New learning and choices of secondary school teachers when arranging learning environments

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816 www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

New learning and choices of secondary school teachers when arranging learning environments$ Adrianus de Kocka,b,, Peter Sleegersc, Marinus J.M. Voetend a

Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands KPC Group, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands c University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands d Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

b

Abstract The aim of this study was to determine the types of choices secondary teachers make when arranging learning environments and to determine how these choices change within the context of educational reforms aimed at the stimulation of New Learning. Interviews held with 15 Dutch secondary teachers showed three aspects of learning environments to which these choices of teachers are primarily related: (1) the division of teacher and learner roles, (2) learning goals, and (3) learning materials. The same three aspects emerged when teachers were specifically asked about arranging learning environments that stimulate New Learning. The interviews showed, however, that teachers have different conceptions of the instructional choices that will stimulate New Learning. In addition, teachers appeared to be thinking mostly in terms of learning products and not in terms of learning processes as a learning goal. Furthermore, teachers showed hardly any attention for arranging cooperative learner roles. For the successful transformation of education in the direction of New Learning, therefore, more support for teachers is recommended. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Learning environments; Secondary education; Learning goals; Teacher and learner roles; New learning; Teacher choices

$

This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the Onderwijs Research Dagen [Educational Research Days] held in May 2003 in Kerkrade, The Netherlands, under the auspices of the Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands, and a paper presented at the Earli Conference held in August 2003 in Padua, Italy. Corresponding author. Department of Educational Sciences, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94208, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 20 525 1230. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. de Kock).

1. Introduction Dutch secondary education faces large-scale changes aimed at the creation of learning environments intended to stimulate so-called ‘New Learning.’ The notion of New Learning concerns three basic principles with regard to learning: (a) learning is a social activity, (b) learning is a situated activity, and (c) learning is a constructive

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.012

ARTICLE IN PRESS 800

A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

activity. The stimulation of new forms of learning which are based on the idea that learning is a social-interactive, contextual, constructive, selfregulated, and reflective process (Simons, 2000) is propagated for a variety of reasons (Bolhuis, 2003). First, there is an economic argument: the capacity for self-directed learning is needed because, at least in western societies, knowledge creation has become very important for economic development. A second argument is that Dutch society is part of a global village in which there is continually a ‘confrontation with other truths’ (Bolhuis, 2003, p. 328), which asks for an individual’s ability to deal with these confrontations. A third argument stresses that the stimulation of self-directed learning supports the development of a democratic society, in which all citizens have equal possibilities to function well. Finally, the fourth argument says that the development of competencies for self-directed learning is needed to adequately prepare students for higher education. Furthermore, the stimulation of new forms of learning is also inspired by new psychological and educational insights that stress a shift from learning environments based on a knowledgetransmission model towards learning environments based on a knowledge-construction model (Lowyck & Ellen, 1993). A concomitant shift in the learning goals is also to occur. In addition to learning products (i.e., knowledge and skills), the functions of learning or ‘learning to learn’ are being valued as learning goals. This means that the role of teachers in secondary education should change from only being a knowledge provider to also being a guide of the learning processes taking place in students. This shift in learning goals implies that students must become active and independent learners. In addition, the new forms of learning call for an increase of cooperative learning and thus require new roles for students towards each other. In Dutch upper secondary education, the mentioned large-scale changes have been translated in an innovation called the ‘Study House’ which bases on these three learning principles aiming to create new learning environments that stimulate New Learning. The Study House reform is aimed

at the organization of upper secondary school subjects in such a manner that learners are stimulated to learn increasingly more independently or ‘learn to learn.’ The notion of ‘the teacher as coach for the learner’s learning process,’ the call for developing metacognitive skills, and the increased use of cooperative learning methods all reflect growing attention to New Learning (see Simons, Van der Linden, & Duffy, 2000). For the innovation called the Study House to succeed, teachers’ conceptions of teaching have to be transformed/changed from a focus on transmitting content, via a teachers/student interaction focus towards a focus on student learning (Boulton-Lewis, Smith, McCrindle, Burnett, & Campbell, 2001). Stimulating New Learning will require teachers to make other choices than they are used to make in arranging their learning environments or, more specifically, the organization of lessons, the learning goals to be achieved and the materials selected to supplement the lessons. Very little is known, however, about the concrete choices teachers make in arranging learning environments, let alone about the choices specifically directed at stimulating New Learning. The two research questions to be addressed in the present study were therefore as follows. (a) Which choices do teachers make with regard to the arrangement of learning environments in general? (b) Which choices do teachers make with regard to the arrangement of learning environments in order to stimulate New Learning in particular? An interview study was conducted with 15 Dutch secondary school teachers, who were involved in the Study House reform (initiated in 1998) for about 2 or 3 years. The purpose of the study was not to evaluate the reform, but to explore the choices teachers make in arranging learning environments, and to see how these choices relate to the New Learning strived for in the reform efforts. The choices a teacher makes in arranging the learning environment are part of his or her total body of practical knowledge. The research literature contains very different perspectives on just what constitutes practical knowledge and professional knowledge (Munby, Russell, & Martin,

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

2001, Chapter 42). In agreement with Van Driel and Verloop (1998), and Verloop, Van Driel, and Meijer (2001), we define practical knowledge as the integrated whole of knowledge, beliefs and values with regard to teaching, that a teacher has accumulated on the basis of his or her personal and professional experiences. The teacher’s knowledge and beliefs with regard to the arrangement of learning environments obviously constitute a part of the teacher’s so-called knowledge base (see, for example, Meijer, 1999). Although the notion of New Learning and the ideas about new learning environments that would stimulate New Learning are stressed by educational researchers and policymakers, the question, still, is whether and how these ideas about New Learning and new learning environments are also ‘alive inside the head and heart of teachers’ (see Beijaard, 1998). For the successful transformation of educational practice, considerable congruence between the theoretical and practical knowledge of teachers is needed. As Waeytens, Lens, and Vandenberghe (2002) recently stressed in their study of conceptions of ‘learning to learn,’ a clear translation of the concept of ‘learning to learn’ into the actual words used by teachers is needed. Since the implicit professional knowledge of teachers often serves as a filter for the interpretation of the rhetoric associated with top-down educational innovations (Pajares, 1992; Putnam & Borko, 1997; Verloop et al., 2001), reform efforts should match the knowledge and beliefs of teachers to some extent and thereby allow them to also ‘own’ the process of change to some extent (Datnow & Castellano, 2000). Teacher learning and thus change is based not only on formal knowledge and theory or ‘knowledge-for-practice’ but also on experiential knowledge or ‘knowledge-in-practice’ (Vandenberghe & Kelchtermans, 2002). In other words, the knowledge-for-practice regarding the arrangement of learning environments to stimulate New Learning must somehow link up with the actual knowledge-in-practice of teachers or what they, themselves, consider important for the arrangement of learning environments to stimulate New Learning. Research on teachers’ choices may shed more light on the ‘knowledge-in-practice’ with regard to learning environments, as well as

