Learning conceptions of young students in the final year of primary education

Learning and Instruction 11 (2001) 485–516www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc

Learning conceptions of young students in thefinal year of primary education

Ellen B. Klattera,*, Hans G.L.C. Lodewijksb,Cor A.J. Aarnoutsea

a Department of Educational Sciences, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlandsb Department of Educational Psychology, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to describe young pupils’ learning conceptions. In thisstudy, a learning conception was defined as a cluster of interrelated beliefs about differentaspects of learning. Firstly, 27 pupils, all in the final year of primary school, were interviewedto elicit learning-related issues as being relevant for six-graders. Secondly, a questionnaire,developed on the basis of the outcomes of the interviews, was used to determine the inter-relatedness of pupils’ beliefs about the selected aspects. The results showed the young pupilsto have different beliefs about five aspects of learning: purpose of school; learning orientation;regulation; learning demands; and mental activities. In exploring group differences, three dif-ferent learning conceptions could be distinguished: a restricted learning conception; a func-tional learning conception; and a developmental learning conception. The characteristics ofthese different learning conceptions may be indicative of how young pupils conceive learning-related aspects. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Learning conceptions; Phenomenography; Educational goals; Primary education

1. Introduction

Learning to learn is considered to be one of the principal goals of education. Tokeep up with the demands of modern information society, individuals have to becomeindependent and self-regulative learners who approach learning and learning tasks

* Corresponding author. Dept. of Educational Sciences, University of Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9104, 6500HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Tel.:+31-24-361-27-44; fax:+31-24-361-59-78.

E-mail address: [email protected] (E.B. Klatter).

0959-4752/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0959 -4752(01 )00002-0

486 E.B. Klatter et al. / Learning and Instruction 11 (2001) 485–516

in such a way that they actively construct their own knowledge by involving in deep-processing learning activities (Van Hout-Wolters, Simons, & Volet, 2001). In thiscontext, schools are under increasing pressure to take into account the ways in whichlearners process information and develop their learning potentials, rather than justdealing with the content and outcomes of learning. When operationalising edu-cational goals of this type in terms of learning strategies, as usually is the case, onemay, in our view, not ignore the individual learner’s personal goals and perceptions.For, learning strategies are not automatically developed in the course of the teachingprocess; learning activities and strategies must, in fact, be considered as being highlydependent on individuals’ ideas and views about what the nature of learning is andwhat demands are being put on the student by learning. These conceptions or mentalmodels of learning may affect the individual’s understanding of learning and theway in which learning objectives, learning tasks, and teaching measures are inter-preted. These mediating interpretations may then lead to the learning activities stu-dents employ (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999), as illustrated in Fig. 1. Following thisline of thought, learning conceptions are considered to play an important role inrelation to the actual learning behaviour and the quality of the learning outcomes.As the results of a number of studies have shown a relationship between learningconceptions of university students and their cognitive and meta-cognitive activities(Vermunt, 1992; Entwistle & Marton, 1984; Van Rossum & Schenk, 1984), learningconceptions may indeed be considered important determinants of learning success.Despite this increasing understanding of the significance of learning conceptions ofstudents in higher education, relatively few studies have examined the learning con-ceptions of young elementary or secondary school children.

However, in the context of research on learning styles, a few researchers haveexamined the learning conceptions of pupils in grade 7 (Klatter, 1996; Boekaerts,Otten, & Simons, 1997). The results of these studies showed a much weaker relation-ship between the learning conceptions and learning activities than the studies ofstudents in higher education (Vermunt, 1992). These findings are considered to bebecause of the invalidity of the questionnaire used in these studies, as the items ofthe Inventory Learning Styles (Van Rijswijk, Vermunt, De Jong & Kluvers, 1991),originally developed for students in higher education, were just adapted linguisticallyto the younger sample. The representativeness of the items regarding young pupils’learning activities as well as their conceptions is, therefore, doubtful. Consequently,it is still the question whether the relationship between conceptions and behaviouris really as weak as suggested.

Insight into these youngsters’ learning conceptions might be relevant not only withrespect to their achievement, but also from a developmental perspective. After all,it is these conceptions that are assumed to develop during the course of time into

Fig. 1. The mediating role of learning conceptions with respect to the learning process.

