An integrated analysis of secondary school students’ conceptions and beliefs about learning

Students’ conceptions and beliefs about learning are constructsthat have been proposed in two independent lines of research,phenomenographic and metacognitive, and analysed using qualitativeand quantitative methodologies, respectively. The present researchexamines and integrates in a single study both constructs andmethodologies. Data were collected through an open-ended task(Tynjäla, 1997) and an epistemological questionnaire (Schommer,1990), administered to a sample of 1,200 secondary students. Threemajor statistically significant findings emerged. First, students’conceptions of learning and epistemological beliefs changed fromsimplistic to more complex as they progressed through school. Second,the two constructs were linked to each other. The most advancedcategory on the ‘dimension of depth’ of learning conceptionscorresponded to the highest scores at the complex pole of the beliefsystem. Third, learning conceptions as well as epistemological beliefswere predictors of academic performance. The more capable studentswere of constructing meaning, the better their academic achievementappeared to be. Theoretical and educational implications are discussedwith regard to further research, classroom instruction, and the value ofcombining both research methodologies in order to deepen ourunderstanding of students’ learning experience.

Introduction

The exploration of students’ ways of handling learning situations, the conceptions andbeliefs they hold about learning, and the relationship between these variables and academicperformance have been addressed by two lines of research: phenomenographic andmetacognitive. In the former, researchers have analysed, using a qualitative methodology, thevariety of meanings that learning has for people and the different ways in which people learn(Marton 1981; Marton, Dall’Alba, & Beaty, 1993). In the latter, researchers have investigated,

European Journal of Psychology of Education2004, Vol. XIX, nº 2, 167-187© 2004, I.S.P.A.

An integrated analysis of secondary schoolstudents’ conceptions and beliefs about learning

Francisco CanoUniversity of Granada, Spain

María Cardelle-ElawarArizona State University West, USA

using a quantitative methodology, students’ epistemological conceptions or beliefs aboutknowledge and learning (Kitchener & King, 1981; Schommer, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1998; Strike& Posner, 1985; Ryan, 1984). Both research perspectives are grounded on Perry’s (1968,1970) pioneering work on college students’ epistemological development (Purdie, Douglas, &Hattie, 1996). Perry suggested that learning was difficult for some students because of the lackof correlation between their conceptions of knowledge and learning and those of their teachers.Moreover, this author indicated that as students progressed in their school years theirabsolutist views of knowledge (i.e., things are either right or wrong) tended to shift to a morerelativistic stance (i.e., knowledge is complex and flexible).

Although a substantial amount of research on students’ understanding of learning hasarisen out of these two parallel but independent lines of research, very little work has beencarried out combining the two. This study integrates these separate perspectives, in an effort tocontribute to a clearer understanding of secondary students’ learning experience. Beliefs andconceptions about learning, their interrelationships, and changes of these constructs over timewill be analysed, as will their influence on academic performance. The theoretical andresearch frameworks of each of these lines of research is described below.

The phenomenographic line of research: Students’ conceptions of learning

In traditional research on human learning the emphasis has been on the description ofreality as it is (first-order perspective), while from the phenomenographic stance the focus hasbeen on the description of reality as it is perceived by individuals (second-order perspective)(Marton, 1981; Van Rossum & Schenk, 1984). In phenomenography, the qualitative method isused. Through in-depth analyses of small numbers of participants, mainly using interviews,researchers strive to describe and systematise how individuals conceive of and understandvarious kinds of phenomena, for example, learning. Learning conceptions are not seen asstable traits of individuals; rather, they are foci of awareness (Morgan & Beaty, 1997) orindividual constructions springing from knowledge and experience, which refer to “thediffering ways in which learners experience, understand and make sense of learning ingeneral” (Boulton-Lewis, Marton, & Wills, 2001, p. 154).

Preliminary evidence about students’ learning conceptions was observed in researchconducted by Marton and Säljö (1976a,b). Swedish university students were asked to read anacademic article and then answer questions about its meaning. Subsequent analysis of theirresponses identified two basic conceptions regarding the content of the learning task: surfaceand deep. In the surface learning conception, students focused on the text itself (‘the sign’) sothat they could reproduce it later on. In the deep learning conception students directed theirattention towards what the learning material referred to (‘the signified’) in order tocomprehend the author’s intention and to construct meaning. These learning conceptions wererelated to learning outcomes, which were of a higher quality in students whose learningconceptions were deep. Subsequently, the terms deep and surface were “broadened and usedto describe general approaches to studying” (Entwistle, McCune, & Walker, 2001, p. 107).These are ways of experiencing and handling learning situations, and refer both to people’sintentions (motivation) and what they actually do (learning strategy). Some researchers, Biggsin Australia and Entwistle in the United Kingdom, go beyond the initial qualitative researchdirection (interview technique), choosing the more quantitative but not incompatible one ofdeveloping learning process questionnaires.

Learning conceptions and approaches to learning are two interrelated but not identicalconstructs. A subtle difference concerns the respective ‘focus’ of each. In studies ofapproaches to learning, “learners are engaged in reflecting on their engagement in a learningtask. Their focus is in the object of learning and subsequently on themselves focusing on theobject of learning. ... In studies of conceptions of learning, the learners’ focus is supposed tobe on learning itself (in a general sense)” (Boulton-Lewis, Marton, & Wilss, 2001, p. 154).Our study will be centred on the earliest phenomenographic research, and on the study oflearning conceptions, in particular.

168 F. CANO & M. CARDELLE-ELAWAR

CONCEPTIONS AND BELIEFS ABOUT LEARNING 169

The initial work of Marton and Säljö (1976a,b) was followed up by other researchers, andconceptions of learning were studied directly by Säljö (1979) who asked individuals ofvarious ages and educational backgrounds, “What do you actually mean by learning?” Theresults indicated a developmental hierarchy of five distinctive learning conceptions. Theseways of seeing learning “ranged from learning as rote memorisation and reproducingknowledge, to a recognition that learning rests ultimately on transforming the informationpresented in the light of what is known or has been experienced already” (Entwistle, McCune,& Walker, 2001, p. 105). Marton et al. (1993), confirmed these five conceptions and added asixth. In sum, in phenomenographic research results suggest that individuals describe learningas: (a) increasing one’s knowledge; (b) memorising and reproducing; (c) applying; (d)understanding; (e) seeing something in a different way; and (f) changing as a person. Theseconceptions form a hierarchy from least to most advanced on a ‘dimension of depth’ that isconnected to the role of meaning in learning (Marton, Watkins, & Tang, 1997). In the firstthree categories the notion of meaning is absent. Information is not evaluated; it is simplyaccepted as given to be stored, and retrieved when necessary. The focus appears to be onwording or reproducing content (reproductive or surface learning conception), leading to low-level learning outcomes. In contrast, in the other three conceptions the construction ofmeaning appears to be crucial. Information is interpreted and evaluated by students, who makeabstractions as they transform it within a meaningful context (constructive or deep learningconception). These conceptions are usually linked to high-level learning outcomes (VanRossum & Schenk, 1984; Martin & Ramsden, 1987; Marton & Säljö, 1997).

