Knowledge Construction in Learning to Teach: The role of dynamic sources

This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]On: 05 December 2014, At: 07:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teachers and Teaching: theory andpracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Knowledge Construction in Learning toTeach: The role of dynamic sourcesIda E. Oosterheert a & Jan D. Vermunt ba University of Professional Education , Arnhem-Nijmegen, TheNetherlandsb ICLON Graduate School of Education , Leiden University , TheNetherlandsPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Ida E. Oosterheert & Jan D. Vermunt (2003) Knowledge Construction in Learningto Teach: The role of dynamic sources, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 9:2, 157-173

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600309376

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600309376

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice,Vol. 9, No. 2, May 2003

Knowledge Construction in Learning toTeach: the role of dynamic sourcesIDA E. OOSTERHEERTUniversity of Professional Education, Arnhem-Nijmegen, The NetherlandsJAN D. VERMUNTLeiden University, ICLON Graduate School of Education, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT Most theories on learning to teach focus on active, reflective learning. In thisarticle it is argued that three sources of regulation have to play a role in knowledgeconstruction in learning to teach: external sources to provide new information, activeinternal sources to deliberately focus on (new) information, and dynamic internal sourcesto spontaneously reconceptualize prior understandings. It is suggested that the ability orreadiness of student-teachers to effectively involve all three of these sources in theirlearning may depend largely on how emotionally risky it is for them to change theirperception of reality. Disappointing outcomes of teacher education are considered from theproposed theory. Implications for teacher education are discussed.

Introduction

Since Lortie (1975) indicated the persistent influence of prospective teachers’educational socialization on their teaching, the majority of research on teachereducation has been focused on changing student-teachers’ prior knowledge andbeliefs. However, the various attempts that have been made to increase theinfluence of teacher education on the thinking and actions of student-teachershave repeatedly proved disappointing or differential; some student-teacherschange and develop their knowledge, whereas others do not (Calderhead, 1987;Kubler LaBoskey, 1993; Tillema, 1995; Nettle, 1998). As the origin of these differ-ences is still poorly understood, several researchers have recently started to directattention to learning to teach as a (psychological) process (Carter, 1990; Kagan,1992; Kubler LaBoskey, 1993; Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996; Oosterheert & Ver-munt, 2001). This article also starts with the assumption that a better understand-ing of learning to teach as a process, and of how student-teachers engage in it, isneeded to create powerful learning environments for them.

The theoretical point of departure here is that of situated cognition. Reynolds etal. (1996) have stated that situated cognition theory has not yet been able to offeran explanation of how individuals deal with prior knowledge when they areconfronted with new experiences or how internal mechanisms are involved in

ISSN 1354-0602 (print)/ISSN 1470-1278 (online)/03/020157-17 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/1354060032000089478

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

158 I. E. Oosterheert & J. D. Vermunt

learning. The present article is an effort to contribute to a greater understandingof the internal mechanisms involved in learning to teach, and of how these relateto the behavioural and environmental sides of student teachers’ learning (see alsoWideen et al., 1998).

We describe teacher knowledge as a frame of reference consisting of beliefs,images, and procedural and conceptual knowledge, all of which guide student-teachers’ deliberate thinking about teaching and learning, and their deliberate andnon-deliberate perception, decision-taking, and action during teaching. In this, weare close to what is commonly referred to as teachers’ practical knowledge(Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Meijer, 1999). We will use the terms ‘frame ofreference’, ‘understandings’, and ‘knowledge’ as equivalents. Knowledge growthin learning to teach is the development of student-teachers’ understandings ofclassroom and school life. We conceive of it as a qualitative rather than as aquantitative change; the processing of (new) information results in a reconceptual-ization of prior understandings and in a new perception of classroom reality(Iran-Nejad, 1990; Marton et al., 1993).

Overview

This article will suggest building blocks of a theory about knowledge constructionin learning to teach. In the first part, the theory proposed by Iran-Nejad andcolleagues (Iran-Nejad, 1990; Iran-Nejad & Cecil, 1992; Iran-Nejad & Chissom,1992; Iran-Nejad, 1994) is introduced and applied to the context of learning toteach. The theory is fairly new and has as yet received little attention. The theoryassumes that three sources of regulation play a role in changing existing under-standings. Two of these, the external and active internal sources, are very com-monly accepted in the current literature (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989;Howard-Rose & Winne, 1993; Vermunt, 1996). They are in line with today’sconsensus among researchers and educators that learning depends on the learningactivities that students employ (Iran-Nejad et al., 1990), and that effective learningincludes active and goal-oriented regulation; a view that is also ubiquitous in theliterature on reflection and that guides many teacher education programs. Thepresent theory, however, adds a third source; dynamic regulation. It is argued thatdynamic sources have to be involved in learning to teach.

Building on the emotion literature, the second part of the paper is a discussionof a mechanism that may explain why some learners do not use the three sourceseffectively in their learning. The focus in the third part is on how the proposedtheory relates to field experiences in learning to teach. Finally, implications forteacher education and further research are presented.

Although specific parts of the theory proposed in this article are increasinglysupported by empirical evidence, the theory as a whole is still rather hypotheticalin nature. The second part, in particular, is still largely theoretical. Therefore,directions for empirical research are given at the end.

In our explication of the theory, a distinction is made between ‘external’ and‘internal’ sources of regulation. External sources of regulation are sources outsidethe learner that may provide information to learners, such as teacher educators,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Knowledge Construction in Learning to Teach 159

fellow students, the literature, mentors, and teaching experiences. Internal sourcesof regulation, on the other hand, refer to capacities of the human brain to processinformation and to reconstruct existing knowledge. We also use the terms ‘self-regulation’ and ‘internal regulation’. While these are equivalents, internal regu-lation is sometimes used just to oppose it to external regulation. Most central tothe theory is the distinction between active and dynamic sources of regulation. Thisdistinction is extensively discussed.

