Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Anadolu University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 06:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20
Assessment preferences, learningorientations, and learning strategies ofpre‐service and in‐service teachersMenucha Birenbaum a & Sarah Rosenau ba Tel Aviv University , Israelb Beit Berl College , IsraelPublished online: 22 Jan 2007.
To cite this article: Menucha Birenbaum & Sarah Rosenau (2006) Assessment preferences, learningorientations, and learning strategies of pre‐service and in‐service teachers, Journal of Educationfor Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 32:2, 213-225
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470600655300
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
Assessment preferences, learning
orientations, and learning strategies of
pre-service and in-service teachers
Menucha Birenbaum*a and Sarah Rosenaub
aTel Aviv University, Israel; bBeit Berl College, Israel
The importance of developing effective learning strategies and motivational beliefs has been widely
acknowledged as a way of meeting the demand to acquire lifelong learning capabilities for
successful functioning as professionals in the ‘information age’. The study reported in this paper
examined the learning orientations and strategies of prospective teachers as well as their
assessment preferences and compared them with those of in-service teachers. The Motivated
Learning Strategies Questionnaire (MSLQ) and the Assessment Preferences Inventory (API) were
used to test the hypothesis that in-service teachers will exhibit a deeper approach to learning and
assessment due to their constant engagement in meaningful learning experiences. The results
confirmed the hypothesis and their implications for teacher education programmes were then
discussed.
Introduction
Being a lifelong learner (LLL) is becoming an essential capability for effective
functioning as a professional in the ‘information age’—an era characterized by the
rapidly increasing amount of human knowledge. In order to become a lifelong
learner one has to acquire strategies that help to regulate one’s learning and to
increase the likelihood of meaningful understanding (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994;
Pintrich, 2000). The need to continue learning throughout life, together with the
increasing availability of technological means for participating in complex networks
of information, resources, and instruction, highly benefit such self-regulated
learners. They can assume more responsibility for their learning by deciding what
they need to learn and how they would like to learn it. With a view to addressing the
importance of learning strategies for effective functioning in this era, some have
recommended one should incorporate effective methods for learning strategy
*Corresponding author. School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel.
Email: [email protected]
Journal of Education for Teaching
Vol. 32, No. 2, May 2006, pp. 213–225
ISSN 0260-7476 (print)/ISSN 1360-0540 (online)/06/020213-13
# 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02607470600655300
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
instruction in pre-service teacher education programmes (Clark, 1993; Duffy, 1993;
Hamman, 1998).
Learning orientations or approaches have long been recognized as a prerequisite
for effective application of learning strategies and as such have been subject to a great
deal of research. Among the various orientations and approaches to learning surface,
deep and achieving approaches have accumulated a substantial body of international
research (Entwistle, 1991). A deep approach to learning is characterized by the
learner’s intention to understand the material to be learnt by applying strategies
such as reading widely, using a variety of resources, discussions, activating prior
knowledge, practicing reflection, etc. A surface approach is indicated by an intention
to reproduce the material to be learnt by means of rote-learning strategies. The
achieving approach (also referred to as the strategic approach) is characterized by an
intention to excel by using highly organized learning processes. As this approach
relates to the particular learning context, whereas the other two approaches relate to
the content of the material, it is possible to have composite approaches of surface
achieving and deep achieving. Another conceptualization of learning orientations
refers to the value and expectancy components of motivation (Pintrich & Schrauben,
1992).
Research has shown that students’ approaches to learning influence their per-
ceptions of the learning environment and are also influenced by them (Entwistle,
1991; Struyven et al., 2003). Studies of pre-service teachers’ approaches to learning
have indicated a troublesome tendency to exhibit a surface approach to learning
(McLendon, 1996; Siu May-Wee & Witkins, 1997; Gordon & Debus, 2002).
Among the practices that were identified in various studies as encouraging such an
approach are: overload of work, assessment processes requiring and rewarding
reproduction of content, poor teaching, poor student–teacher relationships and a
lack of opportunity for self-management (Marton et al., 1984; Ramsden, 1987).
