metaphor which represents least how students should learn(“Learning is like travelling in an unknown country”) was: “I thinkit’s important students have a clear goal orientation”, so his choicemight also be interpreted as emphasizing the importance ofmotivation, rather than as a rejection of constructivism. In thedrawings made after the programme, a focus is visible on manyconstructivist notions (such as self-directed learning, students’ownership regarding their learning task, and interaction betweenstudents) and related forms of education (for example, authentictasks relating theory to practice, problem-based learning, collabo-rative learning, and the teacher acting as a coach). In his explana-tion for the drawings, he emphasised that these characteristics arecrucial for student learning.

The same notions are present in his learner reports. In thesereports Simon’s attention changed from being focused on aspects ofstudent learning, such as motivation, and what it means for

Table 7Summary of the results of Simon.

Instrument Conceptions of learning

Questionnaire Transmissive ConstructivistPre Post Pre P2.91 2.55 3.67 3

Metaphor Best LeastPre Post Pre PT1 T1 T3 C

Drawing Transmissive ConstructivistPre Post Pre P4 2 4 9

practice, towards being focused on how to teach so that studentlearning is facilitated. For instance:

[We] investigated how students can be motivated and what ac-tivities will stimulate this. We found that students feel that theamount of practice in education compared to theory is not enough.They are motivated better when theory like physics or mathematicsis being utilised in practical situations or projects. That way, alsoaccording to educational theory, applied mathematics fits in betterin their perception of the vocational tasks at hand (Simon, LR 7).

Simon acquired these insights, according to his learner reports,through the combination of observing his students during his les-sons, interviewing them, studying relevant literature, and discus-sing actual and alternative teaching approaches with his teachereducator, mentors, and peers.

He also focused on students’ perceptions and goal orientations(i.e. student learning) in relation to his own teacher activities,though also some teacher-centred notions can be noticed simul-taneously, for instance regarding a teacher’s goal:

The goal of a teacher is to convey knowledge. Therefore it isimportant to provoke positive expectations in students. This can bedone if students: are granted own choices and contribution; have afeeling of meaningfulness regarding the subject matter; acknowl-edge the expertise of the teacher. I want to adopt this [insight] inas much authentic projects as possible (Simon, LR 3).

Ownership was often mentioned in his learner reports, but wasalsowritten in the post-test drawing of teaching, as a core concept inthe additional answers to the drawings, and added as explanation tothemetaphors (twice). Thismaybe considered an important conceptfor Simon in his process of developing conceptions of teaching.

Conceptions of teaching

Transmissive Constructivistost Pre Post Pre Post.93 2.38 2.38 4.14 4.29

Best Leastost Pre Post Pre Post2 C3 C2/C3 T1 T3

Transmissive Constructivistost Pre Post Pre Post

4 1 6 9

M.F.J. Swinkels et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e3736

In the learner reports Simonmentioned the combination of task,dialogue (in the learning community) and practical activities in theauthentic context, as important experiences for his learning pro-cess, for instance:

For the design of effective collaborative tasks for students, ourlearning community [at the teacher education institute] has pro-vided me with relevant information that I can use at my practiceschool. While observing the students during my lessons I was sur-prised seeing them work so very calmly while working coopera-tively. This is how competence-based teaching works (Simon, LR 2).

Simon constructed, discussed and gave meaning to knowledgeabout student learning in the learning community and used theseinsights during the task performance. Also having to justify what hethought and what he did contributed to his learning process:

I gave an account of how I designed my lessons [.]. This is whatmademe learnmost [.]. What I found interesting, was consciouslychoosing the adequate learning contents and teaching activities forthis situation (Simon, LR 8).

5. Conclusions and discussion

This study adds to our knowledge about the effects of a learningenvironment (LE) in teacher education on the change of studentteachers’ (STs) conceptions of teaching and learning towards afocus on student learning. The study indicates that it is possible tochange STs’ conceptions in a relative short period of time, eventhough there were substantial differences between STs. More spe-cifically, six STs developed more constructivist and less trans-missive conceptions as a result of the designed LE. The other fourSTs showed the same change in the drawings, and also developedmore or maintained constructivist conceptions as shown in themetaphors, but maintained or showed less constructivist concep-tions in the questionnaires. A focus on student learning could benoticed in all cases. The STs attributed their learning experiences tospecific aspects of the authentic context, the authentic task and thereflective dialogue, as well as to the subjects that were discussed inthe learning community.