801

the link between ‘knowledge-for-practice’ and ‘knowledge-in-practice.’ Although arguments may be made that teachers do not have completely ‘free’ choices when actually arranging learning environments due to different social and institutional pressures that, as a consequence, make teachers become de-professionalized (Van Veen, 2003), we do think that teachers to some degree can and do make choices. The Study House reform does not provide ‘blueprints’ of learning environments but gives the teachers a high degree of freedom in making own arrangements. In an analysis of the dilemmas facing teachers when attempting to put constructivism into actual practice, Windschitl (2002) stresses that most learning environments have a mixed configuration of features, which means that the environments do not consistently reflect the principles of either New Learning or more traditional learning. Teachers may apply ‘new’ cooperative learning methods, for example, but within a traditional behavioural context in which they fully control what is learned and how. These mixed configurations reflect the individual choices teachers can make when arranging learning environments. In this study, those choices are examined, leading to specific arrangements of learning environments; choices, which are mostly not based on rational decision processes but guided by implicit considerations that are part of the practical knowledge base of teachers. ‘Learning environment’ refers to all aspects of the learner’s environment that possibly promote learning, for example, learning goals and materials (Joyce & Weil, 1996). Each aspect of the environment may be divided into a number of categories. With respect to learning goals, for example, cognitive learning skills may be distinguished from affective learning skills. To analyse choices teachers make in arranging learning environments, we used a classification scheme of learning environments that includes elements of New Learning (De Kock, Sleegers, & Voeten, 2004). In Fig. 1, an overview of the structure of the classification scheme is presented. The basic aspects used to describe learning environments are: (a) the learning goals, (b) the division of teacher and learner roles, and (c) the roles of the learners with respect

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

802

I Learning goals Learning products Knowledge of learning content Knowledge of learning process Attitude towards learning content Attitude towards learning process Cognitive learning skills Affective learning skills Social learning skills Transfer skills Learning process Preparatory learning functions

Cognitive

Affective

Metacognitive

Executive learning functions

Cognitive

Affective

Metacognitive

Closing learning functions

Cognitive

Affective

Metacognitive

II Division of teacher and learner roles Behavioral model

Developmental model

Apprenticeship model

III Learner roles with respect to each other Competitive

Individual

Cooperative

Fig. 1. Basis for the classification scheme of learning environments.

to each other. With regard to the learning goals, a distinction is made between goals pertaining to mainly the products of learning (e.g., mastery of specific content) and goals pertaining to mainly the process of learning (e.g., various metacognitive learning functions). Specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes refer to the product of learning. The integrated use of specific sets of knowledge and learning skills, i.e. the execution of learning functions (see Simons, 2000), such as ‘orientation towards learning goals’, ‘maintaining motivation and self-confidence’ or ‘thinking about future use and transfer’ refers to the process of learning as a learning goal in itself. Attention to process goals

reflects an orientation towards New Learning, which is the core of the Study House reform. With regard to the division of teacher and learner roles, a distinction is made between a behavioural, developmental and apprenticeship model. Within a behavioural model, the teacher tells the learner what and how things should be learned and the learner more or less follows these instructions. In a developmental model, the learner regulates his or her own learning with the teacher serving as a coach. In an apprenticeship model, the learner and the teacher participate in a shared world with respect to a particular subject; the teacher has considerable expertise

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

within this world and tries to model his expertise. Teachers with an orientation towards New Learning will tend to adhere to the developmental or the apprenticeship models; these models are advocated within the context of the Study House reform. The learner roles with respect to each other are distinguished into competitive, individual and cooperative roles. In a competitive learning situation, a learner’s learning is clearly beneficial to himself and not to his peers; learners actually compete with each other. In an individual learning situation, learners’ learning is clearly beneficial to themselves alone, and otherwise has no connections to the learning of others. In a cooperative learning environment, learners’ learning in one way or another benefits each member of the group in which they participate; the learners cooperate as peers (see Johnson & Johnson, 1999). The strive for New Learning is characterized by attention for cooperative learning, and therefore, learning environments within the context of the Study House reform are directed to the stimulation of cooperative learner roles. The classification scheme will be used to interpret the results of the present interview study and reflect upon the current theoretical assumptions regarding the arrangement of learning environments to promote New Learning.

2. Method 2.1. Participants In order to contact a variety of secondary school teachers, the researcher corresponded with several secondary schools varying in size and location (i.e., urban versus rural) and then contacted teachers from very different subjects (e.g., English language, Economics, Biology). This resulted in the recruitment of 15 secondary teachers for the interview study: 12 males and three females. In The Netherlands, the upper grades of secondary school contain only students pursuing a Higher General Secondary Education (Havo, additional 2 years) or a Pre-university Education (VWO, additional 3 years). Most of the 15 teachers taught

803

both levels, and the teachers came from eight different schools. 2.2. Materials and procedure The 15 teachers were sent a letter with information regarding the aims of the study and the interview procedure. Before the teachers were actually interviewed, the interview procedure and guidelines were pilot-tested with a single teacher, and a few modifications were subsequently made. The 15 teachers were next interviewed individually with help of an interview guide (see Appendix A). Prior to the interviews, the researcher observed one lesson for each teacher. This observation provided concrete reference points to mention during the interview and also allowed the researcher to ask the teacher why he or she acted in a particular manner at a particular point in time, which could reveal very relevant practical knowledge. The interview length varied from 25 to 50 minutes. The interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed. 2.3. Data analysis For each teacher, the interview transcript was divided into utterances defined as everything a teacher says between one question posed by the researcher and the next. Complete answers were chosen as the unit of analysis because considerable importance was attached to the context in which the teachers made their remarks. The analysis of the utterances was conducted in four phases in order to continually monitor the reliability and validity of the results. During each of the four phases, with the exception of the third phase, at least two people were involved in the analysis. During the whole analysis, four different persons were involved. Researchers 1 and 2 were involved in the first and second phases, and researchers 1, 3 and 4 were involved in the fourth phase. Finally, the results of the fourth phase in the analysis of the data were communicated to the research participants with the request to check the results for accuracy. None of the participants requested any changes or additions.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 804