Active and Dynamic Self-Regulation

Internalization and reconceptualization

In the past two decades, considerable attention has been paid to the ways in whichlearners regulate their learning. Many empirical studies show that effectivelearners are essentially self-regulating (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989; Howard-Rose & Winne, 1993). Self-regulation is also increasingly adopted as a valuableconcept for the design of teacher education (Kremer-Hayon & Tillema, 1999;Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). Generally, descriptions of self-regulative learnersemphasize the learners’ deliberate allocation of attention to the learning task athand, to the learning strategies to be chosen, and to purposeful monitoring andevaluation of the process and results (Flavell, 1979; Winne, 1995a; Vermunt, 1996,1998). Although thus characterized mostly by such words as ‘strategic’, ‘goal-ori-ented’, and ‘reflective’, the nature of self-regulation as exclusively deliberate hasrecently been questioned by some researchers. Winne (1995b) argues that alllearners, including novices, regulate their learning, although not necessarily opti-mally, and that self-regulation ‘can be automatic and non-deliberate once thelearner has automated procedural knowledge that recognizes when to regulateand what to do’ (Winne, 1995b, p. 223).

Nonetheless, according to Iran-Nejad (1990), both views still stem, incorrectly,from the assumption that learning is an ‘incremental internalization of knowledge’and that it occurs only when the learner is confronted with external input.External input can, in these views, only be internalized under external control orunder the active control of the individual learner. A view on self-regulation whereinformation is only internalized and where learning only occurs under external oractive control does not, however, provide an explanation for various unresolvedissues in cognitive psychology, such as Bereiter’s (1990) ‘learning paradox’, Fes-tinger’s (1957) observation that humans tend to resolve cognitive inconsistency,‘postdiction-based learning’ (Iran-Nejad, 1990; see also later), young children’shigh proficiency in learning (Iran-Nejad, 1990), and the relation between interestand learning (Hidi, 1990; Hidi & Berndorff, 1999). Therefore, in the past 10 years,a new view on self-regulation has emerged, suggesting that the deliberate process-ing of information is often helpful, but may not be the rule in learning.

A growing number of theoretical as well as empirical studies have demon-strated that the human brain can better be conceived of as a multi-sourceprocessor (Johnson & Hasher, 1987; Hidi, 1990; Iran-Nejad, 1990; Iran-Nejad et al.,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


TABLE I. Characteristics of active and dynamic self-regulation; based on Iran-Nejad (1990)

Active self-regulation Dynamic self-regulation

ProcessingSlow RapidEffortful, deliberate Spontaneous, non-deliberateSequential SimultaneousAttention allocation Attention delegation

Nature of information being processedConceptual SensorialImportant InterestingReducing complexity Leaving complexity intact

Learning experienceInternalization ReconceptualizationKnowing UnderstandingEffort Ease

1990). Building on cognitive theories of how the human nervous system works,Iran-Nejad (1990) proposed an internal source of regulation: ‘dynamic self-regu-lation’. Dynamic self-regulation is described as the capacity to delegate attention,simultaneously, to multiple subsystems of our brain. A reconceptualization ofknowledge, conceived of as a qualitatively different (richer or more accurate)perception of a phenomenon (Marton et al., 1993), is assumed to ultimately occurunder this dynamic control. According to Iran-Nejad (1990), the outcome of suchlearning is rather holistic. When learners are aware that they have reachedunderstanding, they say, for example, ‘Now I see!’. On the other hand, activeself-regulation, which accounts for attention-allocated processing, leads primarilyto internalization, and its outcome is rather specific and categorical. Table Ipresents the most salient characteristics of active and dynamic regulation ex-tracted from Iran-Nejad’s (1990) theory.

The activities associated with active self-regulation include analyzing, structur-ing, and memorizing; these are intentionally and sequentially deployed, andtherefore relatively slow. The activities associated with dynamic self-regulationare implicit and therefore unknown. However, such activities are presumed totake place rapidly, effortlessly and non-intentionally, and are associated withprocessing interesting information; the learners’ experience of their outcome is‘understanding’ rather than ‘knowing’.

Co-Operation between Active and Dynamic Sources

There is some evidence that active learning activities contribute to learning ‘to theextent that they influence the activity of dynamic sources’ (Iran-Nejad & Chissom,1992, p. 132). Thus, dynamic self-regulation is a prerequisite in constructivelearning,. Active self-regulation may be helpful, but is never sufficient nor always

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


necessary. That is, a learner can actively look for a connection (e.g. the cause,consequence, or function of something), by actively analyzing, relating, and so on,but he/she cannot actively make the connection. The ultimate connecting processitself is a (bio)dynamic process that takes place outside the realm of active control.Once the connection has been established, the learner ‘sees’ or understands. Thebrain thus provides spontaneous suggestions about reality (possibly, but notnecessarily, as a consequence of deliberate thought), which can then be activelychecked by the ratio. We will provide several examples to illustrate the co-oper-ation between the two internal sources.

• A person has finished reading an interesting paper while feeling that he has notyet fully captured the central idea. He takes the paper again, reads the notes hemade in the margins, and puts the central concepts and their inter-relations ina scheme. While looking over the scheme, or in the course of creating it,suddenly and spontaneously, the central idea becomes clear and a new under-standing emerges, relating and making meaningful all the related concepts andtheir interrelations.

In this example, active self-regulation is used to structure the central concepts inthe book. This is an intermediate phase. And, effectively, as soon as enoughadditional processing has been done, dynamic sources take control and reconcep-tualization takes place.

• A similar process occurs in ‘post-diction stories’ (see, for example, Iran-Nejad,1992, p. 586). In these stories, a surprising cue, provided at the end of the story,puts a totally different light on the story as a whole. Within the proposedtheory, this last cue generates the rapid, effortless, and spontaneous reinterpre-tation of previously provided cues and the story as a whole.

These two examples illustrate that reconceptualization takes place effortlessly and‘with the benefit of hindsight’; this means that prior knowledge (example 1) orpreviously learned events (example 2) are spontaneously re-interpreted as soon assufficient information has been internalized.

