Beliefs about sources of knowledge predict motivation for learning in teacher education

Teaching and Teacher Education 50 (2015) 13e23

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Beliefs about sources of knowledge predict motivation for learning in teacher education Ivar Bråten*, Leila E. Ferguson 1 University of Oslo, Norway

h i g h l i g h t s
Beliefs about sources of knowledge and motivation to learn were assessed.
Beliefs in experiential sources were stronger than in formalized sources.
Motivation to learn from practice was higher than motivation to learn from theory.
Beliefs in experiential sources predicted motivation to learn from practice.
Beliefs in formalized sources predicted motivation to learn from theory.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 8 July 2014 Received in revised form 3 April 2015 Accepted 10 April 2015 Available online

The purpose of this study was to provide new understanding concerning the theory-practice gap in teacher education. Participants, who were 96 Norwegian student teachers, were found to believe more in practically-derived than in theory-based sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning and to be more motivated for learning from practice than from theory in teacher education. Moreover, stronger beliefs in theory-based sources of knowledge were related to higher motivation to learn from theoretically-oriented coursework and stronger beliefs in practically-derived sources were related to higher motivation to learn from teaching practice. Theoretical and educational implications of the findings are discussed. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Beliefs about sources of knowledge Motivation to learn Teacher education

1. Introduction To enter the teaching profession, student teachers need to acquire knowledge about instruction and student learning (Shulman, 1987). Such knowledge may be acquired from different sources, with those sources ranging from formalized bodies of knowledge to personal experience (Buehl & Fives, 2009). Moreover, student teachers are often said to foreground personal experience at the expense of formalized bodies of knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Kessels & Korthagen, 1996). In the current study, we extended prior work on student teachers' beliefs about the sources of teaching knowledge (Buehl & Fives, 2009) and investigated such

* Corresponding author. Institute for Educational Research, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1092 Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: þ47 22 85 52 82; fax: þ47 22 85 42 50. E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Bråten). 1 Authors are listed alphabetically; both contributed equally to this article. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.04.003 0742-051X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

beliefs as contributors to their motivation for learning. More specifically, we surveyed student teachers' beliefs about the sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning and used those data to predict their motivation for learning from theory versus learning from practice during teacher education. In this way, we hoped to provide new insight into how student teachers weigh theory-based knowledge against practically-derived knowledge and may be differentially motivated for learning from theory and practice. Additionally, linking beliefs about sources of knowledge to motivation for learning in teacher education may suggest mechanisms underlying motivational (dis)engagement and help explain why so many student teachers are prone to leave teacher education without graduating in Norway as well as in other countries (e.g., Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Fauskanger & Hanssen, 2011; Guarino, ~ ez, & Daley, 2006; Hong, 2010; Mcdonald, 1999; Rots, Santiban Aelterman, Devos, & Vlerick, 2010; Sinclair, 2008; Stokking, Leenders, De Jong, & Van Tartwijk, 2003; Wikan & Bugge, 2014). For example, Stokking et al. (2003) report that 10e15% drop out

14

I. Bråten, L.E. Ferguson / Teaching and Teacher Education 50 (2015) 13e23

during the first year of teacher education in the Netherlands, and according to Fauskanger and Hanssen (2011), 20% of Norwegian student teachers drop out during the first year of teacher education. Moreover, Long and colleagues reported that attrition in teacher education was of economic and social concern in several other countries, including the US, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK (Long et al., 2012). During the last decades, the beliefs that student teachers as well as practicing teachers hold about different aspects of teaching have received increasing attention from researchers, with such beliefs ranging from beliefs about culture and context to beliefs about self and identity (for reviews, see Fives & Buehl, 2012; Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, & Pape, 2006). Beliefs refer to what individuals accept as or want to be true regardless of verification (Murphy & Mason, 2006; Pajares, 1992), with beliefs about teaching deemed important because they may be used to filter and interpret information, frame tasks, and guide action (Buehl & Beck, 2015; Fives & Buehl, 2012; Pajares, 1992). Using a mixed methods approach, Fives and Buehl (2008) recently combined a qualitative (Study 1) and a quantitative (Study 2) investigation to identify preservice and practicing teachers' beliefs about teaching knowledge, defined as “all knowledge relevant to the practice of teaching” (p. 135). In that research, participants were shown to hold beliefs about knowledge of instruction (i.e., pedagogy), beliefs about knowledge of student learning, beliefs about content knowledge, and beliefs about organizational and management knowledge. Of note is that the two first categories (i.e., beliefs about knowledge of instruction and student learning) were most frequently mentioned by the participants in the qualitative study and that questionnaire items pertaining to those two categories fell on the same large factor in the quantitative (factor-analytic) study. This suggests that beliefs concerning knowledge of instructional methods (how to teach) and student learning (how students learn) may figure prominently in an integrated manner in student and practicing teachers' minds. When Buehl and Fives (2009) further explored preservice and practicing teachers' beliefs about where knowledge of teaching come from, that is, about the sources of such knowledge, they found that formal preparation (i.e., college courses and professional development), formalized bodies of knowledge (i.e., books, research articles, and responsible websites), observational experiences (i.e., observing others teach), interactive and collaborative experiences with others, personal experiences, and self-reflection were regarded as sources of teaching knowledge. While Buehl and Fives (2009) did not assess to what extent their participants endorsed the different types of knowledge sources, the present study was conducted to compare their endorsements of theorybased (i.e., sources involving formalized bodies of knowledge) and practically-derived (i.e., sources involving observational, collaborative, and personal experiences) knowledge about teaching, with a specific focus on sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning. Our main assumption is that student teachers' judgments regarding the different types of sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning may have implications for their motivation to learn from corresponding types of sources in teacher education. Crucial to our argument is the possibility that student teachers tending to rely on theory-based knowledge of instruction and student learning may be more motivated to learn from theory presented in college courses and lectures while student teachers tending to rely more on practically-derived knowledge may be more motivated to learn from experiences provided by the teaching practice periods of the program. Importantly, support for this assumption is also offered by theory and research within the growing field of personal epistemology.