A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

During the first phase of the analysis, an initial list of the different aspects of the learning environment referred to by the teachers and the various categories used in connection with the different aspects of the learning environment was constructed in the following manner. The teachers spoke in a very concrete manner, which means in terms of categories and not aspects of the learning environment. For example, they spoke of the importance of ‘striving for social skills’ (i.e., at the category level) but not of ‘the importance of learning goals for the arrangement of the learning environment’ (i.e., at the aspect level). For this reason, researcher 1 first examined the 15 interviews to identify different categories. Thereafter, those categories that appeared to refer to a particular aspect were grouped together and the different groups were assigned a label to indicate the aspect of the learning environment it represents. Researchers 1 and 2 next discussed the results of this initial global analysis of the transcripts, which led to the formulation of some additional aspects of the learning environment and the modification of some of the aspects initially proposed. During the second phase of the analysis, the initial list of categories and aspects was further refined as indicated below to create a coding scheme for the utterances. For this purpose, researchers 1 and 2 independently coded a random sample of about 50 utterances from the interviews and then compared their codings. Any coding discrepancies were discussed and, when deemed necessary, the coding scheme was modified accordingly. The improved version of the coding scheme was then taken as the starting point for a new round of independent coding and subsequent comparison. This strategy was followed until, after three rounds, a clearly reliable version of the coding scheme was attained and thereby intersubjective consensus on the classification of the categories and aspects of the learning environment referred to by the teachers interviewed here. It should be noted that the first criterion for labelling a group of categories as indicating a particular aspect of the learning environment was the teacher him/herself considering the category (or group of categories) as referring to a critical

aspect of the learning environment. Given that the teachers did not speak of abstract aspects of the learning environment, intersubjective agreement between the researchers with regard to the labelling of a group of categories as indeed representing a critical aspect of the learning environment was therefore required. Those elements of the learning environment which the researchers assumed to not play a role in the promotion of learner’s learning, such as the colour of the classroom ceiling, were not considered as a critical aspect of the learning environment. In addition, those elements of the learning environment which appear to promote learner’s learning but are not, in the shared opinion of the researchers, explicitly intended to do this by the teacher were also not considered a critical aspect of the learning environment; these elements fall beyond the direct influence of the teacher and are therefore open to minimal modification at best. The teachers were found to speak of several such elements, including the number of lesson hours for the subject, the textbook—which was often not selected by the teacher him/herself or the time of day for a particular activity (e.g., morning, late afternoon). For making these decisions, the work of De Kock et al. (2004) was used. In the third phase of the data analysis, researcher 1 coded all of the utterances from all of the interviews using the final version of the coding scheme. A code was assigned to an utterance not only when the teacher described a particular category but also when the category was simply mentioned. The fourth and final phase of the data analysis consisted of (a) the creation of a profile for each teacher in terms of the aspects of the learning environment and the categories mentioned and (b) an overarching analysis of all the interviews. Both analyses were conducted using a checklist matrix (see Miles & Huberman, 1994), which was derived from the coding scheme. Researcher 1 and researchers 3 and 4 cooperated on the conduct of these analyses. That is, several of the steps in this phase of the analysis were undertaken by researcher 1 and then discussed with researchers 3 and 4. This fourth phase of the data analysis produced an overview of the choices teachers make with regard

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

to various aspects of the learning environment and related categories. This stepwise method of interview analysis is basically comparable to that applied in the study of teachers’ conceptions of ‘learning to learn’ of Waeytens et al. (2002).

3. Results The interview data provide a clear picture of which aspects of the learning environment play a role in the choices teachers make in arranging learning environments. The picture is summarized in Table 1, where a descriptive list of the 14 aspects of learning environments mentioned is presented together with an overview of the quantitative results. In order to examine the choices the teachers made to arrange learning environments that—in their opinion—stimulate New Learning, those utterances in which the teachers did one of the following were selected: (a) explicitly spoke of ‘new or modern learning environments’ or (b) compared the current classroom situation with the situation prior to the adoption of the Study House reform. The relevant utterances were found, in

805

most cases, to be the result of interview questions 2 and 4 (see Appendix A). Out of a grand total of 336 utterances, 152 met at least one of the aforementioned criteria. For these 152 utterances, a new summary was made, which is also shown in Table 1. To discuss the substantive distinctions teachers make between new and ‘more traditional’ learning environments, the classification scheme of learning environments (see Fig. 1) was used. The proportions of the whole set of utterances are written as ‘10% in general,’ whereas proportions of New Learning utterances are written as ‘10% in NL utterances.’ Table 1 shows that the most frequently mentioned aspects were: (1) division of teacher and learner roles (46% in general and 57% in NL utterances); (2) learning goals (38% in general and 41% in NL); and (3) learning materials used (26% in general and 30% in NL utterances). The three aspects of the learning environment mentioned the least were: (14) arrangement/setting of tables/ pupils in classroom, (10) role/function of assessments and (13) atmosphere. In the following, we first report the teachers’ comments on the three most frequently mentioned

Table 1 Fourteen aspects of learning environments mentioned by the 15 teachers Aspects mentioned

1—Division of teacher and learner roles 2—Learning goals 3—Learning materials used 4—Role of the learning materials used 5—Tasks, activities, assignments which pupils have to complete 6—Phasing of instruction 7—Physical teaching-learning situation 8—Learner roles toward each other 9—Form of assessment 10—Role/function of assessments 11—Interpersonal teacher behavior 12—Characteristic of the learning content 13—Atmosphere 14—Arrangement/setting of tables/pupils in classroom a

Total set of utterancesa

NL utterancesa

n

%

N

n

%

N

155 127 89 43 79 29 26 22 23 4 20 15 10 3

46 38 26 13 24 9 8 7 7 1 6 4 3 1

15 15 15 15 15 13 10 10 13 4 10 7 4 2

86 63 46 23 38 13 15 9 10 3 4 6 4 1

57 41 30 15 25 9 10 6 7 2 3 4 3 1

15 13 14 13 14 9 8 5 7 2 4 3 2 1

n: Total number of utterances (first n) and number of NL utterances (second n) in which teachers talk about the aspect; %: proportion of the total of 336 utterances (first %) and proportion of the total of 152 NL utterances (second %); N: number of teachers from whom these utterances are.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 806