In the following examples, individuals rely on dynamic regulation, while moreor less deliberately relinquishing active control. Dynamic sources remain alert tosolve the problem by assessing the relevance of the information that ‘passes by’.Individuals may become aware of the solution as soon as the problem is (partly)solved (attention delegation then becomes attention allocation), but not necess-arily.

• A person stops searching for her lost keys, trusting that in a few minutes shewill know where they are. She lets go of the (active) search for her keys,knowing that ‘something’ will happen after all (dynamically) that may result in,for example, the sudden appearance of an image in her mind of the lost keys onthe refrigerator.

• A student-teacher has attempted to understand the concept ‘fear of failure’,introduced during a meeting, without having reached full understanding. He

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


then continues teaching the next few days and lets go of the active search forunderstanding. However, after a few days, he may suddenly (without searchingfor it in a deliberate way) recognize some features of the concept in one of hispupils. He then experiences (improved) understanding. He may even be sur-prised that this concept was, apparently, (still) that important to him.

All the examples illustrate that reaching understanding is not always possible‘here and now’. Time, in relation to sufficient prior knowledge or new information,is an important factor in the co-operation between active and dynamic self-regu-lation. New information is often needed before a new perception of reality canemerge, and this information is not always available in the present. Sufficientprior knowledge is needed to reach understanding and, if some prior knowledgeis missing, it is not always easy to determine which additional information isneeded. Often, learners only recognize what information is still lacking when theyare confronted with it. Another factor is the commitment (based on interest,concern, desire) of the learner to solve the problem. Dynamic sources remain alertonly when the learner is keen on solving the problem. If such commitment isabsent, new internalized information remains ‘floating’ (i.e. unconnected to aperson’s perception of reality).

Individuals may also use dynamic sources only; this is noticeable in the learningof infants and young children; they rapidly get to know the properties of theobjects, sounds, and persons in their direct environment while using their senses.Their learning depends on the richness of the environment and their own earlypre-dispositions such as persistence and curiosity, but not on deliberate thought.

Dynamic Self-Regulation and the Affective Domain

Interest versus Anxiety

Some evidence exists suggesting that initial understandings of many academiclearners and student-teachers remain basically the same (Iran-Nejad & Chissom,1992; see also the earlier Introduction). From the present theory, such findingsindicate that (at least) dynamic sources have not been effectively involved in thelearning of these students. Our own studies provide support for this as well(Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001; Oosterheert et al., 2002). A large group of student-teachers in our studies were found to rely predominantly on active sources ofregulation. Active sources were, however, primarily used to find better practicalactions or solutions within existing understandings.

The question that arises is why, if dynamic self-regulation is so crucial, do somelearners seem not to use it more effectively. In other words, what makes dynamicsources become involved in learning? One way to address this problem is to lookat teacher education itself. Several practices in teacher education may not bebeneficial for some student-teachers. However, our focus will first be on thestudent-teachers themselves.

Iran-Nejad (1990, p. 581) conceives of dynamic processing as a spontaneousselective attention mechanism in ‘itself’, facilitated by prior knowledge and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


learning habits. However, it is unclear what the role of prior knowledge andlearning habits is when dynamic processing does not serve learning. Iran-Nejad &Cecil (1992) only point out that interest and anxiety are important ‘dynamiccontrol factors’. There is mounting evidence suggesting that intrinsic interest andcuriosity are related to the use of dynamic sources in learning (Hidi, 1990). It thusbecomes increasingly obvious that dynamic sources are somehow connected tothe human affective system. The following section elaborates on how this connec-tion may function.

Emotion in Learning to Teach

In this section, we introduce a subtle mechanism, connected to prior knowledgeand the affective system, that is in all probability operating in the dynamicdomain, and that may therefore explain to a large extent why learners would notoptimally use the internal sources of regulation with which they are equipped.

The Pre-Attentive Assessment of Meaning. Recently, several psychologists andneurophysiologists have adopted a view on information processing in whichaffective variables, such as emotion, are better understood as a functional ratherthan as a structural phenomenon. In a structural view on emotion, emotionalresponses are viewed as rather fixed and universal in a given situation. Within afunctional view, emotions are elicited as a subjective reaction to events relevant tothe individual’s concerns (Frijda, 1986, 1987). The emotional system directs atten-tion to those events or situations that relate to the fulfillment or threat of personalconcerns and to the necessity of an adaptation.

During learning, learners assess the (subjective) significance of the situationsthey are in, and specific action tendencies are consequently aroused and activated.These significant ‘situations’ include aspects of the learning environment or thedifficulty of a task (Boekaerts, 1995), and, as we see it, the content to be learned.It is now assumed that learners, when processing new information, can be nearthe grasping of a new understanding and already ‘feel’ the implications, so tospeak, for their personal concerns. So, pre-attentively, individuals can assesswhether the outcomes of learning, or even the consequences of it, are desirableand worth the effort (Frijda, 1986; Krohne et al., 1992; Posner & Rothbart, 1992).For instance, it is conceivable that the process towards understanding ‘indepen-dent learning’ is inhibited when student-teachers (without being aware) judgethemselves for not being independent learners. The consequences of understand-ing independent learning (e.g. lower self-esteem) cannot be dealt with.

In this respect, reproductive learning (predominant use of external and activeinternal sources) is less ‘risky’ than constructive, meaningful learning (use ofdynamic sources as well). In reproductive learning, facts and ideas remain uncon-nected to each other and to the self, while constructive learning implies the ‘risk’of a reconceptualization. This may be frightening because it may generate a‘domino effect’ (Rogers, 1969, cited in McCarthy & Schmeck, 1988; see also theearlier examples). Relatively small changes in one’s perception of reality entail therisk of generating many more changes, which may be profound. We have argued

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


that, in learning to teach, this domino effect is extremely manifest because, in thisdomain, reconceptualization has direct and often fundamental implications fordaily personal functioning and the self (Oosterheert, 2001). The finding that a shiftin concerns does not automatically continue to take place in all student-teacherscan also be explained from its potential implications; subsequent concerns mayimply increasing changes in the self. Survival then is a fundamental concern,shared by all student-teachers, while concerns with respect to student-teachers’own effectiveness in promoting pupils’ learning (see Fessler & Christensen, 1992)may involve changes in the self to the extent that a shift towards such concerndoes not (automatically) take place.