Another correlate of approaches to learning is students’ perceptions about assess-
ment, which refer to opinions, attitudes, and preferences towards the assessment and
its properties. Studies regarding assessment preferences are quite sparse and mainly
focus on the assessment format. In their study of the assessment preferences of pre-
service teachers, Zoller and Ben-Chaim (1988) indicated their tendency to prefer the
types of examination that eased time and memorization pressures. In another study,
high school students exhibited a tendency to prefer the multiple-choice format to the
open-ended one, viewing the former as being significantly easier, less complex and
clearer, more interesting, less tricky and fairer. The multiple-choice format was also
viewed as eliciting higher success expectations, was perceived to be less anxiety
arousing, and made respondents feel more at ease while taking the exam. However, a
majority of the students also thought that essay-type exams better reflected their
knowledge of the exam material than multiple-choice-type exams (Zeidner, 1987).
Results favouring the multiple-choice format were also reported by Anderson (1987)
with respect to university undergraduates. More recent studies extended the scope of
assessment preferences to include non-conventional formats and other features of
the assessment such as student participation and integrated assessment that are
214 M. Birenbaum and S. Rosenau
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
subsumed under the ‘alternative assessment’ umbrella (Birenbaum & Feldman,
1995; Birenbaum, 1997). When asked to express their opinions regarding the
fairness of alternative assessment, students indicated that in this type of assessment
success more fairly depends on consistent application and hard work, rather than on
a last minute burst of effort or sheer luck (Sambell et al., 1997).
Research regarding the association between assessment perceptions and
approaches to learning indicated a reciprocal relationship whereby approaches to
learning influence the way in which students perceive assessment and are also
considerably influenced by them (Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; Struyven et al., 2003).
Students asserted that conventional assessment methods evoke surface learning
whereas alternative assessment methods evoke deep learning, thus affecting the
quality of their learning outcomes (Sambell et al., 1997; Struyven et al., 2003). It is
therefore maintained that deep approaches to learning are encouraged by those
assessment methods and teaching practices that aim at deep learning and conceptual
understanding rather than by using methods that try to discourage surface
approaches to learning (Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; Struyven et al., 2003).
The current study compared in-service and pre-service teachers with respect to
their assessment preferences, as well as their learning orientations and strategies.
Results of such comparisons could inform teaching preparation programmes
regarding their efforts to promote lifelong learning professionals. Due to a paucity
of research on this particular topic, we have relied on literature about expert and
novice teachers in formulating our hypothesis that in-service teachers will exhibit a
more enhanced learning profile with respect to the three constructs under
investigation.
Research on expertise in several domains, including the domain of teaching, has
demonstrated qualitative differences between experts and novices in knowledge,
thinking, orientations and actions. Experts, compared to novices, were found to
represent problems differently (Hardimam et al., 1989; Hogan et al., 2003) and to
employ different strategies to solve them (Chi et al., 1988). Likewise, studies
regarding expertise in teaching have demonstrated qualitative differences in how
expert and novice teachers organize knowledge and how they use this knowledge to
solve problems (Wade, 1998). It is argued that expert teachers have well developed
and easily accessible schemata of teaching whereas the cognitive schema of novice
teachers is less elaborate, interconnected and accessible (see, for example, Berliner,
1991). Development of teaching expertise is attributed, at least partially, to constant
engagement in reflection (in action, of action and for action), in analysing teaching–
learning interactions, in pedagogical reasoning, and in other thinking activities (see
Schon, 1987). Such experiences enhance teachers’ abilities to assess situations and
make thoughtful, rational decisions and to recognize meaningful patterns of
information (Banier & Cantrell, 1993).
Opportunities for professional development in addition to learning from one’s
own experience through action research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993) are
available to in-service teachers through peer interactions in formal and informal
settings, through formal mentoring, professional workshops, and graduate studies as
Comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers 215
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
well as through membership in extended communities of practice (Wenger et al.,
2002). Learning in these settings engages in-service teachers in continuous analysis
of their practices through collaborative group work, shared experiences, discourse
around shared texts and data about student learning. Such learning contexts provide
opportunities for in-service teachers to practice extensive reflection analysis and
synthesis of information, problem-solving and other higher-order thinking skills. In
these processes professional knowledge is used, transformed, enhanced and attuned
to specific situations (Bullough & Baughman, 1995; Bransford et al., 2000). It is
therefore argued that such learning opportunities have the potential of improving
learning strategies, promoting a deep learning approach and consequently affecting
assessment preferences.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 360 participants of whom 180 were pre-service teachers
(163 females and 17 males) from two major teachers colleges in Israel (33 in their
first year of study, 72 in the second year, 32 in the third year an 43 in the fourth year)
and 180 in-service teachers (168 females and 12 males). Their years of teaching
experience ranged from two to 32 with a mean of 13.25 years and a standard
deviation of 7.49. At the time of the study all teachers attended the same two
teachers colleges for in-service training.