Other studies appear to validate this hierarchical order of learning conceptions atdifferent levels of education, although the number of categories, and the technique for datagathering vary from study to study. For example, Tynjäla (1997) asked students to write theirown answers to open-ended questions about learning, and Lonka and Lindblom-Ylänne (1996)used scales to score the students’ written answers about their own subjective definitions oflearning. Tynjälä (1997) examined how 31 university students described their learningprocess. She found seven categories, from learning as an externally-determined event, tolearning as a creative process. More recently, Klatter, Lodewijks, and Aarnoutse (2001)designed a study in order to elucidate the construct of learning conceptions, which theydefined as a cluster of interrelated beliefs about different aspects of learning: purpose ofschool, learning orientation, regulation, learning demands, and mental activities. Theyidentified three learning conceptions of young learners in the final year of primary education:(a) restricted (low scores for most beliefs), (b) functional (ego orientation and externalregulation), and (3) developmental (deep approach and emphasis on personal growth). Thetwo latter conceptions appear to be similar to the two mental models suggested by Vermunt(1992). In his study with university students, this author defined surface learning as intake ofknowledge, and deep learning as constructive knowledge. Similarly, Lonka and Lindblom-Ylänne (1996), combining scales from different sources and using factor analysis, found someevidence of relationships among learning conceptions, learning approaches, and the regulationof learning in 175 university students. Results pointed towards two distinct principalcomponents. They called the first component “externally-regulated, reproduction-directedlearning” and the second one “self-regulated, meaning-oriented, goal-oriented learning”. In arecent study on children’s conceptions of learning to draw, Scheuer, de la Cruz, and Pozo(2002) also found three learning conceptions of increasing complexity in agency andinternalisation of action: external agency, external/internal agency, and internal agency.

While there is general agreement in the literature that students’ learning conceptions varyalong the dimension of depth, there is controversy about the hypothesis that these conceptionsmight also vary along the dimension of time. This hypothesis states that if learning conceptionsare derived from educational and other experiences, it is to be expected that they will also evolveover time as people mature and make sense of these experiences. Säljö’s (1979) study of 90individuals between 15 and 73 years of age, indicated that, in general, the older the participants,the more complex their views of learning were. A similar finding was reported by Marton et al.(1997), in a cross-sectional study involving 43 secondary students from Hong-Kong. Seniorstudents held more in-depth learning conceptions than those in their junior year.

Although these investigations appear to support the hypothesis that students’ learningconceptions change over time, other research does not. For example, the results of alongitudinal study with 17 aboriginal Australians conducted by Boulton-Lewis, Wills, andLewis (2001), showed no significant changes over time. Similar findings were reported byLonka and Lindblom-Ylänne (1996), who did not encounter significant differences betweenfreshmen and fifth-year students of medicine and psychology in the two principal components(reproduction-directed learning, and meaning-oriented learning) mentioned earlier. Likewise, alongitudinal study with 29 university students carried out by Marton et al. (1993), over a six-year period did not find indications of a developmental trend in students’ learning conceptions.Most studies have been conducted with small samples of university students, and probably theways of collecting data, through open-ended interviews, could be a confounding factor inreaching conclusions. Some researchers, Berry and Sahlberg (1996), Purdie et al. (1996), andTynjäla (1997), for example, suggest replacing interviews with open-ended survey questions.This technique would allow for an increase in sample size and therefore enhance ourunderstanding of students’ conceptions of learning, which have been sparsely researched insecondary education.

The metacognitive line of research: Beliefs about knowledge and learning

In a recent review of the concept of belief, Hirsjärvi and Perälä-Litunen (2001)recognised that although this term was not easy to define, numerous researchers in variousfields have shown interest in it. Initial research on how students interpreted their educationalexperiences at university was conducted by Perry (1968, 1970). Through interviews hecollected descriptive accounts of students’ experiences and proposed a theory ofepistemological development: students’ ways of organising their construction of meaningchange along an absolutism-relativism dimension. He did not explore the possible linkagesbetween this dimension and student learning, but he did speculate in later work (Perry, 1981)that changes in epistemological beliefs might lead to altered modes of learning and cognition,which in turn might bring about modifications in ways of studying.

Hofer and Pintrich (1997; Hofer, 2000) have written a detailed overview ofepistemological models, distinguishing among three groups of researchers. The first areinvestigators interested in how individuals interpret their educational experiences (e.g., Perry,1970; Baxter Magolda, 1987). The second group are researchers concerned with analysingthought and reasoning processes (e.g., Kitchener & King, 1981). The third and most recentgroup is interested in studying the relationship between epistemological beliefs and numerousaspects of learning. Its central tenet is that students’ epistemological beliefs are part of theunderlying metacognitive mechanism (Ryan, 1984; Schoenfeld, 1983; Schommer, 1990;Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes; 1992; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997).

This research will focus mainly on the work of Schommer, for several reasons. Hofer andPintrich (1997, p. 106) recognise that Schommer “has developed a research programme that ismore quantitative than that of her predecessors and takes a more analytical view of thecomponents of beliefs”. The study of personal epistemology has been centred on lateadolescence and adulthood only, and it has been conducted, in the main, through complex,time-consuming instruments (interviews and/or production tasks, and trained observers).Schommer, on the other hand, has used both secondary school and university students asparticipants, using a simple and quick to complete instrument (self-report questionnaire). Thisquantitative method (fundamentally quasi-experimental), does not restrict the researcher to arelatively small sample, which in the case of our research, facilitates the stated aims.

Schommer (1990, 1993) challenged Perrys’ theoretical stance, submitting that beliefs aretoo complex to be captured on a single dimension and proposed a system of four more or lessindependent beliefs. Schommer’s use of the term “system” suggests that there exist more thanone belief to be taken into account, and the expression “more or less independent” seems tomean that a student might be sophisticated in some beliefs, but not necessarily so in others.She developed the Epistemological Questionnaire (EQ) consisting of 63 items surveying



students’ preferences to statements about learning and knowledge. These items were groupedinto 12 subsets by three educational psychologist, prior to its pilot test with undergraduatestudents (Schommer, 1990). A factor analysis of these subsets yielded four factors reflectingbeliefs (stated from a naïve perspective) in innate ability, quick learning, simple knowledgeand certain knowledge. These fundamental assumptions about the nature of learning andknowledge, which are part of the underlying mechanism of metacognition, is what Schommercalls ‘epistemological beliefs’. Each of these factors is viewed as a continuum or dimension.Quick Learning, for instance, was conceptualised as a continuum from the belief that learningoccurs quickly or not at all to the belief that learning is gradual. It is important to point out thatthe lower a student’s scores on these factors, the less naive will be his/her epistemologicalbeliefs. So, sticking to the previous example, a student who obtains a low score on QuickLearning will not believe, in a naive way, that learning is acquired quickly or not-at-all, butquite the opposite. S/he will believe that learning is acquired gradually.

The EQ has some limitations (e.g., very broadly stated items, the fact that items refer toboth own and others’ perceptions, and the absence of confirmatory factor analysis on the 63items pool (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Moreoever, Schommer (1993) found modest inter-itemreliabilities (Cronbach alpha ranging from .45 to .71) for the answers of 1,162 students whocompleted the high school version of the EQ. However, it is a less time-consuming and costlyprocess than other techniques employed in the study of personal epistemology, and it is themost widely used instrument among researchers interested in correlational studies of studentlearning and epistemological beliefs (Hofer, 2000).

Schommer’s work went beyond simply identifying the dimensions of epistemologicalbeliefs. She also assessed “how these beliefs may influence comprehension and cognition ofacademic tasks, and her work has been the most concerned with classroom learning” (Hofer &Pintrich, 1997, p. 90).

