Learning Environments Research (2005) 8: 309–332DOI: 10.1007/s10984-005-1564-7 C© Springer 2005

PETER VAN PETEGEM, VINCENT DONCHE AND JAN VANHOOF

RELATING PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ APPROACHES TOLEARNING AND PREFERENCES FOR CONSTRUCTIVIST

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Received 22 October 2003; accepted (in revised form) 11 May 2005

ABSTRACT. Within two Flemish institutes of pre-service and inservice teacher education,the relationship between the learning styles and preferences for learning environments ofpre-service teachers were examined. Results indicate that some components of pre-serviceteachers’ learning approaches (learning conceptions, learning strategies and learning orien-tations) are predictors for preferences for constructivist learning environments. Differencesin learning approaches and preferences for learning environments are also related to thetype of teacher education that pre-service teachers followed.

KEY WORDS: learning approach, learning environment, pre-service teachers, self-regulation, teacher education

1. INTRODUCTION

Previous research has indicated that learners have preferences for learn-ing environments (Elen & Lowyck, 2000; Entwistle & Tait, 1990, 1993;Peltonen & Niemivirta, 1999; Roelofs, Van der Linden & Erkens,2000; Wierstra & Beerends, 1996; Wierstra, Kanselaar, Van der Linden,Lodewijks & Vermunt, 2003). These preferences for learning environmentscan be related to learners’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Past researchhas also indicated that pre-service teachers have a variety of beliefs aboutteaching when they enter their teacher preparation programs. These beliefsabout teaching, personally constructed theories of teaching, and ideas aboutteacher identity are influenced by many years of classroom observationand interactions experienced within the learning environment (Calderhead& Robson, 1991; Kagan, 1992; Lortie, 1975; Ost, 1989; Pajares, 1992;Weinstein, 1989; Wubbels, 1992; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). This priorknowledge about teaching is understood to serve as an interfering filter dur-ing the learning-to-teach process (Anderson, 1984; Hollingsworth, 1989;Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). Some researchers sug-gest that these constructed beliefs and theories about teaching are ratherhard to change despite the efforts of training (Pajares, 1992; Tabachnick &Zeichner, 1984). Other research has indicated that not only prior schoolingexperiences, but also personal features like pre-service and experiencedteachers’ learning approaches, do seem to have an influence on how they

310 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.

conceive teaching (Huibregtse, Korthagen & Wubbels, 1994; Powell, 1992;Stofflett & Stoddart, 1994).

In this study, we investigated the relations between pre-service teach-ers’ learning approaches and preferences for learning environments ineducational settings. This article discusses results of a survey in which1618 pre-service teachers participated. The research was carried out intwo teacher education institutes with different types of teacher education(preparing for pre-primary, primary, lower-secondary and upper-secondaryeducation) in Flanders (Belgium). Many innovations nowadays in educa-tion are directed to the implementation of more constructivist learningenvironments (Roelofs et al., 2000). In line with these innovations, wequestioned to what extent pre-service teachers’ preferences for learning en-vironments endorse the importance of self-regulated learning (Boekaerts,1997; Zimmerman, 2001), cooperative learning (Slavin, 1995), situatedlearning (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989), or deep and active learning(Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). Our study deals therefore with questionsabout the extent to which pre-service teachers prefer learning environmentsthat stimulate students’ self-regulated learning. To what extent are thesepreferences for learning environment related with teachers’ own learningconceptions, learning strategies and learning orientations? Finding an an-swer to these questions is not only relevant for theory, but also importantfor practice because clarifications of beliefs about learning and teachingmight contribute to a better understanding of the influence of these im-plicit theories during the learning-to-teach process of pre-service teach-ers (Hollingsworth, 1989; Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992; Vosniadou, 1994;Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998; Wubbels, 1992).

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. Learning Approaches

Former studies have indicated that students differ in learning approaches(Biggs, 1987; Entwistle, 1988; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Marton &Saljo, 1976; Pask, 1976; Vermunt, 1998). A learning approach can beviewed as having strong relationships between learning strategies andlearning conceptions (Vermunt, 1998). For instance, students who conceivelearning as a process of knowledge construction in practice undertake moredeep learning activities. In contrast, learners who view learning as merelyintake of knowledge are likely to perform a more surface approach towardslearning. A more integrated perspective on the study learning approaches,in which insights from research of metacognition (Flavell, 1987) are alsointegrated, can be found in the work of Vermunt (1998). Vermunt (1996,

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 311

1998) developed the Inventory Learning Styles (ILS), a questionnaire thatmeasures four different aspects of learning: cognitive processing strategies,regulation strategies, conceptions of learning and orientations to learning(motivational aspects). Using exploratory factor analysis, Vermunt identi-fied four different factors which he calls learning styles. He makes a dis-tinction between meaning-directed style, a reproduction-directed style, anapplication-directed style and an undirected style (Vermunt, 1998). Table Ibelow illustrates the different learning style components and their relationsto different learning styles.

In this framework, a learning style is not viewed as a trait but as ahabitual way of learning which a learner usually has. The ILS is a knownquestionnaire in studies of learning styles in higher education (Richardson,2000) and has been used in different studies and settings (e.g. Busato, Prins,Elshout & Hamaker, 1998; Donche & Van Petegem, 2004; Vermetten,Lodewijks & Vermunt, 1999; Vermunt & Minnaert, 2003).

