How meaning-oriented learning is enhanced in Dutch academic primary teacher education

Abstract

The present study identifies ways of how meaning-oriented learning is enhanced in academic primary teacher education, a new route to the teaching profession in the Netherlands. Meaning-oriented learners are generally described in the literature as being capable to regulate their own learning, to understand a topic thoroughly, to form their own opinion about it and to draw their own conclusions. Semi-structured interviews were held with both student teachers (n = 32) and educators (n = 18) who participated in this new route. Interviewees perceived common ways of enhancing meaning-oriented learning, such as encouraging students to structure, relate and critically process knowledge. Other ways are related to the development of students’ professional identity as an academic primary teacher in general, for example, through students’ reflection on the development of such an identity and their sharing of knowledge, not only with peers and educators, but also externally in publications, on a conference or on the Web. The present study indicates that the newly developed route to the teaching profession successfully contains elements that provoke meaning-oriented learning. The results of this study are useful for the (further) development of teacher education contexts in which the enhancement of meaning-oriented learning by student teachers is an important aim.

Keywords:

• Teacher education
• meaning-oriented learning
• self-regulation
• deep learning
• processing strategies

1. Introduction

In many Western countries there is a growing political and social need to bring a higher quality and broader range of teachers into education. There also is concern about how to recruit the best students for initial teacher education (ITE) (e.g. Aubusson and Schuck 2013; United States Department of Education 2011). For example, in Ireland, United Kingdom and the United States of America, the discourse on increasing the quality of teachers goes along with a call for changing ITE-programmes. In the Netherlands, concerns about the quality of primary teachers have led to changes in primary teacher education (PTE) and to the development of new routes to the profession. Dutch PTE is traditionally a form of higher vocational education (in Dutch: hbo), and highly application-oriented. In 2008, academic PTE was introduced, aiming at developing academic competencies next to vocational competencies necessary for teaching. Efforts to create appropriate learning environments for academic PTE resulted in roughly three variants: (a) PTE in which professional education is provided by an hbo-institute and academic education by a scientific university simultaneously, (b) PTE predominantly offered by an hbo-institute, in which professional and academic education are interlinked to a large extent and in which scientific universities only contribute with a limited number of programmes, and (c) PTE fully provided by an hbo-institute, in which professional education is compressed (three years instead of four) and supplemented with an academic orientation. Academically qualified primary teachers are expected to be more capable to contribute substantially to the improvement of education at both classroom and school level than those who are not qualified as such (Van der Wel and Van Bergen 2012). Through the inclusion of academic teachers in primary schools, the teaching staff becomes more diverse and the school culture is expected to undergo changes in the sense that academic teachers strengthen a school’s professional climate.

In this article we take the position that for being able to meet these expectations, academic PTE-students should be or become self-regulated learners, willing and able to construct their own knowledge by searching for deep understanding, critically processing input and drawing their own conclusions. In the literature, such learners are referred to as meaning-oriented learners (cf. Vermunt and Vermetten 2004). However, studies carried out in, for example, the Netherlands (Oosterheert and Vermunt 2001), Belgium (Van Petegem, Donche, and Vanhoof 2005) and Australia (Gordon and Debus 2002) revealed that many student teachers combine an application orientation with a reproduction orientation. Application-oriented learners view learning as acquiring knowledge that can be used by means of concretising and applying. They process learning input by relating theory and practical experiences. Reproduction-oriented learners view learning as taking in provided knowledge and process input by memorising, rehearsing and studying separated elements one by one. Both application- and reproduction-oriented learners expect others to regulate their learning (Vermunt and Vermetten 2004). At the start of their study in teacher education, the majority of Dutch academic PTE-students are no exception (van der Wal-Maris, Geldens, and Beijaard 2012). In order for academic PTE-students to graduate as meaning-oriented learners, their learning environment – which consists of the entire learning setting, including teaching methods, workload and course structure (Lizzio, Wilson, and Simons 2002) – will have to enhance students’ development of meaning-oriented learning.

Previous studies showed that it is difficult to design learning environments to enhance meaning-oriented learning (e.g. Baeten, Struyven, and Dochy 2013; Baeten et al. 2010). This study attempts to contribute to the identification of ways in which student teachers’ learning environments enhance such learning. In order to obtain a comprehensive picture, the research covered learning environments in all the three variants of academic PTE.