The method chosen by Schommer to study the beliefs of individuals, consisting ofgarnering data through a self-report questionnaire, is quantitative and quasi-experimental. Itsmain advantage is that it enables the researcher to conduct assessment on a large scale. Resultsof studies carried out in the 1990’s using this method indicate that students’ beliefs predicttheir interpretation of information and their metacomprehension of written text (Schommer,1990; Schommer, Crouse, & Rodes, 1992), as well as their academic achievement(Schommer, 1993; Schommer, Calvert, Garigliety, & Bajaj, 1997). In Schommer’s (1993)study in which more than one thousand high school students took part, results showed that theless students believed in quick learning, simple knowledge, fixed ability and certainknowledge, the higher their grade point average (GPA) was likely to be. In a follow-uplongitudinal study, Schommer et al. (1997) selected at random 69 students who had beenfreshmen in 1992 and seniors in 1995. Here, only one factor, ‘quick learning’, predictedstudents’ achievement, that is, the weaker their belief in quick learning, the greater their GPA.It may be that the small sample size did not allow the other factors to appear as significantpredictors of GPA. Another notable finding of Schommer’s (1993) work is thatepistemological beliefs changed through high school. Freshmen tended to believe that theability to learn is fixed and that knowledge is simple, quick, and certain. Seniors were morelikely to believe that their ability to learn could be improved and that knowledge consists ofintegrating concepts to be used in specific contexts. An interesting question is whether thesechanges are related to changes in the ways students understand learning (altered modes oflearning and cognition). If Perry’s (1981) above-mentioned hypothesis is right, the answerwould be in the affirmative.

To sum up, results obtained by the two lines of research reveal the following. While thereis some evidence that epistemological beliefs change and evolve over time, no evidence hasbeen found that learning conceptions do. One explanation for the differing results could besample size. Furthermore, to our knowledge, no research to date has delved into analysingpossible interrelationships amongst secondary students’ epistemological beliefs and theirlearning conceptions. The different ways in which learners experience learning might berelated to their assumptions about knowledge and learning: the more in-depth a student’slearning conceptions are, the more sophisticated his or her epistemological beliefs will be.

The purpose of this study, therefore, is to address these concerns more satisfactorily byintegrating both lines of research and by using a large sample of secondary students. Fourresearch questions were posed:

1) What are secondary students’ learning conceptions and epistemological beliefs?2) Do secondary students’ epistemological beliefs and learning conceptions change over

time?3) Do any relationships exist among learning conceptions and epistemological beliefs?4) Do conceptions of learning and epistemological beliefs predict academic performance?

Method

Participants

The participants were 1,200 European secondary students, who for the purpose of thisstudy were grouped at three school levels, middle (n=462, aged 12-14 years), junior high(n=361; aged 14-16 years) and senior high (n=377; aged 16-18 years). The average age of thesample was 14.8 years. Boys accounted for 41.7% of the sample, and girls 58.3%. They camefrom all social strata, were of mixed ability, and attended several different types of school:state, private, single-sex and co-educational. Prior to the investigation, all students wereinformed, both verbally and in writing, that they would be participating in a study about theirbeliefs and learning conceptions. As the students were minors, parents gave their consent forthem to participate.

Procedure

The questionnaires were completed during regular class time. Each student received abooklet containing general information about the study and specific instructions about how tofill in the questionnaires. They were assured of the confidentiality of their responses and thattheir answers would not affect their grades. Participants were asked to provide demographicinformation, such as name, gender, and age. At the end of the school year students’ averagegrades were computed from their achievement scores in all subjects and used as a measure ofacademic performance. Research assistants administered both instruments, Schommer’s EQ(1993) and Tynjäla’s (1997) open-ended questions task. The order of administration of the twotests was randomised.

Instruments

The first instrument was the Epistemological Questionnaire (EQ) comprising 12 groupsof items, or sub-scales, which loaded on four factors or dimensions (Schommer, 1993),reflecting beliefs stated from a naïve perspective in: (1) quick learning (learning occursquickly or not at all); (2) fixed ability (learning ability is innate); (3) simple knowledge(knowledge is composed of discrete items); and (4) certain knowledge (knowledge isunambiguous and absolute).

To ensure the applicability of the questionnaire to this sample, two types of factoranalyses were carried out: exploratory and confirmatory. The exploratory factor analysis,using the principal-components method and varimax rotation, revealed the presence of threefactors with eigenvalues greater than one, explaining 42% of the variance. Factor I: Beliefs inlearning the first time, quickly, and without effort (Quick, Effortless Learning); Factor II:beliefs that knowledge is simple and handed down by authority (Simple Knowledge); FactorIII: Beliefs in certain knowledge (Certain Knowledge). Interitem reliabilities for items that



composed each factor, measured by means of Cronbach’s Alpha, was .61 for Factor I, .59 forFactor II, and .42 for Factor III. The structure that emerged largely resembled that obtained bySchommer (1993, 1998). The only major difference was that in our study the sub-scales aboutlearning beliefs loaded together on the first factor. The second and third factors were similar toSchommer’s. A confirmatory factor analysis was also carried out, which provided reasonablyacceptable goodness-of-fit indices: �2=321.10, d.f.=51, p<.001. Goodness-of-Fit Index(GFI)=.95; Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit (AGFI)=.92; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation(RMSEA)=.07; Root Mean Square Residual (RMR)=.01.

The second instrument was a written open-ended task based on those employed by Purdieet al. (1996) and Tynjäla (1997). Students were asked to write down their answers to threeopen-ended questions about their learning conceptions: What is learning? What do you meanwhen you say that you have learned something? What do you do to learn? In a space providedafter each question, students were asked to give examples to illustrate their answers.

Qualitative data analysis

In the analysis of data obtained from the open-ended task, Marton’s (1994), Purdie etal.’s (1996), and Tynjäla’s (1997), phenomenographic guidelines were followed. Students’answers were recorded on a computer as text files and printed out to facilitate coding. Theseanswers were read and then reread and the different ways in which students expressed theirconceptions were identified. Also their similarities, differences, and complementarities acrossand within participants were examined. The final categories of learning conceptions wereabstracted according to a genuinely interpretative procedure, following Marton et al. (1993).

Results

Learning conceptions

Research Question 1 was about students’ learning conceptions. The data about theprocedural and conceptual aspects of learning conceptualisation (how learning takes place andwhat it is like) were examined by means of qualitative analysis. The results confirmed the sixcategories obtained by Marton et al. (1993): Learning is: (1) an increasing of one’s knowledge;(2) memorising and reproducing; (3) applying information; (4) understanding; (5) seeingsomething in a different way; and (6) changing as a person. In the three first categories theidea of meaning is absent. Learning is conceived primarily as the reproduction of knowledge(reproductive conception). One example is: “Learning is knowing something new that youdidn’t know before. To learn something I try to read it more than once and then I try tomemorise it. When you pass a test, this means that you have learned something” (category 2). Inthe other three categories the focus is on searching for meaning, and learning is primarily theresult of constructing meaning (constructivist conception). One example is: “Learning isassimilating the content and trying to understand the relationship between the ideas” (category 4).

Research Question 2 was whether students’ learning conceptions and epistemologicalbeliefs changed as they progressed through their schooling. Since the nature of the variableswas different (conceptions were discrete, or categorical, while beliefs were continuous), twodifferent analyses were performed. The first one was a correspondence analysis. This is adeveloped interdependence technique that facilitates both dimensional reduction of qualitativedata and their perceptual mapping. It responds to the need to “quantify the qualitative datafound in nominal variables” (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995, p. 17). It employs acontingency table which is the cross-tabulation of the categorical data (e.g., students’conceptions of learning). It then transforms the non-metric data to a metric level and performsa dimensional reduction similar to factor analysis (building coordinate scores, also calledfactor scores or factors) and perceptual mapping.