Personal epistemology2 refers to individuals' beliefs about “how knowing occurs, what counts as knowledge and where it resides, and how knowledge is constructed and evaluated” (Hofer, 2004, p. 1). Such “epistemic beliefs” (Kitchener, 2002) may concern knowledge in general or knowledge concerning particular domains or even topics within domains (Bråten, Strømsø, & Samuelstuen, 2008; Muis, Bendixen, & Haerle, 2006). Following Fives and Buehl (2008), we consider beliefs about teaching knowledge (including beliefs about instruction and student learning) domain-specific epistemic beliefs in this study, with the domain of teaching distinguishable as a particular recognized and institutionalized field or subject (Alexander, 1997). Beliefs about sources of knowledge are included in the much cited multidimensional epistemic belief conceptualizations of Schommer (1990) and Hofer and Pintrich (1997). Specifically, Hofer and Pintrich (1997) proposed that such beliefs fall on a continuum ranging from the conception that knowledge originates outside the self and resides in external authority, from which it may be transmitted, to the conception that knowledge is actively constructed by the person in interaction with others (a parallel dimension was termed “omniscient authority” by Schommer). More recently, however, beliefs concerning authority and personal experience as sources of knowledge have been considered to constitute separate dimensions rather than representing endpoints on the same dimension (Ferguson, Bråten, & Strømsø, 2012; Greene, Azevedo, & Torney-Purta, 2008), with those two dimensions capturing the extent to which individuals rely on external authority and personal experience, respectively, as sources of knowledge (Bråten, Ferguson, Strømsø, & Anmarkrud, 2014). Accordingly, we attempted to measure student teachers' reliance on theory-based and practically-derived knowledge on separate dimensions in the present study. Please note that theoretical and practical sources of knowledge bear resemblance to external authority and personal experience regarded as distinct sources of knowledge within personal epistemology (see also, Buehl & Fives, 2009). The literature on personal epistemology provided both theoretical and empirical grounding for our attempt to link student teachers' beliefs about the sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning to their motivation for learning in teacher education. For example, Hofer and Pintrich (1997) suggested that epistemic beliefs may function as implicit theories about knowledge and knowing that are activated by domains and tasks and influence individuals' motivational approach to those domains and tasks. Likewise, theoretical models proposed by Buehl (2003) and Muis (2007) posited that epistemic beliefs are activated during learners' perceptions and definitions of particular tasks and then affect motivational components such as self-beliefs, values, and achievement goals, which were conceived of as standards for learning by Muis (2007). In this view, then, student teachers' beliefs about sources of teaching knowledge, specifically knowledge of instruction and student learning, may frame their interpretation of learning tasks and guide them to value or disregard information presented throughout their teacher education (Fives & Buehl, 2008). According to Watt and Richardson (2015), relevant frameworks for studying student teachers' motivation include selfdetermination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), achievement goal theory (Dweck, 1986; Elliot, 1999), and expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Among these, expectancy-value theory

2 The term “personal” in “personal epistemology” is mainly used to distinguish students' and other laypersons' beliefs about knowledge and knowing from schooled philosophers' (i.e., epistemologists') thinking about such issues (Bråten, 2011).

I. Bråten, L.E. Ferguson / Teaching and Teacher Education 50 (2015) 13e23

has proven particularly fruitful (Watt & Richardson, 2015), with much of this work, however, focusing on motivation to become a teacher rather than on motivation for learning from theory and practice, respectively, in teacher education (e.g., Fokkens-Bruinsma & Canrinus, 2014; Sinclair, 2008; Watt et al., 2012; Watt, Richardson, & Wilkins, 2014). The expectancy-value framework describes two motivation components: one expectancy component addressing how well individuals believe they can do on upcoming tasks, and one value component addressing how valuable they consider those tasks to be (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The two motivation components can be linked to two different questions that individuals can ask themselves: “Can I do this task?” and “Do I want to do this task and why?” (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998). In the present study, we investigated student teachers' beliefs about the sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning as predictors of the component captured by the second question, that is, their valuing of learning from theory and practice, respectively. In accordance with expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), we thus focused on the extent to which student teachers valued the learning tasks that they encountered in college courses and practice periods, respectively, in terms of attainment, relevance, and intrinsic interest. Of note is that the value aspect of motivation in education, that is, students' appreciation for particular learning tasks and activities, has been much less studied than the expectancy aspect of motivation (Brophy, 2008). Yet, this aspect of motivation is probably essential for individuals' choice of those tasks and activities as well as their engagement and thriving in them (Brophy, 1999, 2008; Eccles et al., 1998; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). For that reason, investigating potentially proximal contributors to student teachers' valuing of theory- as well as practicerelated learning tasks emerges as a worthwhile endeavor for teacher education researchers. The research on beliefs about sources of knowledge and the task value motivation component is sparse. However, Buehl and Alexander (2005) profiled undergraduate students, primarily in educational psychology, on the basis of their beliefs regarding the certainty, simplicity, and source of knowledge and compared the resulting profiles with respect to task values in the domains of history and mathematics. Their findings suggested that students holding relatively strong beliefs in authority as the source of history knowledge also valued the academic domain of history quite strongly as long as their beliefs in certain and simple history knowledge were relatively weak. Likewise, students holding strong beliefs in authority as the source of mathematical knowledge also valued the domain of mathematics quite highly given that their beliefs in certain and simple knowledge were relatively weak. More recently, Bråten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud, Strømsø, & Brandmo (2014) found that secondary school students' reliance on external authority as a source of knowledge in the domain of science positively predicted their valuing of science reading tasks. Conversely, reliance on personal experience as a source of science knowledge negatively predicted students' science reading task value. It should be noted that Buehl and Alexander (2005) used task value items targeting learning in academic, theoretically oriented domains (i.e., history and mathematics) and that Bråten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud, et al. (2014) used task value items targeting learning from science texts, which also involves learning from theory rather than practice. Of course, this does not mean that reliance on authority as a source of knowledge is universally adaptive for motivation. On the contrary, when task value is assessed separately for learning from theory and learning from practice, as we did in the present study, it seems reasonable to assume that only appreciation for theoretical learning tasks is predicted by endorsement of external authorities such as college professors and textbooks, whereas appreciation for practical learning tasks is predicted by