2. Conceptual framework

2.1. Meaning-oriented learning

In the last decades many researchers have studied student learning in higher education (e.g. Entwistle and McCune 2004; Marton and Säljö 1976; Vermunt 1998). Early studies in this field mainly focused on processes and intentions of learning, and generally distinguished between deep and surface learning (e.g. Vanthournout et al. 2014). Deep learning is characterised by a search for meaning and a desire to understand from ‘within’, by and for oneself, whereas surface learning is characterised by an aim to reproduce learning content and an extrinsic motivation for learning. Nowadays, research on student learning covers students’ cognitive thinking activities and the study skills that they apply to process input (their processing strategies), the activities students use to steer the cognitive and affective activities (their regulation strategies), their motivations for learning and their beliefs with regard to what learning is (Pintrich 2004; Vanthournout et al. 2014; Vermunt and Vermetten 2004). The processing and regulation strategies are viewed as more changeable components of student learning, motivations for and beliefs about what learning is as more stable ones (Vanthournout et al. 2014). This study focuses on processing and regulation strategies of academic PTE-students and, given the aim of the study, more specifically on the enhancement of meaning-oriented processing and self-regulation.

In the context of teacher education, the following meaning-oriented processing strategies have been identified: (a) drawing conclusions by comparing one’s own beliefs, theories and mentors’ practical knowledge (Zanting 2001), (b) critically analysing theory and practice, and giving meaning to both (Bronkhorst et al. 2011; Evans 2014), and (c) seeking different perspectives and integrating these into a personal theory of practice (Bronkhorst et al. 2011). A previous study (van der Wal-Maris, Geldens, and Beijaard 2012) revealed that academic PTE-students are motivated to contribute to educational research and innovation. We presume that their use of meaning-oriented processing strategies will not be limited to learning experiences related to teaching, but will also pertain to experiences related to innovation and carrying out research. Meaning-oriented academic PTE-students are expected to actively construct their own theory of practice by drawing conclusions based on (combinations of) theory, teaching, innovation and research activities.

In regulating one’s own learning, multiple regulation strategies are used. Self-regulating learners orientate themselves on learning activities, goals and content and plan and define these themselves. They monitor their own cognition, motivation and behaviour and, if necessary, revise these (Veenman 2011). They diagnose, test and evaluate their own learning results and processes. Lastly, self-regulating learners tend to reflect on what went well or wrong and what could have been done better (e.g. Pintrich 2004; Vermunt and Verloop 1999); their primary concern is to improve their competencies and less to prove them (cf. Watkins 2010).

The design of the learning environment is essential for enhancing meaning-oriented learning (e.g. Gordon and Debus 2002; Oosterheert 2001); a learning orientation results from the interaction between learner characteristics and learning environment characteristics (Marshall and Case 2005). Research findings on how a learning environment encourages meaning-oriented learning are not consistent (cf. a review study by Baeten et al. 2010). For example, there are mixed findings for the value of learning environments which are highly student-centred for the encouraging of meaning-oriented learning. A number of studies emphasised the added value of such environments, other studies found such environments to foster reproductive learning rather than meaning-oriented learning, or did not find any differences with other learning environments at all. The present study aims at gaining insight into ways in which meaning-oriented learning – i.e. meaning-oriented processing and self-regulation – is enhanced in Dutch academic PTE.

2.2. Research questions

In identifying ways of enhancing meaning-oriented learning, it is important to understand that it is mainly the perception of the reality that influences students’ learning rather than the educational reality itself (e.g. Elen and Lowyck 2000; Ramsden 1997). Therefore, we explored students’ perceptions of how their learning environment enhanced meaning-oriented learning. In order to get a comprehensive picture we also asked students’ educators for their perceptions. The following research questions will be answered:

•	How do first-year academic PTE-students and their educators perceive the learning environment enhancing meaning-oriented processing?
•	How do they perceive the learning environment enhancing self-regulation?
•	How do they perceive the learning environment influencing meaning-oriented learning in general?

3. Method

At the time of our study, the academic PTE-trajectories were still under construction, so we decided to situate this study in students’ first year. As we wanted to cover the broad spectrum of trajectories in academic PTE, we included three trajectories, one of each type as mentioned in the introduction. In line with their order in the introduction, the trajectories will be referred to in this article as PTE-A, PTE-B and PTE-C. The institutes involved are located in different parts of the Netherlands and they all offer academic as well as regular PTE.

3.1. Participants

Both first-year academic PTE-students and their educators participated in the study. The student groups were quite small (ranging from 7 to 14), so all the students were invited to participate. All PTE-students volunteered, with the exception of three who were ill (one in PTE-A and two in PTE-B). The participating educators represented developers of the trajectories, lecturers and tutors. In PTE-A, some of the educators were employed in a hbo-institute and some in the faculty of pedagogy of a scientific university, so we decided to invite a group of educators from both (see Table 1).

Table 1. Overview of number of participants per PTE-institute.

	PTE-A		PTE-B	PTE-C	Total
	A1 ^a	A2 ^b
Academic PTE-students	7		14	11	32
Teacher educators	4	3	4	7	18

^a hbo.

^b scientific university.