Prior Knowledge, Emotion Regulation, and Self-Esteem. The domino effect thatRogers (1969) points to is, as we see it, illustrative of what may happen whendynamic sources are involved in learning. Unlike active self-regulation, dynamicself-regulation has the potential of initiating a sequence of surprising outcomes oflearning. In parallel, it is now assumed that emotions are elicited by the simulta-neous activity of various components of the neuronal system (Fox, 1994; Frijda,1986; Iran-Nejad et al., 1984). It is thus very likely that the emotional system isinvolved in dynamic regulation. As noted, Iran-Nejad & Cecil (1992) also conceiveof interest and anxiety as dynamic control factors (albeit without perceivinginterest as an emotion). The ultimate determinant of (deep) learning, even underthe best educational circumstances, thus seems to reside in the (emotional)responses of the learner to the (consequences of the) outcome of learning. Positiveimplications are generally approached, whereas negative implications can beavoided (Frijda, 1986; Krohne et al., 1992). Differences between learners are thenmost pronounced in the regulation of negative emotions and their associatedimplications.

The emotion literature shows that the way individuals regulate their emotionsis related to their self-esteem. That is, individuals regulate the emotions arousedduring learning (e.g. anxiety) differently, partly as a function of how they feel andthink about themselves (Frijda, 1986; McCarthy & Schmeck, 1988; Krohne et al.,1992). Some learners tend to approach threatening situations, taking the subjectiverisks for granted and dealing with them, while others tend to avoid them. For thecontext of learning to teach, Oosterheert (2001) found big differences in the waystudent-teachers regulate what ‘bad lessons’ do to them. It was argued that, inparticular, in learning to teach, where learning has consequences for daily func-tioning and the self, differences in emotion regulation are perhaps more pro-nounced (see also Nias, 1989; Leat et al., 1995).

To conclude, we are inclined to believe that the higher student-teachers’ self-es-teem is, the lower their anxiety about surprising reconceptualizations, and themore ready they are to engage in a way of learning in which attention is freelydelegated to (also) dynamic sources. This implies that information from externalsources is also more freely, although not uncritically, used to ‘feed’ the activitiesof active and dynamic sources.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


The Three-Source Theory and the Role of Teaching Experiences

Teaching Experiences as an External Source

It has been noted that we still lack a theoretical foundation for the potentialcontributions and limits of teaching experience to learning to teach (McIntyre etal., 1996). For example, we do not fully understand why the amount of one’sexperience does not predict expertise and why some student-teachers cannotrecall new learning experiences soon after a basic competence in teaching has beenachieved (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1986; Calderhead, 1987; Desforges, 1995).We have argued here that not two, but three sources of regulation have to beinvolved in constructive learning. This section aims at clarifying how the threesources of regulation, in particular dynamic sources, relate to teaching experi-ences. For this purpose, we first have to make clear the distinction between ‘usingdynamic sources in teaching’ and ‘using dynamic sources in learning to teach’.

Teaching experience is an important external source in learning to teach thatprovides basically sensory information. During teaching, teachers’ senses aresimultaneously activated by what happens in classroom life, and most of theirdecisions and actions require no deliberate thought; they take place ‘in-action’(Schon, 1987). Very probably, it is the power of dynamic sources that accounts forthis capacity to act in multi-source, complex environments such as the classroom(see Doyle, 1977; Iran-Nejad et al., 1990). All student-teachers then use dynamicsources in teaching. However, this is not to say that all students use dynamicsources for the purpose of learning to teach. It is in this respect that student-teach-ers may differ. Teaching experiences can only be educative when dynamic sourcesbecome involved in a specific way.

When Teaching Experiences are Educative

Teaching experiences offer a great deal that is potentially educative; it is in theteaching situation that students can experience, see, and hear what teaching andlearning is about. Commonly, student-teachers are also very positive about thecontribution of teaching experiences to their learning (for example, Johnston,1994). However, it has also been demonstrated that … once adjustments have beenmade to the immediate demands of the classroom, teachers tend to close downrather than to open up in the face of experience (Desforges, 1995). The three-source theory of regulation states that, when this occurs, (student-)teachers: areinclined to rely exclusively on dynamic sources for their teaching—only dramaticcontextual changes may force them to change existing habits and knowledge; tendto ignore new information from external sources; and use active internal sourcesonly to solve practical problems in teaching, not to further develop their knowl-edge base.

Dynamic sources only become effectively involved when existing knowledge isnot taken for granted in the interpretation of classroom experiences. Teachingexperiences fail to be educative when the desire to see something new is absent.Another way to put this is that ‘every looking-at must be accompanied by a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


corresponding looking-for’ (Ellis, 1995, p. 230; see also Marcel, 1983): one cannot(start to) see things that one is not looking for. Without interest, or ‘desire’ (Ellis,1995), there is mere perception, based on existing prior knowledge. The perceptionof classroom life then tends towards self-confirmation. This is comparable with atoddler always playing at the same place with the same toys in the same way,while not trying to discover still unknown properties or possibilities of these toys.

Teaching experiences are educative when, during teaching, dynamic sources arealert to detect experiences connected to current questions and problems. Thus,dynamic sources have to be ‘fed with’ personally interesting problems. Suchproblems can emerge, for example, when student-teachers perceive and definetheir teaching problems not only as problems of performance (how to?), but alsoas problems of understanding (why, what is it?); when students have developedthe habit of trying to relate new conceptual or sensory information to their ownexperiences; or when external sources, such as teacher-educators and mentorteachers, provide information that relates to their (implicit or explicit) needs andproblems or challenges their existing understandings.