These coordinates account for the association between variables as represented by thechi-square statistic (�2), and are similar to the principal components in principal componentsanalysis which partition the total variance instead of the total �2 (Dixon, 1985). The secondone was a MANOVA, used for examining students’ beliefs. To this end, the factor scoresobtained (by multiplying the standard scores for the original variables by the factor scorecoefficients) in the EQ exploratory factor analysis were used as dependent variables.

Table 1 displays the distribution of participants according to their conceptions of learningand school level.

Table 1Frequency of learning conceptions (separately, and grouped according to the reproductive-constructivist distinction) by school level

Learning conceptions

Separately Grouped

School level L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4 L_5 L_6 REPRO CONST

Middle 176 180 156 139 1 10 312 150Junior high 175 141 145 189 1 10 261 100Senior high 132 136 149 144 7 19 217 160

Total 483 157 150 372 9 29 790 410

Note. Learning conceptions: L_1=Increase in one’s knowledge; L_2=Memorising and reproducing; L_3=Applyinginformation; L_4=Understanding and acquisition; L_5=Seeing things in a different way; L_6=Changing as aperson; REPRO=Reproductive conception of learning (L_1+L_2+L_3); CONST=Constructivist conception oflearning (L_4+L_5+L_6).

A correspondence analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the sixlearning conceptions and the three levels of schooling. This was found to be statisticallysignificant (�2

(10)=40.45 p<.001) and was structured on two axes from which two attributesare offered: ‘r’=square of the correlation with the axis or factor (the higher ‘r’ the better thepoint is represented in the axis or dimension), and ‘ctr’=relative inertia contribution to the axis(the higher ‘ctr’ the better is the contribution of the point to the building of the axis). Figure 1shows a plot of the interdependence of the two axes within the same bidimensional space.

Figure 1 shows that the cloud of points (six learning conceptions and three school levels)does not extend equally in all directions, but has a definite shape due to affinities among thenine variables. The interpretation of this figure involves the orchestration of differentinformation. Firstly, the proximities amongst the variables (those having the greatestproximities are the most similar in terms of the underlying dimension). Secondly, the ‘r’ and‘ctr’ atributes of each variable.

The first axis explained 68.9 percent of this interdependence and linked learningconception one (r=.610; ctr=.201) with junior high (r=.575; ctr=.265), and learningconception two (r=.292; ctr=.112) with middle school (r=.241; ctr=.077) on the one hand (theleft side), and learning conception six (r=.078; ctr=.001), and especially conception four(r=.949; ctr=.378) with senior high (r=.981; ctr=.658) on the other (the right side).

The second axis explained the remaining interdependence (31.1%) and associated learningconception five (r=.055; ctr=.039), and especially learning conception one=.390; ctr=.285) withjunior high (r=.425; ctr=.434) on the one hand (the right side), and learning conceptiontwo=.708; ctr=.606) and middle school (r=.759; ctr=.538) on the other (the left side).

The most relevant information that emerges from Figure 1 can be summarised as follows:(a) there is a relationship between Learning conceptions and School level, which is organisedin two axes or dimensions; (b) the first axis distinguishes low categories of Learningconceptions and School Level (learning conception one and junior high) from higher ones



(learning conception four and senior high); (c) the second, the vertical axis, differentiatesbetween low categories, displaying learning conception two-middle school and learningconception one-junior high in polar opposition.

Figure 1. Correspondence analysis: Plot of learning conceptions and school levels on both axisNote School levels: MIDDLE_S=Middle school; JUNIOR_H=Junior high; SENIOR_H=Senior high.

Learning conceptions: L_1=Increase in one’s knowledge. L_2=Memorising and reproducing.L_3=Applying information. L_4=Understanding and acquisition. L_5=Seeing things in a differentway. L_6=Changing as a person.

Following the suggestion of an anonymous referee, a graph has been included (see Figure 2)to provide a better ‘visualisation’ of how learning conceptions change through secondaryschool.

Figure 2. Changes in percentages of learning conceptions over school level

The examination of this graph helps to clarify more precisely two issues. First, that themost frequent learning conceptions are ‘learning as increase in knowledge’ and ‘learning asunderstanding’, with the rest appearing almost insignificant. Second, that the change inlearning conceptions actually happens between the first two school levels and the last(Middle-Junior, and Senior High), with the greatest change being the increase in ‘learning asunderstanding’ and the decrease in ‘learning as increase in knowledge’.

Since students’ learning conceptions appeared to be focused mainly on the first fourcategories, with the last two having very small frequencies and not being well represented, weused the aforementioned reproductive-constructivist distinction proposed by Marton et al.(1993). When a second similar correspondence analysis was used to examine the relationshipbetween learning conceptions (2) and school level (3) (see the two final columns of Table 1),results pointed towards a statistically significant relationship among these variables(�2

(2)=18.77 p<.001) structured around a single axis, which explained 100% of theinterdependence.

Figure 3 shows (this time the ‘visualisation’ is easy) how constructivist conceptions oflearning (r=1.0; ctr=.658) were associated with senior high (r=1.0; ctr=.001) on the one hand,and reproductive conceptions of learning (r=1.0; ctr=.342) were associated with middle schoollevel (r=1.0; ctr=.032), and especially with junior high level (r=1.0; ctr=.357) on the other.

Figure 3. Correspondence analysis: Plot of learning conceptions (grouped) and school levelsNote. Learning conceptions: REPRO=Reproductive conception of learning (L_1+L_2+L_3);

CONST=Constructivist conception of learning (L_4+L_5+L_6). School levels: MIDDLE_S=MiddleSchool; JUNIOR_H=Junior high; SENIOR_H=Senior high.

Results suggest a positive association or interdependence among learning conceptionsand school levels, and confirm that the change of learning conceptions over time isstatistically significant. These conceptions appear to be more simplistic and depend more onmemorisation during the two first school levels and become more sophisticated as studentsbecome better able to construct meaning from information at the senior level.

Epistemological beliefs

Research Questions 2 and 3 refer to the changes that students’ epistemological beliefsmay undergo with time and how they are related to their conceptions of learning. The answer



to both questions was obtained by performing a 3x4 MANOVA. Independent variables (IVs.)were school level and learning conception, and dependent variables (DVs.) were the factorscores obtained from the Epistemological Questionnaire exploratory factor analysis.According to Dillon and Goldstein (1984) this statistical technique allows researchers toassess the variability in the criterion variables (DVs.) due to changes in the controlledvariables (IVs.), providing a more accurate overall evaluation. It should be noticed that onlylearning conception categories 1 to 4 had a sufficiently high number of subjects to be includedin this analysis. The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2.

Table 2Means and standard deviations of epistemological beliefs by school level and learningconception

School level Learning conceptions

Epistemological beliefs M_S J_H S_H L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4

Quick learning M 1-.06 1-.20 1-.10 1.14 .00 1-.15 1-.11SD -1.00 -1.01 1-.96 1.08 .94 1-.90 -1.92

Simple knowledge M 1-.20 1-.03 1-.19 1.03 .10 1-.00 1-.06SD 1-.93 1-.97 -1.05 1.99 .99 1-.97 -1.01

Certain knowledge M 1-.27 1-.07 1-.38 1.06 .36 1-.17 1-.13SD 1-.97 1-.92 1-.98 1.93 .96 -1.07 -1.02

Note. School level: M_S=Middle school; J_H=Junior high; S_H=Senior high. Learning conceptions: L_1=Increase inone’s knowledge; L_2=Memorising and reproducing; L_3=Applying information; L_4=Understanding andacquisition.