15

endorsement of observational, collaborative, and personal experiences as sources of knowledge. 1.1. The present study In summary, this study was conducted to examine student teachers' beliefs about the sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning, their valuing of theoretical and practical learning tasks in the teacher education program, and the extent to which their beliefs about the sources of knowledge predicted their valuing of those two types of learning tasks. Our specific research questions were: 1. Do student teachers rely more on practically derived than on theory-based sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning? 2. Do student teachers value practical learning tasks more than theoretical learning tasks in their teacher education program? 3. Is student teachers' valuing of theoretical learning tasks uniquely predicted by their reliance on theory-based knowledge about instruction and student learning and their valuing of practical learning tasks uniquely predicted by their reliance on practically-derived knowledge? Based on prior work regarding conceptions of the relationship (i.e., the gap) between theory and practice in teacher education (e.g., Cole & Knowles, 1993; Joram, 2007; Kessels & Korthagen, 1996; Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Lagerwerf, & Wubbels, 2001; Zeichner & Conklin, 2008), as well as prior work on relationships between epistemic beliefs concerning the source of knowledge and task value motivation (Bråten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud, et al., 2014; Buehl & Alexander, 2005), we expected that all three questions would be answered in the affirmative. Please note that this study is the first to investigate student teachers' beliefs about theory-based and practically-derived knowledge of instruction and student learning in relation to their valuing of theoretical and practical learning tasks. In addition to the three research questions for which we were able to ground specific hypotheses in prior work, we wanted to explore to what extent student teachers might rely on social and popular media as sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning, as well as the potential relationship between reliance on such sources and motivation for learning. Although such sources did not form a distinct category in Buehl and Fives' (2009) seminal study of beliefs about the sources of teaching knowledge and, at least to our knowledge, have not been specifically addressed in the extant literature on epistemic beliefs, social and popular media have become ubiquitous in young people's lives (Metzger & Flanagin, 2008) and may therefore also play a role as sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning among young student teachers. Given the exploratory nature of this issue, however, we did not entertain any specific hypothesis regarding the findings. Because gender and study experience may be associated with beliefs about knowledge as well as task value (Eccles, 2005; Hofer, 2000; Lonka & Lindblom-Yl€ anne, 1996; Perry, 1970; Wood & Kardash, 2002), gender and study experience were controlled for in regression analyses predicting task value motivation with source of knowledge beliefs. For example, Hofer (2000) found gender differences in college students' beliefs about the source of knowledge, with men more likely than women to view authority and expertise as a source of knowledge, and Eccles and colleagues have documented gender differences in the value attached to various school subjects and activities at different educational levels (e.g., Eccles, Adler, & Meece, 1984; Eccles & Harold, 1992). Regarding

16

I. Bråten, L.E. Ferguson / Teaching and Teacher Education 50 (2015) 13e23

study experience, it has been known since Perry's (1970) early longitudinal work that students' beliefs about the source of knowledge may vary with their college experience, and with respect to task value, Eccles (2005) has specified how this motivation component is related to students' previous achievementrelated experiences. In this study, gender and study experience were treated as control variables, however, because our main interest concerned the unique predictability of student teachers' source of knowledge beliefs for their valuing of learning tasks. 2. Method 2.1. Study design This study is a survey study that uses questionnaires to gather quantitative information about beliefs about sources of knowledge and motivation for learning in a sample of student teachers. Further, the study uses a correlational design including multiple regression analyses to investigate unique relationships between participants' source of knowledge beliefs and their motivation for learning. 2.2. Participants and setting Participants were 96 first-semester teacher education students at a university college in southeast Norway that were present at two regular, compulsory lectures (see Section 2.4). In total, there were 106 first-semester teacher education students in the college program at this point of time. The sample included 66 females and 30 males with an overall mean age of 21.72 years (SD ¼ 5.12). The vast majority of the participants (91%) were ethnic Norwegians that had Norwegian as their first language and had completed their secondary education in a Norwegian school. In addition, four reported that they had another first language in addition to Norwegian, and one was Swedish, one was Bosnian, one was Portuguese, one was Philipino, and one was Kurdish. Of note is, however, that the students that were not ethnic Norwegians were also proficient in the Norwegian language and had participated in the Norwegian education system themselves. In an international perspective, the sample was homogeneous (i.e., middle class) with regard to socioeconomic status. Participation was rewarded by entry into a prize draw for one of two gift cards (approx. USD 85) for local shopping centers. The student teachers attended a state university college with no school fees that followed the national guidelines for four-year teacher education programs designed for elementary and lower secondary education (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2011). In the first semester, Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills is a core subject taught at the college, covering 15 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits and focusing on topics such as instructional methods for diverse students and student learning processes. The coursework for this subject is organized as large lectures as well as seminars and work in so-called “basis groups”, consisting of four to six students working collaboratively on issues related to instruction and student learning within the framework of the syllabus. In brief, the coursework for this subject aimed to employ varied teaching and working methods and to involve much student activity and dialogue. The subject Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills covers 60 ECTS credits during the entire four-year program, which measure the workload for a full-time student during one academic year. In the first semester, participants also had a teaching practice period of three weeks in schools outside the college. During this period, participants were supervised by teaching practice supervisors at the schools, and they mainly conducted classroom observations but also participated in planning, carrying out, and

evaluating teaching in different school subjects. Most of this teaching practice took place after participants had completed 10 weeks of coursework in Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills at the college. Over the entire four-year program, teaching practice outside the college consists of at least 20 weeks, with at least 12 weeks during the first two years and at least eight weeks during the last two years, and with increased independence and responsibility required of student teachers over time. Of note is that a particular aim of the subject Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills is to integrate student teachers' practical experiences with theory on instruction and student learning (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2011). This means that practical issues are to be discussed in relation to theory in lectures and seminars, and that student teachers are required to report and reflect on their teaching practice in light of relevant educational theory. 2.3. Materials 2.3.1. Overview Questionnaire data were collected on the participating student teachers' study experience, their beliefs about sources of knowledge concerning instruction and student learning, and their motivation for learning from theory and practice, respectively, in teacher education. Next, we describe each specific measure included in the assessment. 2.3.2. Study experience To assess participants' post-secondary study experience, we asked them to report, in years and months, how long they had studied at a college or university before starting on the teacher education program. Their responses to this question were coded as ranging from 0 (no previous post-secondary study experience) to 5 (more than four years of previous study experience). 2.3.3. Source of knowledge questionnaire To assess beliefs about the sources of knowledge, we designed a 10-item questionnaire in which participants were asked to rate the extent to which they believed different knowledge sources about instruction and student learning to be significant for themselves as student teachers. Eight of the items were based on the qualitative study of Buehl and Fives (2009), identifying different kinds of beliefs that preservice and practicing teachers may hold about the sources of teaching knowledge. Thus, one item asked participants to rate the significance of formal education (exemplified with teacher education) as a source of knowledge about instruction and student learning. Moreover, four items asked them to rate the significance of formalized bodies of knowledge. Specifically, one of these four items asked them to rate the significance of textbooks (exemplified with the syllabus of the subject Pedagogy and PupilRelated Skills), one item asked them to rate the significance of research articles and professional literature (exemplified with Norwegian journals on instruction and student learning), and two items asked them to rate official and other responsible websites (exemplified with the website of the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training and websites providing relevant information to teachers, parents, and students, respectively). Three additional items asked participants to rate the significance of different types of experiences as sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning. Thus, one of these three items asked them to rate observation of other teachers' practice (exemplified with practice teachers), one item asked them to rate collaboration and interaction with other students (exemplified with the basis groups), and one item asked them to rate personal experience (exemplified with own experiences as a student). In addition to these eight items derived from Buehl and Fives' (2009) work, we included two items