2.2. Preferences for Socio-Constructivist Learning Environments

In this study, we were interested in the extent to which pre-service teach-ers prefer learning environments in which process-oriented teaching takesplace (Vermunt & Verschaffel, 2000). Many contemporary innovationstrategies in education aim to transform traditional learning environmentsin which a knowledge-transmission model of teaching prevails into learningenvironments in which the knowledge-construction model is central (seealso Lowyck & Elen, 1993). Related to this shift towards more process-oriented teaching, Roelofs et al. (2000) developed a transition model whichtries to capture some of the present educational innovations and is basedupon the construction of types of learning environments. In the positioningof types of learning environments, one can take into account six contrasts:(1) construction versus transmission of knowledge; (2) learning in com-plete tasks situations versus learning by means of split tasks; (3) personalmeaning versus teacher-led meaning; (4) learning in professional and sci-entific contexts versus formal contexts; (5) cooperation and communicationversus individual learning; and (6) creating a climate directed to learningversus a performance-oriented learning climate.

When situated on a continuum, polarised on the one hand by the classicknowledge transmission model and on the other hand by the knowledge-construction model of education, several types of learning environmentscan be distinguished. Based on their questionnaire for preferences forlearning environments, Roelofs and Visser (2000) were able to describepreferences for learning environments from the perspective of students,teachers and parents. Two types of learning environments were clearly dis-tinguished from the perspective of all three actors, namely, (1) a preference

312 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.

TAB

LE

I

Ver

mun

t’sL

earn

ing

Styl

eC

ompo

nent

san

dSt

yles

Styl

e

Lea

rnin

gst

yle

Mea

ning

Rep

rodu

ctio

nA

pplic

atio

nco

mpo

nent

orie

nted

orie

nted

orie

nted

Unr

egul

ated

Cog

nitiv

ele

arni

ngst

rate

gies

Rel

atin

gan

dcr

itica

lpr

oces

sing

Mem

oris

ing

and

anal

ysin

gM

akin

gco

ncre

tean

dap

plyi

ngN

osp

ecifi

cco

gniti

vele

arni

ngac

tiviti

es

Met

acog

nitiv

ele

arni

ngst

rate

gies

Self

-reg

ulat

ion

Ext

erna

lreg

ulat

ion

Self

and

exte

rnal

lyre

gula

ted

No

regu

latio

n

Lea

rnin

gor

ient

atio

nsPe

rson

ally

inte

rest

edC

ertifi

cate

and

self

-tes

tori

ente

dV

ocat

ion

orie

nted

Am

biva

lent

Lea

rnin

gco

ncep

tions

Con

stru

ctio

nof

know

ledg

eIn

take

ofkn

owle

dge

Use

ofkn

owle

dge

Stim

ulat

ing

educ

atio

nan

dco

oper

ativ

ele

arni

ng

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 313

for a meaningful and strategic learning environment (MSLE) and (2) apreference for a discovery-oriented learning environment (DOLE).

These two types of learning environment are different in approach.A preference for MSLE implies an in-between position on the distin-guished continuum between a knowledge-transmission and knowledge-construction model of teaching. In a meaningful and strategic learningenvironment, students are stimulated to undertake more problem-solvinglearning activities, or are challenged to work together with peers. Teachersstimulate students towards more knowledge construction and have atten-tion for connecting their own program to the prior knowledge and interestsof students’ personal worlds. The responsibility for the learning process isnot delegated to the learner. The teacher still has a strong role in stimulatingand motivating the learning process of their students and influencing whatthey should learn. Although teachers challenge their students to engagemore self-regulative learning activities, the learning environment is ratherteacher controlled. Teachers still determine students’ learning goals (or theobject which has to be studied) and plan these in advance.

A preference for DOLE is characterised by a strong reliance upon thelearner’s self-regulation, with the learner taking over functions (Shuell,1996) from their teachers in a higher level of learning. In these learning en-vironments, learners construct their own knowledge by means of interactionand communication with peers, by carrying out complete tasks which arepersonally meaningful and based upon professional contexts. The teacherhas loose control over the learning activities and students are challengedto employ more self-regulation in their learning. It is expected that teach-ers capitalise upon the self-regulation strategies of their learners. Studentschoose their learning goals and the objects which they want to study.

In the research of Roelofs and Visser (2001), it was found that some ofthe teachers’ own learning conceptions were predictive of their realisationof learning environments. Meaningful and strategic learning environmentsare more often realised by teachers whose conception of their own learn-ing is characterised by a preference for learning together. These researchfindings gave a stimulus to look closer to the relationship between learningapproaches and preference for learning environments among pre-serviceteachers.

2.3. Relating Learning Approaches to Preferencesfor Learning Environments

Past research already has dealt with the relationship between one’s learningapproach and preferences for learning environments in higher education(Entwistle & Tait, 1993; Peltonen & Niemivirta, 1999; Wierstra et al.,2003). Peltonen and Niemivirta (1999) found that a constructive learning

314 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.

approach strongly correlates with a preference for a learning environmentin which differentiation and self-regulated learning is supported. Wierstraet al. (2003) found that a constructive approach to the learning of studentsis related to a preference for a constructivist learning environment. Re-search of Entwistle and Tait (1993) suggests that meaning-oriented learnersprefer an academic environment that is expected to facilitate a deep ap-proach to learning, whereas students with a reproducing orientation prefera learning environment which encourages a surface approach to learning.In these studies, preferences for learning environments in higher educa-tion and relationships between one’s learning style of students were exam-ined. However, in our study, we were interested in the way in which thelearning approaches of pre-service teachers influence their preference forlearning environments. Indications of the possible link between learningapproaches and preferences for learning environments can be found in ear-lier research (Huibregtse et al., 1994; Powell, 1992; Stofflett & Stoddart,1994). Huibregtse et al. (1994) have shown a strong relationship betweenexperienced teachers’ preferred way of teaching on the one hand and theway in which they learn themselves on the other hand. When investigatingpeer lessons which pre-service teachers planned and taught, Powell (1992)found that teachers were influenced by their own learning styles. Stofflettand Stoddart (1994) showed that pre-service teachers who experiencedlearning in an active way are likely to prepare lessons in which knowledgeconstruction is central.

