Erik Meij

DUTCH SUMMARY

Introduction
The starting point of this dissertation was the experience that teachers and teacher educators were often unable to explicitly articulate the most general principles of learning or to articulate them in their teaching practice. Assuming that they are nevertheless competent teachers, my hypothesis was that they do indeed possess such principles, albeit at a more implicit or unconscious level. My curiosity focused on the question of whether such implicit knowledge and beliefs are measurable and in which phases of teachers' careers they arise or disappear. This reasoning led to the overarching research question of this dissertation:

What is the influence of teachers' explicit and implicit conceptual knowledge and beliefs about principles of learning on their pedagogical reasoning?

This question was developed into two sub-questions:
1. What explicit and implicit conceptual knowledge and beliefs about learning do pre-service and certified teachers possess?
2. How do these knowledge and beliefs manifest themselves in teachers' pedagogical reasoning?

The literature provided various findings that served as anchor points for this research. First, it is generally accepted that teacher beliefs and knowledge are not sharply defined constructs and that teacher beliefs exert a substantial influence on the didactic decisions they make and, consequently, on the way they shape their education. Second, with regard to conscious pedagogical reasoning, there is broad consensus, supported by extensive research, that pedagogical reasoning forms the core of being a teacher. At the same time, it appears that many teachers reason less deeply after a few years of practical experience, whereby existing beliefs are confirmed rather than questioned. Third, ‘indirect measurements’ are subject to ongoing discussion about the validity and reliability of such research methods, although many researchers nevertheless advocate their use to better explain teacher beliefs.

First study (Chapter 2)
The first qualitative study was designed to investigate how learning theories and principles of learning are addressed within Dutch teacher education programs. We investigated what is taught, how this happens, and especially why it happens in that way. The latter question served to clarify the underlying vision and rationale for teaching learning theories to beginning teachers.

What is taught varies considerably across programs, both within programs for primary and for secondary education. The range varies from virtually no attention to learning theory to full courses with separate testing. The content appears to depend largely on personal choices or individual expertise. The way in which learning theory is taught also differs greatly. There is no consensus on a particular approach, which may be related to the lack of textbooks that explicitly connect learning theory with educational practice.

All participants were convinced that learning theory has a legitimate place within teacher education and that the link between theory and practice forms the essence of such programs. Therefore, they were of the opinion that teacher educators should make learning principles explicitly visible in their own teaching, although they doubted whether they or their colleagues were actually capable of doing so. Participants also considered an inductive approach, based on students' concrete teaching practice, to be the most effective route. In practice, however, learning theories are often initially offered deductively, although a shift seems to be visible from ‘deductive instruction followed by application’ to more inductive approaches.

The most important finding of this study was that participants concluded through their reasoning that their ideals about effective teaching and learning were sometimes at odds with the reality of practice, and that they openly questioned whether it is feasible for students to consistently link their actions to theory.

Second study (Chapter 3)
In the second, quantitative study, we investigated both implicit and explicit beliefs. For this, we developed an instrument consisting of three parts: a word association task to measure implicit beliefs, an explicit task around endorsing principles to measure explicit beliefs, and a classroom situation task intended to map both dimensions. The implicit measurements showed that most teachers' beliefs broadly align with the learning principles investigated. Hardly any significant differences were found between subgroups of participants: beginning teachers did not show stronger recognition than experienced teachers, nor were differences established between subject areas.

Overall, affective principles evoked stronger associations and higher levels of endorsement than cognitive principles. However, the study does not allow conclusions to be drawn about the origin of these beliefs: whether they were explicitly taught or were part of a broader belief system that extends beyond education and learning.

The principles that were most strongly recognized concerned the importance of practice and repetition for learning, the use of examples, and the role of motivation. In contrast, the influence of prior knowledge on learning and the difficulty of conceptual change scored lowest. It was also striking that most principles in responses to more concrete classroom situations achieved higher scores than when participants had to judge the explicitly formulated principle. This suggests that participants recognize principles within contexts, but are probably less able to recognize these principles as abstract rules. The correlations between implicit and explicit measurements were weak or absent. Although the principles were recognized, the study could not determine to what extent they were actually internalized, nor make statements about their influence on actual classroom performance.

Third study (Chapter 4)
The third study describes the qualitative part of the same instrument developed in study 2. Teachers were presented with two short classroom situations: one focused on cognitive principles and one on affective principles. Participants were again asked to react quickly to the question: “What do you think is going on here?” The open answers were analyzed qualitatively.