3.2. Data collection

Semi-structured group interviews were used for investigating the interviewees’ perceptions of their learning environment regarding the enhancement of meaning-oriented processing and self-regulation and the factors influencing meaning-oriented learning in general. Group interviews create the possibility for interviewees to interact and to complement each other and allow the interviewer to elaborate on the responses (Boeije 2010); the data may be a better reflection of ‘reality’ than data collected in a non-social setting (Carey and Smith 1994). All interviews were carried out by the first author, who is an experienced and independent teacher educator. Institute coordinators informed the interviewees that there were no limitations in responding to questions and discussing their learning environments. In the interviews, the use of jargon (e.g. ‘meaning-oriented processing’, ‘self-regulation’) was avoided. Academic PTE-programmes were studied thoroughly prior to the interviews, making it easier to respond to students’ remarks and to invite them to elaborate on statements by asking appropriate supplementary questions and using terms that are common in their institute. When interviewees’ descriptions gave rise to it, the interviewer questioned how their learning environment influenced their meaning-oriented learning in general. Table 2 contains examples of interview questions.

Table 2. Example of interview questions for investigating perceptions of enhancing meaning-oriented learning.

Aspect	Example questions
	Student teachers	Teacher educators
Enhancing meaning-oriented processing	How do you acquire theoretical knowledge?	How do students acquire theoretical knowledge?
	How are you encouraged to relate theory and practice?	How are students encouraged to relate theory and practice?
Enhancing self-regulation	Who determines the learning content?	Who determines the learning content?
	How are you encouraged to determine the learning content?	How are students encouraged to determine learning content?

Data collection took place during the last period of the students’ first year. In each trajectory two student groups were formed, in PTE-A there were two groups of educators, while in PTE-B and PTE-C there was one group of educators in each. The participants were interviewed in their own institutes, the interviews were audio-taped.

3.3. Data analysis

The interviews were first transcribed verbatim and then analysed qualitatively. The analysis of the data consisted of the following steps:^{Table 3}

(a)	The analysis started with the open coding of fragments from a sample of four interviews representing students, educators and trajectories at a fairly detailed level by the first author. A fragment consisted of a coherent set of expressions about a certain topic (Boeije 2010). The foci of the research questions (‘enhancing meaning-oriented processing’, ‘enhancing self-regulation’ and ‘influencing meaning-oriented learning in general’) were concepts which guided the selection of fragments (Bowen 2005). This analysis of fragments resulted in a preliminary category system.
(b)	The category system was strengthened by an iterative process of going back and forth through the data of the four interviews and between theory and data (Boeije 2010). The strengthened category system consisted of categories, subcategories and components within subcategories. This category system was discussed in the author group, and two non-involved peer researchers were consulted for its plausibility. This led to a reduction in the amount of subcategories and to organising them slightly differently.
(c)	A user manual for categorising the data was designed (see Table 3 for an illustration). The first author and a second independent researcher categorised the fragments of a fifth and sixth interview with the modified category system and the user manual. The categorising was discussed; a few small adjustments to the category system and to the user manual were made.
(d)	In order to determine the reliability of the category system, 285 fragments of three randomly selected interviews (representing students, educators and trajectories) were categorised by two researchers independently. The inter-rater reliability of the category system showed a Cohen’s kappa of .80, which was considered good taking into account the number of (sub)categories.
(e)	The first author then analysed all the interviews with the developed category system.

Table 3. Illustration of part of the user manual for categorising the data.

Subcategory	Component	Description	Sample fragment
Critical processing	Underpinning an opinion	Contributing to learning to underpin an opinion with arguments	‘In this programme they have to give an oral presentation. We scaffold by presenting a short structure. The main goal is to learn to argue. In the assignment, statements are used which link to the central themes of the programme and which are discussed’ [teacher educator]

4. Results

We identified 1009 meaningful fragments for answering the research questions: 568 fragments within student interviews, 441 within teacher educator interviews.

With respect to the contribution of the learning environment to meaning-oriented learning, 13 subcategories could be distinguished: six for enhancing meaning-oriented processing, four for enhancing self-regulation and three for influencing meaning-oriented learning in general. Table 4 lists the categories and subcategories. It also includes the number of fragments per subcategory, making a distinction between fragments from the student and educator interviews. A description of the subcategories is added as an Appendix 1.

Table 4. Main categories, subcategories and frequencies of fragments per subcategory.