2.4. Research Questions

A survey was conducted to answer the following questions:

1. Which learning approaches of pre-service teachers can be distinguishedby using the ILS (Inventory Learning Styles) questionnaire?

2. Which types of learning environment do pre-service teachers prefer?3. Do pre-service teachers’ learning approaches and learning environment

preferences differ on the basis of type of teacher education and gender?4. Can pre-service teachers’ own learning conceptions, learning strate-

gies and learning orientations predict their preferences for learningenvironments?

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Sample

In this study, 1618 student teachers from two Flemish teacher educationinstitutions in Belgium participated. There were 1463 respondents for a

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 315

non-university department offering three levels of 3-year teacher educa-tion (pre-primary, primary and lower-secondary education). All first-year,second-year and third-year students participated. A total of 155 respondentsfrom a university department offering a 1-year teacher education program(upper-secondary education) were involved.

3.2. Inventory of Learning Styles

Learning approaches of pre-service teachers were measured by means ofthe 120-item version of Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles (1996,1998), which was adapted to the Flemish situation. In the questionnaire,27 items are related to processing strategies, 28 items assess regulationstrategies, 25 items are on learning orientation, and 40 items relate tolearning conceptions. The items are responded to using a frequency scaleranging from 1 (I never or hardly ever do this) to 5 (I [almost] alwaysdo this) for the first 55 items, and using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Idisagree on this) to 5 (I agree on this) for the rest of the items. An overviewof the 16 scales and sample items are given in Table II.

3.3. Preferences for Learning Environments

The second questionnaire contained a selection of two scales from theinstrument of Roelofs and Visser (2000). The scales proved to be reliable.In the questionnaire, 17 items are related to the preference for MSLE, and10 items to preference for DOLE. The items are to be filled in on a Likertscale ranging from 1 (This does not apply to me) to 4 (This does apply tome). Sample items from the MSLE and the DOLE scales are provided inTable III.

3.4. Data Collection

All questionnaires were introduced by information about the goals of theresearch. The procedures used were identical for both institutes. At thebeginning of the academic year, pre-service teachers were asked to fillin the two questionnaires. The participation of pre-service teachers wasvoluntary.

3.5. Data Analysis

The learning approaches and preferences for learning environments weredescribed by means of descriptive statistics (Research Questions 1 and 2).

316 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.

TABLE II

Four Components and Sample Items for Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS)(1996, 1998)

Scale Sample item

Processing strategies

Deep processing I try to combine the subjects that are dealt withseparately in a course into one whole.

Stepwise processing I memorise lists of characteristics of a certainphenomenon.

Concrete processing I pay particular attention to those parts of the course thathave practical utility.

Regulation strategies

Self-regulation To test my learning progress, I try to answer questionsabout the subject matter which I make up myself.

External regulation I study according to the instructions given in the coursematerials.

Lack of regulation I notice that it is difficult for me to determine whether Ihave mastered the subject matter sufficiently.

Learning conceptions

Construction of knowledge If I have difficulty with understanding a particular topic,I should construct other books of my own accord.

Intake of knowledge To me, learning means trying to remember the subjectmatter I am given.

Use of knowledge The things I learn have to be useful for solving practicalproblems.

Stimulating education The course team should encourage me to compare thevarious theories that are dealt with in a course.

Co-operative learning I have a need to work with other students in my studies.

Learning orientations

Personally interested I do these studies out of sheer interest in the topics thatare dealt with.

Certificate oriented I study above all to pass the exam.

Self-test oriented I want to test myself to see whether I am capable ofdoing studies in higher education.

Vocation oriented I have chosen this subject area because I am highlyinterested in the type of work for which it prepares.

Ambivalent I am afraid these studies are too demanding for me.

The student was used as the unit of analysis. By means of multivariateanalysis of variance and cluster analysis, we evaluated possible differencesbetween respondents according to learning approaches and preferencesfor learning environments (Research Question 3). By means of step-wise multiple regression analysis, we evaluated whether pre-service teach-ers’ preferences for learning environments could be predicted by specific

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 317

TABLE III

Sample Items from Two Learning Environment Preference Scales

Scale Sample items

Meaningful and strategiclearning environment (MSLE)

Pupils have to collect independently informationabout subjects dealt with during courses.

Learning content must be connected to the interestsof pupils.

Discovery learning environment(DOLE)

Pupils are able to determine what they want to workon.

Pupils have to decide for themselves how much timethey need to spend on their learning task.

learning strategies, learning orientations and learning conceptions (Re-search Question 4).

4. RESULTS

4.1. Learning Approaches

4.1.1. Reliability, Scale Scores and Differences Between SubgroupsScale scores from the 16 learning style scales were calculated depending onthe mean item score of individuals. Table IV summarises descriptive statis-tics for different types of teacher education, namely, pre-primary education,primary education, lower-secondary education and upper-secondary edu-cation. For each scale, the mean scale score and the results of a one-wayANOVA are also reported. Information on the internal consistency of thescales (Cronbach’s alpha) and standard deviation is included as well.

Inspection of the mean scale scores reveals that pre-service teachers ingeneral are occupation oriented and have a learning conception in which theuse of knowledge is centralised. Furthermore the intake and the construc-tion of knowledge are also preferred in their conceptions of learning. Thissuggests that pre-service teachers are eager to construct and use knowl-edge in an occupation-oriented context, while agreeing with the statementthat learning is about the intake of knowledge. This aspect of their inter-pretation of learning can also be derived from the findings that pre-serviceteachers indicate that they rely on learning strategies such as stepwise, con-crete processing and external regulation. Furthermore, they seem to use fewself-regulation strategies.