As in the previous study, the most striking finding was the limited variation in the frequency with which different principles were cited by different groups of participants. Only the ‘use of examples’ and ‘the role of emotions and motivation’ showed statistically significant differences between student teachers, certified teachers, and teacher educators. Only a small part of the participants did not refer to a learning principle but gave answers such as “they have forgotten it” or normative statements that started with “The teacher should…”, without an underlying principle becoming visible.

In addition to the intended principles, a significant number of reactions fell outside the principles we focused on; these could be grouped under memory processes, social classroom dynamics, and general considerations about learning.

Significant differences were established between groups in the language use of student teachers, certified teachers, and teacher educators. Two more general patterns became visible. First, students generally described principles in more implicit wording, while for teachers and especially teacher educators, a gradual shift towards more explicit formulations became visible. Second, principles that are more clearly ‘visible’ in daily education — and that achieved higher scores in the previous study — were accompanied here by relatively short reactions. For example, the principle that repetition and practice promote learning was often expressed concisely, for instance as “more practice is needed”.

The use of examples was the most frequently mentioned principle, where a clear development in theoretical insight became visible between the groups: students generally noted that examples are important or that education must connect to the students' lived world, while teacher educators sometimes explicitly linked context use, understanding, and transfer.

Reactions to the situation focused on affective principles were generally shorter, multiple learning principles were more often combined within one reaction, and the formulation of answers rarely contained conditional constructions. This suggests that these principles are more easily recognized.

Fourth study (Chapter 5)
In the fourth study, we tried to clarify the origin and development of beliefs and prior knowledge. Students in the last year of secondary education, half of whom aspired to a career in education and the other half had absolutely no interest in teaching, were asked to explain six everyday classroom situations from a chemistry lesson. The same task was performed by final-year students of the teacher training program, before and after an eight-week intervision process.

Four observations lead to more general conclusions. First, first-year students who aspire to an education career consistently give richer and more developed reactions than their peers without interest in teaching. This suggests that those who consciously choose an education program already have more of an eye for classroom processes based on their own school experiences.

Second, a large distinction arises between beginning and graduating students: the latter group shows a shift from fragmented and teacher-oriented thinking to clearly more integrated and student-oriented pedagogical reasoning.

Third, the focused eight-week intervision program does not seem to lead to substantial changes in the knowledge of graduating students; the data suggest at most that intervision may have contributed to slightly more coherent pedagogical reasoning.

Fourth, teacher educators in study 1 considered the use of learning theories and learning principles essential for teacher education programs but doubted the feasibility of students being able to always explicitly support their classroom experiences theoretically. This study shows that their knowledge and beliefs underlying their considerations about classroom situations, even at a very early stage, can already be traced back to principles of teaching and learning. More experience and a growing mastery of professional jargon will lead to a greater ability to explicitly connect practice with concrete learning principles.

Conclusions for research question 1:
The question is: What explicit and implicit conceptual knowledge and beliefs about learning do pre-service and certified teachers possess?

Studies 2, 3, and 4 show that teachers possess both implicit and explicit knowledge and beliefs that can be traced back to the learning principles we investigated. General learning principles were recognized and applied, although some principles emerged more strongly than others; especially explicit knowledge of learning principles regarding the role of prior knowledge and changing existing knowledge and beliefs appears to be limited. Only a relatively small part of the participants recognized no learning principle at all, and real misconceptions were rare, with the exception of the principle concerning conceptual change. The most important finding in both the quantitative and qualitative results is therefore the limited divergence in the frequency with which teachers in different phases of their career recognized and applied various learning principles, although the more detailed study of student teachers (Chapter 5) did show a significant difference between beginning and graduating students.

The qualitative studies show, however, that significant differences occurred in the degree to which these principles were voiced: teacher educators and graduating students were better able to formulate their knowledge and beliefs in more detail and with more accurate professional jargon than beginning participants without formal training.

Together, the studies show that certain, still undeveloped learning principles are present in all teachers (and even non-teachers) and can be understood as prior knowledge. The idea that such early beliefs gradually develop into more complex concepts as earlier ideas are enriched by experience aligns with both Korthagen's three-level model and conceptual change theory.

Conclusions for research question 2
The question is: How do these knowledge and beliefs manifest themselves in the pedagogical reasoning of teachers?

First of all, in the majority of reactions in studies 2, 3, and 4, both quick decision-making and more considered reasoning could be traced back to underlying learning principles, regardless of whether these were implicit or explicit. However, these studies do not consistently make clear whether such principles function as knowledge or belief. Moreover, implicit knowledge or implicit beliefs do not necessarily guarantee that a fully developed principle is applied, given that applying a principle on a more abstract level means that transfer between contexts is possible.