Instruments
Participants were administered the research instruments in pedagogy-related
courses. Approaches to learning, referring to learning orientations and strategies,
were measured by the Motivated Learning Strategies Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich
et al., 1991). The MSLQ is a self-report instrument originally designed to assess
college students’ motivational orientations and their use of different learning
strategies in a college course. The construct validity of this measure was confirmed
in a study of pre-service teachers (McClendon, 1996).
The MSLQ comprises 81 Likert-type items on a 7-point scale where 15not at all
true of me, and 75very true of me. The questionnaire consists of two sections:
motivation and learning strategies. The motivation section comprises 31 items that
assess students’ goals and value beliefs for a course, their beliefs about their skills to
succeed in this course and their test anxiety. The learning strategy section comprises
31 items regarding students’ use of different cognitive and metacognitive strategies,
and 19 items concerning their management of resources. A comparison of the scales’
inter-correlations between an Israeli sample and the USA sample as reported in the
MSLQ manual (Pintrich et al., 1991) indicates a similar pattern (Birenbaum &
Hativa, 1995). Table 1 lists the MSLQ scales and their internal consistencies as
measured by Cronbach’s alpha for the entire sample as well as for the two sub-
samples of in-service and pre-service teachers.
216 M. Birenbaum and S. Rosenau
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Preferences in assessment were measured using the Assessment Preference Inventory
(API) (Birenbaum, 1994). The API is a 5-point Likert-type questionnaire containing
items referring to three content dimensions: assessment form-related dimensions,
examinee-related dimensions, and grading and recording. These dimensions were
identified on the basis of a 22-facet mapping sentence describing the assessment
domain, which included elements of traditional as well as alternative assess-
ment praxis. (For the mapping sentence see Birenbaum, 1994.) Each item was
rated on a 5-point scale indicating the extent to which the student would like to
be assessed in that manner, where 15to a very small extent and 55to a very large
extent. For the purposes of this research the following five scales of the inventory were
used:
1. Higher-order thinking tasks (HOT) (12 items). Included in this scale are items
such as: ‘Questions that require an overall view of the relations among all topics
learned’; ‘Questions that require creativity and imagination’; ‘Questions that
Table 1. Scale range, number of items, and reliability coefficients (cornbach’s alpha)
Scale Number of
items
Cronbach a
Total sample In-service Pre-service
MSLQ
Motivation
Intrinsic goal orientation 4 0.59 0.57 0.59
Extrinsic goal orientation 4 0.65 0.64 0.66
Task value 6 0.91 0.91 0.91
Control beliefs 4 0.51 0.53 0.52
Self-efficacy 8 0.87 0.87 0.86
Test anxiety 5 0.74 0.74 0.73
Cognitive & metacognitve
Rehearsal 4 0.62 0.57 0.65
Elaboration 6 0.77 0.73 0.77
Organization 4 0.60 0.56 0.63
Critical thinking 5 0.81 0.77 0.83
Metacognitive self-regulation 12 0.62 0.64 0.58
Resource management
Time & study environment 8 0.58 0.60 0.56
Effort regulation 4 0.38 0.34 0.42
Peer learning 3 0.61 0.61 0.63
Help seeking 4 0.57 0.53 0.60
Assessment preferences—IPQ
Student participation 8 0.85 0.86 0.83
Higher-order thinking tasks 12 0.89 0.88 0.90
Guided test preparation 4 0.83 0.84 0.80
Integrated assessment 7 0.76 0.78 0.78
Non-conventional assessment 5 0.56 0.54 0.58
Note. MSLQ scale range 1–7; IPQ scale range 1–5.
Comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers 217
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
require a personal explanation or opinion’; ‘Questions in which you are asked to
evaluate others’ solutions or opinions’.
2. Non-conventional assessment (NCA) (five items). This scale refers to alterna-
tive assessment types such as portfolios, group projects, etc.