The results of the MANOVA showed statistically significant main effects for the twofactors, ‘school level’ (F=17.01; df=6,2296; p<.001) and ‘learning conception’ (F=5.15;df=9,2794; p<.001). (The effect size, measured by means of eta-square values (�2), was .04and .01, respectively). There was no significant interaction (F=.98; df=18,3247; p=.4830).

Univariate analyses of the ‘school level’ factor were significant for Quick Learning(F=5.59; df=2,1150; p<.003), Simple Knowledge (F=9,72; df=2, 1150; p<.001), and CertainKnowledge (F=34.11; df=2,1150; p<.001). Subsequent trend analysis was performed to betterunderstand changes over time. This suggests that participants’ epistemological beliefs changedas they progressed in their studies. The linear component was statistically significant forSimple Knowledge, F(1,1151)=16.69, p<.001, and Certain Knowledge, F(1,1151)=71.40,p<.001. The effect sizes between Senior and Middle school were of some magnitude: .39 forSimple Knowledge and .67 for certain knowledge. Results also indicated that the quadraticcomponent was significant for Quick Learning, F(1,1151)=11.48, p<.002, and that its effectsize between Senior and Middle school was only .04. This indicated a decreasing lineartendency in the beliefs that Knowledge is Simple and Certain from middle to senior schoollevel. However, as the latter belief had low reliability, only the changes in the former can betaken as dependable. On the other hand, the beliefs that Learning is Quick and Effortlessexhibited a significant increase at junior-high school level and decreased at senior-high level.

Learning conceptions and epistemological beliefs

Students’ conceptions of learning were related to their epistemological beliefs, asdemonstrated by the significant main effect of the ‘learning conception’ factor obtained in theabove-mentioned MANOVA. Subsequent univariate analyses of this factor were significantfor Quick Learning (F=5.30; df=3,1150; p<.001) and Certain Knowledge (F=8.90; df=3,1150;p<.001) but not for Simple Knowledge (F=0.84; df=3,1150; p=.471). In addition, correlation

analyses amongst the two grouped learning conceptions (dichotomous variable) andepistemological beliefs (continous variables) were carried out. Point-biserial correlationsamongst the reproductive-constructivist learning conception and epistemological beliefs wereas follows: Quick Effortless Learning (-,0813; p<.005); Simple Knowledge (-.0623; p<.031),and Certain Knowledge (-.1119; p<.001). Bearing in mind that factor scores (M=0, SD=1)were used to assess epistemological beliefs, these results appeared to suggest that generallythe more constructivist were students’ learning conceptions, the more mature (low or negativescores) were their epistemological beliefs.

Learning conceptions, epistemological beliefs, and academic performance

Research Question 4 was concerned with the predictive value of students’epistemological beliefs and learning conceptions on their academic performance. Hierarchicalregression analyses were carried out to examine the relative contributions of the predictorvariables in order to account for students’ academic performance. Because the learningconception variable was categorical, in order to test both predictors together in a singleanalysis we used the reproductive-constructivist distinction among learning conceptions, asproposed by Marton et al. (1993). The six categories of learning conceptions were stacked intotwo different groups (dummy variable). The first group comprised the first three categories inwhich learning is thought of as the reproduction of information. The second group comprisedthe last three categories in which learning is thought of as constructing knowledge.

Table 3 shows the results of the analyses in which students’ academic performance wasregressed on the scores for the learning conception variable and the epistemological beliefsfactor scores.

Table 3Hierachical regression analyses predicting academic performance from learning conceptionand epistemological beliefs

Overall

Steps and independent variables �R2 B T p R2 F df p

Step 1 Learning conception .011 -.10 11-.35 <.001 .011 12.715 1,1186 <.001

Step 2 Learning conception -.07 1-2.85 <.004Quick-effortless learning .092 -.30 -11.02 <.001 .103 67.797 2,1185 <.001

Step 3 Learning conception -.07 1-2.64 <.008Quick-effortless learning -.30 -11.09 <.001Simple knowledge .008 -.09 1-3.33 <.001 .111 49.286 3,1184 <.001

Step 4 Learning conception -.06 -12.28 <.023Quick-effortless learning -.30 -11.16 <.001Simple knowledge -.09 1-3.37 <.001Certain knowledge .007 -.08 1-2.95 <.003 .118 39.392 4,1183 <.001

Note. Complete data were obtained for 1188 participants.

All four initial variables were significant predictors of students’ academic achievement.They correlated with it (Multiple R=.34) and explained 11.69% (adjusted R2) of the totalvariance. Quick-Effortless learning was the most significant contributor of all predictors, byitself explaining 9% of the total variance; Learning Conception also contributed significantly,but to a smaller extent than Quick-effortless learning. The other predictors explained only asmall proportion of the variance, as shown by the small change in R2. While learningconception contributed positively to the regression equation, epistemological beliefs (factor



scores) contributed negatively, as expected (the lower the students’ scores, the less naive theirepistemological beliefs and the better their academic performance). Even when, in a furtheranalysis, differences in epistemological beliefs were statistically eliminated, by enteringlearning conception as the final variable into the regression model, learning conceptioncontributed in a small (R2=.004), but significant way (t=2.28, p<.02) to the prediction ofacademic performance.

In short, results seem to indicate a positive association between students’ academicperformance, conceptions, and beliefs about learning. Students who performed betteracademically held more mature and elaborate learning conceptions and epistemological beliefsabout knowledge and learning. In other words, they appeared to view learning as theconstruction of meaning in both constructs.

Discussion

The results of this study consistently support four major conclusions. First, secondarystudents deploy a range of learning conceptions and beliefs about learning and knowledgesimilar to those reported in previous investigations. Second, changes occur over time for bothconstructs, learning conceptions and epistemological beliefs. Third, these constructs areinterrelated, and fourth, their influence on academic performance is statistically significant.

The convergence between our own and other studies encourages us to generalise theresults across educational and cultural levels. Regardless of nationality and level of education,secondary students hold similar conceptions of learning to those found by Säljö (1979) inSwedish students of varying ages and backgrounds, and by Marton et al. in British universitystudents (1993), and in Asian secondary students (1997). On testing epistemological beliefs,the present study encountered similar results to those obtained by Schommer (1993) withNorth American secondary students. We verified three out of the four factors she documented(Schommer, 1990; 1993), although the last (Knowledge is Certain) had a low estimate ofreliability (coefficient alpha). However, for various technical reasons, we suggest keeping it,and interpreting the results with due caution.

According to Cortina (1993), coefficient alpha is a function of three variables: (a) thenumber of items, (b) their degree of interrelatedness (internal consistency), and (c) theirunidimensionality (homogeneity); the lower they are, the less reliable the coefficient. It isconceivable that these three variables affected the low reliability of the above-mentionedfactor. Firstly, it emerged last in exploratory factor analysis and included only a small numberof items. Secondly, the ‘internal consistency’ among these items was probably not high for theyoungest participants’ answers. According to Schommer (1993), some of them might be in astate of epistemological transition that leads them to give fluctuating answers to the samesubsets of items. This problem may be exacerbated by two factors, the phrasing and themeaning of some items. The former may be confusing because it includes first, second, andthird-person format (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997), and the latter may also be difficult in somecases (e.g., justification for knowing) (Hofer, 2000). Thirdly, the EQ like the most tests,includes negatively worded items which have a tendency to load onto a different factor(Schmitt & Stults, 1985; Kelloway, Catano, & Southwell, 1992), which tends to violate theassumption of ‘homogeneity’ of the subsets and, consequently, to understimate coefficientalpha (Zimmerman, Zumbo, & Lalonde, 1993). Furthermore, as Cortina (1993) claimed,coefficient alpha “is not a panacea; it must be used with caution” (p. 103) and “the level ofreliability considered adequate depends on the decision made concerning the scale” (p. 101),which in our case is primarily for exploratory research purposes.