However, there are some differences between the different types ofteacher training worth mentioning. Pre-service teachers preparing for pre-primary education rely less on deep processing strategies than do their

318 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.TA

BL

EIV

Rel

iabi

lity,

Des

crip

tive

Stat

istic

san

dD

iffe

renc

esB

etw

een

Dif

fere

ntG

roup

sof

Pre-

serv

ice

Teac

hers

Mea

n Low

er-

Upp

er-

Pre-

prim

ary

Prim

ary

seco

ndar

yse

cond

ary

Scal

eed

ucat

ion

(A)

educ

atio

n(B

)ed

ucat

ion

(C)

educ

atio

n(D

)M

ean

SDA

NO

VA

FPo

stho

c

Proc

essi

ngst

rate

gies

Dee

ppr

oces

sing

2.97

3.08

3.16

3.59

3.14

0.70

37.0

1∗∗∗

AC

,AD

,BD

,CD

(11

item

s,α

=0.

85)

Step

wis

epr

oces

sing

3.29

3.21

3.12

3.12

3.18

0.60

7.00

∗∗∗

AC

,AD

(11

item

s,α

=0.

73)

Con

cret

epr

oces

sing

3.32

3.16

3.15

3.09

3.18

0.68

6.38

∗∗∗

AB

,AC

,AD

(5ite

ms,

α=

0.65

)R

egul

atio

nst

rate

gies

Self

regu

latio

n2.

622.

692.

642.

82.

660.

624.

31∗∗

AD

,CD

(11

item

s,α

=0.

77)

Ext

erna

lreg

ulat

ion

3.33

3.22

3.13

3.02

3.18

0.52

19.7

2∗∗∗

AB

,AC

,AD

,BC

,BD

,CD

(11

item

s,α

=0.

65)

No

regu

latio

n2.

652.

482.

522.

042.

470.

7232

.45∗

∗∗A

B,A

C,A

D,B

D,C

D(6

item

s,α

=0.

71)

Lea

rnin

gor

ient

atio

nsC

ertifi

cate

orie

nted

3.25

3.00

3.2

2.81

3.10

0.75

22.2

4∗∗∗

AB

,AD

,BC

,BD

,CD

(5ite

ms,

α=

0.65

)V

ocat

ion

orie

nted

4.34

4.4

4.1

3.81

4.21

0.60

66.1

4∗∗∗

AC

,AD

,BC

,BD

,CD

(5ite

ms,

α=

0.68

)

(Con

tinu

edon

next

page

)

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 319TA

BL

EIV

(Con

tinu

ed)

Mea

n

Pre-

Low

er-

Upp

er-

prim

ary

Prim

ary

seco

ndar

yse

cond

ary

Scal

eed

ucat

ion

(A)

educ

atio

n(B

)ed

ucat

ion

(C)

educ

atio

n(D

)M

ean

SDA

NO

VA

FPo

stho

c

Self

-tes

tori

ente

d2.

992.

783.

092.

722.

920.

9414

.00∗

∗∗A

B,A

D,B

C,C

D(5

item

s,α

=0.

79)

Pers

onal

lyin

tere

sted

2.44

2.5

2.88

3.26

2.71

0.63

128.

41∗∗

∗A

C,A

D,B

C,B

D,C

D(5

item

s,α

=0.

52)

Am

biva

lent

2.07

2.02

2.09

2.01

2.05

0.77

NS

NS

(5ite

ms,

α=

0.74

)In

take

ofkn

owle

dge

3.81

3.68

3.53

3.23

3.59

0.61

47.8

4∗∗∗

AB

,AC

,AD

,BC

,BD

,CD

(9ite

ms,

α=

0.76

)L

earn

ing

conc

eptio

nsC

onst

ruct

ing

of3.

483.

53.

453.

663.

490.

509.

07∗∗

∗A

D,B

D,C

Dkn

owle

dge

(9ite

ms,

α=

0.72

)U

seof

know

ledg

e4.

24.

163.

933.

744.

030.

5453

.02∗

∗∗A

C,A

D,B

C,B

D,C

D(6

item

s,α

=0.

76)

Stim

ulat

ing

educ

atio

n3.

113.

223.

253.

373.

220.

785.

17∗∗

∗A

D(8

item

s,α

=0.

88)

Coo

pera

tive

lear

ning

3.08

3.00

3.02

2.93

3.01

0.81

NS

NS

(8ite

ms,

α=

0.86

)

Not

e.Po

stho

cte

stus

edis

Tuk

ey’s

HSD

and

Bon

ferr

oni.

NS

=no

tsig

nific

ant,

N=

1680

.∗∗

p<

0.01

.∗∗∗

p<

0.00

1.

320 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.

colleagues who are preparing pre-service teachers for other levels of ed-ucation. They tend to use slightly more frequent stepwise and concreteprocessing strategies, they are more external or unregulated than others,and they most strongly stress a learning conception in which the use ofknowledge is central. In comparison with the other groups, they are stronglycertificate oriented and vocation oriented. Finally, they are only to a minorextent personally interested in their learning.

Pre-service teachers preparing for primary education and lower-secondary education generally do not differ significantly (except for voca-tion and test orientation) and hold a position between pre-service teacherspreparing for pre-primary and upper-secondary education. Their mean scalescores always fall between the extremes of these two groups.

Pre-service teachers preparing for upper-secondary education stronglyrely on deep processing while learning and less on stepwise and concreteprocessing. They are less external or not regulated, but self-regulation isequally low as in the other groups. Although less vocation oriented than theother groups, this orientation is still more important in contrast with study-ing out of personal interest or towards collecting certificates or succeedingin tests. Remarkably, pre-service teachers preparing for upper-secondaryeducation are far more personally interested than the other groups, yet theyagree less with statements relating to the importance of using knowledgewhile they are learning.