A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

aspects (based on the responses to interview questions 1–4, see Appendix A). For this purpose, Table 2 shows the different categories mentioned by the 15 teachers within these three aspects together with an overview of the quantitative results. Furthermore, Table 2 shows for each category to what extent teachers relate it to new learning environments or to ‘more traditional’ learning environments. Next, we pay specific attention to the teachers’ responses to the fifth

question, namely: ‘Which choices do you consider most important for determination of the form and content of a lesson?’ 3.1. Division of teacher and learner roles With regard to the division of teacher and learner roles, Table 2 shows that the teacher utterances were classified into four categories. The most frequently occurring categories were category

Table 2 Categories mentioned by the 15 teachers within the three frequently mentioned aspects Categories per aspect

Total set of utterancesa

New Learning utterancesa,b

n Aspect 1. Division of teacher and learner roles a. Teacher steers learning process—learner executes learning process 74 b. Learner and teacher as partners in learning 3 c. Learner steers learning process—teacher coaches/guides 104 d. Teacher is model—learner imitates 5 Aspect 2. Learning goals a. Knowledge of learning content 46 b. Knowledge of learning process 8 c. Attitude toward learning content 8 d. Attitude toward learning process 14 e. Cognitive learning skill 53 f. Affective learning skill 5 g. Metacognitive learning skill 12 h. Transfer skill 1 i. Social skill 13 j. Practical skill 20 Aspect 3. Learning materials used a. Book 34 b. Answer book 15 c. Study planner 32 d. Examination book 2 e. Reference book 2 f. ICT 5 g. Video 8 h. Reading text 7 i. Listening text 7 j. Authentic material 2 k. Calculator 2

%

N

n

%

N

NL

T

48 2 67 3

15 2 15 4

37 1 66

43 1 77

14 1 15

22 1 66

15 0 0

36 6 6 11 42 4 9 1 10 16

13 6 3 10 15 4 7 1 8 8

17 6 2 8 29 3 9 1 3 10

27 10 3 13 46 5 14 2 5 16

7 4 2 6 13 2 7 1 2 6

11 6 2 8 29 3 9 1 3 9

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

38 17 36 2 2 6 9 8 8 2 2

14 9 10 1 2 5 3 3 2 1 1

12 9 23

26 20 50

7 6 11

8 8 23

3c 1 0

4 1 2 3 2 1

9 2 4 7 4 2

4 1 2 2 1 1

4 1 0 3 2 0

0 0 2 0 0 1

a n: Total number of utterances (first n) and number of New Learning utterances (second n) in which teachers mention the category; %: proportion of the total number of utterances in which teachers talk about the aspect to which the category refers (first %) and proportion of the number of New Learning utterances in which teachers talk about the aspect to which the category refers (second %); N: number of teachers from whom these utterances are. b NL: Number of utterances in which a teacher relates the category to learning environments that stimulate New Learning; T: number of utterances in which a teacher relates the category to ‘more traditional’ learning environments. c In one of these 12 New Learning utterances the category ‘book’ was related to both learning environments that stimulate New Learning and ‘more traditional’ learning environments.

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

(a) teacher steers learning process—learner executes learning process (48% in general) and category (c) learner steers learning process— teacher coaches/guides (67% in general). The categories (a) and (c) appear to represent two extremes for this aspect of the learning environment whereas category (b) learner and teacher as partners in learning represents a form of ‘shared steering’ and may be viewed as falling somewhere in between the two extremes. In terms of Fig. 1, the category (a) teacher steers learning process—learner executes learning represents a behavioural model for the division of teacher and learner roles. The teacher tells the learner what and how things should be learned and the learner more or less follows these instructions. For example, students work on assignments and have to turn these in to the teacher for checking from time to time. They are working on the writing component and a test is coming up at the end of the year, they just have to work independently, what they must do is, they must turn things in to me, I check the things and briefly discuss their work with them and that’s it. (11, 220501) Category (c) learner steers learning process— teacher coaches/guides represents a developmental model of the division of teacher and learner roles. In this model, the learner regulates his or her own learning with the teacher serving as a coach. In contrast to the behavioural model, the initiative for carrying out much or at least many parts of the learning process lies with the learner him/herself. Now there is a student in my class who is preferably not disturbed, she has an attitude of ‘just let me work on the examination book,’ and when she hits upon something she is asking a lot of questions, you know, in that case it is all initiated by herself, and that’s the way I prefer. (13, 240401). Category (b) learner and teacher as partners in learning can be seen to lie somewhere between the behavioural and developmental models of the division of teacher and learner roles. A ‘shared responsibility’ model, which is not distinguished in Fig. 1, appears to underlie this particular division

807

of roles. The teacher and learners cooperatively steer the learning process and may both initiate reflection on a learner’s progress, for example. The intention is that they work independently and, in my view, there should something more to go with learning independently: reflection on what they have learned and which of this has been beared in mind and how they can solve problems. These are things I again discuss with them at the end of a section or chapter, and we do this with everyone at once. Thus, it is in fact the tail, it’s the reflection at the end and, at this point, I should bring them at a level that they can do these things on their own, I also try to stimulate this from time to time by asking them to write a little report: close your book and write down what you learned from the last section, what was it about, what you should know, etc., and then I have a little chat with them afterwards. (14, 100501) Category (d) teacher is model—learner imitates reflects the apprenticeship model for the division of teacher and learner roles (see Fig. 1). According to this model, the learner and the teacher participate in a shared world with respect to a particular subject. Teachers have considerable expertise within this world and try to model their expertise. One teacher spoke of ‘modelling’ a particular attitude towards the subject he teaches in the following manner. I think my attitude towards the group is very important, in which my choice is that I try to adopt an open position so that I stimulate them to attend, practice, invite them to learn, also show them that I myself really like to do this, that I am enthusiastic about my subject, (2, 270401) Category (c) learner steers learning process— teacher coaches/guides, which represents a developmental model of the division of teacher and learner roles, occurred only in connection with new learning environments. All 66 NL utterances assigned to this category explicitly linked the learners’ steering of their own learning process with the change to new learning environments. This is illustrated by the following description

