Common use of Conclusions and Discussion Clause in Contracts

Conclusions and Discussion. To answer our central research question, What perspectives do teachers in upper secondary and higher education have on self-regulated learning?, we identified, as a result of the analysis of the interviews, four perspectives: meaning-oriented and loose regulation, meaning-oriented and strong regulation, knowledge-oriented and loose regulation, and knowledge-oriented and strong regulation. It is remarkable that teachers from both secondary schools and university were found in each perspective. Another finding was that the different disciplines taught by the teachers were represented in every perspective. Furthermore, teachers in the perspectives characterized by loose regulation were somewhat younger on average and less experienced on average than the teachers in the perspectives characterized by strong regulation (see also Table 5). A comparison can be made between the outcomes of our study and the results obtained by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2002), who made a distinction between a narrow and a broad view on learning to learn. In Waeytens’ broad view, many elements can be found which are similar to those in our ‘meaning-loose’ perspective (1): the elements of task conception, where learning to learn is important, and the learner as the one responsible for many learning activities, and the capability of students. The narrow view has many elements in common with our ‘knowledge- strong’ perspective (4): a task conception where transferring information is important and the teacher is the one in control of most instructional activities. Differences between these two studies concern the two additional perspectives we found. This may be a result of the analysis, in which we introduced ‘regulation’ as a part of our own framework to analyze teachers’ perspectives. In the study by Bolhuis and Voeten (2004), traditional and process- oriented conceptions were distinguished. Unlike these researchers, we did not find mainly process-oriented views, e.g., with the focus mainly on learner regulation and knowledge as actively constructed by the learner. The majority of the teachers in our study appeared to have a knowledge-oriented view and about half of the teachers saw regulation as the teachers’ responsibility. Both these characteristics seem to fit better with a traditional conception than with a process-oriented view. This difference may be related to the instruments used to measure teachers’ conceptions. In Bolhuis’ study, a closed questionnaire was used in which every item consisted of two ‘opposite’ statements, whereas an open instrument was used in this study. Another explanation may be the different samples: in Bolhuis’ study 260 secondary teachers were investigated while 36 secondary and university teachers were involved in our study. In most studies of teachers’ conceptions, one dimension is identified which ranges from knowledge transmission to student understanding/conceptual change. In our study, we found a similar dimension, which is reflected in the names of the ‘knowledge-oriented’ or ‘meaning-oriented’ perspectives. We also found an extra dimension, however, because we focused on perspectives on self- regulated learning. Different views of regulation appeared to lead to a further distinction between the knowledge-oriented and meaning-oriented groups. Strong and loose regulation both combined with knowledge-orientedness as well as with meaning-orientedness, resulting in four perspectives. Our findings seem to indicate that, unlike the view put forward in the literature, knowledge- orientedness and teacher-centeredness do not always go together; loose regulation in combination with an orientation to knowledge also appears to be possible. On the other hand, meaning-orientedness appears to exist in combination with strong regulation. The perspectives identified in the present study can be characterized in terms of their content, or what intentions, beliefs, and actions are part of each perspective, as discussed above. Another way is to look at the organization of each perspective, or the internal consistency (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1992): if there is a (theoretically) expected connection between intentions, beliefs, and (perceived) actions within a perspective, then the perspective is called consistent. For example, in perspective 1, a connection between intentions, beliefs, and actions as theoretically expected can be found, since teachers with this perspective believe learning is about developing understanding, and, consequently, students are given room to direct their own learning, either together with the teacher or alone. In contrast, in perspective 2, although learning is focused on developing meaning, it is the teacher who regulates students’ cognitive activities. However, one would expect a stronger focus on student-regulated activities, and more room for the students to be able to develop meaning and translate insights they have gained by learning. Both this perspective (2; ‘meaning- strong’ ) and perspective 3 (‘knowledge-loose’) seem to be less consistent because beliefs, intentions, and actions are found in an unexpected combination. The character of belief systems in general may explain these combinations. A belief system consists of belief substructures which are not always connected to other belief substructures (Green, 1971; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1992). As a result, unexpected combinations between belief elements or substructures may be created. Another explanation may be that these perspectives are ‘in transition’, like the intermediate conception in Kember’s model (1997), which is thought to be a bridge to student-centeredness and conceptual change. We emphasized in the introduction to this chapter that it is important for teachers’ perspectives to be in line with educational innovations. Our findings seem to indicate that the meaning- oriented / loose regulation perspective connects best to the present ideas for innovation in Dutch secondary education. The meaning-oriented / strong regulation and knowledge- oriented / loose regulation perspectives both have some elements of this innovation, but the knowledge-oriented / strong regulation perspective is