4.1.2. Cluster AnalysisIn order to make a distinction between groups of pre-service teachers withsimilar learning approaches, we performed a cluster analysis on the basisof the 16 separated ILS scales. Respondents were grouped together inclusters using the Ward method (1963). Given the presupposition of fourlearning styles from former learning style research (e.g. Vermunt, 1996,1998), we theoretically assumed a distinction into four clusters (Figure 1).Our expectation was to confirm the distinction between the four learningstyles. The cluster analysis did not completely support the former findings.The four-group clustering explained a mean variance of 17.0% for the 16learning style scales – the lowest amount of variance was explained forthe scale ‘occupation oriented’ (5%) and the highest amount for the scale‘ambivalent orientation’ (34%).

Three clusters can be related to the learning style types described byVermunt (1996, 1998): meaning oriented, unregulated, and reproductionoriented. A fourth learning style, named ‘ad hoc learning style’, has char-acteristics of both the reproduction-oriented and unregulated learning style.The application-oriented learning style as described in other research couldnot be found. This seems rather surprising given the assumed application

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 321

Figure 1. Graph of four clusters based on ILS-scales.

and vocational orientation in institutions for teacher training. However, thefact that we did not find the application-oriented learning style implies nei-ther that students are not vocation oriented nor attach no importance to theuse of knowledge. In fact, all students have high scores on these learningscales. This implies that it is difficult to distinguish between groups of pre-service teachers on the basis of vocation orientedness or the extent theydiffer in use of knowledge as learning conceptions. The four clusters canbe described as follows:

• Meaning Oriented. Deep processing and making things concrete arepart of their cognitive learning strategies. These students rely on self-regulated learning strategies. They posses an orientation towards learningwhich is based upon personal interest in learning. Their perception ofeducation is based upon a view of learning as constructing knowledge.

• Reproduction Oriented. Stepwise learning is preferred although someminimum deep processing activities can be noticed. The regulation oflearning activities is external. The orientation of learning is mainly testoriented but is also focused upon collecting certificates and diplomas(performance based). In their learning conception, they attach a lot ofimportance to being stimulated in their learning and they prefer cooper-ative learning. Therefore they are more dependent on external actors intheir learning.

• Ad Hoc. Stepwise learning and learning by heart, but not deep process-ing activities, are frequent. These learners are very much adrift in theirlearning. Learning for them is intake of knowledge and they prefer tolearn in collaboration with others. In their learning, they are also moredependent on external actors such as lecturers or peers.

322 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.

TABLE V

Percentage Distribution of Learning Styles over Type of Teacher Education and Gender

Percentage

Meaning Ad hoc ReproductionGroup oriented Unregulated oriented oriented Total

Type of teacher education

Pre-primary 40.2 22.7 28.0 9.0 100

Primary 47.9 22.5 21.1 8.6 100

Lower-secondary 38.5 25.7 22.3 13.5 100

Upper-secondary 52.7 21.2 15.2 10.9 100

Gender

Male 38.6 29.4 21.9 10.1 100

Female 45.2 21.1 23.1 10.7 100

• Unregulated. No specific cognitive activities occur. These learners arevery much adrift in their learning. This is also reflected in their ambivalentorientation in learning; they have almost no idea why they engage inlearning processes. As opposed to the ad hoc learning style, these learnershave no specific learning conceptions.

Table V shows the distribution of the four learning styles accordingto type of teacher education and gender. The largest group of pre-serviceteachers is meaning oriented. For the group of pre-service teachers prepar-ing for upper-secondary education, 52.7% is meaning oriented. For theother types of teacher training, the proportion of meaning-oriented learnersis somewhat lower. It is lowest in the lower-secondary group (i.e. 38.5%).The amounts of unregulated and reproduction-oriented learners are largelyequal over the different groups. Ad hoc oriented learners are most frequentlyfound in the pre-primary group (28%) and least in the upper-secondarygroup (15.2%). Gender differences were also found. Whereas males areequally ad hoc oriented and reproduction-oriented compared to females,there are some differences for the other two learning styles. Comparedto males, more females turn out to be meaning oriented and less femalesappear to be unregulated.

4.2. Preferences for Learning Environments

4.2.1. Reliability and Differences Between Gendersand Types of Education

Mean scores on the two preferences for learning environments scaleswere calculated using the individual as the unit of analysis. Table VI

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 323

TABLE VI

Descriptive Statistics of Different Types of Teacher Education

Preference for MSLE Preference for DOLE(17 items, α = 0.74) (10 items, α = 0.72)

Gender Gender

Type of teacher education Male Female Total Male Female Total

Pre-primary education 3.23 3.12 3.13 3.08 2.80 2.81

Primary education 3.14 3.24 3.23 2.70 2.75 2.75

Lower-secondary education 3.07 3.22 3.16 2.69 2.66 2.68

Upper-secondary education 3.06 3.10 3.08 2.47 2.49 2.48

Post hoc test used was Tukey’s HSD.N = 1680.

TABLE VII

Statistical Significance of the Main and Interaction Effects

Statistical significance

Scale Gender Type of education Interaction R2

Preference for MSLE NS Sig Sig 0.057

Preference for DOLE NS Sig NS 0.060

NS: non-significant, Sig: significant.

summarises descriptive statistics for the MSLE and DOLE scales for dif-ferent types of teacher education (pre-primary education, primary educa-tion, lower-secondary education and upper-secondary education). Meansare also shown separately for males and females. Information on the relia-bility of the scales is also provided.

Due to violation of assumptions needed before performing a soundMANOVA, two-way ANOVA was assumed to be an adequate technique.This strategy was preferred above a one-way ANOVA because of our inter-est in potential interaction effects (Table VII). Figure 2 provides a graphicsummary of the results of the two-way ANOVA.