Main category	Subcategory		Students’ fragments		Educators’ fragments
			n	%	n	%
Enhancing meaning-oriented processing	1	Structuring input	111	19.5	90	20.4
	2	Critical processing	37	6.5	48	10.9
	3	Searching and exploring multiple types of sources	35	6.2	19	1.9
	4	Cooperative learning	48	8.5	27	6.1
	5	Sharing knowledge externally	10	1.8	8	1.8
	6	Constructing a professional identity	39	6.9	16	3.6
Enhancing self-regulation	7	Self-regulation in general	10	1.8	5	1.1
	8	Preparing the learning process	117	20.6	75	17.0
	9	Monitoring the learning process	57	10.0	37	8.4
	10	Reflecting on the learning process	38	6.7	25	5.7
Influencing meaning-oriented learning in general	11	Pedagogical coherency/discrepancy	35	6.2	42	9.5
	12	Content coherency/discrepancy	6	1.1	34	7.7
	13	Student study and workload	25	4.4	15	3.4

In the category ‘enhancing meaning-oriented processing’ (48% of the fragments), the subcategory ‘structuring of input’ is by far the largest. The reported enhancement of self-regulation (36% of the fragments) mainly refers to the phase of preparing the learning process. The fragments pertaining to ‘influencing meaning-oriented learning in general’ (16% of the fragments) particularly deal with (a lack of) coherency between the various ‘sub’-learning environments, for example, between a university environment and an environment in a practice school.

In the following sections the results will be described in more detail and illustrated with quotes from the interviewees.

4.1. Enhancing meaning-oriented processing

With regard to the enhancement of meaning-oriented processing, interviewees mostly reported on the enhancement of structuring input (subcategory 1). For example, students are encouraged to structure and relate experiences gained in teaching practice – by themselves and by their peers – and to relate theory to practical experiences or vice versa. Within this subcategory, most fragments (55.7%) are related to structuring practical experiences. The demand to structure and relate practical experiences was not limited to teaching experiences. It also pertained to students’ other experiences in practice schools – such as experiences with how the teaching staff realises educational improvement – and to experiences within a broader school context – such as how school counselling services support teachers. A teacher educator provided the following description of the demand to structure input and to relate it to theory:

They interview a parent and they’re quite free, but the reporting should be structured. In addition, they have to link to the content of the lectures. Furthermore, the assignment demands to include a section about experiences of professionals.

Both teacher educators and students gave examples of the enhancement of critical processing (subcategory 2). Most examples pertain to critically questioning teaching practice from a theoretical perspective or vice versa. An example of how critical processing is enhanced is the use of guided classroom interaction in which practical experiences are exchanged and critically questioned from a theoretical perspective. Furthermore, considerable attention was paid to learning how to underpin an opinion. A student gave the following example of critically analysing practice:

I think he [the teacher educator] also had the intention to let us discover that many lessons are given with blind confidence on a teaching manual. That he wanted us to learn to really take a thorough look: ‘What are the goals you must achieve, and how could you design appropriate education?’, instead of trying to achieve goals simply by adopting a lesson from a teaching manual.

Assignments frequently included the request to search for multiple types of sources and to explore them (subcategory 3). The request was not limited to reliable written sources. Examples of other sources which should be consulted are (practical) experts, observations and experiments. A student spoke about the use of observation and interview data as sources of information:

In addition to the demand of observing your mentor, you have to interview people who possess much knowledge of your topic, experts (…).

Cooperative learning activities (subcategory 4) were frequently applied as a way to foster meaning-oriented processing. For instance, students were encouraged or requested to construct knowledge with peers, present gained knowledge to peers and provide content-related feedback to peers. A teacher educator gave an example of how different cooperative learning activities were integrated in an assignment: in small groups, students had to transfer theory into an interview manual, interview primary teachers, relate interview outcomes to theory and present gained knowledge to their peers:

They visit a traditional innovation school [like a Montessori school, Freinet school, Dalton school] in a team of three persons. Together they prepare questions to ask the teachers from this school (…). After the school visit, they present their findings and how their findings relate to literature to the other students.

Although not often mentioned, a remarkable way of stimulating meaning-oriented processing was the requirement to share knowledge externally (subcategory 5). Students were challenged to disseminate research findings and educational designs beyond their own educational environment, for example on a conference, in a publication or on the Web. One of the students said the following about the latter:

We had to make a sort of small website, which had to consist of theory about emergent literacy.

A fellow student added:

Yes, but also a link to practice was required. The website is accessible to student teachers enrolled in institutes having a partnership with ours.

According to the students, sharing knowledge externally stimulates them to structure, relate and communicate their findings very clearly. The goal exceeded knowledge construction meaningful to themselves or needed for passing an assessment; it had to be useful and meaningful to others as well.

The final subcategory distinguished within enhancing meaning-oriented processing is ‘constructing a professional identity’ (subcategory 6). The development of a professional identity as an academic primary teacher was stimulated by encouraging students to develop a personal vision on such an identity and to critically reflect on their professional identity regularly. The following example, given by a teacher educator, illustrates the latter:

Students are instructed to make their own profile sketch and to relate this profile to that of an academically skilled, innovative teacher. Subsequently they are asked to reflect on the development of their professional identity, and then of course they should underpin all (…).

4.2. Enhancing self-regulation

Based on the perceptions regarding the regulation of the learning process in general (subcategory 7), we may conclude regulation to be mainly students’ own responsibility. By examining the fragments referring to separate phases of the learning process, a more nuanced picture emerges.