Using Field Experiences: differences between student-teachers. As a result of previousacademic schooling, student-teachers are very probably used to relying predomi-nantly on active internal sources of regulation (Iran-Nejad, 1990). As they enterteacher education, they may react differently to a learning environment wherepersonal experiences are suddenly an important information source. One canimagine student-teachers who perceive this new context to be so different fromprevious ones that they also dramatically change their learning habits; theysuddenly start to rely almost exclusively on dynamic regulation (i.e. their defaultteaching repertoire and existing knowledge). These student-teachers may soonreach a point that they do not learn much any more as they profit insufficientlyfrom external and active internal sources of regulation. At the other extreme, theremay be student-teachers who continue to learn predominantly in an active,intentional way; the richness of the new context does not alter their learning. Theirfocus remains selective and their strategies analytical and procedural. Thesestudent-teachers may improve aspects of their teaching performance and internal-ize new information, but not change their perception and interpretation of class-room life. There is some evidence that many student-teachers react in this way(Kubler LaBoskey, 1993; Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001; Oosterheert et al., 2002). Athird group may be able to re-activate or still possess the capacity to profitmaximally from both external sources as well as from active and dynamic internalsources. Their learning is regularly fed by both teaching practice and informationfrom other sources as their interest is in improving teaching also through acquir-ing a better understanding of teaching and learning.

Conclusions, Discussion and Implications

The theory put forward in this article, in our view, adds an important ingredientto our current understanding of what it takes for student-teachers to reconstruct

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


their knowledge. What is new in this theory is the emphasis on the dynamiccapacities of the human brain. The theory implies that, without the involvementof dynamic internal sources, knowledge construction does not occur. It thuschallenges those researchers within the constructive paradigm who emphasizethat knowledge construction in learning to teach can occur in an active andsystematic way (for example, Calderhead, 1989) and is compatible with—althoughnot similar to—the views of researchers who have indicated the perceptual anddynamic nature of (teacher) knowledge and learning (Prawat & Floden, 1994;Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996). Although the dynamic aspect of the theory needsmore empirical support, it clarifies the limitations of practitioners valuing practiceas the most important source of their learning and of teacher educators andresearchers stressing the importance of ‘reflection’ without acknowledging theindispensability of dynamic sources.

Our discussion of the role of emotion in learning lends some theoretical supportto Iran-Nejad & Ortony’s (1990, p. 581) hypothesis that dynamic processing is ‘aspontaneous selective attention mechanism in itself, facilitated by prior knowl-edge and learning habits’. We discussed how significant but subtle this ‘pre-at-tentive’ mechanism is and how learners’ affective functioning is very likely to beinvolved in it. Prior knowledge may facilitate constructive learning only to theextent that the emotional risk for learners to perceive things differently is not toohigh. As a consequence, we are inclined to think that learning habits in whichlearners allocate and delegate attention to relevant (prior) information are perhapsmore likely to be found in learners who do not control blocking emotions(Boekaerts, 1995; Vermunt, 1996), but accept and approach them (see, for example,Frijda, 1986; Leat et al., 1995).

The fundamental nature of the theory makes it possible to consider its value forother learning contexts, such as academic learning. Although generally discussedin a somewhat different fashion, the latter field has, just like teacher education, its‘theory–practice’ problem. For example, the abundant literature on conceptualchange shows that initial representations of reality are hard to change (Caravita &Hallden, 1994; Vosniadou, 1994). A related, classic problem is that of transfer:what is being learned can often not be applied or transferred to other contexts(Salomon & Perkins, 1989). The present theory explains these findings as anoverestimation of the power of external and active internal sources of regulation.Active self-regulation can be very helpful, but never sufficient in conceptualchange. In learning to teach as well as in academic learning, dynamic internalsources should be more involved.

Building on the Involvement of Active and Dynamic Sources

In the past two decades, researchers within the field of learning to teach haveemphasized the necessity for student-teachers to learn actively and intentionally.‘Reflection’ has been the dominant term for referring to such activities, whetherthey are directed at examining thoughts, knowledge, beliefs, actions, experiencedsituations, feelings, or images (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1986; Wubbels, 1992;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Korthagen, 1993; Kubler LaBoskey, 1993; Tann, 1993; Johnston, 1994; Munby &Russell, 1996). The often disappointing effects of curricular inventions aimed atstimulating such reflective activities are explained here as an overestimation of thecontribution of such active activities to learning. Teacher education has, in ourview, the complex but indispensable task of promoting the educative involvementof dynamic sources as well.

The most effective way to promote the effective involvement of dynamicactivity is, in our view, to put a lot of effort into the creation of a powerful sensorylearning environment. Teaching practice is the most important external source inthis respect, because it is the sensory basis and testing ground for all processingby student-teachers. Therefore, it is worthwhile to select schools in which student-teachers get a genuine opportunity to experience, see, and understand the ingredi-ents and practices of high-quality learning and teaching. In such contexts,dynamic sources are more or less automatically fed with new (sensory) infor-mation about (a new) reality. This also holds true for teacher training institutesand their teacher educators (see also Wideen et al., 1998): the more they organizelearning along the lines they ‘preach’, the more student-teachers will directlyexperience how beneficial a single teacher can be and what effect he/ahe can haveon his/her learning and on group learning. However, we are aware that it is notalways easy to find or create such environments. Even in sensory-rich contexts,learners need additional deliberate activities, to become aware of and communi-cate about what they experience and learn, and to learn to engage in lifelonglearning.

Another way to stimulate student-teachers to involve dynamic activity in theirlearning and to combine it with the use of active sources is to make them awareof it. In this respect, it may be helpful for student-teachers to become aware thatknowledge growth cannot always occur ‘here and now’ and that, in certainconditions, improved perception and understanding needs to be ‘waited for’.