The results of this study do suggest that conceptions and beliefs about learning are notindependent but are linked constructs. Our blending of the two research methodologiesillustrates how qualitative and quantitative assessments can complement each other in order toshed light on our understanding of the complexity of students’ learning experiences. First of

all, both constructs share the same general linear distribution. Learning conceptions arestructured from the simplest to the most complex category, defined on a ‘dimension of depth’(Marton et al., 1997) and connected to the role of meaning in learning. Meaning is absent inthe first three categories, but is the main focus in the other ones. A similar dimension isevident for the belief system, defined by the way students organise their assumptions aboutlearning, knowledge, and the creation of meaning. This system is structured from the mostnaïve and simple to the most sophisticated and complex beliefs.

Second, these dimensions appear to be interrelated, as both the MANOVA andcorrelation analyses demonstrate. However, there are two issues to consider. First, the maineffect of the factor ‘Learning Conceptions’ is significant although it is small in terms of size.Second, learning conceptions have a small but significant correlation with epistemologicalbeliefs. Therefore, the results suggest a moderate association between learning conceptionsand epistemological beliefs. The most advanced category on the ‘dimension of depth’ oflearning conceptions corresponds to the highest scores at the complex pole of the belief system.This finding implies that if students consider learning as a process of transforming knowledgeand constructing meaning, they will very probably believe that learning takes time rather thanbelieve that it is quick or does not take place at all. Learning conceptions as well asepistemological beliefs seem to share a similar origin: they are the product of educational andother experiences. Learners acquire not only experience, but also ways of understanding andinterpreting it (learning conceptions), and of making assumptions about the nature of learningand knowledge (epistemological beliefs). Experience is an intricate web of epistemologicalbeliefs, which are related to metacognitive activities, and learning conceptions, which areassociated with awareness. This interdependence might mean that changes over time are parallelin both constructs. To a certain extent, these results are in line with those of Klatter et al.(2001), and Lonka and Lindblom-Ylänne (1996), which relate learning conceptions to beliefsabout different aspects of learning. Also, they lend some support to Perry’s (1981) hypothesiswith regard to the relationship between changes that occur in peoples’ epistemological beliefsand in the different meanings that learning has for them.

Another major finding of this study was the verification that both learning conceptionsand epistemological beliefs evolved as pupils advanced through school.

The results of the correspondence analysis provide evidence that learning conceptionschange through the secondary school years. While students at the middle- and junior-highlevels tend to conceptualise learning as ‘increasing one’s knowledge’ and ‘memorising andreproducing’ students at the senior-high level are more likely to view learning as a process of‘constructing knowledge’ and transforming information through relating it to previousknowledge and experience. Our results support Marton et al.’s (1997) hypothesis with regardto the developmental characteristics of the conception of learning. It would seem logical toexpect that the conception of learning as ‘memorisation’ precedes the conception of ‘learningfor meaning’. When a similar analysis was conducted in which we collapsed learningconceptions at the two poles of the ‘dimension of depth’ (reproductive vs. constructivist),results also clearly confirmed this change. As secondary students progress through theirstudies, their view of learning progresses as well, becoming deeper and more sophisticated.This phenomenon was encountered by Säljö (1979) but not by Marton et al. (1993), Lonka andLindblom-Ylänne (1996) or Boulton-Lewis, Marton, Lewis, and Wilss (2000). Our newfinding might be due to the large sample used. It is interesting that not many studentsexhibited deep learning conceptions. Such conceptions have been found to be infrequentamong higher education students (Cliff, 1998) and even among teachers (Boulton-Lewis,Wills, & Mutch, 1996). It might also be possible, as was suggested by an anonymous referee,that conceptions of learning evolve and become deeper over time because the assessment taskschange and become deeper. Some support for this possibility can be found in the ampleevidence that students’ conceptions of learning are strongly related to their approaches tolearning, which are, in their turn, associated with assessment methods (Entwistle & Ramsden,1983; Kember, 2000) in particular and, in a more general way, with the influence of thelearning environment as a whole (Biggs, 2001).



Our results also suggested the cross-validation of the three components of learners’unsophisticated beliefs, ‘Learning is Quick and Effortless’, ‘Knowledge is Simple’, and‘Knowledge is Certain’ which gradually evolve as a result of formal education, as reported bySchommer (1993), Schommer et al. (1997). Although Schommer (1993) found a linear trendfor the three similar dimensions, our analyses revealed that a quadratic trend was alsosignificant for beliefs in learning as a process that occurs quickly without initial effort. Thiswould appear to mean that the evolution of the belief system is more in step with conceptionsof knowledge and less predictable with regard to beliefs about learning. In any case, asSchommer (1994, p. 302) points out, “epistemological beliefs do not necessarily develop insynchrony”. A possible interpretation is that this might be due to students’ accommodations(e.g., as they become familiar with instructional methods) between middle school and juniorhigh school. Similar accomodations occur in students’ transition from elementary to secondaryschool, and as Bouffard, Boileau, and Vezeau (2001, p. 599) recognise, “the numerouschanges in school environment and organization, as well as in criteria of evaluation all concurto engage students in reevaluation of their self-system as learner”. Although students areadvancing through secondary school levels, their beliefs about the role of time and effort inlearning may initially take a step backwards. To put this another way, students’ beliefs mightbe influenced by their perceptions of the learning environment. As Schommer (1998)suggested, “both age and education affect individuals’ epistemological beliefs in uniqueways”. (p. 551).

In a nutshell, these findings on conceptions and beliefs about knowledge and learningbuttress the notion that they undergo a general positive change over time. However, since thedesign of this study was cross-sectional, the findings must be interpreted with caution. Wewould expect that a longitudinal study would further validate this notion. Besides conerningthe design, this caution also relates to the limited psychometric characteristics of the EQ.Further research is recommended to refine its internal consistency, and to delve more deeplyinto its hypothetical underlying structure (common factors).

Finally, our results offer some support for other findings in the literature by confirmingthat learning conceptions and epistemological beliefs predict academic performance (VanRossum & Schenk, 1984; Marton et al., 1997; Schommer, 1993; Schommer et al., 1997). Ourinvestigation suggests that the more capable students are of constructing meaning, the moresuccessful they are in their academic performance . But note that the percentage of varianceexplained by conceptions of learning is relatively small. One reason could be the possibleinfluence of dissonance between students’ conceptions of formal learning and the strategiesthey use to learn (Boulton-Lewis et al., 2000; Meyer, 2000), which frequently hinderacademic achievement. Some students experience difficulties in their interaction with theirlearning environment and “the relationship between their perceptions of the learning contextand their approaches to learning disintegrates and becomes incoherent” (Prosser, Trigwell,Hazel, & Waterhouse, 2000, p. 61). Another reason could be assessment procedures.According to Marton and Säljö (1976a, b) and Van Rossum and Schenk (1984), if assessmentwere qualitative rather than quantitative, a higher percentage of variance of academicperformance might be explained. In this study, academic outcomes were also predicted byepistemological beliefs, especially belief in Quick Learning, in line with results reported bySchommer (1993) and Schommer et al. (1997). Believing that learning occurs ‘quickly or notat all’ has been found to be linked to poor comprehension and metacomprehension(Schommer, 1990) and, in our case, to reproductive learning conceptions, which appear tohave a critical negative impact on academic performance. Epistemological beliefs and learningconceptions are thought to affect achievement both directly and indirectly (through theirinfluence on strategy use) (Schommer, 1993; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Vermunt, 1998), butmore work is needed to determine their precise effect on academic achievement, taking intoaccount that some students’ responses may be dissonant. Moreoever, the modest reliability ofthe EQ implies a cautious interpretation of the results. It is possible that this modest reliabilityis due, as previously mentioned, to difficulties in both the phrasing and meaning of someitems (mainly for young secondary students), which suggests the advisability of further