Type of education and gender seems to interact for the two scales relatingto preferences for learning environments. The following conclusions canbe drawn:

• Preference for Meaningful and Strategic Learning Environments(MSLE). The overall mean scale scores reveal that pre-service teach-ers agree most with statements relating to MSLE and less with DOLE.There is no main effect for gender for preference for MSLE. Gender,

324 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.

Figure 2. Graphic summary of ANOVA results for gender differences for MSLE andDOLE.

however, is involved in an interaction effect with type of education forpreference for MSLE. This means that the effect of type of education isnot the same for males and females (as can be seen in Figure 2). Post hoctests for the main effect for type of education indicate that pre-serviceteachers preparing for primary education score significantly higher onpreference for MSLE than the other groups. The interaction effect, how-ever, reveals that this is only true for females and not for males. No otherstatistically significant differences were found.

• Preference for Discovery-Oriented Learning Environments (DOLE). Inall types of teacher training, pre-service teachers prefer less DOLEthan MSLE. There is neither a main effect of gender on the prefer-ence for DOLE nor an interaction effect with type of education. Theeffect of type of education, however, is significant. Students preparingfor upper-secondary education prefer less DOLE than the other groups.The pre-primary school group scores significantly higher than the lower-secondary group, but does not significantly differ from the primary ed-ucation group.

4.2.2. Differences in Preferences for Learning EnvironmentsAccording to Learning Styles

Preferences for learning environments are regarded as two dependent vari-ables, and our hypothesis is that these preferences are affected by the learn-ing style of pre-service teachers. We performed a multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA) to test this hypothesis because the two scales measur-ing preferences for learning environments are intercorrelated. These correl-ations must be taken into account when performing the significance test.The overall multivariate test reported in Table VIII indicated that there aresome significant differences between the group means of the four learningstyles (Wilks’s � = 0.005, p < 0.001). (Values of lambda range between0 and 1, with values close to 0 indicating that the group means are different

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 325

TABLE VIII

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) Results

Mean

Meaning Ad hoc Reproductionoriented Unregulated oriented oriented Univariate

Scale A B C D F Post hoc

Preference 3.22 3.04 3.19 3.31 38.94∗∗∗ AB, AD, BC,for MSLE BD, CD

Preference 2.72 2.64 2.73 2.77 5.57∗∗∗ BC, BDfor DOLE

Note. Group A: pre-primary, Group B: primary, Group C: lower-secondary, Group D: upper-secondary.∗∗∗p < 0.001.

and values close to 1 indicating that the group means are not different. Avalue equal to 1 indicates that all means are the same.)

The mean scale scores indicate that students with different learningstyles in general prefer MSLE above DOLE. The clustering in four groupsof learning styles does not result in large differences in preferences forlearning environments. As such, the clustering on the basis of learningstyles is not successful in discriminating between preferences for learningenvironments. Although some significant differences between the learn-ing styles were found, these differences are rather small. Remarkably, thereproduction-oriented learning style group turns out to have the highestpreference for MSLE and DOLE. At first, this result seems contradictoryto expectations from previous research which indicates that reproductivelearners are likely to prefer learning environments in which reproductivelearning is expected. However we have to be careful with the interpreta-tion of our research findings. Because we did not measure a preferencefor a reproductive learning environment, it could perhaps indicate thatreproduction-oriented learners prefer a mix of learning environments inwhich reproduction and construction of knowledge is favoured.

4.3. Predicting Pre-Service Teachers’ Preferencesfor Learning Environments

In order to predict the preferences for learning environments among pre-service teachers, we conducted a multiple regression analysis. The gen-eral purpose of multiple regression is to provide information about therelationship between several independent or predictor variables (i.e. thelearning styles and background information of students) and a dependent orcriterion variable (i.e. preferences for learning environments). We selected

326 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.

the most informative and least inter-correlated predictors for the model.This selection was based on an investigation of the correlation matrix ofthe 16 learning scales and theoretical considerations. Finally the followingpredictors were included in the regression model: gender, type of teachertraining, and 12 ILS scales (see in Table IX).

Interpreting the analysis of the two preferences for learning environmentscales, we noticed that there are six predictors that do not have an impactin any of the regression functions. These scales are surface processing and

TABLE IX

Significant Results for Four Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Pre-serviceTeachers’ Preference for MSLE and DOLE

Significant standardisedregression coefficient, β

Preference PreferencePredictor for MSLE for DOLE

Constant (Males, primary) (1.809) (1.925)

Sex (dummy coded)

Females 0.93

Type of teacher education (dummy coded)

Pre-Primary −0.15

Lower-secondary −0.14

Upper-secondary −0.07 −0.24

Processing strategies

Deep processing 0.11

Concrete processing

Regulation strategies

External regulation

No regulation

Orientation towards education

Vocation oriented 0.11

Self-test-oriented

Personally interested 0.11

Perceptions on education

Intake of knowledge

Construction of knowledge 0.21 0.14

Use of knowledge 0.21 0.07

Stimulating education

Cooperative learning 0.13 0.08

R2 0.25 0.10

Note. All regression coefficients included above are statistically significant (p < 0.01).

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 327

concrete processing, the two regulation strategies (external and no regu-lation) and learning conceptions like stimulating education and intake ofknowledge. The other predictors have a statistically significant associationwith at least one of the preference for learning environment scales.