not in line with the innovation. This finding suggests that the implementation of self-regulated learning is problematic because a group of teachers is not convinced of its importance. One solution may be to invest in additional training for teachers, although the literature indicates that a change of perspectives is difficult to achieve (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1992). Another possibility is to make teachers’ perspectives the starting point for making adjustments to the innovation (Verloop, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, & Meijer, 2001). On the basis of the results of this study, it is not possible to make a generalization to the whole population of Dutch secondary and university teachers, because our sample consisted of a small number of schools and various universities. A large- scale study is needed to investigate whether the four above-mentioned perspectives can be found in the whole of the population. Other aspects worth investigating are the influence of the subject matter taught, gender, the culture of the (research) group teachers belong to, and biographical factors on the perspectives of both groups of teachers. It would also be worthwhile to investigate how these perspectives are related to teacher behavior in everyday practice, and how students perceive different teachers. A breed apart? A comparison of secondary and university teachers’ perspectives on self-regulated learning7 Abstract Teachers’ perspectives in secondary and higher education have been investigated separately up till now, probably owing to the differences expected between these two groups of teachers. In this study, similarities and differences between secondary and university teachers’ perspectives on self-regulated learning were investigated using semi-structured interviews. The purpose of this study was to improve understanding of the problematic transition of students from secondary to higher education. Thirty-six secondary and university teachers from different disciplines were interviewed with the aim of describing the variety in their perspectives. Diverse metaphors about teaching and learning were presented to the teachers during the interviews with the assumption that this would encourage explication of beliefs. A qualitative analysis of the interview protocols resulted in a codebook with six themes, each containing up to seven categories of description of the variation within each theme. The themes found in the analysis were goals, learning, characteristics of the learning process, students, regulation, and instructional activities. All themes and most categories of description were found in both groups of teachers. The differences found could be related to a focus on either the learner or the content. University teachers tend to be focused more on the variety in content and secondary teachers more on the variety between students. The results of this study can make both secondary and higher education teachers aware of their own and other teachers’ perspectives and the possible influence on students learning and adaptation in higher education, for instance in pre-service and in-service courses.

Conclusions and Discussion. To answer our central research question, What perspectives do teachers in upper secondary and higher education have on self-regulated learning?, we identified, as a result of the analysis of the interviews, four perspectives: meaning-oriented and loose regulation, meaning-oriented and strong regulation, knowledge-oriented and loose regulation, and knowledge-oriented and strong regulation. It is remarkable that teachers from both secondary schools and university were found in each perspective. Another finding was that the different disciplines taught by the teachers were represented in every perspective. Furthermore, teachers in the perspectives characterized by loose regulation were somewhat younger on average and less experienced on average than the teachers in the perspectives characterized by strong regulation (see also Table 5). A comparison can be made between the outcomes of our study and the results obtained by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2002), who made a distinction between a narrow and a broad view on learning to learn. In Waeytens’ ' broad view, many elements can be found which are similar to those in our ‘meaning-loose’ ' perspective (1): the elements of task conception, where learning to learn is important, and the learner as the one responsible for many learning activities, and the capability of students. The narrow view has many elements in common with our ‘knowledge- strong’ ' perspective (4): a task conception where transferring information is important and the teacher is the one in control of most instructional activities. Differences between these two studies concern the two additional perspectives we found. This may be a result of the analysis, in which we introduced ‘regulation’ ' as a part of our own framework to analyze teachers’ ' perspectives. In the study by Bolhuis and Voeten (2004), traditional and process- oriented conceptions were distinguished. Unlike these researchers, we did not find mainly process-oriented views, e.g., with the focus mainly on learner regulation and knowledge as actively constructed by the learner. The majority of the teachers in our study appeared to have a knowledge-oriented view and about half of the teachers saw regulation as the teachers’ ' responsibility. Both these characteristics seem to fit better with a traditional conception than with a process-oriented view. This difference may be related to the instruments used to measure teachers’ ' conceptions. In Bolhuis’ ' study, a closed questionnaire was used in which every item consisted of two ‘opposite’ ' statements, whereas an open instrument was used in this study. Another explanation may be the different samples: in Bolhuis’ ' study 260 secondary teachers were investigated while 36 secondary and university teachers were involved in our study. In most studies of teachers’ ' conceptions, one dimension is identified which ranges from knowledge transmission to student understanding/conceptual change. In our study, we found a similar dimension, which is reflected in the names of the ‘knowledge-oriented’ ' or ‘meaning-oriented’ ' perspectives. We also found an