3. Integrated assessment (IA) (seven items). Examples of items in this scale are: ‘The
instructor refers in his/her assessment not only to the final product but also to
the process, which you would be expected to document’; ‘Assesses, as part of
the grade, the amount of interest you exhibited’; ‘Assesses, as part of the grade,
the amount of effort you invested in coping with the material’; ‘Your
achievements to be assessed by a variety of tasks of different types’.
4. Student participation or responsibility with respect to assessment (SP) (eight items).
Included in this scale are items such as: ‘The instructor takes into consideration
your self-assessment of your progress and achievements in the course’; ‘Allows
you to choose the evidence that, in your opinion, reflects your achievements in
the course, and according to which a grade should be determined’; ‘To be given
the opportunity of being involved in the setting of demands/standards for
achievement assessment’.
5. Teacher guided test preparation (TP) (four items). Included in this scale are items
such as: ‘At the beginning of the course the instructor hands out a detailed
description of the way your achievements will be assessed’; ‘The instructor
clarifies what will be on the test and how to prepare for it’.
Table 1 presents the internal consistencies for the five API scales as measured by
Cronbach’s alpha for the entire sample as well as for the two sub-samples of in-
service and pre-service teachers.
Findings
Comparisons between the samples of in-service and pre-service teachers with res-
pect to learning orientations, learning strategies, and assessment preferences are
presented in Table 2. As can be seen in the table, three of the orientation
components yielded significant t-values: in-service teachers scored higher on intrinsic
goal orientation and self-efficacy whereas pre-service teachers scored higher on test
anxiety. A discriminate analysis between the two samples on the learning orientation
set of variables explained 9% of the variance (Wilks lambda50.91; p,0.0001). The
dominant structure coefficients (larger than 0.30) in the discriminatory function
were self-efficacy, test anxiety and intrinsic goal orientation (0.78, 20.60, and 0.53,
respectively). The centroids for the in-service and the pre-service groups were 0.32
and 20.32, respectively. Five of the cognitive and metacognitive strategy com-
ponents yielded significant t-values: in-service teachers scored higher on elaboration,
organization, critical thinking and metacogntive self-regulation whereas pre-service
teachers scored higher on rehearsal. A discriminant analysis between the two samples
on the cognitive and metacognitive set of variables explained 10% of the variance
(Wilks lambda50.90; p,0.0001). The dominant structure coefficients were
elaboration, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation, organization and rehearsal
218 M. Birenbaum and S. Rosenau
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
(0.66, 0.63, 0.53 0.34 and 20.32, respectively). The centroids for the in-service and
the pre-service groups were 0.34 and 20.34, respectively. Only one variable of
the resource management strategies yielded a significant difference (yet of low
magnitude) between the two groups: pre-service teachers scored higher on help
seeking. A discriminant analysis on this set of variables failed to reach significance.
Two of the assessment variables yielded significant t-values: in-service teachers
scored higher on higher-order thinking tasks whereas pre-service teachers scored
higher on guided test preparation. A discriminate analysis between the two samples on
the assessment preferences set of variables explained 5% of the variance (Wilks
lambda50.95; p,0.0001). The dominant structure coefficients were high-order
thinking tasks and guided test preparation (0.75, and 20.69, respectively). The
centroids for the in-service and the pre-service groups were 0.22 and 20.22,
Table 2. Comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers on assessment preferences and
learning orientations and strategies: means, standard deviation, t-values and effect size (d) values
Variable In-service (n5180) Pre-service (n5180) t-value d-value
M SD M SD
MSLQ
Motivation
Intrinsic goal orientation 5.87 0.86 5.57 0.94 3.23*** 0.33
Extrinsic goal orientation 4.17 1.25 4.31 1.34 21.04 0.11
Task value 5.67 1.14 5.56 1.24 0.84 0.09
Control beliefs 5.42 0.97 5.34 0.99 0.78 0.08
Self-efficacy 5.96 0.75 5.54 0.86 4.82*** 0.49
Test anxiety 3.28 1.30 3.79 1.36 23.68*** 0.38
Cognitive & metacognitive
Rehearsal 4.24 1.21 4.52 1.33 22.08* 0.22
Elaboration 5.51 0.98 5.01 1.22 4.25*** 0.45
Organization 5.25 1.16 4.96 1.34 2.16* 0.23
Critical thinking 4.62 1.23 4.05 1.46 4.02*** 0.42
Metacognitive self-regulation 4.93 0.73 4.67 0.76 3.38*** 0.35
Resource management
Time & study environment 5.17 0.87 5.03 0.87 1.60 0.08
Effort regulation 5.32 0.95 5.25 1.03 0.67 0.07
Peer learning 3.80 1.47 3.92 1.52 20.81 0.08
Help seeking 4.26 1.18 4.54 1.27 22.15* 0.23
Assessment preferences—IPQ
Student participation 3.67 0.91 3.74 0.91 20.74 0.08
Higher-order thinking tasks 3.53 0.78 3.23 0.89 3.37*** 0.36
Guided test preparation 4.43 0.82 4.67 0.59 23.13** 0.34
Integrated assessment 3.86 0.77 3.80 0.85 0.76 0.07
Non-conventional assessment 3.91 0.75 3.90 0.80 0.11 0.01
*p,0. 05; **p,0.01; ***p,0.001.