As for preparing the learning process (subcategory 8), interviewees indicated that educators provided frameworks: they defined objectives, the assessment and assessment criteria. However, large assignments were often formulated quite openly, so personal choices had to be made and individual input was required. Not all students appeared to be enthusiastic about the large and open-defined assignments from the beginning of an assignment. They often led to student doubts about their own abilities. However, their capabilities, their will to understand, their exploratory drive and the confidence that their educators would support them ensured that – sooner or later – students were captivated by the assignments, and exceeded their own limits. One student said about this:

At the starting point (…) there is a threshold, before you really get started (…). The search for good literature, it always takes me some time, and I have to keep telling myself: ‘OK, come on, go on (…)’. But, once you get started, you’re in a flow: ‘This is really good’ and ‘I like this!’ You think: ‘I’m really doing a good job!’

In smaller assignments students often had the opportunity to add personal goals or make choices regarding content as well.

Students were expected to monitor their own learning (subcategory 9). When needed, they were supported through counselling or coaching on an individual basis. In several ways, students’ monitoring was scaffolded. The interviewees gave numerous examples of how open, large assignments were divided into smaller tasks. For instance, for the preparation of a ‘design your ideal school’ project, students first had to determine which traditional innovative education concept they were most eager to explore in depth. Subsequently, they had to search for and study literature on the concept of their choice. In addition, a visit to a traditional innovative school was prepared by studying the school guide and school website. Guided by a topic list, students then had to transfer their own curiosity and the collected information into questions for the teachers working in the school that was to be visited. Interdependence between students was incorporated into the assignment, so ‘forcing’ them to keep up with the suggested time schedule. In carrying out large assignments like the ‘design your ideal school’ project, the monitoring of own learning was also scaffolded by providing opportunities to ask for feedback. A student explained the benefits as follows:

In my opinion the feedback moments during the research and design seminars [large units of study] are very useful; they create the opportunity to determine if you are on track. During these moments, you can also see with what others are busy, how far they have progressed. This offers opportunities to determine if you are performing well yourself.

In students’ teaching practice, reflection (subcategory 10) was the starting point for determining new, personal learning goals. For example, students were requested to write a learner report in which they had to reflect on their teaching experiences and on the development of their teaching competencies, and had to formulate follow-up steps. Students discussed their learner report with their mentor in a practice school, and in one trajectory also with peers. During group meetings at the institute, students and teachers reflected on teaching experiences as well. Occasionally reflection on the development of academic competencies was expected.

4.3. Influencing meaning-oriented learning in general

Interviewees stated that coherency in the learning environment is an important condition for meaning-oriented learning; 49% of the fragments refer to pedagogical coherency, 24.5% to content coherency. The other fragments (24.5%) are related to students’ study and workload.

Interviewees stressed the importance of pedagogical coherency (subcategory 11). However, in two out of three trajectories interviewees reported a lack of pedagogical coherency. In PTE-A, students reported a discrepancy between the academic and theory-driven approach of the scientific university and the practical approach of practice schools. Another discrepancy relates to the level of education between the PTE-institute and the scientific university. A student expressed this as follows:

If allowed to change anything, then let it be the discrepancy between the level of the PTE-institute and the scientific university. The difference is so huge, it really leads to frustrations. It just puts me in a bad mood during the days I attend the PTE-institute (…) Education is so little challenging. I notice my peers think the same. (…) I feel underestimated. (…). At one point I think: ‘Now I want this in greater depth; not those examples again!’

In the PTE-A trajectory, students reported differences between sub-environments that negatively affect their meaning-oriented learning, namely: learning in a small group environment and doing individual assignments at the PTE-A-institute versus learning in a relatively anonymous big group, and doing individual as well as group assignments at the scientific university.

In PTE-B, interviewees reported a discrepancy between the expectations of their institute educators and of the teachers in their practice schools regarding students’ attitude and performance. Teacher educators demanded students to be critical and open-minded and to carry out research and design activities in their practice schools. According to the students, however, some primary teachers were not very familiar with critically curious students carrying out research and design activities, and sometimes were not interested in this latter either.

In PTE-C, the shortened PTE-trajectory, the learning goals for the initial year should be accomplished in half the time, both in the institute and in the practice schools. Learning in students’ first year is primarily focused on elementary knowledge and skills necessary for teaching. Interviewees reported indirectly on pedagogical coherency between the sub-environments, for example, by saying that primary teachers, like teacher educators, expected academic students to quickly take initiatives in their learning process.