extra dimension, however, because we focused on perspectives on self- regulated learning. Different views of regulation appeared to lead to a further distinction between the knowledge-oriented and meaning-oriented groups. Strong and loose regulation both combined with knowledge-orientedness as well as with meaning-orientedness, resulting in four perspectives. Our findings seem to indicate that, unlike the view put forward in the literature, knowledge- orientedness and teacher-centeredness do not always go together; loose regulation in combination with an orientation to knowledge also appears to be possible. On the other hand, meaning-orientedness appears to exist in combination with strong regulation. The perspectives identified in the present study can be characterized in terms of their content, or what intentions, beliefs, and actions are part of each perspective, as discussed above. Another way is to look at the organization of each perspective, or the internal consistency (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1992): if there is a (theoretically) expected connection between intentions, beliefs, and (perceived) actions within a perspective, then the perspective is called consistent. For example, in perspective 1, a connection between intentions, beliefs, and actions as theoretically expected can be found, since teachers with this perspective believe learning is about developing understanding, and, consequently, students are given room to direct their own learning, either together with the teacher or alone. In contrast, in perspective 2, although learning is focused on developing meaning, it is the teacher who regulates students’ ' cognitive activities. However, one would expect a stronger focus on student-regulated activities, and more room for the students to be able to develop meaning and translate insights they have gained by learning. Both this perspective (2; ‘meaning- strong’ ' ) and perspective 3 (‘knowledge-loose’') seem to be less consistent because beliefs, intentions, and actions are found in an unexpected combination. The character of belief systems in general may explain these combinations. A belief system consists of belief substructures which are not always connected to other belief substructures (Green, 1971; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1992). As a result, unexpected combinations between belief elements or substructures may be created. Another explanation may be that these perspectives are ‘in transition’', like the intermediate conception in Kember’s 's model (1997), which is thought to be a bridge to student-centeredness and conceptual change. We emphasized in the introduction to this chapter that it is important for teachers’ ' perspectives to be in line with educational innovations. Our findings seem to indicate that the meaning- oriented / loose regulation perspective connects best to the present ideas for innovation in Dutch secondary education. The meaning-oriented / strong regulation and knowledge- oriented / loose regulation perspectives both have some elements of this innovation, but the knowledge-oriented / strong regulation perspective is not in line with the innovation. This finding suggests that the implementation of self-regulated learning is problematic because a group of teachers is not convinced of its importance. One solution may be to invest in additional training for teachers, although the literature indicates that a change of perspectives is difficult to achieve (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1992). Another possibility is to make teachers’ ' perspectives the starting point for making adjustments to the innovation (Verloop, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, & Meijer, 2001). On the basis of the results of this study, it is not possible to make a generalization to the whole population of Dutch secondary and university teachers, because our sample consisted of a small number of schools and various universities. A large- scale study is needed to investigate whether the four above-mentioned perspectives can be found in the whole of the population. Other aspects worth investigating are the influence of the subject matter taught, gender, the culture of the (research) group teachers belong to, and biographical factors on the perspectives of both groups of teachers. It would also be worthwhile to investigate how these perspectives are related to teacher behavior in everyday practice, and how students perceive different teachers. A breed apart? A comparison of secondary and university teachers’ perspectives on self-regulated learning7 Abstract Teachers’ ' perspectives in secondary and higher education have been investigated separately up till now, probably owing to the differences expected between these two groups of teachers. In this study, similarities and differences between secondary and university teachers’ ' perspectives on self-regulated learning were investigated using semi-structured interviews. The purpose of this study was to improve understanding of the problematic transition of students from secondary to higher education. Thirty-six secondary and university teachers from different disciplines were interviewed with the aim of describing the variety in their perspectives. Diverse metaphors about teaching and learning were presented to the teachers during the interviews with the assumption that this would encourage explication of beliefs. A qualitative analysis of the interview protocols resulted in a codebook with six themes, each containing up to seven categories of description of the variation within each theme. The themes found in the analysis were goals, learning, characteristics of the learning process, students, regulation, and instructional activities. All themes and most categories of description were found in both groups of teachers. The differences found could be related to a focus on either the learner or the content. University teachers tend to be focused more on the variety in content and secondary teachers more on the variety between students. The results of this study can make both secondary and higher education teachers aware of their own and other teachers’ ' perspectives and the possible influence on students learning and adaptation in higher education, for instance in pre-service and in-service courses.