To promote the simultaneous involvement of different kinds of information(e.g. sensory, conceptual, procedural) in learning, different kinds of informationmust be easily accessible at (almost) all times. As a consequence, teaching practiceand meetings at the institute should alternate frequently (Korthagen & Lagerwerf,1996). We also think that this should occur right from the start of teachereducation, or at least as soon as possible.

The actual interests and concerns of student-teachers should as much as possiblebe taken as a point of departure for any activity (see, for example, Iran-Nejad &Cecil, 1992; Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992; Hidi, 1990; Korthagen, 1998). However,some student-teachers do not have, or lose, the desire to perceive something newin their practice, which calls for not being too rigid with respect to this point ofdeparture (Oosterheert, 2001). For example, educators should not only start fromstudent-teachers’ actual concerns, but also carefully try to generate other, pre-sumably subsequent, concerns in them (see also Korthagen, 1998).

Another way is to promote the use of the elaboration strategy imagery. Student-teachers should be stimulated to develop the habit of imagining, visualizing,while using their ever-increasing experiences in teaching, what new information

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


about teaching and learning ‘looks like’ and how it can be recognized, orfunctions, in teaching practice. In the recent proposal of Tillema (2000) andConway (2001) to think of learning to teach as a ‘dual process of practiceimmersion and reflection’ (Tillema, 2000, p. 575), there is room for such activitybecause prepared immersion in practice implies anticipation. After all, the orderin which different kinds of information are accessed or activated during learningis irrelevant if they are integrated.

The involvement of imagery implies that existing knowledge is activated as itpresumably functions in their minds; namely, as larger wholes (see also Marcel,1983; Bereiter, 1990; Prawat, 1992; Iran-Nejad, 1994; Korthagen & Lagerwerf,1996). One little change then triggers the rest of the whole, resulting in thespontaneous generation of more changes (see the examples in the first part).Probably, as experience in teaching increases, it becomes easier for student-teach-ers to imagine what new information has to do with what they see and hear intheir classrooms, and it will become easier to start from the conceptual level aswell. The Gestalt approach worked out by Korthagen & Lagerwerf (1996), whichstarts with an examination of student-teachers’ Gestalts, may thus be particularlyeffective at the very start of teacher education, when experience in teaching is stilllimited. Student-teachers also differ in this respect. Our studies have shown thatsome student-teachers manage to start their learning from both ‘sides of the coin’;they try to see how new information can be recognized in their practice and lookback on relevant experiences to make sense of them, using other information aswell. Guidance in this process should be given to student-teachers who are lessable to do so.

External sources, such as teacher educators, the literature, mentor teachers,fellow students, and teaching practice, have to feed the mental activities ofstudent-teachers with new information that can broaden their horizons. Other-wise, some students continue to work from their existing frame of reference,which sets up a vicious circle. ‘Authenticity of teaching experiences’, a keyelement in current teacher education programmes in The Netherlands, is a pitfallwhen such considerations are not taken into account. Although we thus empha-size the importance of always involving classroom reality in all activities inteacher education, we do not favor always taking personal problems in teachingas a starting-point in the learning of all student-teachers.

In learning to teach, the permanent presence of genuine personal experiencesand the necessity to change habitual behaviors and perceptions of reality makemuch more fundamental and overt what actually happens with respect to knowl-edge construction than in other contexts. As these processes are not always easyto go through, teacher-educators should be able to adequately deal with theinherent emotional reactions of student-teachers. These reactions vary from stu-dent to student and demand different approaches (Oosterheert, 2001).

Growth versus Consolidation. Finally, after having taken note of the previousguidelines, one could almost forget that there is such thing as experimentationand consolidation in practice. We would like to emphasize here that existing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


frames of reference cannot be continuously changed. If (student-)teachers mustcontinuously change the basis of their present perceptions of reality, they risklosing the (still fragile) basis for their actions, which may paralyze them in practiceand lead to their losing their feelings of competence. If new insights lead to/re-quire new actions, or when new perceptions of reality have great impact, there isoften no mental space left to process new information, leading to other reconcep-tualizations (see also Kwakman, 1999). The information flow should thus not betoo high and should not go too far beyond the student-teachers’ zone of proximaldevelopment.

Further Research

Currently, there is growing consensus among researchers and educators thatknowledge cannot be transmitted directly to the learner. Learning depends on thelearning activities that students employ (Iran-Nejad et al., 1990). The dominantview on such activities is that they are deliberately and intentionally undertaken.This aspect of the constructive paradigm has also been adopted in teachereducation (see, for example, Prawat, 1992; Tillema, 1995; Vermunt & Verloop,1999). The theory proposed in this article suggests that the human mind may beable to function in a richer and more economical (easy) way. Given its potentialimplications for educational psychology and practice, we believe that the study ofnon-deliberate processing strategies of learners is a promising line of research. Adeeper understanding is needed of what dynamic processing encompasses andhow it relates to active processing. Also, future studies could attempt to shedmore light on the internal and external conditions under which dynamic process-ing is likely to serve the purpose of learning.

Although it is now acknowledged that growing as a learner involves more thanimproving ‘information management’ (see Ackermann, 1998), the incorporation ofaffective variables in theories on human cognitive development is still scarce (see,for example, the special issue Learning and Instruction, August 1998). The presentanalysis provides some theoretical support for the idea that the dynamics ofhuman cognitive functioning and growth cannot be understood without takinginto account such affective variables as self-esteem and emotion. More researchshould be directed at the relation between emotion and cognition in learning. Inparticular, studies on learners’ external, active internal, and dynamic internalsource-use in relation to their affective functioning can contribute to greaterunderstanding of what learning, and learning to learn, encompasses for differentlearners.