487E.B. Klatter et al. / Learning and Instruction 11 (2001) 485–516

the conceptions found with students in higher education. Young children’s learningconceptions may be viewed as the basic theories of mind that potentially evolve into‘higher forms of learning conceptions’ (Saljo, 1979; Marton, Dall’Alba & Beaty,1993). In order to study these matters in more detail, a longitudinal research projectwas started, focusing on learning conceptions as they emerge and change during thetransition from primary to secondary school. In examining the learning conceptionsof young pupils, one must take into account the qualitatively different ways in whichyoung pupils might conceive learning compared to more mature students. Therefore,we started by examining the nature and organization of the learning conceptions ofyoung pupils in the final year of primary education (grade 6) in a qualitative way.Proceeding on the basis of what we found in this qualitative study, we subsequentlydeveloped a questionnaire to validate our findings among a larger group of pupilsand to establish a number of different learning conceptions that are representativefor this age group. Both studies are reported in this article.

2. Learning conceptions

In addition to the variety of definitions and operationalisations of the construct ofa learning conception (Pajares, 1992), there is also, in educational research, a debategoing on about the range and breadth of the concept and related constructs likemental models or beliefs. In discussing epistemological beliefs, Hofer and Pintrich(1997) argue that the conceptual reach of this concept be restricted to beliefs aboutthe nature of knowledge, whereas the conceptualization of epistemological beliefsby Schommer (1994) explicitly includes beliefs about how to acquire knowledge.These discussions have to do with the definition and boundaries of the objects of abelief system and may be highly relevant, at least in all those cases where onealready has some empirical evidence about how the object of study (learning) isbeing structured in the minds of individual learners. It might then be useful to tryto reduce the object of study to much more sharply defined aspects and dimensions,from the perspective of individuals’ most essential beliefs about learning.

2.1. The boundaries of a learning conception

During the last 25 years, research on students’ learning conceptions in highereducation has benefited immensely from a distinctive qualitative approach known asphenomenography (Richardson, 1999). This research methodology, associated withMarton (1981) and his colleagues, is an empirically based approach that aims toidentify the qualitatively different ways people experience, conceptualize, perceive,and understand phenomena. To explore students’ learning-related beliefs and toinitially map the boundaries of learning, a number of studies on learning conceptionsof students in higher education, all making use of the phenomenographic method,are discussed briefly.

In the influential study on learning conceptions by Saljo (1979), interviews with90 people between the ages of 15 and 73 years were carried out. In this study,


Saljo distinguished five qualitatively different conceptions of learning: (1) learningas memorizing; (2) learning as increasing knowledge; (3) learning as applying knowl-edge; (4) learning as the abstraction of meaning; and (5) learning as a process ofunderstanding reality. These different conceptualizations were categorised hier-archically, meaning that a certain conception, e.g. ‘ learning as the abstraction ofmeaning’ , includes the previous ones. In addition, Marton et al. (1993) describedchanges in the conceptions of learning displayed by 29 students over up to 6 yearsof studying by distance learning. Besides the five conceptions distincted by Saljo(1979), they found a sixth conception that could be characterized as (6) changingas a person. The latter was found only during the later years of study and only instudents who had previously displayed Saljo’s fifth conception of learning. This find-ing underscored Saljo’s claim that the learning conceptions found in these studiesrepresent a developmental hierarchy (Richardson, 1999).

In the context of learning styles and strategies in higher education, Vermunt (1996,p. 28) analysed students’ conceptions about metacognitive, cognitive, and affectiveaspects in a phenomenographic way. In his study, mental models were conceived ofas “ the more static aspect of metacognition (instead of the active ‘on-line’regulation), representing the total, coherent system of conceptions of learning andassociated phenomena people possess” . Although this definition of a mental modelimplies a multi-dimensionality of the construct, the five mental models of learningdistinguished by Vermunt represent unidimensional entities, i.e. learning conceivedas: (1) the intake of knowledge; (2) construction of knowledge; (3) use of knowledge;(4) stimulating education; and (5) cooperative learning. Similarities and variabilitiesof these results with the findings of Saljo (1979) and Marton et al. (1993) will bediscussed later.