Content coherency (subcategory 12) is the educators’ concern. In order to achieve such coherency within a programme, educators provided large, comprehensive assignments which had to be carried out throughout a course. Content coherency was also pursued by the design of major curriculum units in which educational content, research content and design content were offered as an integrated whole. An educator worded this as follows:

When designing academic PTE we spent most of our time on the new concept ‘Research and Design-seminar’. R&D-seminars are at the heart of the educational programme. A seminar is always about a so-called ‘big idea’ … These [big ideas] are, in my opinion, (…), important issues with regard to designing and teaching in primary education. A big idea can be subject-related but can also be pedagogical in nature, or educational. A seminar is a large study unit.

Students experienced discrepancies between expectations regarding content by their PTE-institutes and their practice schools. One student formulated this in the following way:

It’s quite crazy. In [name of the institute] you feel like you learn a lot, you suddenly discover things (…) and your vision (…) a kind of world opens to you (…). However, when you are at the practice school, you’re the freshman trainee who isn’t really questioned about the educational programme at the institute.

The last subcategory distinguished is the students’ study and workload (subcategory 13). A large or even huge study and workload was experienced. Students felt that a large study and workload resulted in an increase in their strategic behaviour rather than in their learning behaviour; they associated a large study and workload negatively with a meaning-oriented learning orientation.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to gain insight into how academic PTE-students and their educators perceived academic PTE as enhancing meaning-oriented learning. Based on academic PTE-students’ interest in contributing to research and innovation (van der Wal-Maris, Geldens, and Beijaard 2012), we hypothesised that academic PTE-students want to understand teaching and learning concepts thoroughly, that they want to learn in depth and are personally interested in learning. The trajectories under study have been designed based on these assumptions, and the interviewed students perceived that the objectives were reached. Generally spoken, students felt that they were encouraged to process input in a meaning-oriented way, and they described how the education fitted their personal interests. For example, interviewees gave many examples of assignments related to the profession, concerning complex educational issues and requiring research and/or design activities. Such assignments are consistent with students’ application-directed view on learning, and with their innovation-based motives for entering teacher education and the teaching profession (van der Wal-Maris, Geldens, and Beijaard 2012).

The academic PTE-trajectories under study intended to support both meaning-oriented processing and self-regulation. PTE-students as well as their educators perceived the learning environment as stimulating both in several ways, and they were able to express how this was done. Interviewees were also able to describe factors influencing meaning-oriented learning in general.

5.1. Enhancing meaning-oriented processing

Interviewees most frequently reported on the enhancement of structuring input, and subsequently on the enhancement of critical processing theory and practice. According to Vermunt and Vermetten (2004), Zanting (2001) and Bronkhorst et al. (2011), these activities are important for meaning-oriented processing to occur.

In the investigated trajectories, the education was often centred around a complex educational issue or dilemma. The educational design appeared to challenge students to investigate a topic from a wide range of theoretical and practical perspectives. Large, open, continuous assignments incorporated the search for and structuring of reliable sources. Concurrently, students had to perform research and design activities. In addition, these large assignments often needed to be carried out in cooperation with peers. At the end of the assignment, students had to take a properly reasoned position with regard to the topic under study. Group discussions, arguing and negotiating about meaning enabled students to come up with a personal vision. Students perceived the demands on a high level of cognitive processing, a perception which is likely to lead to employing deep, meaning-oriented learning approaches (cf. Scouller 1998).

A remarkable way of enhancing meaning-oriented processing was the demand to share constructed knowledge with people other than peers or educators. An example of such a demand is the assignment to make one’s own findings and/or educational designs accessible to others on the Web. The assignment included the requirement to structure very clearly, to relate theory to practice and to underpin opinions. The required sharing of knowledge will not contribute exclusively to students’ meaning-oriented processing during their study. To be precise, it will benefit future working environments as well; nowadays many (primary) schools aim at substantial school improvement by transforming into professional learning communities. Relevant characteristics of such communities are collaborative learning and the construction and sharing of knowledge (cf. Huffman and Hipp 2003). As found in the interviews, academically trained primary school teachers are eminently equipped to contribute to such communities.

Meaning-oriented processing was also enhanced by the requirement to reflect periodically on how constructed knowledge influenced the development of one’s own professional identity. Students had to articulate a personal vision, underpin this vision with theory, relate it to their own teacher behaviour and to the professional that they wanted to be as an academically skilled primary teacher (cf. Beijaard, Meijer, and Verloop 2004).

In the ways in which meaning-oriented processing was enhanced, a distinction can be made between direct and indirect enhancement. The subcategories ‘structuring of input’ and ’critical processing’ point to direct enhancement; ‘searching and exploring multiple types of sources’, ‘cooperative learning’, ‘sharing knowledge externally’ and ‘constructing a professional identity as an academic primary teacher’ point to indirect enhancement.

5.2. Enhancing self-regulation

The results with regard to the contribution of the learning environment to self-regulation make clear that in general the regulation of learning was believed to be mainly the students’ own responsibility. However, one’s own regulation of learning was encouraged and scaffolded by the educators.