I. Bråten, L.E. Ferguson / Teaching and Teacher Education 50 (2015) 13e23

asking participants to rate the significance of social (exemplified with Twitter and Facebook) and popular media (exemplified with newspapers, television, and radio) as sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning. All items included in the source of knowledge questionnaire are displayed in Appendix A. For all 10 items, participants used a 7-point scale with to a very little extent (1) and to a very large extent (7) as the anchor points. To explore the dimensionality of participants' beliefs about the sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning, we performed a principal component analysis with oblique rotation on their scores on the source of knowledge questionnaire. After having eliminated the item referring to formal education because that item did not load unambiguously on any one factor, three factors that met the KaisereGuttman criterion of eigenvalues greater than unity were identified. These factors had eigenvalues ranging from 2.76 to 1.17, high loadings (>.50) and no overlap for any item, and explained 60.82% of the total sample variation. The three factors were labelled formalized sources, experiential sources, and social and popular media sources. Item-to-factor loadings, eigenvalues, and reliability estimates (Cronbach's a) for each of the three factors are shown in Table 1. The four items assigned to the first factor, formalized sources, generally tap endorsement of formalized bodies of knowledge, including textbooks, research articles and professional literature, official websites, and other websites providing relevant information about instruction and student learning. In terms of the theorypractice division, these sources can be considered theory-based rather than practice-based. The three items comprising the second factor, experiential sources, capture reliance on experiences as sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning, including observational experiences with other teachers, collaborative experiences with other student teachers, and personal experiences with being a student. These sources can clearly be regarded as practically derived rather than theory-based. Finally, the third factor, social and popular media sources, consisted of two items concerning participants' endorsement of social media, such as Facebook, and popular media, such as television, as sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning. While the lower a for this factor probably was due to the very low number of items, the inter-item correlation was .37, with inter-item correlation ranges from .15 to .50 usually deemed satisfactory (Briggs & Cheek, 1986; Clark & Watson, 1995). Thus, given the oversensitivity of a to the number of items and an inter-item correlation of .37, we decided to include this variable as a predictor in subsequent statistical analysis (see also, Streiner, 2003). Still, results concerning this variable should be interpreted with caution.

17

2.3.4. Motivation for learning questionnaires To assess participants' motivation for learning from theory and practice, respectively, we used two 18-item questionnaires, one focusing on theoretical learning tasks encountered in the subject Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills taught at the college and the other focusing on practical learning tasks encountered in the teaching practice periods taking place in schools outside the college. All 18 items were adapted from the questionnaire developed and used by Bråten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud, et al. (2014) to measure the task value component of motivation in the domain of science. In accordance with expectance-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), different aspects of task value were captured by the items, with five items addressing the importance of doing well on the learning tasks, five items addressing the perceived relevance of the learning tasks in relation to current and future goals, and eight items addressing the intrinsic interestingness of the learning tasks. Of note is that the items on the two questionnaires were identical apart from their references to the subject Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills and the teaching practice periods, respectively. For example, one relevance item read “I really have no use for what I learn in Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills class” in the “theory version” and “I really have no use for what I learn in the practice periods” in the “practice version” (both were reverse-scored). In addition, the written instruction for the theory version asked participants to rate statements concerning the teaching provided in Pedagogy and PupilRelated Skills at the college, whereas the instruction for the practice version asked them to rate statements concerning the teaching practice periods. All items used to measure motivation for learning from theory and practice, respectively, are displayed in Appendix B. Participants rated each item on the two motivation for learning questionnaires on a 7-point scale ranging from not at all true for me (1) to completely true for me (7). After having divided the scores on the questionnaires by the number of items, the scores on each questionnaire ranged from 1 to 7. The reliability estimate (Cronbach's a) for the scores on the questionnaire assessing motivation for learning from theory was .92; for the scores on the questionnaire assessing motivation for learning from practice, it was .86. Please note that by assessing motivation for learning from theory and practice on two separate questionnaires rather than considering them opposite endpoints on the same scale, we also presupposed that participants' motivation for the two types of learning tasks might be independent (i.e., uncorrelated). 2.4. Procedure Participants were recruited to the study through letters sent via the college professors responsible for teaching the subject of

Table 1 Factor analysis of the source of knowledge questionnaire. Variables

Official websites Research articles and professional literature Other responsible websites Textbooks Formalized eigenvalue ¼ 2.76 Observation of teachers Collaboration with student teachers Personal experiences with being a student Experiential eigenvalue ¼ 1.55 Social media Popular media Social and popular media eigenvalue ¼ 1.17