In examining the conceptions of the first-year university students who followedcourses in different learning environments, i.e. a traditional or a constructive learningenvironment, Tynjala (1997) analysed 62 essays on ‘My conception of learning’ .Generally, the conceptions of all the students showed considerable variability, whichcould be first divided roughly into five themes, categorized as: (1) definitions oflearning; (2) descriptions of factors influencing learning; (3) descriptions of the learn-ing process; (4) descriptions of learning outcomes; and (5) meta-conceptions. Thesefive categories in turn could be divided into several sub-categories, representing stu-dents’ beliefs about that category of learning. Even at this level of sub-categories,other sub-divisions could be made. Without discussing these results in detail, wemay conclude that the many (sub)categories of conceptions distinguished in thisstudy illustrate the broad range of interpretations of just one single question regard-ing learning.

Although the conceptions found in the above-mentioned studies are rather differ-ent, they still show considerable overlap as to the content they describe. For example,learning conceived as memorizing (Saljo, 1979) is a description of the learning pro-cess (e.g. Tynjala, 1997) and refers to those cognitive activities that the learnerbelieves he or she must undertake in order to learn. Learning conceived as increasingone’s knowledge, applying one’s knowledge or the abstraction of meaning (Saljo,1979) more or less resemble the intake of knowledge, the use and construction of


knowledge, respectively (Vermunt, 1996), and all refer to students’ beliefs about thegoal of learning they themselves set. Learning conceived as a process of understand-ing or changing as a person (Saljo, 1979) refers to one’s belief about a learningoutcome, which was also distinguished by Tynjala as a category of learning concep-tions. The learning conceptions in terms of Vermunt’s mental models, stimulatingeducation and cooperative learning, actually refer to one’s preference about the typeof regulation of the learning process, which might include the meta-conceptionscategorised by Tynjala. Except for the ‘definitions of learning’ , the category ‘ factorsinfluencing learning’ (Tynjala, 1997) has not been mentioned yet. The latter refersto the learning demands, which might be an interesting aspect in relation to estimat-ing young pupils’ beliefs about what is needed to be successful in learning.

As these phenomenographic ‘categories of description’ seem to refer to a numberof different aspects of learning, students in higher education apparently conceivelearning as a construct consisting of various aspects of learning. Consequently, theyalso hold different beliefs about these various aspects as may be concluded from thethree different ‘categories of description’ regarding the goal of learning. Given thisstratification of the phenomenon of learning, we propose to define the construct ofa learning conception as a multi-dimensional construct, consisting of several beliefsregarding different aspects of learning.

2.2. Learning conception as a multi-dimensional construct

In redefining a learning conception as a multi-dimensional construct of beliefs,we feel the need to clarify this construct, and specify the definition of a belief. Inthis attempt, we find support in the more or less similar construct of an attitude. Asthis construct has a long research tradition in social psychology (Sinatra & Dole,1998), attitude may function as a ‘ role model’ and help to establish a learning con-ception in a more comprehensive and precise way.

An attitude is a hypothetical construct, not directly perceptible, but derived fromperceptible responses triggered by certain stimuli. It refers to an internal ‘state ofmind’ that may predict or explain relations between certain stimuli and reactions tothat stimuli, like objects, persons, places, or ideas (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). This,in fact, resembles the mediating role we ascribed to the function of a learning concep-tion (see Fig. 1). It is generally assumed that attitudes are based on several consider-ations which together determine the attitude. These considerations include threecomponents: a cognitive component (referring to knowledge or ideas); an affectivecomponent (referring to the extent to which a certain idea is subscribed); and abehavioural component. The relationship between the cognitive and affective compo-nents may result in a particular behaviour, as illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Components of an attitude.


However, according to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) the cognitive and affectivecomponents are located on one evaluative dimension, and they therefore prefer touse the term ‘belief’ (Van der Pligt & de Vries, 1995). Consequently, a belief maybe characterized in terms of the extent to which a person is committed (affective)to the truthfulness of a proposition (cognitive) along a continuum of evaluation(bringing about a reaction in a consistent way). For example, educators can chartalong a positive to negative continuum the extent to which their students are commit-ted to the truthfulness of the propositional statement “The moon is above the earth” .If young children are deeply committed to the truthfulness of the statement, this maybe considered as the expression of a strong belief of those children. Even if childrenhold a neutral position about the statement, this may still be considered as theexpression of a belief (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). With respect to our own study, wethink that this definition of a belief is applicable for depicting students’ cognitions,ideas, or personal theories about learning in general.