ARTICLE IN PRESS 808

A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

from a French-language teacher of how students work independently on listening to texts and on their speech skills:

Another teacher, however, emphasizes the need to still steer the learning process even after the introduction of the Study House reform,

y I just notice that the better students have already decided to work on French I during one of those three hours, especially those guys sideways, they have independently taken this on. I sometimes see them work on French II three times a week. They have a discman with them to do the listening exercises. They sometimes go to another classroom to work together on a speech exercise, that is that own direction and, in the old method, I would just say: We are now going to take that text, read it and answer the questions. (1, 140501a)

You first have to transfer a piece of content and, thereafter, they have to apply it themselves. To let them go completely, in the sense of ‘those and those pages,’ that’s possible but I know the effectiveness is much lower in that case. (8, 200401)

Category (a) teacher steers learning process— learner executes learning process, which represents a behavioural model of the division of teacher and learner roles, was sometimes mentioned explicitly in connection with ‘traditional’ learning environments (15 of the 37 NL utterances for this category) and sometimes mentioned specifically in connection with ‘new learning’ environments (22 of the 37 NL utterances for this category). One teacher explicitly connects his demonstration of exercises on the chalkboard to a traditional manner of teaching and the need to steer the learning process. As with population genetics, then you are more the math teacher; or in the case of the previous chapter on energy and metabolism, then I am more the physics teacher. I do notice these differences. In the role of the math teacher or physics teacher, I teach in a more old-fashioned way; I demonstrate sums, then, on the chalkboard, for example, something that I almost never do in the case of regular biology lessons and labs. Then I let them think for themselves. The students find this very difficult. It makes no sense to let them work independently for two or three lessons, only to come to the conclusion in the end that everyone has come to a standstill. Then you had better lead them, relatively protected, by the nose, lead them around the big pitfalls. (5, 170501)

The following quote illustrates that some teachers also question the capability of students to steer the learning process themselves and therefore connect category (a) with the idea of new learning environments. You have to teach them a lot about planning, that’s the biggest problem. In fact, learning is the biggest problem; working independently, moewa, most of them can manage that. But also planning time independently while learning, especially learning independently, is thus most difficult and, as a consequence, you have to steer them in this respect, then you can hand out a study planner. (3, 300501a) 3.2. Learning goals Table 2 shows the teachers to speak of 10 types of learning goals largely corresponding with the learning products distinguished in Fig. 1 (with the exception of category (j) practical skill). The teachers mentioned category (a) knowledge of learning content in 36% of their utterances. This was often done with respect to ‘theories,’ as illustrated by the following statement. In this chapter, students were first offered the theory and then went through the topic of compound types between molecules and within molecules. I partly let them do this themselves and I partly explained it to them, it is something very complicated, so students generally regard it as complicated and, as a consequence, I did a lot of explaining. (16, 010601) Category (e) cognitive learning skill also occurred frequently, namely in 42% of the teachers’

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

utterances. An example is that students should learn how to search for information: Of course you can opt for four smaller practical assignments. The reason why I didn’t do this is because I wanted them to use the entire analysis scheme this time; for this purpose, a more complex assignment is needed or you have to provide them with information. However, one of the most important components is that they also learn to search for information, so I want them to have to search for information on their own. (17, 110501) Furthermore, without exception, category (e) cognitive learning skill was mentioned as typical of new learning environments. All 29 NL utterances assigned to this category linked the attention for skill development needed for learning with the arrangement of learning environments directed towards New Learning. In the following statement, for example, the teacher stresses that, relative to his teaching prior to the implementation of the Study House reform, he now stimulates students more to identify the reasons for problems arising during the learning process. I continually try to ask questions like ‘why is that, how is that possible and what reasons could that have.’ that’s what I consider very important are questions about your opinion on something. (7, 010601) Category (a) knowledge of learning content was sometimes connected to ‘traditional’ learning environments and sometimes to new learning environments. One teacher pointed out, for example, that the acquisition of knowledge is a central feature of ‘traditional’ learning environments. I think that the teacher in years past was only lecturing, which was often a situation in which there was a text which was often then at the service of the grammatical topic of the lesson. (9, 180501) Another teacher, however, stresses that knowledge of learning content remains important in new learning environments aimed at stimulating New Learning but then suggests that the actual content

809

may be more flexible and may depend more on the individual preferences of the learners. y you can then choose for a very structured assignment. You can give them all the same assignment, include everything you want in the assignment or, in contrast, you can give them their own choice. The reason that I do the latter is that I think it is much more fun, first. When there are presentations, it is not fun to continually hear the same topic. So it also gives extra information about a couple of actual themes,. Thereafter, the choice of topic has to meet some criteria. Students are also very motivated; they are almost never allowed to choose something themselves so that’s the reason, the motivation, the fact that they are offered an extra piece of information regarding an actual problem, that’s what they take with them as a result. (11, 110501) All other categories of learning goals mentioned by teachers were also explicitly connected to new learning environments, with the exception of the category (j) practical skill which was mentioned once in connection with a ‘traditional’ learning environment. The interviewed teachers, however, talked only about the products of learning— specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes—and not about the process of learning, i.e. the execution of learning functions (see Simons, 2000).

3.3. Learning materials As may be seen from Table 2, 11 categories of aspect (3) learning materials were distinguished in the teacher utterances. The categories (a) book (38% in general) and (c) study planner (36% in general) were the most frequent ones. An example of category (a) is the mention of the grammar book and dictionary in the following: I don’t give everyone an answer directly. When I realize that it is something they can recall from their own memory or find in the grammar chapter or a dictionary, then I only give them a little push in that direction. (9, 140501a)

ARTICLE IN PRESS 810

A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

An example of category (c) is the mention of a study planner as an instrument to help students structure their independent work: In history lessons, I often let pupils work on a quire independently; that is, this kind of booklet [interviewee shows them]. And the intention is: take the booklet, take your study planner and there you go, you can start with it. And what is good is to see that they begin and know exactly what to do and in case of any vagueness or when they don’t understand the learning matter, they can consult me. (30, 200401). Within aspect (3) learning materials used, a couple of categories are mentioned scarcely. Partly, teachers connect these categories to new learning environments: (f) ICT, (g), video, (i) listening text, and (j) authentic material. Partly, they connect them to ‘more traditional’ learning environments, which is the case with category (h) listening text and (k) calculator. Category (c) study planner was always connected to the mention of new learning environments (see Table 2). Study planners are learning materials introduced during the Study House reform. One teacher describes the impact of study planners on his instructional practices in the following manner. The essential difference lies in the fact that a studenty Look, in those days, I decided per lesson what we were going to work on; nobody was able to work ahead; nobody could fall behind. Per lesson, I had in my head what we were going to do. And now, there is a study planner and, as a consequence, they are able toyalmost everyone is working at a different stage. (9, 220501) With one exception, also category (b) answer book (which also refers to working outs of assignments, not in the form of a book) is connected with new learning environments. Eight of nine NL utterances assigned to this category reflect the increased use of answer books in new learning environments. One teacher clearly states that he assigns assignments more easily now than before the Study House reform.