Note. MSLQ scale range 1–7; IPQ scale range 1–5.
Comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers 219
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
respectively. The effect size (d) values for all the significant differences ranged from
0.2 to 0.5 standard deviations, which according to Cohen (1988) are within the low
(0.2) and medium (0.5) levels of magnitude.
Pearson product moment correlations between the learning-related variables
(orientations, strategies and assessment preferences) and years of teaching experi-
ence (in the in-service group) and years of study (in the pre-service group) were
computed. Six of the 20 computed correlations reached significance in the teacher
sample, but only one (elaboration) yielded a coefficient (r50.23; p,0.002) that com-
plied with the criterion of a pre-specified alpha level (per experiment) of 0.0025. At
the pre-service group three correlations reached significance, with only one (self-
efficacy) yielding a coefficient (r50.25; p,0.001) that complied with the criterion.
Discussion and conclusions
The results of the current study indicate that the average in-service teacher is better
equipped for lifelong learning than the average pre-service teacher. With regard to
learning orientations, in-service teachers were shown to have significantly higher
intrinsic goal orientation and self-efficacy—the respective components of the value
and expectancy dimensions of learning motivation. Drawing on the framework for
explaining the development of teaching expertise, we speculate that because in-
service teachers have more opportunities than pre-service teachers for meaningful
learning on their job, they develop a deeper approach to learning.
The significantly higher test anxiety of pre-service teachers, as compared with in-
service teachers, can be interpreted in the framework of test anxiety theory.
According to the deficit model of test anxiety, high test-anxious students have
ineffective study habits and suffer from difficulties in encoding and organizing the
material. They appear most deficient at the level of self-monitoring and as a result
have little to retrieve during the test (Covington & Omelich, 1987). The awareness
of being unprepared for the test causes their high test anxiety but the direct cause of
their poor performance is their lack of mastery of the learning material rather than
these associated feelings of anxiety (Tobias, 1985). More recent research that
addressed the relationships between test anxiety, learning strategies, learning
orientations and assessment preferences has lent support to the assertion that a
deeper approach to learning, better learning strategies and preferences for more
challenging assessment tasks are associated with lower levels of test anxiety
(Birenbaum & Feldman, 1998).
With regard to learning strategies, in-service teachers were shown to have better
elaboration, critical thinking, and metacognitive self-regulation strategies, as com-
pared with pre-service teachers. This finding can also be attributed to the more
intensive engagement of in-service teachers in meaningful learning experiences. This
finding is in accordance with in-service teachers’ higher preference for tasks
involving higher-order thinking, which supports Struyven and her colleagues’ (2003)
assertion that learners’ perceptions about assessment have an important influence on
their approaches to learning.
220 M. Birenbaum and S. Rosenau
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
The findings that years of experience in teaching and years of study in teacher
education programme have a negligible effect on learning orientations, strategies and
assessment preferences are supported, at least in part, by previous research. Based
on her findings that opinions about testing of in-service and pre-service teachers are
not dependent on years of study or years of experience, respectively, Green (1992)
concluded that ‘[t]he shift in opinion seems to occur when beginning a teaching
position, suggesting effects that result from job requirements or socialization as a
teacher more than from a developmental trend’ (p. 40).