Social psychologists also assume that adults have numerous beliefs about a certainphenomenon. These beliefs somehow become organized into architectural systemsand have observable behavioural consequences (Rokeach, 1968; Fishbein & Ajzen,1975). It is exactly this assumption we subscribe to with respect to a learning concep-tion. An individual’s belief system about learning, in our view, consists of a struc-tured whole of beliefs with respect to different aspects of learning (such as its goals,demands, functionalities, outcomes, and benefits). When referring to these organizedindividual belief systems regarding learning, we use the term learning conception,a practice that is not only current among educational psychologists, but also broadensthe boundaries of a learning conception from a single belief towards a construct thatallows all sorts of beliefs regarding different aspects of learning.

In sum, as learning is quite a complex and rather comprehensive phenomenon,we consider a multi-dimensional approach in identifying pupils’ learning-relatedbeliefs more sensible for gaining insight into young pupils’ perspectives. We alsoassume that these beliefs do not appear arbitrarily, but are organised in relativelycoherent systems of beliefs. Consequently, we define a learning conception as asystem of interrelated beliefs concerning different aspects of learning.

As young pupils’ learning conceptions may differ from those of more maturestudents, it is still a question as to which aspects of learning must be incorporatedinto the construct of a learning conception. Therefore, we do not feel that it wouldbe very helpful to limit our definition of a learning conception to the componentsor aspects of learning found in the literature. Instead, we initially leave it to thepupils in our study to tell us what comes to their minds when they are thinkingabout learning, what they feel about it, and what they believe they usually tend todo while learning. As such, the construct of a learning conception may include abroader range of beliefs regarding a variety of learning-related aspects than just theones that were found in the studies of students in higher education.


3. The present study

As this study was focused on the exploration of young pupils’ learning-relatedbeliefs as well as on the way these beliefs are organised in coherent systems ofbeliefs, a qualitative as well as a quantitative approach was taken. During the qualita-tive approach, young pupils were interviewed to elicit different beliefs regardingdifferent aspects of learning considered to be relevant for learning from the pupils’perspective. This qualitative data also supplied insight into the terminology youngpupils used when talking about abstract topics like learning.

In the quantitative approach, a Learning Conception List (LCL) was developed tomeasure learning conceptions, defined as clusters of learning-related beliefs. Bymeans of this questionnaire, we aimed at distinguishing different types of learningconceptions. A secondary aim of this questionnaire study was to contrast and exam-ine the data with the model of beliefs found in the interview study. Therefore, thequestionnaire study can been seen partially as a validation study. In addition, therelationship between learning conceptions on the one hand, and several school-spe-cific issues, motivation, and gender differences on the other, were also examined.

In sum, four research questions were addressed in the present study:

1. What kind of learning-related beliefs are held by pupils in grade six?2. Into what kind of learning-related aspects can these beliefs be classified?3. What different types of learning conceptions can be identified?4. Are these learning conceptions related to school specific issues, motivation, gen-

der, and (advised) level of secondary school?

4. Study I: a phenomenographic study

4.1. Method

4.1.1. ParticipantsTwenty-seven pupils (17 male and 10 female) from four different elementary

schools participated in this study. All the pupils were in their final year of primaryschool (grade 6), with their age ranging from 11 to 12 years. Although the schoolteachers preselected the pupils on the basis of grades (low, middle, and high scores),the participation of the pupils was voluntary in all cases. To identify the pupils’beliefs as validly as possible, group and individual interviews were administered.The first type of interview involved four small groups of three pupils each, to over-come possible problems with reticence on the part of the pupils in talking abouttheir beliefs and to create a situation stimulating for the pupils to express themselvesspontaneously. These small groups were heterogeneous with respect to students’grades. Second, 15 individual interviews were conducted to identify beliefs moreprecisely, without peer influence. Students participating in these interviews were alsorandomly selected from the three groups originated on the basis of grades.