In the past, I was criticized considerably for things not being clear or only providing the correct answers for homework assignments, for example. I now assign more assignments than before. I thought this would make my students lazy, but now I am sure that they will take a peek at the answer book but that this also helps them comprehend the assignment. And that’s exactly why I give easier the working outs to them (4, 240401) With regard to category (a) book, the scenario appears to be split. On the one hand, this type of material is classically linked to ‘traditional’ learning environments. On the other hand, it is connected to new learning environments. Teachers often connect such learning materials as books to straightforward knowledge acquisition which is characteristic of traditional learning methods. In new learning environments, books are used in a somewhat different manner, as one teacher explains: To let students learn, thus, means that you don’t say ‘this is the book, open it to page 102 and I will read you the text.’ No, you give them a book and then say: ‘This is page 102, good lucky’ And then there is an assignment which says: read the text, check each other’s pronunciation, etc. (10, 270401) 3.4. Additional aspects of the learning environment mentioned The fifth interview question (see Appendix A) explicitly asked teachers which aspect of learning environments they considered most important. Teachers’ comments in reaction to this specific question point at the importance of two aspects that are not discussed so far. The 15 teachers mentioned three aspects of learning environments as most important. Aspect (1) division of teacher and learner roles was mentioned the most—a total of 7 times—which is largely in keeping with the aforementioned findings. The following two statements illustrate the importance of this aspect of the learning environment in the eyes of the teachers.

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

In the past, we had the idea of ‘we have something to do together.’ But then the roles were very fixed, and the role of the learner was: listen and do your sums, etc. And the role of the teachers was: tell them how to do things. (3, 010601) I think it has something to do with more initiative on the part of the students, on the basis of questions and problems formulated by the teacher. I think that is the most important and there are a couple of ways to achieve it. The core aim, in my opinion, is greater initiative on the part of the learners, to stimulate that more and more, and to achieve that more and more. (1, 010601) In addition, aspects (13) atmosphere and (11) interpersonal teacher behaviour were mentioned when the teachers were explicitly asked which aspect of learning environments they considered most important. Aspect (13) atmosphere was only mentioned once as most important and was one of the aspects mentioned least in the interviews (3% in general and 3% in NL utterances). Two statements from the teacher who mentioned atmosphere as the most important aspect of the learning environment illustrate the point. I made the choice. They have a whole-class tempo. You try to keep everyone in the boat; they all have to grow together towards the exams; they really have to be a class, not a couple of individuals; they have to form a class together. One student’s question is often another student’s question as well, that’s an important aspect. (2, 240401) Last year, I had another classroom setting. It was a u-form; the advantage of this was that I was very close to the learning and I had the idea that they worked better in this manner because you could keep an eye on each other better. There was a kind of unity. You can walk around and talk directly to each other, which also breaks the whole class structure. It was much more of a group idea, it was a club feeling. (4, 240401) The specific function of the teacher with regard to the atmosphere in the classroom was also

811

stressed. Five times, teachers point at this aspect, labelled as (11) interpersonal teacher behaviour as the most important aspect of the learning environment when explicitly asked about this. I make a specific choice for the role as teacher, also in my role as a teacher I am, on the one hand, the teacher who regulates the boundaries —the boundaries for the students to work within; on the other hand, I relate to them as an equalyin the manner in which you talk to students or discuss things or make a joke. (1, 110501) Aspect (11) interpersonal teacher behaviour consists of three categories: (a) influence, (b) proximity and (c) enthusiasm. The categories (a) influence and (b) proximity appear to reflect the two dimensions proposed in the Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour put forth by Wubbels, Cre´ton, and Hooymayers (1985). More specifically, the influence category represents the degree to which a teacher controls the communication within the classroom and just how often; the proximity category represents the degree to which a teacher cooperates with the students. Aspects (11) and (13) thus reflect critical elements of the learning environment or actual prerequisites for learning. An adequate atmosphere and good interpersonal relations allow pupils to feel safe and learn. These aspects, thus, may be considered as conditional for effective learning environments.

4. Conclusions and discussion Two research questions were central to this study: (a) Which choices do teachers make with regard to the arrangement of learning environments in general? (b) Which choices do teachers make with regard to the arrangement of learning environments in order to stimulate New Learning in particular? In the following, we briefly summarize and discuss the results of these research questions. Thereafter, some methodological limitations will be considered together with some directions for further research. With regard to research question (a), it can be concluded that teachers make choices first and

ARTICLE IN PRESS 812

A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

foremost with respect to the following aspects of learning environments: division of teacher and learner roles, learning goals and learning materials. Teachers also indicate, when explicitly asked, that atmosphere and interpersonal teacher behaviours are of considerable importance. With regard to research question (b), the same aspects of the learning environment are found to be most important for the arrangement of the learning environment to stimulate New Learning in the eyes of the teachers studied here. At the level of categories the following particular choices within the context of the Study House reform are reported. With regard to the division of teacher and learner roles, teachers relate category (c) learner steers learning process—teacher coaches/guides without exception to new learning environments. Category (a) teacher steers learning process— learner executes learning process was related to both new learning environments and traditional learning environments. This divided picture reflects variation both across and within teachers. That is, the Study House reform is aimed at a shift from a category (a) division of roles to a category (c) division. While category (a) teacher steers learning process—learner executes learning process is more typical of traditional learning environments, the finding that teachers also connect this category to new learning environments can be understood as it is very difficult to change the traditional role patterns which are so deeply rooted in the school culture (see Windschitl, 2002). Teachers have very little experience with the expected new division of roles, which may lead to a preoccupation with the possibility of students misusing their freedom to organize the learning process as they see fit. For this reason, teachers may often fall back into the role of directing learners’ learning even after the introduction of the Study House reform. In addition, teachers may have little or no time to reflect upon their instructional practices and simply think that their behaviour is largely in line with the ideas behind New Learning. That is, a traditional division of the roles between teacher and students may not be perceived as inconsistent with the developmental and appren-