The question then arises as to how to close the gap in learning orientations,
strategies and preferences for assessment between in-service and pre-service
teachers. The key to the answer seems to lie in the learning environment offered
in teaching preparation programmes. The typical learning environment offered in
these programmes has been widely criticized for lack of coherence, teamwork,
constructivist-based praxis, and for valuing breadth over depth. It is often pointed
out that pre-service education programmes consist of collections of disjointed
courses including subject matter courses, a series of theoretical foundational courses,
method courses and field experience (Goodlad, 1990). It was also argued that
students in such programmes are mainly taught in a traditional manner, with little
ongoing communication among each other and that they rarely have a chance for
cooperative learning. In fact, students in such programmes tend to complain that the
courses are ‘too theoretical’ and have no bearing on what real teachers do in real
classrooms. They also complain that method courses are time consuming and lack
intellectual substance (Bransford et al., 2000). In line with this criticism and the
finding of the current study, it can be concluded that modifications to the typical
learning environments in teacher preparation programmes are highly desired.
Research on attempts to modify learning environments in teacher preparation
programmes has indicated significant effects on students’ personal approaches to
learning and consequently on their learning outcomes (Dart & Clarke, 1991; Biggs,
2003). Most modifications aim at promoting the use of deep approaches to learning.
One such modification is reported by Dart and Clarke (1991). Their intervention
centred on students’ responsibility for their own learning and on the teacher’s role in
mediating students’ construction of meaning. They exposed their students to a
variety of learning experiences: negotiation of the curriculum, peer discussions and
teaching, self-, peer, and collaborative assessment, and ongoing critical reflection on
the learning experiences. The final evaluation of this intervention indicated several
benefits: students became intrinsically interested in the content of the course (deep
motive); chose to engage in learning activities in an organized way (achieving
strategy); exhibited a desire to understand the use of appropriate learning strategies
(deep approach) and maximized their chance of achieving organized and efficient
learning methods (deep achieving approach). Results also indicated that students
improved their skills of self-management in learning, their organizational skills
developed, and their feelings of self-efficacy increased.
In their attempt to promote the use of deep approaches within the pre-service
teacher education context, Gordon and Debus (2002) suggested modifications in
Comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers 221
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
teaching learning and assessment methods, which engaged students in cooperative
learning, reflective journal writing, and exposure to personal theories of learning.
Assessment procedures shifted away from traditional examinations to alternative
assessment procedures such as performance tasks, written reports and presentations.
Regular feedback that addressed students’ learning approach was found to influence
their self-evaluation and self-monitoring. Other benefits of the intervention included
improvement in students’ problem-solving capabilities, in the quality of their
learning outcomes, and in their approaches to learning.
The potential of a modification to the assessment requirements for improving
students’ approach to learning is implied in a study by Brownlee and her colleagues
(2003) who investigated student teachers’ knowledge about the nature of their own
learning and the changes in such knowledge over a year. The results of their study
indicated an association between the use of transformative approaches to learning
and assessment requirements, leading the researchers to conclude that ‘assessment
could be considered to help students to bring into focus transformative knowledge
about learning, with implications for promoting transformative learning approaches’
(p. 123). This conclusion is in line with the assertion of Gielen and her colleagues
(2000) that new modes of assessment have a positive influence on students’
motivation and stimulate the use of advanced cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
It can therefore be concluded that enabling teachers to become self-regulated
lifelong learning professionals requires a continuum of coordinated efforts that range
from pre-service education to in-service professional development (Bransford et al.,
2000). Furthermore, teacher education programmes ought to offer their students
opportunities for meaningful learning by facilitating interaction between theory and
practice, analysis of personal beliefs and theoretical constructs in order to develop
the ability to become mindful learners (Jay, 1999). The results of the current study
seem to support the claim that student teachers enter teacher education programmes
with entry learning dispositions based mainly on their own experiences as students,
generally captured in conservative and traditional views of education where learning
processes are considered as passive and transmissive. It is therefore recommended
that pre-service teachers be encouraged to review their own approaches to learning
before they engage in teaching others.