Interviewees outlined the enhancing of self-regulation in all phases of the learning process, but some phases were more often referred to than other ones. In particular, the preparation of learning is mentioned. In carrying out large assignments, students had to direct (part of) their learning by making choices on content and/or learning activities. Choice in learning is to be associated with meaning-oriented processing approaches (e.g. Cope, Staehr, and Horan 2002).

In monitoring their learning, students were often guided by provided action plans. These actions plans were meant to help them to monitor their own learning activities, but it carries the risk of regulation taking over (cf. Vermunt and Verloop 1999). Students may come to rely on action plans instead of increasing their own monitoring. As we only studied the enhancement of self-regulation in the students’ first year, there might be a gradual shift in the upcoming years from external monitoring towards self-monitoring.

The self-regulation of learning was backed by reflective discussions on competence growth and the subsequent formulation of follow-up steps. However, it is striking that the reflection was limited to teaching competencies; one of the main characteristics of academic PTE is the aim to develop teaching and academic competencies simultaneously.

5.3. Influencing meaning-oriented learning in general

This study shows that interviewees perceived several aspects of their learning environment to influence meaning-oriented learning in general. This result is also known from previous research in other educational settings (e.g. Cope and Staehr 2005; Entwistle and Peterson 2004; Segers, Nijhuis, and Gijselaers 2006). Firstly, the coherence in both the pedagogy used and the content of the curriculum is experienced as a considerable precondition for meaning-oriented learning. Interviewees pointed to a lack of coherency as an obstruction for meaning-oriented learning on several occasions. Entwistle and Peterson (2004) have already highlighted the importance of coherence among components within a learning environment. Interviewees also reported a large or even excessive study and workload, resulting in a negative impact on meaning-oriented learning. In previous research (e.g. Cope and Staehr 2005; Segers, Nijhuis, and Gijselaers 2006), an excessive study and workload were also found to be negatively associated with a meaning-oriented learning approach.

If the negative impact of the described discrepancies in the learning environment and of the perceived huge study and workload are not reduced, the effect of the efforts to enhance meaning-oriented learning might be small.

6. Limitations and suggestions for future research

In this study, interviewees’ perceptions of the contribution of the learning environment to meaning-oriented learning were examined. The focus on perceptions was a deliberate choice, but it also implies a limitation. To broaden and deepen insights obtained from this study, we suggest future research to include observations regarding the learning environment (cf. Koopman 2010) and analysis of student work (cf. Mansvelder-Longayroux, Beijaard, and Verloop 2007).

Another limitation pertains to the restriction of the research to the first year of teacher education. However, the first year might be an essential year in influencing student learning (cf. Loyens, Rikers, and Schmidt 2009), and the trajectories under study all aim at the development of teaching and academic competencies from the start. The restriction to the first year obviously has its consequences for the generalisability of the present results to the whole period of study. Therefore, future research on the enhancement in following years is recommended.

Lastly, interviewees perceived the enhancing of meaning-oriented learning, but the question remains whether students’ learning actually developed towards such learning. Follow-up studies will have to provide insight into this.

7. Recommendations for academic PTE

Looking at the foregoing overall, it is possible to make a number of recommendations for further enhancing meaning-oriented learning in Dutch academic PTE.

The first recommendation concerns the enhancing of self-regulation. In regulating one’s own learning, reflection on what went well and what could have been done better is an important activity (e.g. Pintrich 2004). In academic PTE, reflection on the learning is incorporated, but only regarding the development of teaching competencies. As academic PTE aims at developing teaching and academic competencies, we strongly suggest that reflection on the development of academic competencies is required as well.

Another recommendation concerns the enhancement of self-regulation in general. It is suggested to gradually increase independence. ‘Modelling, external monitoring, scaffolding, meta-cognitive guidance, attention for self-evaluation, practice of skills, feedback and reflection’ (Simons and Bolhuis 2004, 23) are ways to support the shift from external regulation to self-regulation.

Concerning influencing contextual factors, this study also leads to several recommendations. Further efforts must be undertaken to establish learning environments at the intersection of professional and academic education without any frictions. Simultaneously, the redesign of the learning environments into environments which challenge students without overloading them is a task to be faced. Perhaps the reduction of content is part of the solution.

8. Conclusion

We conclude that the first-year academic PTE-environments are perceived as environments that enhance meaning-oriented learning in many different ways. Precisely the combination of multiple types of sources, the strong theory–practice link and the educational traditions of higher vocational as well as academic education offer unique opportunities to enable meaning-oriented learning. At the same time, these characteristics might hinder meaning-oriented learning by means of a lack of coherency in the learning environment and a perceived excessive study and workload. If we are aware of both the opportunities and the threats, and if we scaffold academic prospective teachers in becoming self-regulated learners, then Dutch academic PTE is a promising way to increase the amount of primary teachers with an academic attitude and ability.

