Teachers' conceptions of student learning and own learning

Abstract

New learning theory, underpinning the idea of teaching for self-directed learning, provides new conceptions of learning: the self-regulation of learning, the construct-character of knowledge, the social nature of learning and a dynamic model of intelligence. What conceptions teachers hold may be related to their tolerance of uncertainty. We constructed a Learning Inventory and administered this to teachers in Dutch senior secondary education, where an innovation is heading for more independent learning. We found empirical confirmation of the five dimensions underlying teachers' conceptions of learning, both for student learning and for their own learning. Tolerance of uncertainty explained the other four dimensions in conceptions of student learning, but not in teachers' conceptions of their own learning. Teachers generally endorse the process-oriented conceptions, although some differences are noted between teachers' conceptions of student learning and their own learning.

Notes

*Corresponding author: Dorpsstraat 30, 6678 BH Oosterhout, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

Item 15, included in Table 3 as an indicator for Tolerance of Uncertainty, was originally meant as an indicator for Knowledge as Construction.

These results were confirmed when using a somewhat different scoring system for the items in which the difference between the two middle responses was made twice as large as the other differences between scale points: −2 for quite agree with the traditional statement, −1 for agree somewhat more with the traditional statement than with the process-oriented statement, +1 for agree somewhat more with the process-oriented statement than with the traditional view, +2 for quite agree with the process-oriented view. In this case 0 was seen as the neutral point.

This procedure was applied to get a convenient way of comparing factors. The confirmatory factor analysis cannot identify means of latent variables. It must also be noted that in comparing the means of factors we are in fact comparing the means of the sets of items used, not means of latent variables.

Comparability of ‘factor scores’ for student learning and own learning may be an issue here. Results of the comparison between means may be influenced by the presence of more or less extreme statements in the scales. We had no possibilities to ascertain the equivalence of statements for student learning and own learning.