When reasoning became more explicit and principles were more firmly anchored, as was observed with graduating students and teacher educators, the relationship between knowledge, beliefs, and pedagogical reasoning became more clearly visible. Nonetheless, study 4 shows that students in secondary education already develop initial ideas and beliefs about teaching and learning via informal learning experiences. Aspirations to follow a career in education seem to influence the formation of such learning concepts and thereby likely inspire and stimulate their further learning trajectories.

Second, only few misconceptions were established in these studies, but it remains important to explore them because undetected misconceptions can persist and develop into stubborn parallel concepts.

Third, the exploration of the prior knowledge of both beginning and experienced teachers shows that their underlying learning principles often do not differ substantially from each other. Although beginning students might lack the deeper understanding or conceptual language needed to explicitly voice these principles, it was observed that they applied a principle in multiple situations.

Finally, teacher educators (in the Netherlands) consistently recognize the difficulty of teaching learning theories for application in educational practice.

Implications for teacher education.
First of all, it becomes clear that prospective and incumbent teachers in all phases of their careers have knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning. Even on their first day within teacher education, students already possess notions about fundamental learning principles; only few show an absence of such knowledge or beliefs. Moreover, they show that they are already capable of reflecting on educational questions, albeit limited by the absence of professional terminology. That means teacher educators must be aware that students probably, at least implicitly, share many of their ideas about learning. Teacher educators should therefore be prepared to slow down the pace of instruction, postpone the explanation of seemingly “new” theory, and make time to explore shared fundamental ideas. Working with teachers, regardless of age, experience level, and subject area, should begin with explicating implicit experiences so that a transition becomes possible from unconscious to conscious understanding.

Second, this study shows that students can reason pedagogically in situations with concrete subject content. In order to prevent learning and teaching from becoming detached from that subject content, teacher educators would need, in addition to theoretical knowledge, a rich repertoire of subject-specific practical examples that illustrate how developing learning principles can be recognized within specific subject contents and how they function. This also enables them to recognize students' primary ideas, even when these are still limitedly articulated or underdeveloped, and to connect these in a meaningful way with existing scientific theory.

Third, if such prior knowledge must be effectively connected with scientific theory in a way that enables students to recognize their own thinking within a broader conceptual framework, then it seems plausible that this process is more easily realized via clearly demarcated and specific learning principles than via broad learning theories, such as behaviorism or constructivism. In addition, this study shows that especially the learning principle ‘prior knowledge influences the learning process’ and the basic role that prior knowledge plays in several other principles should receive attention.

Moreover, all the above first of all requires that students develop a sincere and sustainable focus on the learning process and not only on didactic and educational actions. Well-internalized principles with which learning can be recognized can motivate them to continue investigating and reflecting on new didactic approaches later.

Affective and cognitive principles
The studies in chapters 3 and 4 show that affective learning principles are more easily recognized and applied than cognitive principles, with the importance of motivation specifically coming to the fore. This can stem from the fact that motivation is a broadly used and intuitively understood concept in everyday life, creating a rich network of experiences and informal theories. Motivation is therefore frequently and broadly used as an explanatory concept, but not necessarily as a principle that structures learning processes. Teacher education would benefit from explicitly connecting everyday views on motivation to cognitive learning processes and by making insight into the fact that motivation is not just a (normative) phenomenon at the edge (for example: “he just doesn't feel like it”), but rather the result of underlying constructs such as teacher beliefs, goal orientation, and emotions, so that teachers start to understand its effect on cognitive learning. The implication for teacher education is that affective principles should be systematically integrated into pedagogical reasoning and teaching practices, preferably via explicit modeling by teacher educators.

Inductive and deductive learning
In everyday life, the acquisition of new knowledge usually proceeds via an inductive process, where implicit insights arise through an accumulation of experiences. In line with numerous researchers, this dissertation repeatedly emphasizes that learning from complex teaching practice is fundamentally inductive in nature and should therefore start with explicating concrete prior knowledge of pre-service teachers.

Although this also applies to teaching, for example, chemistry, psychology, or research methodology, it is of particular importance for teacher education because (a) the studies in this thesis show that prior knowledge about learning comes from experience and (b) learning theories within teacher education are exclusively taught with a view to application in practice.

Presenting learning theories or learning principles detached from meaningful content will likely connect insufficiently with teachers' prior knowledge. Such knowledge can be understood at a superficial level but not internalized; it can be reproduced but not necessarily applied. Instead of bridging the gap between theory and practice, this approach can unintentionally increase that gap.