In our view, research on solutions in teacher education is needed at the level oflearning to learn to teach (see also Kubler LaBoskey, 1993; Leat et al., 1995; Nettle,1998). The development, testing, and evaluation of curricular changes in teachereducation, aimed at stimulating students to learn in a richer way, is important inthis respect. The affective side of development and change, as well as initiallearning habits, should then be taken into account.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Correspondence: Ida Oosterheert, Groenewoudseweg 1, 6524 TM Nijmegen, TheNetherlands. Tel: � 31 24 3233778; Fax: � 31 24 3603402; Email:[email protected]

References

ACKERMANN, E. K. (1998) New trends in cognitive development: theoretical and empiricalcontributions, Learning and Instruction, 8, pp. 375–385.

BEREITER, C. (1990) Aspects of an educational learning theory, Review of Educational Research, 60,pp. 603–624.

BOEKAERTS, M. (1995) Self-regulated learning: bridging the gap between metacognitive andmetamotivation theories, Educational Psychologist, 30, pp. 195–200.

CALDERHEAD, J. (1987) The quality of reflection in student teachers’ professional learning,European Journal of Teacher Education, 10, pp. 269–278.

CALDERHEAD, J. (1989) Reflective teaching and teacher education, Teaching and Teacher Education,5, pp. 43–51.

CARAVITA, S. & O. HALLDEN, O. (1994) Re-framing the problem of conceptual change, Learningand Instruction, 4(1), pp. 89–111.

CARTER, K. (1990) Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach, in: W. R. HOUSTON (Ed.) Handbookof Research on Teacher Education (New York, MacMillan).

CONNELLY, F. M. & CLANDININ, D. J. (1990) Stories of experienced and narrative inquiry,Educational Researcher, 19(5), pp. 2–14.

CONWAY, P. F. (2000) Anticipatory reflection while learning to teach: from a temporallytruncated to a temporally distributed model of reflection in teacher education, Teachingand Teacher Education, 17, pp. 89–106.

DESFORGES, C. (1995) How does experience affect theoretical knowledge for teaching?, Learningand Instruction, 5, pp. 385–400.

DOYLE, W. (1977) Learning in the classroom environment: an ecological analysis, Journal ofTeacher Education, 28, pp. 51–55.

ELLIS, R. D. (1995) Questioning Consciousness. The interplay of imagery, cognition, and emotion in thehuman brain (Philadelphia, PA/Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company).

FEIMAN-NEMSER, S. & BUCHMANN, M. (1986) Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation, in: J. D.RATHS & L. C. KRATZ (Eds) Advances in Teacher Education, Vol. 2 (Norwood, NY, Ablex).

FESSLER, R. & CHRISTENSEN, J. (1992) The Teacher Career Cycle: understanding and guiding theprofessional development of teachers (Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon).

FESTINGER, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press).FLAVELL, J. H. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-develop-

mental inquiry, American Psychologist, 34, pp. 906–911.FOX, N. A. (1994) Dynamic cerebral processes underlying emotion regulation, Monographs of the

Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), pp. 152–166.FRIJDA, N. H. (1986) The Emotions (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).FRIJDA, N. H. (1987) Comment on Oatley and Johnson-Laird’s ‘Towards a cognitive theory of

emotions’, Cognition and Emotion, 1, pp. 51–58.HIDI, S. (1990) Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning, Review of

Educational Research, 60, pp. 549–571.HIDI, S. & BERNDORFF, D. (1999) The role of situational and individual interest in the cognitive

and affective aspects of learning. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference onLearning and Instruction, Goteborg, Sweden. August 24th–28th.

HOCHBERG, J. (1970) Attention, organization and consciousness, in: D. I. MOSTOFSKI (Ed.)Attention: contemporary theory and analysis (New York, Appleton Century Crofts).

HOWARD-ROSE, D. C. & WINNE, P. H. (1993) Measuring components and sets of cognitiveprocesses in self-regulated learning, Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, pp. 591–604.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


IRAN-NEJAD, A. (1990) Active and dynamic self-regulation of learning processes, Review ofEducational Research, 60, pp. 573–602.

IRAN-NEJAD, A. (1994) The global coherence context in educational practice: a comparisonpiecemeal and whole-theme approaches to learning and teaching, Research in the Schools,1(1), pp. 63–76.

IRAN-NEJAD, A. & CECIL, C. (1992) Interest and learning: a biofunctional perspective, in: A.RENNINGER, S. HIDI & A. KRAPP (Eds) The Role of Interest in Learning and Development(Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

IRAN-NEJAD, A. & CHISSOM, B. S. (1992) Contributions of active and dynamic self-regulation tolearning, Innovative Higher Education, 17, pp. 125–136.

IRAN-NEJAD, A. & ORTONY, A. (1984) A biofunctional model of distributed mental content, mentalstructures, awareness, and attention, Mind and Behavior, 5, pp. 171–210.

IRAN-NEJAD, A., MCKEACHIE, W. J. & BERLINER, D. C. (1990) The multisource nature of learning:an introduction, Review of Educational Research, 60, pp. 509–515.

IRAN-NEJAD, A., CLORE, G. L. & VONDRUSKA, R. J. (1984) Affect: a functional perspective, TheJournal of Mind and Behavior, 5, pp. 279–310.

JOHNSON, M. K. & HASHER, L. (1987) Human learning and memory, Annual Review of Psychology,38, pp. 631–668.

JOHNSTON, S. (1994) Experience is the best teacher; or is it? An analysis of the role of experiencein learning to teach, Journal of Teacher Education, 45, pp. 199–208.

KAGAN, D. M. (1992) Implications of research on teacher beliefs, Educational Psychologist, 27,pp. 65–90.

KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. (1993) Two modes of reflection, Teacher & Teacher Education, 9, pp. 317–326.KORTHAGEN, F. A. J. (1998) Realistic teacher education aims, methods and outcomes. Paper

presented at the joint meeting of EARLI-Sigs: ‘Educating expert minds for the 21st

century’, Leiden, The Netherlands. August 1988.KORTHAGEN, F. & LAGERWERF, B. (1996) Reframing the relationship between teacher thinking and

teacher behaviour: levels in learning about teaching, Teachers and Teaching: Theory andPractice, 2, pp. 161–190.