To those who might argue that the deep learning approach as well as the aligned
assessment mode, addressed in our discussion, are not necessarily required for the
acquisition of a teaching skill (which like any other skill, as opposed to concepts, is in
some sense tacitly acquired) we would like to respond by quoting the following
conclusions drawn by Gliessman and Pugh (1994) regarding the relationships
between concept and skill in a teacher training setting: ‘[S]kill acquisition in a
training setting is mediated by concept leaning’ (p. 211); ‘cognitive processes are
fundamental in the development of teaching skills through training’ (p. 215). These
conclusions, which are in line with the cognitive learning paradigm, also imply that
teaching skills can, at least in part, be overtly assessed using a reflective journal.
Indeed, this tool has been utilized in teaching as well as in other professional training
programmes (Wong et al., 1995; Birenbaum & Amdur, 1999; Zimet et al., 1999).
222 M. Birenbaum and S. Rosenau
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
To summarize, the results of the current study imply that a shift is required within
typical teacher education programmes towards better equipping prospective teachers
with the necessary competencies for becoming self-regulated lifelong learning
professionals. Taking into account the limitation of the current study, which was not
designed to relate learning approaches to characteristics of learning environments,
we recommend that further studies focus on these relationships. This can be done by
using mixed methods to investigate teacher education programmes that differ in
their instruction–learning–assessment culture and compare their students’ learning
orientations, learning strategies, and assessment preferences in order to better
understand how to design effective modifications to existing programmes. We also
recommend that longitudinal studies are required that will follow in-service teachers
along their preparation programme and through their transition to the job in order to
understand when and why changes in the learning patterns occur. It would also be
interesting to follow students in other professional preparation programmes and
compare their developmental trends with those of pre-service teachers. The results
of such studies could help improve teacher preparation programmes by empowering
pre-service teachers in the process of becoming lifelong learning professionals.
References
Anderson, P. S. (1987) Comparison of student attitudes about seven formats of educational
testing, with emphasis on the MDT Multi-Digit Testing technique, paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL (ERIC
Document ED 295999).
Banier, D. & Cantrell, D. (1993) The relationship between instructional domain and the content
of reflection among prospective teachers, Teacher Education Quarterly, 20, 65–76.
Berliner, D. C. (1991) Educational psychology and pedagogical expertise: new findings and new
opportunities for thinking about training, Educational Psychologist, 26(2), 145–155.
Biggs, J. B. (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd edn) (Buckingham, The Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press).
Birenbaum, M. (1994) Toward adaptive assessment—the student’s angle, Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 20, 239–255.
Birenbaum, M. (1997) Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and
orientations, Higher Education, 33, 71–84.
Birenbaum, M. & Amdur, L. (1999) Reflective learning in a graduate course on assessment,
Higher Education Research and Development, 18, 201–218.
Birenbaum, M. & Feldman, R. A. (1995) Relationships between learning patterns and attitudes
towards two assessment formats, Educational Research, 40(1), 90–97.
Birenbaum, M. & Hativa, N. (1995) Relationships between students’ orientations and strategies, and
their teaching preferences in two academic disciplines, research report SP-03-94-5 (Tel Aviv,
School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Israel).
Bransford, J. D., Brown, L. A. & Cocking, R. R. (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experience
and school (Washington, DC, National Academy Press).
Brownlee, J., Purdie, N. & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2003) An investigation of student teachers’
knowledge about their own learning, Higher Education, 45(1), 109–125.
Bullough, R. V. & Baughman, K. (1995) Changing contexts and expertise in teaching: first-year
teacher after seven years, Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 461–477.
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R. & Farr, M. (1988) The nature of expertise (Hillsdale, NJ, Earlbaum).
Comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers 223
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Clark, F. L. (1993) Preparing teachers to implement strategy instruction, Preventing School Failure,
38(1), 50–53.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993) Inside/outside: teacher research and knowledge (New York,
Teachers College).
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn) (Hillsdale, NJ,
Earlbaum).
Covington, M. V. & Omelich, C. L. (1987) I knew it cold before the exam: a test of the anxiety-
blockage hypothesis, Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 393–400.
Dart, B. C. & Clarke, J. A. (1991) Helping students become better learners: a case study in teacher
education, Higher Education, 22, 317–335.
Duffy, G. G. (1993) Teachers’ progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers, The Elementary
School Journal, 94, 109–120.
Entwistle, N. J. (1991) Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment.
Introduction to the special issue, Higher Education, 22, 201–204.