However, certain abstract concepts such as prior knowledge, transfer, and network-like memory structures cannot be derived exclusively from experience. Although rudimentary ideas about these may already be present, these concepts require explicit instruction. Teacher educators can benefit from identifying ways in which transfer between various experiences can be connected via the introduction of such abstract concepts. These concepts can function as organizing principles that give structure and meaning to what teachers already know.

At this point, inductive and deductive learning processes cross each other. Because such abstract concepts can disappear from active use without regular connection with practice, they must be regularly reintroduced and embedded in everyday professional language use. When abstract concepts remain consciously present within practice, they can stimulate reflection, promote theory formation, and thus contribute to ongoing professional development.

Reflection
During teacher education programs, students are continuously encouraged toward conscious pedagogical reasoning. Lesson preparations, reflection assignments, and conversations with supervisors during internships continuously stimulate students to make their experiences explicit and to connect these with theory.

However, this process often decreases as soon as graduates enter professional practice. But both the literature and the findings of this dissertation suggest that inductive learning does not stop at that moment. On the contrary, professional experiences, especially during the first years of teaching, continue to lead to the formation of new gestalts or to the elevation of existing gestalts to higher theoretical levels. What is often missing is the explicit and conscious reflection on those new insights.

The first study showed that learning theory is usually offered at the beginning of teacher education programs to provide students with theoretical knowledge prior to the practical experience in the classroom. However, the participating teacher educators expressed doubts about the suitability of this timing, given the limited pedagogical experience of students in this phase. They suggested that learning theory can possibly be taught more effectively at the end of the program, or even after graduation, when teachers can conduct richer discussions and are thus more motivated to investigate theory in their own practice, reflect on it, and apply it.

Together, these findings support the recommendation that continuous, conscious reflection, both guided and unguided, is essential for sustainable professional development, especially during the first years of teaching.

Mandatory theoretical support of practice in teacher education
An additional concern that came forward in the first study concerns the requirement that students support didactic decisions theoretically with learning theories, a principle that is generally considered fundamental within higher education, including teacher education. In chapter 2, however, teacher educators noted that such theoretical supports were rarely authentic. To address this problem, this paragraph builds on the findings of these studies but also goes further by explaining my vision on possible ways to improve this within teacher education.

The findings of this dissertation suggest that students' reasonings about learning can be more effectively derived from concrete learning principles, which offer starting points for practice, than from abstract learning theories, especially in the later phases of their program. From this insight, four recommendations for teacher education can be derived.

First, given the complexity of the teaching profession, connecting experiences to theory requires knowledge of a broad scale of theories and models. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 show that all participants possess basic views and knowledge that can be traced back to a limited number of learning principles applied to varying degrees in pedagogical reasoning and decision-making. As some teacher educators in chapter 2 already suggested, we therefore believe that offering a concise set of clearly defined learning principles that students can easily remember or consult via a limited number of sources is more effective for seeing and understanding learning in the daily context than teaching broad and extensive learning theories.

Second, the requirement within higher education to support practical experiences theoretically requires training from the first year of study. “Literature” could thereby initially be limited to one or two principles, preferably principles for which students already possess prior knowledge. The initial goal is then to develop awareness of the question if and how these principles function within students' own practical context. That would ideally lead to a positive attitude regarding the usefulness of learning principles, after which the theoretical repertoire is gradually expanded. With learning principles, such an approach is realizable, while reduction with learning theories proves significantly more difficult or remains so general that the meaning is not seen.

Third, the expectation that practical problems from internships must be linked to theory afterward, from the assumption that “the literature” will provide solutions for problematic teaching situations, seems largely ineffective and little representative of authentic daily teaching practice, at least according to the teacher educators from Study 1. This can be related to the fact that theoretical principles in this situation do not become part of the inductive learning process. If the goal is to actually connect theory and practice, it is more logical for students to link theory to their pedagogical reasoning and the setting of learning goals prior to the teaching process. Awareness of a learning principle prior to practice increases the chance that it is recognized, supports pedagogical reasoning, and strengthens the making of choices based on knowledge. Problems that occur in later situations can then again be linked to that theory and thus provide cause for critical reflection on both theory and practice. The buildup of knowledge via an inductive process is thus better supported.

Finally, students would ideally be regularly pointed toward concrete examples in which learning principles are visibly at work. This preferably starts within the program itself, via the meta-communication of teacher educators about learning principles that become visible in their own teaching, as well as via explicit discussion of learning principles during joint reflection with supervisors during internships.