4.1.2. The interviews

With respect to the group interviews, actually group-discussions, the interviewerfirst explained that the goal of the interview was to elicit pupils’ thinking aboutschool and learning. During this introduction, the pupils were told that nothing theysaid could be right or wrong, and that their contributions would be treated confiden-tially. In order to start the discussion, the interviewer asked a general question aboutschool: “What do you think of when you hear the word school?” In discoveringpupils’ most relevant school and learning association, the discussion process wasoccasionally interrupted by the interviewer. If the conversation seemed to lag, a newquestion was asked by the interviewer that referred to one of those aspects of learningderived from the literature that had not yet been discussed. Thus, beliefs regardinglearning-related aspects thought to be relevant by young pupils themselves wereelicited, as well as their beliefs about aspects from the literature that appeared to besignificant. The pupils were encouraged to react intuitively, to give examples, to tellanecdotes, to ask for more clarity, and to report everything they thought of, even ifit seemed obvious, odd, or unimportant. The four group interviews lasted approxi-mately 45–50 min.

Based on the learning-related aspects that could be identified from the group ses-sions, a semi-structured interview schedule was developed with respect to the indi-vidual interviews. Regarding this schedule, five open-ended questions were formu-lated. All the questions, except for one, were of a general nature in that they didnot refer to any domain-specific context. These questions are described below(translated from Dutch).

With respect to the purpose of school, pupils were asked “What is the purpose ofschool, for you?” Pupils’ goal orientation was elicited by the question “What, foryou, is the goal of learning?” The questions concerning regulation were posed ascontradictions and hypothetical statements, such as: “There are pupils who want alot of instruction and explanation before starting a task; others want less instructionand want to figure it out on their own. Which do you prefer?” and “Why?” Thequestions concerning learning demands were: “What do you need to be successfulat school?” and “How do you explain the differences between good and poor pupils?”With respect to learning as mental activities, the pupils were asked such questionsas: “What is learning, according to you?” and if they did not respond to this question,the question was stated at a more concrete level “What should you do to learn ahistory lesson?”

The introduction to these individual interviews was similar to that of the groupinterviews. However, during these individual interviews, both at the beginning andthe end, a few questions were asked about some general issues; e.g. the pupils wereasked if they ever spoke about learning in the classroom, with the teacher or withpeers. Over and above the aspects of learning introduced by the interviewerexplicitly, these pupils were also encouraged to express all kinds of personal con-siderations about related or associated subjects which were relevant to them. Often,pupils were asked for clarification of their initial responses. These individual inter-views lasted about 20–30 min. All the, group and individual, interviews were conduc-


ted during school hours by the first author; they were also audio taped with thepermission of the pupils.

4.1.3. Data analysisThe interviews were transcribed verbatim, printed, and analysed phenomenograph-

ically (Marton, 1981). As mentioned before, phenomenography is a research method-ology to map the qualitatively different ways people experience, conceptualize, per-ceive, and understand phenomena. The objective of the method is to frame anddescribe these qualitative differences in conceptual categories (Saljo, 1979). There-fore, the transcripts of all the interviews were subjected to an iterative and interactiveprocess to identify fundamental categories of description in the data. First, the groupinterviews were analysed. During the first phase of the analyses, different kinds ofsegments of the transcripts were separated according to various aspects of learning.In the second stage, the responses in each segment were studied separately and lab-elled with one or more words reflecting the content of a particular belief. Theselabels were, in turn, categorized by reading and rereading during an iterative codingprocess, resulting in a discriminative coding system (also intended for use in forth-coming qualitative studies). To identify learning conceptions at a general level, spe-cific contexts were ignored when categorizing the responses of the pupils. Althoughthe results of these group interviews formed the basis for the interview schedule ofthe individual interviews, the latter were also analysed phenomenographically inorder to track down other kinds of learning-related aspects and beliefs six-gradersmay hold individually. Analyses of both types of interviews made it possible to covera broad and comprehensive range of learning aspects, situations and individual con-siderations.

In developing the belief categories, there was inevitably some subjectivity in theinitial selection of categories. However, together with a research assistant, an iterativeprocess was adopted that diminished the effects of subjectivity to some extent:refining those categories using repeated cross-checking with the original data(Entwistle & Entwistle, 1992). At this stage, we did not focus on variations amongindividuals, but rather on the range of categories of beliefs that could be constructedbased on their representation in the set of transcripts as a whole.