The findings support the plea of Lidstone and Ammon (2002) formaking student learning a higher priority in teacher development,since pre-service or beginning in-service teachers generally do notyet focus on student learning. They raised the question of how thisfocus may be accomplished. Our findings may give an answer totheir question: after placing STs in educational contexts and givingthem authentic tasks, while entering into a dialogue about theirconceptions, knowledge and experiences, this focus was apparentin STs. Our findings also support the view that conceptions oflearning and teaching are “permeable and dynamic structures”(Hermans et al., 2008, p. 128), and can indeed be changed. Thiscontradicts the view of Richardson and Placier (2001) that it is hardto change the possibly traditional conceptions of education that STsmay hold, and the findings of Schelfhout et al. (2006) whoconcluded that none of the approaches they observed which wereaimed at learning-focused thinking and teaching was sufficient initself to change conceptions.

The findings reported here are still of a tentative nature. Therelationship between STs’ constructivist conceptions and theirfocus on learning, for example, needs to be clarified further. Thougha focus on student learning was arguably seen in all STs, not allshowed a constructivist shift in all instruments equally. This may bedue to context factors. For instance, a demanding environmentmight more easily generate transmissive conceptions of teaching ingeneral, because teachers could be inclined to take up survival-oriented and teacher-focused conceptions. But, when looking

more closely at the situation-oriented aspects of the conceptions ofour STs, the constructivist shift was more clearly noticeable. Thisincongruity may also be due to the rate at which STs are able to gothrough various stages. Some STs may need more time for theirdevelopment. Even when they are already concentrating on stu-dent learning in their teaching approaches in the actual authenticcontext, they may still hang on to more transmissive, or traditional,ways of thinking at a more general level. Tillema and Knol (1997)argue that STs must go through four stages before an actual revi-sion of their conceptual structures can take place. The first two ofthese consist of recognition of current conceptions or beliefs, andevaluation and investigation of new ones, while the later onesconcentrate more on the actual decision to change and reconstructa conceptual framework. Our LEmight support such a developmentby stimulating dialogue, research and reflection on conceptions,knowledge and situations, and by assigning STs the task of imple-menting their new findings in an educational design and teachingapproaches. The question how STs’ experiences changed theirconceptions of learning and teaching or contributed to the processof continuous progressive re-contextualisation needs to be inves-tigated further.

Some directions for further research can be suggested. Variousinstruments were used in our study, and they did not showcompletely congruent outcomes. In two cases, the questionnairesand metaphors showed different outcomes compared to thedrawings and to what could be noticed in the reported learningexperiences. This might indicate that our instruments for investi-gating conceptions did not tap the same aspects of the variable. Thequestionnaire and metaphors seemed to force participants to ex-press a more dichotomizing view of teaching than they mightactually hold. In the drawings STs were able to express conceptionsfrom a more nuanced perspective than in the questionnaire andmetaphors, for instance enhancing students’ active, self-regulatedengagement in deeper forms of learning while simultaneouslybeing focused on their own teaching methods and curriculum. Theuse of drawings to measure conceptions proved to be an instru-ment that gives a richness of information about the complex natureof conceptions, compared to the questionnaires and metaphors.The questionnaires and metaphors seem to give a more generalview of STs’ conceptions, whereas the drawings, and also thelearner reports, seem to shed light on the more situation-orientedaspects of their conceptions. Using different instruments thus mayilluminate different aspects of conceptions. Further investigationinto these differences is required.

Finally, the effects of changes in conceptions and focus on howthe STs actually behave in the classroom have not yet been exam-ined. Further investigation into the effects of the LE on actualteacher behaviour, and the relationship between them, may helpteacher educators to better and sooner prepare STs for learning-focused teaching.

We conclude that this is a small, exploratory study, whereconceptual changes happened, but not always in a consistent way.It shows the complexity of conceptual change and the benefit ofusing multiple assessment tools that enable tracing changes inrelation to specific activities established within a particular LE. Theresults of this study do point out practical recommendations forteacher educators. These recommendations consist of creating atight relationship between theory and practical experiences byassigning STs an authentic task that is relevant for and carried out inan authentic context. This task ideally consists of a research, designand performance component that forces STs to focus on studentlearning and helps them make explicit their conceptions. Contin-uously stimulating reflection on useful theory and on practice andrelating these in a reflective dialogue seems to stimulate the pro-cess of continuous progressive re-contextualisation deemed

M.F.J. Swinkels et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 34 (2013) 26e37 37

necessary to elicit this focus. The combination of these educationalelements may prove an answer not only to current questions abouthow to change STs’ conceptions and create a focus on studentlearning, but also about how to bridge the gap between theory andpractice in teacher education and find a model of professional ed-ucation that is grounded in the practical context of teaching(Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001; WoolfolkHoy & Murphy, 2001).