Gielen, S., Dochy, F. & Dierick, S. (2000) Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of
assessment: the influence of assessment on learning including pre-, post-, and true
assessment effects, in: M. Segers, F. Dochy & E. Cascallar (Eds) Optimizing new modes of
assessment: in search of qualities and standards (Dordrecht, Kluwer), 37–54.
Gliessman, D. H. & Pugh, R. C. (1994) Concept and skill relationships in a teacher training
setting, Journal of Educational Research, 87(4), 211–219.
Goodlad, J. (1990) Teachers for our nation’s schools (San Francisco, Jossey Bass).
Gordon, C. & Debus, R. (2002) Developing deep approaches and personal teaching efficacy
within a pre-service teacher education context, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
483–511.
Green, K. E. (1992) Differing opinions on testing between pre-service and in-service teachers,
Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 37–43.
Hamman, D. (1998) Pre-service teachers’ value for learning-strategy instruction, Journal of
Experimental Education, 66(3), 209–221.
Hardimam, P. T., Durfrense, R. & Mestre, J. P. (1989) The relation between problem
categorization and problem solving among experts and novices, Memory and Cognition, 17,
627–638.
Hogan, T., Rabinowitz, M. & Craven, J. A. (2003) Representation in teaching: inferences from
research of expert and novice teachers, Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235–247.
Jay, J. K. (1999) Untying the knots: examining the complexities of reflective practice, paper
presented at the annual meeting of American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
Washington, DC.
Marton, D., Hounsell, N. & Entwistle, N. (Eds) (1984) The experience of learning (Edinburgh,
Scottish Academic Press).
McClendon, R. C. (1996) Motivation and cognition of pre-service teachers: MSLQ, Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 23, 216–221.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000) The role of orientation in self-regulated learning, in: M. Boekaerts,
P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds) Handbook of self-regulation (San Diego CA, Academic
Press).
Pintrich, P. R. & Schrauben, B. (1992) Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive
engagement in classroom academic tasks, in: D. H. Schunk & J. Meec (Eds) Students’
perceptions in the classroom (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. J. (1991) A manual for the use of the
motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) (Ann Arbor, MI, National Center for
Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning).
Ramsden, P. (1987) Improving teaching and learning in higher education: the case for relational
perspective, Studies in Higher Education, 12, 275–286.
224 M. Birenbaum and S. Rosenau
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Sambell, K., McDowell, L. & Brown, S. (1997) ‘But is it fair?’: an exploratory study of student
perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment, Studies in Educational Evaluation,
23(4), 349–371.
Schon, D. A. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner (San Francisco, Jossey Bass).
Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds) (1994) Self-regulation of learning and performance: issues
and educational applications (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).
Siu May-Wee, L. & Witkins, D. (1997) Pre-service teachers’ approaches to learning and
conceptions of teaching, paper presented at the 7th European Conference for Research on
Learning and Instruction, Athens, Greece, 26–30 August.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F. & Janssens, S. (2003) Students’ perceptions about new modes of
assessment in higher education: a review, in: M. Segers, F. Dochy & E. Cascallar (Eds)
Optimizing new modes of assessment: in search of qualities and standards (Dordrecht, Kluwer),
171–223.
Tobias, S. (1985) Test anxiety: interference, defective skills, and cognitive capacity, Educational
Psychologist, 20, 135–142.
Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991) Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes
at the course level, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265–275.
Wade, S. (1998) In search of expert teacher: an analysis of literature in relation to expertise in
adult teaching, with reference to similar work undertaken by nursing, Teaching in Higher
Education, 3(1), 91–102.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. M. (2002) Cultivating communities of practice (Boston,
MA, Harvard Business School Press).
Wong, F. K. Y., Kember, D., Chung, L. Y. F. & Yan, L. (1995) Assessing the level of student
reflection from reflective journals, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 48–57.
Zeidner, M. (1987) Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: the student’s perspective,
Journal of Educational Research, 80, 352–258.
Zimet, G., Rosenau, S. & Verner, S. (1999) Activity journal—a tool for developing and assessing
professional reflective thinking, in: M. Birenbaum (Ed.) Mindful assessment form theory to
practice [Tel Aviv: Ramot] (in Hebrew), 289–325.
Zoller, U. & Ben-Chaim, D. (1988) Interaction between examination-type anxiety state, and
academic achievement in college science: an action-oriented research, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 26, 65–77.
Comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers 225
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ana
dolu
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
6:11
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