• Predicting the Preferences for MSLE. The dummy-coded predictors in-dicate that, after controlling for the effect of the other predictors, fe-males have a slightly higher preference for MSLE than males, and thatpre-service teachers preparing for pre-primary and upper-secondary ed-ucation have a lower preference for this type of learning environment.The other predictors suggest that, if a teacher training institute wants toincrease pre-service teachers’ preference for MSLE, one should try toinfluence and direct students to conceptualise learning more as construc-tion and use of knowledge and to prefer working together. This seemsto be the same case with stimulating pre-service teachers to undertakemore deep learning processes and to be more occupation oriented in theirlearning. The higher that students score on these scales, the higher aretheir preferences for MSLE. Based on the predictors in the model, 25% ofthe variance in student teachers’ preference for MSLE can be explained.

• Predicting Preferences for DOLE. The dummy-coded predictorsindicate that there are no gender differences. Pre-service teacherspreparing for secondary education (lower and upper) score lower thanthe pre-primary and primary groups when it comes to preferences forDOLE. The other predictors suggest that increasing students’ preferencefor DOLE is associated with learners being more personally oriented intheir learning and conceiving learning as interesting when constructionand use of knowledge prevails, as well as when they can engage withothers in their learning process. The higher that students score on thesescales, the higher are their preference for DOLE. The regression modelfor DOLE does not explain as much variance as the previous one. Themodel explains only 10% of the variance in student teachers’ preferencefor DOLE.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Regarding the first research question and the differential effects of genderand type of education on learning approaches, the following conclusioncould be drawn:

• Differences on 16 scales measuring learning approaches captured mostof the essential information.

• Pre-service teachers are application oriented in their learning con-ceptions and orientation. These findings seem to be in line with

328 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.

expectations concerning the vocational orientation of students in teachereducation.

• In general, pre-service teachers are reproductive learners. They agreewith the statement that learning is about intake of knowledge and theyrely on learning strategies such as stepwise, concrete processing andexternal regulation. Furthermore, student teachers rely little on self-regulation strategies.

• Pre-service teachers differ regarding learning style components accord-ing to types of teacher training. The most apparent differences are: (1)the increase in the deep processing strategy and a personal interest ori-entation towards learning as we go from the pre-primary to the upper-secondary group; and (2) the decrease of the external and no regulationstrategy, the certificate and occupation orientation towards learning, andconceptions of learning as intake and use of knowledge going fromthe pre-primary to the upper-secondary group. The primary and lower-secondary groups always hold a position between these extremes. Similarfindings concerning the occurrence of a more meaning-oriented learningapproach among academically educated student teachers were found byOosterheert (2001).

• The presence of interrelations between the four learning style compo-nents provides some evidence that the integrated model of learning ofVermunt (1998) has some generality across contexts and countries. How-ever, more in-depth analysis using, for instance, structural equation mod-elling (Bollen, 1989) should be used to thoroughly test all assumptions.

• Pre-service teachers can be grouped together in several learning stylegroups. In this study, three out of four of Vermunt’s learning styles werepresent: meaning oriented, reproduction oriented and unregulated learn-ing styles. Another learning style, in this case the ad hoc learning style,displayed characteristics of both a reproduction and unregulated learn-ing style. These results lead to caution about the so-called basic fourlearning styles. Although theoretically distinguishable, it seems that inpractice most individuals do not uniquely match one particular proto-typical learning style of Vermunt (1998).

• Male and female pre-service teachers differ concerning learning ap-proach. Female pre-service teachers tend to be more meaning orientedin their learning approach than male pre-service teachers. This particularfinding is not in line with former gender-related learning style researchfindings that male students are more meaning oriented in their learning(Severiens & Ten Dam, 1997).

Regarding the second research question and the differential effects ofgender and type of education on preferences for learning environments, thefollowing conclusions could be drawn:

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 329

• In general, all pre-service teachers prefer more MSLE than DOLE.• However, there are some statistically significant but rather small differ-

ences between the types of teacher training when it comes to preferencesfor learning environments. The most apparent finding is that preferencesfor DOLE decrease as we go from the pre-primary to the upper-secondarygroup. Furthermore, student teachers preparing for primary educationscore significantly higher on MSLE than the other groups. However, thisis only true for females and not for males.

Regarding the fourth research question and the differential effects ofgender and type of education, we carried out multiple regressions in or-der to investigate the relationship between pre-service teachers’ learningapproaches and preferences for learning environments. In general terms,we conclude that pre-service teachers’ preferences for MSLE and DOLEare related positively to their learning conceptions concerning using andconstructing knowledge and working together and negatively with intakeof knowledge. A beneficial impact is also expected from maximising deepprocessing strategies. These findings seem to be in line with former find-ings indicating that constructivist approaches to learning positively relateto preferences for constructivist learning environments (Entwistle & Tait,1993; Peltonen & Niemivirta, 1999; Wierstra et al., 2003). Our findingsare also in line with previous findings indicating that pre-service teachers’preferences for learning environments in teaching practice are related totheir learning approaches (Huibregtse et al., 1994; Powell, 1992; Stofflett& Stoddart, 1994). Our study also indicated that students who are morepersonally interested in their studies and are more vocation oriented showa preference for constructivist learning environments.

This study enabled us to explore the differences and interactionsbetween learning approaches and preferences for learning environments.Future research should use more than one methodological approach in in-vestigating those differences. For instance, the use of a qualitative researchmethodology could reveal which other types of learning environmentspre-service teachers prefer in their future teaching practice. By using ourquestionnaire, only two types of learning environments were investigated.Further research should aim at exploring the preferences for other typesof learning environments (e.g. knowledge transmission). Taking intoaccount non-constructivist learning environments could reveal whetherreproductive-oriented pre-service teachers prefer learning environmentsaimed at direct instruction. Also the question about the changeability oflearning approaches and preferences for learning environments would bean interesting path to explore. We wonder whether changes in learning ap-proaches also imply changes in preferences for learning environments. Inthis research, we used several analysis techniques. Exploration of our data

330 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.

by using structural equation modelling (Bollen, 1989) might give furtherinsight into the relationship between learning approaches and preferencesfor learning environments. Finally, it could be interesting to compareour results with large-scale and longitudinal research carried out in otherinstitutions.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. EducationalResearcher, 13(9), 5–10.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne, Australia:Australian Council for Educational Research.

Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers,policy makers, educators, teachers and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 133–149.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–43.Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1998). Learning styles: A cross-

sectional and longitudinal study in higher education. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 68, 427–441.

Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early concep-tions of classroom practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7, 1–8.

Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2004). Leerstijlenonderzoek in het kader van onderwijsin-novatie: Slagen en mislukken bij eerstejaars [Learning style research in the context ofeducational change: Study success and failure of first year students]. Delta: Tijdschriftvoor Hoger Onderwijs, 1(1), 17–24.

Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2000). Instructional metacognitive knowledge: A qualitative study onconceptions of freshmen about instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 421–444.

Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In R. R.Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 21–51). New York: PlenumPress.

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: CroomHelm.

Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching and pref-erences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169–194.

Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1993, April). Approaches to studying and preferences for teachingin higher education: Implications for student ratings. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. InF. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp.21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 26, 160–189.

Huibregtse, I., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (1994). Physics teachers’ conceptions of learn-ing, teaching and professional development. International Journal of Science Education,16, 539–561.

Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Reviewof Educational Research, 62, 129–169.

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 331

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press.

Lowyck, J., & Elen, J. (1993). Transitions in the theoretical foundations of instructionaldesign. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environmentsfor constructive learning (pp. 213–230). New York: Springer Verlag.

Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning – outcome and process.British. Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.

Oosterheert, I. (2001). How student teachers learn: A psychological perspective on knowl-edge construction in learning to teach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen,The Netherlands.

Ost, D. H. (1989). The culture of teaching: Stability and change. The Educational Forum,53, 163–181.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messyproduct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 49, 128–148.

Peltonen, A., & Niemivirta, M. (1999, August). Motivation, self-regulation and perception ofthe learning environment. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference for Researchon Learning and Instruction, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Powell, R. R. (1992). The influence of prior experiences on pedagogical constructs oftraditional and non-traditional preservice teachers. Teacher & Teacher Education, 8,225–238.

Richardson, J. T. E. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J.Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York,Macmillan.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2000). Researching student learning: Approaches to studying incampus-based and distance education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Roelofs, E. C., Van der Linden, J. L., & Erkens, G. (2000). Leren in dialoog: Een discussieover samenwerkend leren in onderwijs en opleiding [Learning in dialogue: A discussionabout cooperative learning in education and training]. In J. L. van der Linden & E.C. Roelofs (Eds.), Leren in dialoog (pp. 7–34). Groningen. The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Roelofs, E. C., & Visser, J. J. C. M. (2000, May). Leeromgevingen volgens ouders enleraren: Voorkeuren en realisatie [Parents and teachers about learning environments:Preferences and realization]. Paper presented at the 27th Onderwijs Research Dagen,Leiden, The Netherlands.

Roelofs, E., & Visser, J. (2001). Leeromgevingen volgens ouders en leraren: Voorkeurenen realisatie [Parents and teachers about learning environments: Preferences and real-ization]. Pedagogische Studien, 78, 151–168.

Severiens, S. E., & Ten Dam, G. T. M. (1997). Gender and gender identity differences inlearning styles. Educational Psychology, 17, 79–93.

Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner & R. C.Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 376–391). New York: Simon& Schuster, Macmillan.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Boston: Allynand Bacon.

Stofflett, R., & Stoddart, T. (1994). The ability to understand and use conceptual changepedagogy as a function of prior content learning experience. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 31, 31–51.

Tabachnick, B., & Zeichner, K. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience onthe development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28–36.

332 P. VAN PETEGEM ET AL.

Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (1999). Consistency and variabilityof learning strategies in different university courses. Higher Education, 37, 1–21.

Vermunt, J. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles andstrategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25–50.

Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 68, 149–171.

Vermunt, J. D., & Minnaert, A. (2003). Dissonance in student learning patterns; when torevise theory? Studies in Higher Education, 28, 49–61.

Vermunt, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2000). Process-oriented teaching. In R. J. Simons, J. van derLinden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 209–225). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer.

Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learningand Instruction, 4, 45–69.

Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimise an objective function. Journal of theAmerican Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.

Weinstein, C. S. (1989). Teacher education students’ preconceptions of teaching. Journalof Teacher Education, 40(2), 53–60.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research onlearning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review ofEducational Research, 68, 130–178.

Wierstra, R. F. A., & Beerends, E. P. M. (1996). Leeromgevingspercepties en leerstrategieenvan eerstejaars studenten sociale wetenschappen [Perceptions of learning environmentsand learning strategies of first year students in social sciences]. Tijdschrift voor Onder-wijsresearch, 21, 300–322.

Wierstra, R. F., Kanselaar, G., Van der Linden, J. L., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D.(2003). The impact of the university context on European students’ learning approachesand learning environment preferences. Higher Education, 45(4), 503–523.

Wubbels, T. (1992). Taking account of student teachers’ preconceptions. Teaching &Teacher Education, 8, 137–149.

Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard EducationalReview, 57, 23–48.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement:An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulatedlearning and academic achievement. Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

PETER VAN PETEGEM, VINCENT DONCHE AND JAN VANHOOF

Institute of Education and Information SciencesResearch Group EduBROnUniversity of AntwerpUniversiteitsplein 12610 AntwerpBelgiumE-mails: peter.vanpetegem@ua.ac.be;vincent.donche@ua.ac.be;jan.vanhoof@ua.ac.be

(Correspondence to: Peter Van Petegem. E-mail: peter.vanpetegem@ua.ac.be)