4.2. Results

The results of the interviews indicated that young pupils are not used to talkingabout learning, school, or related aspects in the classroom spontaneously, or at leastthey did not recognise it as talking about ‘ learning’ as a specific phenomenon. Pupils’responses about general issues such as ‘ talking about learning’ , stated at the begin-ning of the interview, mainly referred to social events or interrelational problemsamong the pupils, while their responses at the end of the interview reflected uncer-tainty: “ I think we do, but I’m not sure.” Given this unfamiliarity on the part of thepupils, the interviewer often had to introduce learning-related questions, referring tothe aspects derived from the literature. Apart from this, young pupils do have rela-tively clear-cut beliefs with regard to five aspects of learning: (1) purpose of school;


(2) learning orientation; (3) regulation; (4) learning demands; and (5) mental activi-ties. These beliefs are described below. As pupils’ responses in the individual inter-views did not considerably differ from those given in the group interviews, the resultsof the phenomenographic analyses of both types of interviews are presented as awhole.

4.2.1. Purpose of school

1. Personal development. Included in this category are beliefs that refer to personalgrowth and development in different areas such as developing one’s intellectualskills, expressed in terms like ‘ to become wiser’ or ‘ to know more about a sub-ject’ , or beliefs about a personal growth, expressed in terms such as ‘ to becomemore independent’ .

Q: What is the purpose of school, for you? S: That you learn things very well,e.g. maths. When you’ re very young, you don’ t know how to do mathematics.But now, now I understand how to do long division (S: Pb-5).

2. Use of knowledge. The second category consists of beliefs reflecting the idea thatlearning and knowledge acquired at school will be useful in everyday life. Beliefsin this category stress the usefulness of knowledge and skills that are acquired inschool, mainly in relation to applications outside school. Pupils express suchbeliefs in terms like ‘you need to know math in order to shop’ or ‘you have toknow how to repair your bike’ .

3. Personal future. The third category represents beliefs that refer to circumstancesand situations in the future. The beliefs in to this category are somewhat differentin terms of the reach of the future orientation that is expressed. Pupils may referto the near future, e.g. passing exams; getting diplomas to qualify for an interestingjob; or they may refer to a future somewhat further away: earning money; beingable to support a family.

Q: What is the purpose of school, for you? S: To get a good job in the future;otherwise, you never get a good job because you don’ t have the papers for it.And then you end up with nothing (S: Pb-6).

4. Social aspects. This category consists of beliefs concerning emotional, social, andinterpersonal matters. Making friends is one of the purposes of school. Meetingthose friends is part of the pleasure of school and guarantees a good time. Inaddition, pupils also believe that going to school may improve their social skillsand behaviour.

Q: What is, according to you, the purpose of school? S: to learn…and for thefuture, but it’s also important to have fun. Q: Why? S: Yes, I think that’s themost important thing. Because you have to get along well with everyone, and


be good friends (S: M-2).

5. Avoidance attitude. The beliefs in this category reflect negative motivation. Youngpupils may try to avoid unpleasant situations, or situations they don’ t like bygoing to school. In some cases, pupils stress that attending school is simply inevi-table. Examples of pupils’ responses are: “ I prefer going to school rather thangetting bored at home” , or, “school is obligatory” .

Q: What is the purpose of school, for you? S: uhm…I still don’ t know, wel-l…I’m going to school because it is obligatory (S: K-82).

4.2.2. Goal orientationThis aspect refers to student’s reasons for learning, i.e. what they strive for while

learning. Two distinctive set of beliefs referring to individual goals of learning couldbe identified.

1. Task orientation. This category comprises beliefs that mainly reflect a focus onexpanding one’s knowledge and skills. Pupils showing this type of goal orientationattempt to enlarge their personal capabilities by extending their knowledge andskills. This goal orientation generally implies the pupils’ personal interest in thesubject being taught and/or the idea that learning is meant to better understandthe world.

Q: What, for you, is the goal of learning? S: Well, then you know a bit howit works in other countries, or where the cities are located…that’s what youlearn! (S: Pb-5).

Q: What, for you, is the goal of learning? S: I think because… ehm…it’s greatto know! (S: K-3).

2. Ego orientation. Pupils with this kind of learning orientation prefer situations inwhich they can demonstrate their abilities and look for circumstances that helpthem to avoid making errors. It is not the learning content in itself, but the possibleeffects of learning with respect to others that are attractive for ego-oriented pupils.These pupils most value receiving good grades, creating the best possible opport-unities for themselves with respect to the job market, and qualifying for jobs thatoffer possibilities to earn a lot of money.