Factor loadings Formalized

Experiential

Social and popular media

a ¼ .73

a ¼ .63

a ¼ .50

.86 .80 .70 .52 .78 .75 .69 .85 .71

18

I. Bråten, L.E. Ferguson / Teaching and Teacher Education 50 (2015) 13e23

Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills. The second author group administered the materials to participants during two regular, compulsory lectures on Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills in the middle of the first semester of their four-year teacher education program, with 43 and 53 participants, respectively, attending the two lectures. Of note is that at the time of data collection, participants had completed 12 weeks of coursework in Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills at the college and three weeks of teaching practice in schools outside the college. Data collection took place two weeks after the three-week practice period was completed. Each participant received a folder containing a demographic information sheet and the described questionnaires. While the demographic information sheet (including the study experience question) was always completed first, the three other measures (i.e., the source of knowledge questionnaire and the motivation for learning questionnaires) were presented in random order. Participants were orally instructed to complete the materials in the order they were presented in the folder and to pay close attention to the written instructions provided for each task. All participants completed the materials within 35 min. Participation in the data collection was voluntary and all data were treated anonymously and confidentially. 3. Results Descriptive statistics for all measured variables are reported in Table 2. Addressing our first research question, asking whether student teachers rely more on practically-derived than on theorybased sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning, we analyzed the data gathered by means of the source of knowledge questionnaire. A repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated that participants endorsed the three types of sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning differently, with F(2, 186) ¼ 251.03, p ¼ .000, partial h2 ¼ 0.73. Follow-up paired-sample t-tests with Bonferroni adjustment showed that participants scored statistically significantly higher on experiential sources of knowledge (M ¼ 6.20, SD ¼ .78) than on formalized sources (M ¼ 4.35, SD ¼ 1.10), with t(93) ¼ 15.07, p ¼ .000, Cohen's d ¼ 1.97. As expected with respect to our first research question, then, results showed that participants relied more strongly on practically-derived than on theory-based sources about instruction and student learning. Interestingly, participants also relied much less on social and popular media (M ¼ 3.26, SD ¼ 1.22) than on experiential sources, with t(93) ¼ 21.97, p ¼ .000, Cohen's d ¼ 2.96, and even less so than on formalized sources, t(95) ¼ 8.00, p ¼ .000, Cohen's d ¼ 0.96. Next, we addressed our second research question, asking whether student teachers value practical learning tasks more than theoretical learning tasks, by analyzing the data gathered by means of the two motivation for learning questionnaires. A paired-sample t-test showed that participants valued practical learning tasks (M ¼ 6.43, SD ¼ .51) much more than theoretical learning tasks (M ¼ 5.57, SD ¼ .85), with t(88) ¼ 8.69, p ¼ .000, Cohen's d ¼ 1.27. As

expected with respect to our second research question, then, the participating student teachers were more motivated to learn from theory than from practice in their teacher education program. Finally, we addressed our third research question, concerning relationships between participants' beliefs about the sources of knowledge and their motivation for learning, by analyzing the data gathered by means of the source of knowledge questionnaire together with the data gathered by means of the two motivation for learning questionnaires. Zero-order correlations among the variables are displayed in Table 3, with gender (males ¼ 0, females ¼ 1) also included in the correlation matrix. To examine the unique predictability of the different types of source of knowledge beliefs, we performed two simultaneous multiple regression analyses with their valuing of theoretical and practical learning tasks, respectively, as dependent variables. To control for any differences due to gender and study experience, the dichotomous variable of gender and the continuous variable of study experience were included in each regression equation together with the source of knowledge beliefs. Table 4 shows the results of the regression analyses for both motivation variables. With respect to motivation for learning from theory, the five predictors together explained a statistically significant amount of the variance, with F(5, 84) ¼ 2.89, p ¼ .019, R2 ¼ .15. In this analysis, neither gender (b ¼ .06, ns) nor study experience (b ¼ .06, ns) was related to motivation. However, reliance on formalized knowledge sources was a unique positive predictor (b ¼ .29, p ¼ .011) and reliance on social and popular media sources was a unique negative predictor (b ¼ .26, p ¼ .018). Thus, as expected with respect to the third research question, the more participants endorsed theory-based knowledge about instruction and student learning, the higher they valued theoretical learning tasks in the teacher education program. In addition, the results indicated that participants relying more on social and popular media sources about instruction and student learning were also less motivated to learn from theory in the program. Also with respect to motivation for learning from practice, all five predictors together explained a statistically significant amount of the variance, with F(5, 84) ¼ 6.09, p ¼ .000, R2 ¼ .27. Again, neither gender (b ¼ .03, ns) nor study experience (b ¼ .14, ns) was related to the motivation variable. Also as expected with respect to the third research question, however, belief in experiential sources of knowledge was a unique positive predictor (b ¼ .48, p ¼ .000), indicating that participants relying more on practically-derived knowledge about instruction and student learning were also more likely to value learning from practice in teacher education. Interestingly, reliance on social and popular media as sources of knowledge was also a unique negative predictor of motivation for learning from practice (b ¼ .24, p ¼ .017). Please note that according to the rule of thumb proposed by Cohen (1988), the variance explained in the two multiple regression analyses, that is, 15 (Cohen's ʃ2 ¼ 0.17) and 27% (Cohen's ʃ2 ¼ 0.38), can be considered median and large effects in multiple regression, respectively.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for all measured variables. Variable

Mean

Standard deviation

Range Potential

Actual

Study experience Formalized sources Experiential sources Social and popular media sources Motivation for learning from theory Motivation for learning from practice

.36 4.35 6.20 3.26 5.57 6.43

.90 1.10 .78 1.22 .85 .51

0e5 1e7 1e7 1e7 1e7 1e7

0.00e4.00 1.63e6.50 3.67e7.00 0.00e6.00 3.22e7.00 4.83e7.00

I. Bråten, L.E. Ferguson / Teaching and Teacher Education 50 (2015) 13e23

19

Table 3 Zero-order correlations for all variables. Variable

1

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

e .11 .15 .10 .00 .12 .03

Gender Study experience Formalized sources Experiential sources Social and popular media sources Motivation for learning from theory Motivation for learning from practice

2

3

4

5

6

7

e .23* .31** .28** .07

e .21* .13 .45***

e .14 .12

e .12

e

e .29** .01 .04 .14 .13

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Table 4 Results of multiple regression analyses for variables predicting motivation for learning from theory and practice. Predictor

Gender Study experience Formalized sources Experiential sources Social and popular media sources

Motivation for learning from theory

Motivation for learning from practice

B

SE B

b

B

SE B

b

.11 .05 .23 .11 .18

.19 .10 .09 .12 .08

.06 .06 .29* .10 .26*

.03 .08 .04 .31 .10

.10 .05 .05 .06 .04

.03 .14 .09 .48*** .24*

Note. *p < .05, ***p < .001.