investigation into both how to improve the phrasing of these items, and how to elicitepistemological beliefs. Concerning the latter, Hofer (2000, p. 399) affirms that “paper-and-pencil measurements of personal epistemology continue to play an important role... but wemay need to venture beyond Likert-type scales for more breadth of assessment... of... suchbeliefs”.

At this point of the discussion we might ask: Why should research in this area continue,and how might teachers benefit from our results?

From a research perspective, this study highlights the statistical significance of therelationship between the two constructs of learning (conceptions and beliefs), addressed upuntil now by two lines of research, independently of each other (i.e., the phenomenographicand the metacognitive, using qualitative and quantitative methodology, respectively). Weagree with Purdie and Hattie’s (2002) submission that the use of both methodologies in orderto refine the constructs through semantic analyses and interviews might help to advance anintegrated view of human learning experience as a multi-dimensional construct. As Morganand Beaty (1997) assert, a conception of learning is a focus of awareness that constitutes partof a student’s experience of learning. However, this experience makes up a whole (Morgan &Beaty, 1997; Marton et al., 1997), for which reason, only an integrative and multi-dimensionalapproach is likely to be able to explain it satisfactorily. Further research should stress how theabove-mentioned constructs are sensitive to contextual factors and should consider howteaching may contribute to the continued positive development of students’ learningconceptions and epistemological beliefs. In this regard some authors have recentlyrecommended the “concept of reflective learning... to extend the phenomenographic anatomyof awareness with a view to having a mindful appreciation of context” (Linder & Marshall,2003, p. 271).

From an educational perspective, the evidence that secondary school students holdimmature beliefs and reproductive learning conceptions might go some way to explaining thepoor academic achievement of many students. Teachers should bear in mind that students’engagement in learning is sensitive to what they understand by learning and to what beliefsabout learning they hold. If two of the prime goals of education are to help learners developindependence and self-regulation and to encourage them to actively build their own knowledgeand adopt deep learning approaches (Klatter et al., 2001), then teachers, students and even theinstitution itself would need to reflect upon these matters (Schon, 1983; Biggs, 2001). Thequestion “How can this be achieved?” is as complex as the answer, for which reason theexploratory nature of this study cannot offer a definitive solution. However, some suggestionsmade by experts in the field, which we synthesize in the next paragraph, may be helphful.

It is agreed by various experts that teachers should shift towards process-orientedinstruction, focusing on knowledge-building in different domains (subject-areas), andinvolving students in learning activities that foster a developmental inquiry process in order toelicit beliefs and conceptions of learning and to encourage reflection upon them (Biggs, 2001;Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-Lewis, 2001; Boulhuis, 2003). Moreover, the teacher’s learningprocess may also require conceptual change (Boulhuis, 2003) and the development of moresophisticated epistemological beliefs (Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-Lewis, 2001). Makinglearning meaningful within a context instead of conceiving it as the memorisation or simplereproduction of facts and procedures requires a type of instruction which must stimulate thelearning process as a thinking activity. Subject matter must be relevant to students’ interests,and the accuracy, depth and breadth of their thoughts must be developed. To fulfil this goal itis necessary to provide a classroom environment which will ensure that all students experiencesuccess by becoming metacognitive learners, able to monitor their own progress (Berry &Sahlberg, 1996; Biggs, 2001; Jones, 1991). Furthermore, the institution itself must bereflective, assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning: teaching must be“tuned to the objectives as well as to the assessment tasks, and... the institutionalinfraestructure [must be] prioritized toward best practice in teaching” (Biggs, 2001, p. 237).



In short, our research on secondary pupils’ conceptions and beliefs about learningsuggests that an integrated view of their web of experience requires a multi-dimensionalapproach in which the blending of different theoretical and methodological perspectives isessential.

References

Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1987). The affective dimension of learning: Faculty-student relationships that enhanceintellectual development. College Student Journal, 21, 46-58.

Berry, J., & Sahlberg, P. (1996). Investigating pupils’ ideas of learning. Learning & instruction, 6(1), 19-36.

Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. HigherEducation, 41, 221-238.

Bolhuis, S. (2003). Towards process-oriented teaching forself-directed lifelong learning: a multidimensional perspective.Learning and Instruction, 13(3), 327-347.

Bouffard, T., Boileau, L., & Vezeau, C. (2001). Students’ transition from elementary to high school and changes of therelationships between motivation and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education,16(4), 589-604.

Boulton-Lewis, G., Marton, F., & Wilss, L. (2001). The lived space of learning: An inquiry into indigenous Australianuniversity students’ experiences of studying. In R.J. Sternberg & L.F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking,learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 137-164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Boulton-Lewis, Wilss, L.A., & Lewis, D.C. (2001). Changes in conceptions of learning for Indigenous Australianuniversity students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 327-341.

Boulton-Lewis, G.M., Wilss, L., & Mutch, S. (1996). Teachers as adult learners: Their knowledge of their own learningand implications for teaching. Higher Education, 32, 89-106.

Boulton-Lewis, G.M., Marton, F., Lewis, D.C., & Wilss, L.A. (2000). Learning in formal and informal contexts:Conceptions and strategies of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander university students. Learning and Instruction,10, 393-414.

Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-service teachereducation students. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 247-268.

Cliff, A.F. (1998). Teacher-learners’ conceptions of learning: Evidence of a “communalist” conception amongstpostgraduate learners? Higher Education, 35, 205-220.

Cortina, J.M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and aplications. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 78(1), 98-104.

Dillon, W.R., & Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate data analysis. Methods and applications. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Dixon, W.J. (Ed.). (1985). BMDP Statistical Software. Berkeley: University of California.

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

Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher education: Analyticabstractions and everyday experience. In R.J. Sternberg & L.F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning,and cognitive styles (pp. 103-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis’ (4th ed.). Prentice Hall: NewJersey.

Hirsjärvi, S., & Perälä-Litunen, S. (2001). Parental beliefs and their role in child-rearing. European Journal ofPsychology of Education, 16(1), 87-116.

Hofer, B.K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 25, 378-405.

Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge andknowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.

Jones, B.F. (1991). Thinking and learning: New curricula for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 26(2), 129-143.

Kelloway, E.K., Catano, U.M., & Soutwell, R.R. (1992). The construct validity of union commitment: Development anddimensionality of a shorter scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 197-211.

Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian students.Higher Education, 40, 99-121.

Kitchener, K.S., & King, P.M. (1981). Reflective judgement: concepts of justification and their relationship to age andeducation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 89-116.

Klatter, E.B., Lodewijks, H.G.L.C. & Cor, C.A.J. (2001). Learning conceptions of young students in the final year ofprimary education. Learning and Instruction, 11, 485-516.