ticeship division of roles called for to enhance New Learning. With regard to the learning goals aspect of the learning environment, category (e) cognitive learning skill was considered typical of new learning environments by all of the teachers. Category (a) knowledge of learning content was partly connected to new learning environments and partly connected to traditional learning environments, which again reflects a variation observed across and within teachers. Although it is often stressed within the context of the Study House reform that the aim of education is to move from pure knowledge acquisition to the development of the cognitive, affective and metacognitive skills needed to continuously learn, the interview data show the teachers to still connect content acquisition to new learning environments. One possible explanation for this finding may be that education always concerns some particular subjects, themes and content. Another explanation may lie in the fact that teachers still consider content to be important but approach its acquisition in a much more flexible manner within the context of the Study House reform. Knowledge acquisition remains important, but students can approach it much more in terms of their own individual interests and preferences than in terms of predefined themes. With regard to the learning materials aspect of the learning environment, categories (b) answer book and (c) study planner are almost unanimously connected to the arrangement of new learning environments whereas category (a) book is sometimes related to new learning environments and sometimes to more traditional learning environments, which indicates considerable variation across and within teachers. Teachers still view the traditional study book as an important tool within the new learning environment but then as one among a wide variety of learning materials, including study planners, answering books and ICT. It should be noted that teachers ascribe different roles to the study book (see aspect (10) role of learning materials). The role of the study book may be construed in terms of transferor of content or in terms of guideline. Teachers may give the study book much more of a steering role than they did before the Study House reform, where the

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

study book is used as more of a knowledge transmitter. Only three utterances, however, provided information with regard to this assumption. The interviews also showed teachers to only talk about the products of learning and not the process of learning as a goal of learning. That is, the distinction between cognitive and affective learning skills, on the one hand, and cognitive, affective and metacognitive learning functions, on the other hand (see Fig. 1), was not found in the interview data. The execution of learning functions is typical of new learning environments. But it may be possible that the teachers studied here are still preoccupied with the realization of more traditional goals even after the introduction of the Study House reform. This conclusion is in line with the arguments of Land and Hannafin (2000) who found the learning goals pursued by teachers to not be as constructivist as the distribution of teacher and learner roles they adopt. Similarly, Van Velzen (2002) concludes that teachers’ attention to the learning process is very low for vocational education. Teachers’ behaviour appears to be first and foremost aimed at the content of student learning, which is in line with the findings of a recent study of teachers’ conceptions of ‘learning to learn’ by Waeytens et al. (2002). On the basis of interviews with 53 secondary schools teachers, Waeytens et al. conclude that the majority of teachers have a very narrow vision of ‘learning to learn.’ A narrow interpretation of ‘learning to learn’ concentrates exclusively on study skills, strategies and techniques. In contrast, the aim of ‘learning to learn’ in a broad sense is to promote the use of higher order cognitive skills, such as problem solving and informationprocessing strategies. In the second case, learning becomes a goal on its own and it is not considered by the students only as a means to achieve some particular objectives. Such teachers want their students to become lifelong learners. (Waeytens et al., 2002, p. 308) Yet another explanation of this finding would be that teachers actually do strive for the learning process as a learning goal but they feel less competent to realize this learning goal because it

813

is not part of their practical knowledge. They do not have images for explicating these types of learning goals and therefore they make no notice of them in the interviews. Learning products are more concrete and observable (e.g., knowledge of a specific topic or practical skill) than the process of learning. In the words of Simons (2000), the process of learning involves the execution of such learning functions as the finding of prior knowledge, maintenance of motivation and diagnosis of the causes of failure and/or problems. These are processes, not directly observable and spread out over a longer period of time. Teachers could be more concentrated on the organization of their lessons around specific learning products (e.g. with regard to exit qualifications), the roles they play in that organization and the learning materials to be included. One of the features of New Learning is that learning is construed as a social activity. This principle has first and foremost implications for the roles of the learners with respect to each other. In a learning environment that meets the conditions for New Learning, cooperation between learners is emphasized and hopefully thereby enhanced, whereas strictly individual and/or competitive roles are downplayed. Interestingly, the category ‘competitive roles’ was never mentioned by the teachers interviewed within the context of the present study. Instead, the category ‘learning together’—which was not originally distinguished in Fig. 1—proved important. The category ‘learning together’ may be seen as intermediate between individual and cooperative roles. Furthermore, it has to be stressed that the interview data give rise to the idea that teachers are not aware of or do not consider cooperative learner roles as really important for the arrangement of learning environments (this category is mentioned in only four utterances from two teachers). More generally, the teachers’ practical knowledge only rarely addressed the aspect of the learning environment concerned with learner roles towards each other (7% in general). The reason for this may be twofold. During initial teacher education and the subsequent careers of secondary school teachers, they are rarely confronted with the possibilities of cooperative learning. So, teachers may have not

ARTICLE IN PRESS 814

A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

been educated in different methods of peerinstruction, like cooperative learning. The second reason may be that teachers do know the possibilities of forms of cooperative learning but simply not put these into practice due to: (a) a lack of a sufficient social-cultural and material context in their schools; (b) a lack of central values towards cooperative learning that are in coherence with the needed practice; or (c) a lack of sufficient skills for practicing cooperative learning methods (Bolhuis, 2000). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and atmosphere were aspects of the learning environment spontaneously mentioned by only a very few teachers but stressed by a number of teachers when explicitly asked about such. And indeed, in the terms of Brekelmans, Sleegers, and Fraser (2000), ‘y teachers who want to realize a more activating instructional system should create a learning environment where pupils feel safe to experiment with new tasks and activities, coupled with a sufficient degree of dominance’ (p. 239). With regard to the methodological aspects of the present study, it has to be stressed that the phased structure of the analyses allowed us to monitor both the reliability and validity of the findings. Discussion among the researchers was undertaken during each phase of the analyses in order to obtain consensus in as many cases as possible. Further research on the use of the coding scheme is nevertheless needed to incorporate additional agreement checks. Furthermore, the responses that teachers give during an interview may be very sensitive to the provision of socially desired answers and/or answers that simply reflect the ‘rhetoric’ of ongoing educational change efforts. In order to avoid this pitfall, the interview questions were anchored to the observation of a single lesson prior to the interview. Future research should also include additional methods to attain an even more valid picture of teachers’ practical knowledge, like concept maps and stimulated recall interviews (Meijer, 1999; Verloop et al., 2001). More than before, the introduction of New Learning asks for a design role of teachers. In more traditional settings, the teaching–learning process often was transmission oriented. The