KREMER-MAYON, L. & TILLEMA, M. N. (1999) Self-regulated learning in the context of teachereducation, Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, pp. 507–522.

KROHNE, H. W., HOCK, M. & KOHLMANN, C. (1992) Coping dispositions, uncertainty andemotional arousal, in: K. T. STRONGMAN (Ed.) International Review of Studies on Emotion,Vol. 2. (Chichester, John Wiley & Sons).

KUBLER LABOSKEY, V. (1993) A conceptual framework for reflection in preservice teachereducation, in: J. CALDERHEAD & P. GATES (Eds) Conceptualizing Reflection in Teacher Develop-ment (London, Falmer Press).

KWAKMAN, K. (1999) Leren van docenten tijdens de beroepsloopbaan. Studies naar profession-aliteit op de werkplek in het voortgezet onderwijs [Teacher learning during the pro-fessional career. Studies on professionalism at the workplace in secondary education].Doctoral dissertation, Nijmegen University, The Netherlands.

LEAT, D., MCMANUS, L., BRAMALD, R. & BAUMFIELD, V. (1995) Learning from classroom experience:Some attributes of successful student teachers. Paper presented at the European Confer-ence on Educational Research, Bath, UK, September.

LORTIE, D. (1975) Schoolteacher: a sociological study (Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press).MARCEL, A. J. (1983) Conscious and unconscious perception: an approach to the relations

between phenomenal experience and perceptual processes, Cognitive Psychology, 12,pp. 238–300.

MARTON, F., DALL’ALBA, G. & BEATY, E. (1993) Conceptions of learning, International Journal ofEducational Research, 19, pp. 277–300.

MCCARTHY, P. & SCHMECK, R. R. (1988) Students’ self-concepts and the quality of learning inpublic schools and universities, in: R. R. SCHMECK (Ed.) Learning Strategies and LearningStyles (New York, Plenum Press).

MCINTYRE, D. J., BYRD, D. M. & FOXx, S. M. (1996) Field and laboratory experiences, in: J. SIKULA

(Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, Vol. 2 (New York, MacMillan).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14


MEIJER, P. (1999) Teachers’ practical knowledge. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University, TheNetherlands.

MUNBY, H. & RUSSELL, T. (1996) Theory follows practice in learning to teach and in research onteaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New York, April.

NETTLE, E. B. (1998) Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practiceteaching, Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, pp. 193–204.

NIAS, J. (1989) Teaching and the self, in: M. L. HOLLY & C. S. MCLOUGHLIN (Eds) Perspectives onTeachers’ Professional Development (London, Falmer Press).

OOSTERHEERT, I. E. (2001) How student teachers learn—a psychological perspective on knowl-edge construction in learning to teach. Doctoral dissertation (with Dutch summary),Groningen University, The Netherlands.

OOSTERHEERT, I. E. & VERMUNT, J. D. (2001) Individual differences in learning to teach—relatingcognition, regulation, and affect, Learning and Instruction, 11(2), pp. 133–156.

OOSTERHEERT, I. E., VERMUNT, J. D & DENESSEN, E. (2002) Assessing orientations to learning toteach, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, pp. 41–64.

POSNER, I. & ROTHBART, M. K. (1992) Attentional mechanisms and conscious experience, in: A. D.MILNER & M. D. RUGG (Eds) The Neuropsychology of Consciousness (London, AcademicPress).

PRAWAT, R. S. (1992) Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist perspective,American Journal of Education, 100(3), pp. 354–395.

PRAWAT, R. S. & FLODEN, R. E. (1994) Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views oflearning, Educational Psychology, 29(1), pp. 37–48.

REYNOLDS, R. E., SINATRA, G. M. & TAMARA, L. J. (1996) Views of knowledge acquisition andrepresentation: a continuum from experience centered to mind centered, EducationalPsychologist, 31, pp. 93–104.

ROGERS, C. R. (1969) Freedom to Learn (Columbus, OH, Merrill Publishing Company).SALOMON, G. & PERKINS, D. (1989) Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanisms of a neclected

phenomenon, Educational Psychologist, 24, pp. 113–142.SCHON, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Franciscom, CA, Jossey-Bass).TANN, S. (1993) Eliciting student teachers’ personal theories, in: J. CALDERHEAD & P. GATES (Eds)

Conceptualizing Reflection in Teacher Development (London, Falmer Press).TILLEMA, H. H. (1995) Changing the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers: a training

study, Learning and Instruction, 5, pp. 291–318.TILLEMA, H. H. (2000) Belief change towards self-directed learning in student teachers: immer-

sion in practice or reflection on action, Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, pp. 575–591.VERMUNT, J. D. (1996) Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and

strategies: a phenomenographic analysis, Higher Education, 31, pp. 25–50.VERMUNT, J. D. (1998) The regulation of constructive learning processes, British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 68, pp. 149–171.VERMUNT, J. D. & VERLOOP, N. (1999) Congruence and friction between learning and teaching,

Learning and Instruction, 9, pp. 257–280.VOSNIADOU, S. (1994) Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change, Learning and

Instruction, 4(1), pp. 45–69.WIDEEN, M., MAYER-SMITH, J. & MOON, B. (1998) A critical analysis of the research on learning to

teach: making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry, Review of EducationalResearch, 68(2), pp. 130–178.

WINNE, P. H. (1995a) Inherent details in self-regulated learning, Educational Psychologist, 30,pp. 173–187.

WINNE, P. H. (1995b) Self-regulation is ubiquitous but its forms vary with knowledge, Educa-tional Psychologist, 30, pp. 223–228.

WUBBELS, T. (1992) Taking account of student teachers’ preconceptions, Teacher and TeacherEducation, 8, pp. 137–149.

ZIMMERMAN, B. J. & SCHUNK, D. H. (1989) Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: theory,research and practice (New York, Springer).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:23

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Knowledge Construction in Learning to Teach: The role of dynamic sources