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of H. Leeferinkwith regard to the data analysis of the questionnaire.

References

Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Brekelmans, M., & Oost, H. (2006). Auditing quality ofresearch in social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 42(2), 257e274.

Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 107e128.

Donche, V. (2005). Leren, onderwijzen en leren onderwijzen. Onderzoek naar opvat-tingen en handelingen van studenten en docenten. Antwerp: Academia Press.

Eley, M. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of teaching, and the making of specific de-cisions in planning to teach. Higher Education, 51, 191e214.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach todevelopmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge inhigher education: relationships with study behaviour and influences of learningenvironments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 407e428.

Entwistle, N., & Walker, P. (2000). Strategic alertness and expanded awarenesswithin sophisticated conceptions of teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 335e361.

Fuller, F., & Bown, O. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education(74th Yearbook of the National Society for the study of education. Part 2 (pp. 25e52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: directions for research inteaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1),184e205.

Guile, D., & Young, M. (2003). Transfer and transition in vocational education. InT. Tuomi- Gröhn, & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work: New per-spectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 63e81). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & van Keer, H. (2008). Development of the beliefs aboutprimary education scale: distinguishing a developmental and transmissivedimension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 127e139.

Holt, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in coursework. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 325e349.

Katz, P., McGinnis, R. J., Hestness, E., Riedinger, K., Marbach-Ad, G., Dai, A., et al.(2011). Professional identity development of teacher candidates participating inan informal science education internship: a focus on drawings as evidence.International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1169e1197.

Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academicsconceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255e275.

Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their rela-tionship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469e490.

Kne�zi�c, D., Wubbels, Th., Elbers, E. P. J. M., & Hajer, M. (2010). The socratic dialogueand teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1104e1111.

Lidstone, M. L., & Ammon, P. (2002). A key to successful teaching is understandingand focusing on student learning. ERS Spectrum, 20(4), 27e37.

Marsick, V. (2001). Informal Strategic learning in the workplace. Paper presented atthe second conference on HRD research and practice across Europe, Enschede,The Netherlands.

Mensah, F. M. (2011). The DESTIN: preservice teachers’ drawings of the idealelementary science teacher. School Science and Mathematics, 111, 379e388.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

van Oers, B. (1998a). The fallacy of decontextualization. Mind, Culture and Activity,5(2), 135e142.

van Oers, B. (1998b). From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8(6),473e488.

Oosterheert, I. E., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). Individual differences in learning toteach e relating cognition, regulation and affect. Learning and Instruction, 11,133e156.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up amessy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307e332.

Patrick, H., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Conceptual change in teachers’ intuitive con-ceptions of learning, motivation, and instruction: the role of motivational andepistemological beliefs. In B. Torff, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Understanding andteaching the intuitive mind (pp. 117e143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teachingenvironment and approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 67, 25e35.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of aca-demics’ conceptions of science teaching and learning. Learning and Instruction,4, 217e231.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. InJohn Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.). (pp. 102e119) New York: Macmillan.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbookof research on teaching (pp. 905e947). Washington DC: American EducationalResearch Association.

Sanden, J. M. M. van der, & Teurlings, C. (2003). Developing competence duringpractice periods: the learner’s perspective. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn, & Y. Engeström(Eds.), Transfer and boundary-crossing in vocational education: New perspectives(pp. 119e136). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Schelfhout, W., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Struyven, K., Gielen, S., & Sierens, E. (2006).Educating for learning-focused teaching in teacher education, the need to linklearning content with practice experiences. Teacher and Teaching Education, 22,874e897.

Tillema, H. H., & Knol, W. E. (1997). Promoting student teacher learning throughconceptual change or direct instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6),579e595.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: a relationalperspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 275e284.

Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational ResearchReview, 3(2), 130e154.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Murphy, K. (2001). Teaching educational psychology to theintuitive mind. In B. Torff, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Understanding and teaching theintuitive mind (pp. 145e186). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zhu, X. Y. (2003). The development of pedagogical content knowledge in novicesecondary school teachers of English in the People’s Republic of China.Dissertation. University of Hong Kong.

Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory IntoPractice, 41(2), 64e70.

Zsiga, P., & Webster, M. (2007). Why should secondary educators be interestedin selfdirected learning? International Journal of Self-directed Learning, 4(2),58e68.