In the introduction we pointed to the international concern of how to bring a higher quality and broader range of teachers into education. In our opinion, enhancing the development of student teachers’ learning towards meaning-oriented learning contributes to an increase in their professional competencies, and thus in their quality as a teacher. This study revealed ways of how meaning-oriented learning was enhanced in Dutch academic PTE. Next to the direct ways of enhancing meaning-oriented processing of input – as also known from previous research – the research identified indirect ways. Taking the own ITE-context into account, the following indirect ways might be useful in other ITE-contexts as well: the demand to search and explore multiple types of sources by students themselves, the incorporation of a broad range of cooperative learning activities, and challenging students to share knowledge with others rather than simply with than peers or educators. Furthermore, this study revealed that the education in large units of study was also meant to enhance meaning-oriented learning, especially by having the education depart from an educational issue or dilemma and by incorporating large, open assignments.

Notes on contributors

S. J. van der Wal-Maris is a senior educational researcher and teacher educator at the Marnix Innovation Centre of the Marnix Academie, a University of Applied Science in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Her research interests pertain to student approaches to learning. She began her career as a teacher of mathematics in secondary education. She received her PhD in 2017 on a study into meaning-oriented learning of student teachers.

D. Beijaard is Professor of Professional Learning at the Eindhoven School of Education of the Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. His research interests pertain to the professional identity, development and assessment of (beginning) teachers . He began his career as a teacher in secondary education and received his PhD in 1990 on a study into experienced teachers’ practical knowledge.

G. L. M. Schellings is assistant professor at the Eindhoven School of Education of the Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. Her research interests aim at professional identity development of (beginning) teachers, learning strategies and metacognition. She began her career as a researcher at a teacher education institute and received her PhD in 1995 on a study into learning strategies applied in order to learn from instructional texts.

J. J. M. Geldens is a professor of the Kempel Research Centre at the University of Applied Sciences in Helmond, the Netherlands. Her research focuses on meaningful and workplace learning. She began her career as a teacher in primary education and received her PhD in 2007 on a research study into determining the characteristics of powerful workplace learning environments for prospective teachers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Appendix 1. Main categories, subcategories and distinguished components within the enhancement of meaning-oriented learning and influencing factors

Table

Main category	Subcategory		Components
Enhancing meaning-oriented processing	1	Structuring input	Encouraging, supporting and/or requiring students to: • structure separate pieces of theory • structure practical experiences and/or related input from primary teachers/experts • relate theory to practical experience and vice versa • integrate pieces of new knowledge into prior knowledge • structure and relate input obtained by different students in practice schools • structure and relate input gathered in several contexts
	2	Critical processing	Encouraging, supporting and/or requiring students to: • critically process theory by examining the logic of reasoning or forming an underpinned personal opinion/interpretation • critically process practical experiences • critically process both theory and practice, for example, by doing research • underpin an opinion
	3	Searching and exploring multiple types of sources	Encouraging, supporting and/or requiring students to search for and explore all sorts of sources of information, for example, by searching for theory, questioning experts, observing and experimenting
	4	Cooperative learning	Encouraging, supporting and/or requiring students to: • construct or (re)organise knowledge with peers • provide content-related feedback to peers • exchange gained knowledge, experiences and ideas with peers • create knowledge by elaborating on knowledge of peers
	5	Sharing knowledge externally	Encouraging, supporting and/or requiring students to: • present knowledge extern, for example, in practice schools, on a conference, on the Web • share knowledge with students of other trajectories or another study year • elaborate knowledge constructed by students from another study year or another academic PTE-trajectory
	6	Constructing a professional identity	Encouraging, supporting and/or requiring students to: • develop a strong personal vision about who one wants to be as an academic primary teacher • reflect on (changes in) professional identity
Enhancing self-regulation	7	Self-regulation in general	Encouraging, supporting and/or requiring students to regulate their own learning, without referring to a specific phase in the learning process
	8	Preparing the learning process	Encouraging, supporting and/or requiring students to: • orient towards possible and desired learning objectives, content and activities, previous knowledge, available time and resources • design a learning process
	9	Monitoring the learning process	Encouraging, supporting and/or requiring students to: • monitor whether the learning proceeds as planned and, if necessary, making changes to the initial planning • control whether the realised learning objectives match the planned learning objectives • determine whether there are gaps in knowledge and skills and look for possible causes • redirect the learning process if necessary
	10	Reflecting on the learning process	Encouraging, supporting and/or requiring students to: • reflect on how the learning has progressed • assess whether learning outcomes correspond with learning objectives
Influencing meaning-oriented learning in general	11	Pedagogical coherency/discrepancy	Pedagogical coherency or discrepancy between sub-environments (HBO, practice school, scientific university)
	12	Content coherency/discrepancy	Coherency or discrepancy in content between separate study programme components
	13	Student study and workload	The extent to which there is time or experienced time for meaning-oriented learning