stimulation of New Learning, however, asks for more dynamic settings that often cannot be predefined by knowledge transmission applying textbook- and teacher-based instruction. The results of the present study provide insight into the arrangement of secondary school learning environments to promote New Learning. Clear discrepancies between, on the one hand, design choices that should be made from New Learning theory, and on the other hand, design choices teachers actually make with regard to such were encountered. Therefore, more support should be recommended for teachers transforming education in the direction of New Learning. Obviously, greater congruence between theory and practice seems to be important, and the results of the present interview study show that greater congruence can be reached. Change efforts should sufficiently fit the concrete choices of teachers with regard to the arrangement of learning environments: foremost choices about the learning goals, the distribution of teacher and learner roles and the learning materials. The qualitative data of this study give information about the particular ‘words’ teachers use in this respect (see Waeytens et al., 2002). Change efforts should also take the diversity of teacher conceptions with regard to just what constitutes a new learning environment more into consideration. Taking the different conceptions about what constitutes New Learning into account is also important for conducting process–product research, in which learning environments directed at New Learning are involved. And finally, change efforts should focus on the knowledge and beliefs that teachers need to acquire for arranging learning environments that stimulate New Learning. The results of the present interview study showed, at least, two aspects of the learning environment to be of particular importance: increased knowledge of the learning process as a learning goal and greater attention to cooperative learner roles.

Acknowledgements This article is part of the Ph.D. project entitled ‘New learning environments and their outcomes in

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

secondary education’ conducted under the auspices and with the financial support of KPC Group, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands, in collaboration with the Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. We would like to thank Christina Schouten (Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and KPC Group, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands) for her involvement in the analysis of the interviews. Needless to say, we alone are responsible for the final version of this article.

Appendix A. Interview guide 1. Which choices did you make in the planning of this lesson in order to realize the particular form and content of the lesson? Did you also make some choices during the lesson that have determined the form and/or content of the lesson? For each choice mentioned by the teacher, the following questions are further posed. What is the importance of this specific choice? Which of the choices you have mentioned do you consider most important? And: Which specific options were present for each of the choices you made? 2. From the perspective of (the ideas beyond) the Study House reform: How would you classify the lesson? Does this lesson meet the conditions for the Study House or not? Why or why not? How is the preceding concretely reflected in the lesson I observed? Can you relate this to the types of choices you have made? 3. Can you describe a lesson by yourself or a colleague in the past which was totally different from the observed lesson? Can you describe the differences and similarities between the two lessons? How can you trace the differences and similarities back to choices that you made? 4. How does a lesson that meets the conditions for the Study House look like in your opinion? (Give an example from your own educational practice)

815

To which choices can you trace the aforementioned? What other specific options are available for these choices? 5. You have told me about a range of choices in this interview. Which choices do you consider most important for the realization of the form and content of lessons?

References Beijaard, D. (1998). Persoonlijke onderwijstheoriee¨n van leraren [Personal education theory of teachers]. In J. Vermunt, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Onderwijzen van kennis en vaardigheden [Teaching knowledge and skills] (pp. 107–123). Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Samson. Bolhuis, S. M. (2000). Naar zelfstandig leren. Wat doen en denken docenten? [Towards independent learning: What do teachers do and think?]. Apeldoorn, The Netherlands: Garant. Bolhuis, S. (2003). Towards process-oriented teaching for selfdirected lifelong learning: A multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 13, 327–347. Boulton-Lewis, F. M., Smith, D. J. H., McCrindle, A. R., Burnett, P. C., & Campbell, K. J. (2001). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. Learning and Instruction, 11, 35–51. Brekelmans, M., Sleegers, P., & Fraser, B. (2000). Teaching for active learning. In R. J. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 227–242). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799. De Kock, A., Sleegers, P., & Voeten, M. J. M. (2004). New learning and the classification of learning environments in secondary education. Review of Educational Research, 74(2), 141–170. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Joyce, B. R., & Weil, M. (1996). Models of teaching (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student-centered learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen, & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 1–23). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lowyck, J., & Ellen, J. (1993). Transitions in the theoretical foundation of instructional design. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 213–230). New York: Springer.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 816

A. de Kock et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 799–816

Meijer, P. C. (1999). Teacher’s practical knowledge. Teaching reading comprehension in secondary education. Dissertation, Leiden University. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 877–904). Washington: American Educational Research Association. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research. Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching, Vol. II (pp. 1233–1296). Dordrecht/ Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Simons, P. R. J. (2000). Towards a constructivistic theory of self-directed learning. In G. A. Straka (Ed.), Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptional considerations (pp. 155–169). Mu¨nster, Germany: Waxmann. Simons, R. J., Van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (Eds.). (2000). New learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (1998). ‘‘Pedagogical content knowledge’’: Een verbindend element in de kennisbasis van docenten [Pedagogical content knowledge as a unifying

element in the knowledge base of teachers]. Pedagogische Studie¨n, 75, 225–237. Vandenberghe, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2002). Leraren die leren om professioneel te blijven leren: kanttekeningen over context [Teachers learning to keep professionally learning: reflections on context]. Pedagogische Studie¨n, 79, 339–351. Van Veen, K. (2003). Teachers’ emotions in a context of reforms. Dissertation, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Van Velzen, J. H. (2002). Instruction and self-regulated learning. Dissertation, Leiden University, The Netherlands. Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35,441–461. Waeytens, K., Lens, W., & Vandenberghe, R. (2002). ‘Learning to learn’: Teachers’ conceptions of their supporting role. Learning and Instruction, 12, 305–322. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175. Wubbels, Th., Cre´ton, H. A., & Hooymayers, H. P. (1985). Discipline problems of beginning teachers, interactional teacher behavior mapped out. Paper presented at the AERA Anuual meeting, Chicago. Abstracted in: Resources in Education, 20, 121, p. 153, ERIC document 260040.