4. Discussion The relationship between theory and practice in teacher education is a fundamental issue with its roots in ancient philosophy, distinguishing between abstract, general propositions and practical experience with specific concrete cases and complex situations (Kessels & Korthagen, 1996), and the relationship between theory and practice and the incorporation of research-based knowledge in teacher education continue to be discussed (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002; Munthe & Rogne, 2015; Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, Lüdtke, & Baumert, 2011). In current teacher education programs, the former (i.e., theory) is represented by formalized bodies of knowledge, such as textbooks and research literature, and the latter (i.e., practice) is represented by own and vicarious experiences with teaching and social interaction. Despite efforts to ease the tension created by the juxtaposition of these two forms of knowledge in teacher education, for example by insisting on theory being practically applicable and practice being grounded in theory (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2011; Stokking et al., 2003), as well as the increased use of mentoring programs at national and international levels (Long et al., 2012; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002), student teachers seem hard to convince that theory and practical experience have equal merit (e.g., Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Cole & Knowles, 1993; Joram, 2007; Kessels & Korthagen, 1996; Sinclair, 2008; Zeichner & Conklin, 2008). In the current study, this was indicated by participating student teachers' preference for practically-derived, experiential sources of knowledge and their stronger motivation to learn from practice in the teacher education program. By conceptualizing the theory-practice gap in terms of their personal epistemology and their motivation to learn, this study uniquely contributes to the literature on beliefs and motivation among student teachers, as well as to our understanding of the reasons why this gap exists. In the following, we briefly summarize our findings and discuss their theoretical implications before we turn to limitations of our work and its educational implications.

4.1. Findings and theoretical implications First, student teachers were found to hold distinct beliefs about formalized bodies of knowledge, various personal and social experiences, and social and popular media as sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning. Moreover, as expected, they were found to believe more in experiential than in the two other sources of knowledge, with social and popular media endorsed least by our participants. Previously, beliefs in authority and experience as sources of knowledge have been considered opposite ends of one continuum (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer, 1990) or to constitute separate dimensions of epistemic beliefs (Ferguson et al., 2012), like we did in the current study, differentiating between formalized and experiential sources of knowledge. An interesting alternative is, however, to regard formalized as well as experiential and media sources as referring to authority in the sense of Chinn, Buckland, and Samarapungavan (2011), reconceptualizing authority in terms of testimony and emphasizing that most of what people know is based on the testimony of others (e.g., textbook authors, practice teachers, and popular media). In such a testimonial view of sources of knowledge, the question is not whether student teachers believe more in experiential sources than in authority but, rather, whose testimony (authority) they perceive to be more believable. Presumably, student teachers are likely to assign more weight to the testimonies of practicing and preservice teachers than to those of textbook authors and researchers, as evidenced by their stronger endorsement of experiential sources of knowledge, because the first-mentioned are perceived to be closer to the educational realities of the classroom (cf., Kessels & Korthagen, 1996). Not surprisingly, our participants relied least on the testimonies of social and popular media regarding instruction and student learning. Thus, although young people may be preoccupied with social and popular media and rely heavily on it for information sources in daily life, they do not necessarily regard them as authoritative sources of knowledge about central aspects of teaching knowledge (probably to the relief of many teacher educators). In addition to differences in participants' beliefs about sources of knowledge, the theory-practice gap was evidenced in this study by their stronger motivation to learn from practice than from theory. Of note is that we conceptualized motivation to learn in terms of the value component of expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and thus focused on participants' appreciation of learning tasks encountered in teacher education. According to Brophy (2008), students who appreciate learning tasks “will find them meaningful and worthwhile and will take them seriously by trying to get the intended benefits from them” (p. 133). By assessing appreciation of learning tasks presented in theoretically oriented coursework and learning tasks presented in teaching practice periods on separate, yet parallel, measures, we were able to demonstrate that the student teachers, as expected, appreciated the value of what they were learning during teaching practice much more that what they were learning during coursework at the college.

20

I. Bråten, L.E. Ferguson / Teaching and Teacher Education 50 (2015) 13e23

Because such a difference may involve that learners differ in the extent to which they engage purposefully in the two types of tasks and thus try to comprehend the concepts and master the skills they are designed to develop (Brophy, 2008), potential antecedents of motivation for learning in teacher education seem important to investigate. Based on theory and prior research within personal epistemology (Bråten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud, et al., 2014; Buehl, 2003; Buehl & Alexander, 2005; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Muis, 2007), we considered student teachers' beliefs about different sources of knowledge to be likely candidates. Arguably, the most important finding of the current study is that student teachers' beliefs in theory-based sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning uniquely predicted motivation to learn from theoretically oriented coursework and that their beliefs in practically-derived sources of knowledge uniquely predicted their motivation to learn from teaching practice. In this way, we were able to demonstrate that student teachers' epistemic validation of knowledge sources concerning essential aspects of teaching knowledge (Fives & Buehl, 2008) may contribute to their motivational appreciation of learning tasks presented in college courses or reading assignments (i.e., theoretical tasks) as well during teaching practice (i.e., practical tasks), with such appreciation potentially having long-term consequences for their learning outcomes. Of note is that participants' beliefs concerning sources of knowledge contributed to their motivation for learning independent of gender and study experience, also demonstrating that such beliefs may be better predictors of the task-value component of motivation than are gender and previous post-secondary study experience. Moreover, our finding brings important nuance to prior work within personal epistemology, suggesting that beliefs in authoritative sources in the form of teachers and textbooks may be positively related whereas beliefs in personal experience may be negatively related to motivation for learning (Author et al., 2014a; Buehl & Alexander, 2005). The current study indicates, however, that the predictability of these two types of source of knowledge beliefs for motivation may depend on which learning tasks one has in mind. Finally, although endorsement of social and popular media as sources of knowledge was substantially lower than endorsement of formalized and experiential sources, individual differences with respect to the former explained a unique portion of the variance in motivation, with stronger beliefs in social and popular media sources being negatively related to motivation to learn. Interestingly, yet not surprisingly, the regression analyses suggested that attributing significance to social and popular media as sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning does not bode well for the appreciation of any learning task in teacher education, be it theoretical or practical. Rather, they suggest that increased attention to such knowledge sources may derail student teachers' sustained goal-oriented efforts to learn in teacher education institutions as well as in practice schools. This finding needs to be corroborated by future research using more reliable measures, however. 4.2. Limitations There are also other limitations to the current study that may provide impetus to further work in this area. First, although the issues addressed in the current study are of international applicability, we cannot impute generalizability for our results based on a sample of Norwegian student teachers. Future research on source of knowledge beliefs and motivation for learning in teacher education should encompass larger samples and, preferably, be conducted across different cultures. Second, because we used only correlational data, conclusions regarding causal relationships between source of knowledge beliefs