Linder, C., & Marshall, D. (2003). Reflection and phenomenography: Towards theoretical and educational developmentpossibilities. Learning and Instruction, 13, 271-274.

Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, and study practices in medicine andpsychology. Higher Education, 31, 5-24.

Martin, E., & Ramsden, P. (1987). Learning skills, or skill in learning? In J.T.E. Richardson, M.W. Eysenck, & D.W.Piper (Eds.), Student learning (pp. 155-167). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.

Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Huson & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia ofeducation (2nd ed., vol. 8, pp. 4424-4429). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning. I – Outcome and process. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning. II – Outcome as a function of the learner’sconception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D.Hounsell, & N.J.Entwistle (Eds.), Theexperience of learning (pp. 39-58). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research,19(3), 277-300.

Marton, F., Watkins, D., & Tang, C. (1997). Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: An interviewstudy of high-school student in Hong Kong. Learning & Instruction, 7(1), 21-48.

Meyer, J.H.F. (2000). The modelling of ‘dissonant’ study orchestration in higher education. European Journal ofPsychology of Education, 25(1), 5-18.

Morgan, A., & Beaty, L. (1997). The world of the learner. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), Theexperience of learning. Implication for teaching and studying in higher education. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic.

Perry, W.G. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: A validation of ascheme. Cambridge, MA: Bureau of Study Counsel, Harvard University.

Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Perry, W.G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. Chickering (Ed.), The modernAmerican college (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Hazel, E., & Waterhouse, F. (2000). Students’ experiences of studying physics concepts: Theeffects of disintegrated perceptions and approaches. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25(1), 61-74.

Purdie, N., & Hattie, J.(2002). Assessing students’ conceptions of learning. Australian Journal of Educational &Developmental Psycology, 2, 17-32.



Purdie, N., Douglas, G., & Hattie, J. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated learningstrategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 87-100.

Ryan, M.P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 76, 248-258.

Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective: 1. Some commom sense conceptions (Tech. Rep. No 76).Göteborg, Sweden: University of Göteborg, Department of Education.

Scheuer, N., de la Cruz, M., & Pozo. J.I. (2002). Children talk about learning to draw. European Journal of Psychologyof Education, 17(2), 1001-114.

Schmitt, N., & Stults, D.M. (1985). Factors defined by negatively keyed items: The result of careless respondents?Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(4), 367-373.

Schoenfeld, A. (1983). Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems, social cognitions, and metacognitions as drivingforces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science, 7(4), 329-363.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 82, 498-504.

Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 85(3), 406-411.

Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. In R. Garner& P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 25-40). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 68, 551-562.

Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension:Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 435-443.

Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of epistemological beliefs amongsecondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 37-40.

Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Strike, K.A., & Posner, G.J. (1985). A conceptual change view and understanding. In L.H.T. West & A.L. Pines (Eds.),Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211-232). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Tynjäla, P. (1997). Developing education student’ conceptions of the learning process in different learning environments.Learning & Instruction, 7(3), 277-292.

Van Rossum, E.J., & Schenk, S.M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learningoutcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73-83.

Vermunt, J.D. (1992). Leerstijlen en suren van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs-naar procesgerichte instructie inzelfstanding denken’ [Learning styles and regulation of learning in higher education – Towards a process-orientedin autonomous thinking].. Amsterdam/Lisse: Sweets & Zeitlinger.

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

Zimmerman, D.W., Zumbo, B., & Lalonde, C. (1993). Coefficient alpha as an estimate of test reliability under violationof two assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 33-49.

Les conceptions et croyances des étudiants sur l’apprentissagesont les constructs qui ont été proposés en suivant deux lignesindépendantes de recherche, la phénoménographique et lamétacognitive, et qui on été analysés en utilisant respectivement uneméthodologie qualitative et une autre quantitative. La présenterecherche examine et intègre ensemble les constructs et lesméthodologies dans une même et unique étude. Les données furentobtenues à partir d’une tâche initiée que l’élève devait finir (Tynjäla,

1997) et d’un questionnaire épistémologique (Schommer, 1990), tousdeux administrés à un échantillon de 1200 collégiens et lycéens. Troisrésultats significatifs du point de vue statistique surgirent. En premierlieu, les conceptions d’apprentissage des étudiants et leur croyancesépistémologiques changeaient de la simplicité à une plus grandecomplexité au fur et à mesure qu’ils progressaient durant leur scolarité.En second lieu, les deux constructs étaient en liaison l’un avec l’autre.La catégorie plus avancée concernant la ‘profondeur dimensionnelle’des conceptions d’apprentissage correspondait aux résultats plusélevés dans le complexe pole du système de croyance. En troisième lieu,aussi bien les conceptions d’apprentissage que les croyancesépistémologiques étaient les pronostiqueurs du rendement académique.Plus les étudiants étaient capables de comprendre le sens, meilleursemblait être leur rendement académique.

Key words: Beliefs about learning, Conceptions of learning, Epistemological beliefs,Predictors of academic achievement.

Received: December 2003

Revision received: May 2004

Francisco Cano. University of Granada, Department of Educational Psychology, Campus de Cartuja s/n.18071 Granada, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.ugr.es

Current theme of research:

Learning conceptions and epistemological beliefs. Approaches to learning and self-regulated learning.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Cano, F., & Justicia, F. (1993). Factores académicos, estrategias y estilos de aprendizaje [Academic factors, learningstrategies and learning styles]. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 46(1), 89-99.

Cano, F., & Justicia, F. (1994). Learning strategies and styles: An analysis of their interrelationships. Higher Education,27, 239-260.

Cano, F., & Hewitt, E. (2000). Learning and thinking styles: An analysis of their interrelationship and influence onacademic achievement. Educational Psychology, 20(4), 413-430.

Cano, F. (2000). Diferencias de género en estrategias y estilos de aprendizaje [Gender differences in learning strategiesand learning styles]. Psicothema, 12(3), 360-367.

Cano, F. (in press). Consonance and dissonance in students’ learning experience. Accepted for publication in Learningand Instruction.

María Cardelle-Elawar. Professor of Educational Psychology. Arizona State University West, Collegeof Education. P.O. Box 37100 Phoenix, AZ. 85069-7100 USA. E-mail: [email protected]; Website: http//www.west.asu.edu//

Current theme of research:

Improving teaching and learning using metacognition and self-regulation models. The value of techonology as amediator of students’ learning.



Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Nevin, A. (2003). The role of motivation on strengthening teacher identity: Emerging themes.Action Teacher Education: The Journal of the Association of Teacher Education, 25(3), 48-58.

Nevin, A., & Cardelle-Elawar, M. (2003). Dialogic retrospection as a metacognitive research tool. Australian Journal ofEducational & Developmental Psychology (vol. 3, pp. 1-14). Web site: http//www.Newcastle.edu.au/journal/ajedp/

Cardelle-Elawar, M. (2002). A Critical Thinking Perspective of R. Ritchhart. Intellectual Character: What It Is, Why ItMatters, and How to Get It. TCRecord.org: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Sanz de Acedo (2002). Low-performing students’ mathematics learning through self-regulationof emotional intelligence. The Journal of Current Research and Practices in Language Minority Students, 1(1),35-48.

Nevin, A. Cardelle-Elawar, M. Beckett, C. Thousand, J., & Diaz-Greenberg, R. (2002). Eliciting and taking action onthe voices of adults with disabilities: Advice for teacher education professors. Journal of Professional Studies,9(2), 70-79.

Documents

An integrated analysis of secondary school students’ conceptions and beliefs about learning