and motivation for learning are not warranted. In the current study, we simply focused on testing relationships between source of knowledge beliefs and motivation for learning, obtaining data consistent with the assumption that source of knowledge beliefs are causal predictors of the appreciation of theoretical and practical learning tasks in teacher education. However, firmer causal statements regarding those relationships must await further experimental and longitudinal work. Importantly, future longitudinal work on these issues may also provide opportunity for investigating how student teachers' beliefs about different sources of teaching knowledge and their motivation for learning from theory and practice, as well as relationships between source of knowledge beliefs and motivation for learning, develop over time. Preferably, such longitudinal work should also control for other individual difference variables and take more distal predictors of student teachers' differential appreciation for theoretical and practical learning tasks into consideration, for example the epistemic and motivational climates of institutions and classrooms (Muis & Duffy, 2013; Pintrich & Maehr, 2004). Third, because we used only questionnaire data in the current study, we could not probe participants' responses to items as with in-depth interviews, and because we did not collect any behavioral data, we could not observe to what extent participants' beliefs about sources and their self-reported motivation translated into selection of particular sources and goal-oriented engagement with particular learning tasks. In-depth interviews as well as behavioral observations may therefore shed further light on the issues that we explored in this study. Another limitation of relying on questionnaire data is that the social desirability of response alternatives may bias people's self-reports (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Especially when rating their motivation for learning from practice, some of the items on the questionnaire may have been formulated in ways that made students report higher motivation than what they actually had because they believed this to be approved by the researchers, their teachers, or other students. Also related to methodology, future research might address more specific source of knowledge beliefs, for example by specifying to which aspects of instruction and student learning the targeted sources of knowledge are referring. Finally, although the main aim of the present study was to better understand student teachers' beliefs about sources of teaching knowledge and the relationships between such beliefs and their motivation for learning in teacher education, future work should investigate beliefs about sources of knowledge and the implication of such beliefs for motivation for further learning and professional development in samples of practicing teachers. 4.3. Educational implications Despite these limitations, we believe that our line of research is important and potentially fruitful because of the implications it affords not only for theory but also for teacher education practice. For example, understanding the theory-practice gap in terms of student teachers' beliefs in different sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning and, moreover, that such beliefs may underlie their motivation to learn in the teacher education program, may facilitate the development of learning experiences that promote a more balanced view on theory-based and practically-derived sources of knowledge. Organizing such learning experiences at the college may necessitate revisions of the content and activities that are presented during coursework, to ensure that the applicability of the concepts that they work with are both thoroughly explained and modeled to student teachers, a line of work that is currently being addressed in Germany, for example (Kunter et al., 2013; Lohse-Bossenz, Kunina-Habenicht, &

I. Bråten, L.E. Ferguson / Teaching and Teacher Education 50 (2015) 13e23

Kunter, 2013). Moreover, to ensure that the teachers encountered during teaching practice periods (especially the teaching practice supervisors) are not working against the efforts of the college professors by providing affirmation for the student teachers' strong preference for practically-derived knowledge (cf., Joram, 2007), it seems important that practice supervisors are well familiar with student teachers' coursework and help them adapt and apply it in the classroom to highlight its practical relevance (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005). In addition to such explanation, modeling, and scaffolding of the applicability of theory-based knowledge, however, teacher educators and practice teachers alike could directly address and help student teachers reflect on their beliefs about the sources of knowledge about instruction and student learning, supporting belief change on an as-needed basis (Brownlee, 2001; Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-Lewis, 2001; Hong, 2010). Of course, the aim of such instructional effort is not blind trust in textbooks and college professors as conveyors of truth about instruction and student learning but, rather, an ability to critically evaluate, reason with, weigh, and coordinate different sources of knowledge, theoretical as well as practical, to understand and negotiate educational issues at hand. In terms of personal epistemology, this mode of reasoning comes close to an “evaluative stance”, which is characterized by a coordination or reconciliation of the objective and the subjective aspect of knowing (Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002). As this study suggests, such an evaluative, coordinated stance to sources of knowledge may also translate into an appreciation for learning tasks that may counteract trends towards disengagement and dropout in teacher education and, eventually, an impeding teacher shortage (UNESCO, 2014). Appendix A. The items used to measure beliefs about sources of knowledge 1. Formal education (e.g., teacher education). 2. Textbooks (e.g., the syllabus of Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills). 3. Research articles and professional literature on instruction and learning (e.g., articles in Bedre Skole, Utdanning*). 4. Official websites (e.g., the website of the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training). 5. Other educational websites (e.g., skole.no, skole.blogg.no). 6. Social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook). 7. Observation of other teachers' practice (e.g., practice teachers). 8. Personal experience (e.g., own experiences as a student). 9. Study groups and collaboration with other students (e.g., basis groups). 10. Popular media (e.g., newspapers, television, radio). *Bedre Skole [Better School] and Utdanning [Education] exemplify well known Norwegian journals for teachers on instruction and student learning. Appendix B. The items used to measure motivation for learning from theory (and practice) 1. I think it is always important to learn what is presented in PPS*-class (practice periods). 2. Acquiring theoretical (practical) knowledge in PPS-class (practice periods) is fun. 3. What I learn in PPS-class (practice periods) is not useful (reverse-scored). 4. I am not concerned if I don't learn so much in PPS-class (practice periods) (reverse-scored).

21

5. I only try to learn what is presented in PPS-class (practice periods) because the teacher says it's interesting (reversescored). 6. Compared to other things that I learn in the program and in my leisure time, what I learn in PPS-class (practice periods) is not so important for me (reverse-scored). 7. I do not think it is possible to become a skilled teacher without a solid theoretical (practical) foundation from PPSclass (practice periods). 8. I am always interested in learning what is discussed in PPSclass (practice periods). 9. Learning in PPS-class (practice periods) is not so important that I make an effort to do my best (reverse-scored). 10. The content of PPS-class (practice periods) does not make me very interested in what I learn there (reverse-scored). 11. To really learn from PPS-class (practice periods) is necessary to succeed as a teacher. 12. Although the content of PPS-class (practice periods) can be demanding, I think it is important. 13. I think it is exciting to learn even difficult things that are presented in PPS-class (practice periods). 14. I really have no use for what I learn in PPS-class (practice periods) (reverse-scored). 15. I easily lose interest when PPS-class (practice periods) demand(s) much of me (reverse-scored). 16. Compared to most of what I do in the teacher education program, I like the content of PPS-class (practice periods). 17. PPS-class (Practice periods) is (are) useful. 18. I enjoy learning what I work with in PPS-class (practice periods). *PPS ¼ Pedagogy and Pupil-Related Skills.

References Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: the interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213e250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bråten, I. (2011). Personal epistemology in education. In V. G. Aukrust (Ed.), Learning and cognition in education (pp. 52e58). Oxford: Elsevier. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Are sophisticated students always better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 814e840. Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., Strømsø, H. I., & Brandmo, C. (2014). Modeling relations between students' justification for knowing beliefs in science, motivation for understanding what they read in science, and science achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 66, 1e12. Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 58e85. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106e148. Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34, 75e85. Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students' appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational Psychologist, 43, 132e141. Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42, 153e224. Brownlee, J. (2001). Knowing and learning in teacher education: a theoretical framework of core and peripheral epistemological beliefs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development, 4, 167e190. Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education students. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 247e268. Buehl. (2003). At the crossroads of epistemology and motivation: Modeling the relations between students' domain-specific epistemological beliefs, achievement motivation, and task performance. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland. Retrieved March 5, 2013 from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/317/1/ dissertation.pdf.

22

I. Bråten, L.E. Ferguson / Teaching and Teacher Education 50 (2015) 13e23

Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students' domain-specific epistemological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 697e726. Buehl, M. M., & Beck, J. S. (2015). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and teachers' practices. In H. Fives, & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers' beliefs (pp. 66e84). New York: Routledge. Buehl, M. M., & Fives, H. (2009). Exploring teachers' beliefs about teaching knowledge: where does it come from? Does it change? Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 367e407. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141e167. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309e319. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: a decade later. Educational Researcher, 28, 15e25. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (1993). Shattered images: understanding expectancies and realities of field experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 457e471. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227e268. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040e1048. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievementrelated choices. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105e121). New York: Guilford. Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: a test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26e43. Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1992). Gender differences in educational and occupational patterns among the gifted. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Amronson (Eds.), Talent development (pp. 3e29). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Social, emotional, and personality development: Vol. 3. Handbook of child psychology (pp. 1017e1095). New York: Wiley. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169e189. Fauskanger, J., & Hanssen, B. (2011). Frafall og omvalg i lærerutdanningen: Hva kan gjøre noe med og hva må vi leve med? [Dropout and reselection in teacher education: what can we do something about and what do we have to live with?] Uniped, 34(2), 55e66. Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2012). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A thinkaloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22, 103e120. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for examining beliefs about teachers' knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 134e176. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers' beliefs: what are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors: Vol. 2. APA educational psychology handbook (pp. 471e499) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., & Canrinus, E. T. (2014). Motivation for becoming a teacher and engagement with the profession: evidence from different contexts. International Journal of Educational Research, 65, 65e74. Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43, 142e160. ~ ez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and Guarino, C. M., Santiban retention: a review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 173e208. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: what would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31, 3e15. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378e405. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Introduction: paradigmatic approaches to personal epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 39, 1e3. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88e140. Hong, J. Y. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers' professional identity and its relation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1530e1543. Joram, E. (2007). Clashing epistemologies: aspiring teachers', practicing teachers', and professors' beliefs about knowledge and research in education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 123e135. Kessels, J. P. A. M., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (1996). The relationship between theory and practice: back to the classics. Educational Researcher, 25, 17e22. Kitchener, R. (2002). Folk epistemology: an introduction. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 89e105. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121e144) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers results from the COACTIV project. New York: Springer. Lohse-Bossenz, H., Kunina-Habenicht, O., & Kunter, M. (2013). The role of educational psychology in teacher education: expert opinions on what teachers should know about learning, development, and assessment. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 1543e1565. Long, J. S., McKenzie-Robblee, S., Schaefer, L., Steeves, P., Wnuk, S., Pinnegar, E., et al. (2012). Literature review on induction and mentoring related to early career teacher attrition and retention. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20, 7e26. €nne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Yla and study practices in medicine and psychology. Higher Education, 31, 5e24. Mcdonald, D. (1999). Teacher attrition: A review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 835e848. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (Eds.). (2008). Digital media, youth, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173e190. Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domainspecificity in personal epistemology research: philosophical and empirical questions in the development of a theoretical model. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3e54. Muis, K. R., & Duffy, M. C. (2013). Epistemic climate and epistemic change: instruction designed to change students' beliefs and learning strategies and improve achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 213e225. Munthe, E., & Rogne, M. (2015). Research based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 17e24. Murphy, P. K., & Mason, L. (2006). Changing knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 305e324). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2011). National guidelines for differentiated primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes for years 1-7 and 5-10. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kd/documents/ legislation/legal-guidelines/2010/national-guidelines-for-differentiated-t.html? id¼640249 Accessed 28.05.14. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307e332. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Pintrich, P. R., & Maehr, M. L. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating students, improving schools: The legacy of Carol Midgley. Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 13). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2011). Professional development across the teaching career: teachers' uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 116e126. Rots, I., Aelterman, A., Devos, G., & Vlerick, P. (2010). Teacher education and the choice to enter the teaching profession: a prospective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1619e1629. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498e504. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1e21. Sinclair, C. (2008). Initial and changing student teacher motivation and commitment to teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 79e104. Stokking, K., Leenders, F., De Jong, J., & Van Tartwijk, J. V. (2003). From student to teacher: reducing practice shock and early dropout in the teaching profession. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26, 329e350. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Being inconsistent about consistency: when coefficient alpha does and doesn't matter. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 217e222. UNESCO. (2014). Global teacher shortage. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/ themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-all/advocacy/globalaction-week/gaw-2013/global-teacher-shortage/ Accessed 27.06.14. Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2015). A motivational analysis of teacher beliefs. In H. Fives, & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers' beliefs (pp. 191e211). New York: Routledge. Watt, H. M. G., Richardson, P. W., Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Beyer, B., Trautwein, U., et al. (2012). Motivations for choosing teaching as a career. An international comparison using the FIT-Choice scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 791e805. Watt, H. M. G., Richardson, P. W., & Wilkins, K. (2014). Profiles of professional engagement and career development aspirations among USA preservice teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 65, 23e40. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancydvalue theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68e81. Wikan, G., & Bugge, L. S. (2014). Student performance in teacher education in Norway: the impact of student, institutional, and structural factors. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 442e452. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: an insider's view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 190e204.

I. Bråten, L.E. Ferguson / Teaching and Teacher Education 50 (2015) 13e23 Wood, P., & Kardash, C. A. (2002). Critical elements in the design and analysis of studies of epistemology. In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 231e260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 715e737). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

23

Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. G. (2008). Settings for teacher education. In M. CochranSmith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed.). (pp. 263e268). New York: Routledge.