Q: What, for you, is the goal of learning? S: That you know it very well. Q:Why do you have to know it very well? S: To get good grades on your reportcard! (S: F-5).


4.2.3. Regulation

1. Internal regulation. Beliefs in this category reflect a tendency to regulate one’slearning processes in an independent, self-determined way. The self-initiated stra-tegies which are characteristic of pupils with these beliefs are aimed at controllingand guiding the learning process. Two different kinds of beliefs were found thatexemplify this type of regulation. The belief that finding solutions by oneself leadsto higher levels of satisfaction (1.1), and the idea that self-regulated learningresults in a better understanding of the subject matter and, consequently, in higherdegrees of personal independence (1.2).

S: I like it the most when the teacher is brief about what you have to do andyou have to figure out the rest on your own. Q: Why? S: Then you learnsomething! Otherwise, if the teacher explains the task totally, it’s no fun! Youhave to find how it works out on your own. It’s no fun if the teacher givesthe game away! You have to figure it out yourself (S: F-5).

2. Shared regulation. The second category includes beliefs expressing a preferencefor shared regulation of the learning process. Pupils holding these beliefs prefertheir learning processes to be regulated by the teacher or their peers, although theyalso believe they should be able to adequately regulate their learning processesthemselves. Beliefs assigned to this category are also of two kinds. On the onehand, pupils believe that shared regulation is easier and also more comfortable(2.1), while, on the other hand, they believe that sharing the burden of regulationone’s learning is very helpful, in particular when the learning task is consideredto be rather difficult (2.2).

S: I don’ t mind. If I understand it, I can start the task, but it’s always handyto be told exactly what to do and how. But if I don’ t get instructions, I canalso manage (S: Pb-6).

3. External regulation. Pupils who prefer external regulation believe that they bestcan rely on instructions or explanation. If instructions given by the teacher or atextbook are lacking, they feel helpless, not knowing what to do or to learn.Further, they believe that risks can be diminished in school life by relying onexternal regulation.

S: I want a lot of instruction because you might not understand what to doand then you have to ask…I don’ t like that. Sometimes the teacher gets angry!(S: W-3).

4.2.4. Learning demandsBeliefs with respect to learning demands refer to the factors and circumstances

that pupils believe are crucial or influential with respect to learning and the outcomesof learning.


1. Cognitive activities. Included in this category are the cognitive activities whichpupils belief must be executed during learning episodes in order to be successfulat school. Pupils refer to these activities in terms of memorizing, thinking, under-standing, reading, listening, repeating, applying, selecting, etc.

2. Meta-cognitive activities. The second category concerning learning demands con-sists of meta-cognitive activities. Metacognition has the function of going‘beyond’ the cognitive level. Beliefs reflecting this meta-cognitive category referto planning activities, e.g. planning your (home)work, thinking of a strategy; orregulation activities, e.g. asking for help, examining a lesson; or meta-cognitiveknowledge, e.g. taking notes or, working precisely.

Q: How do you explain the difference between good and poor pupils? S: Maybethe poor student doesn’ t know how to do the task. Q: So… S: You try differentthings, and whatever works best, you use again the next time (S: 12-13).

3. Social and affective aspects. According to young pupils, ‘good learning’ alsodemands social and affective stability. This stability encompasses a broad varietyof personal situations. Beliefs belonging to this category refer to: friendship; per-sonality traits; family affairs; or pleasure. They are expressed as: ‘getting alongwell with peers’ ; ‘having self-confidence’ ; ‘problems at home’ ; ‘enjoying yourselfat school’ ; etc.

Q: What do you need to be successful at school? S: You have to have self-confidence. You have to believe in yourself: “you can do it, if you want it” .You have to do your best. For yourself, not for the teacher! (S: 3-11).

4. External elements. Beliefs referring to external elements represent the idea thatthe quality of the learning process depends on elements which are beyond thelearner’s control. The quality of learning is dependent on, e.g. the quality of one’smemory, capacity, brains, age, instruction, or prior knowledge. These externalelements actually refer to the belief that learning demands are fixed.

Q: How do you explain the differences between good and poor pupils? S:Everyone has different brains. No one is the same; not every one is capableof doing a high level of education (S: C-25).

5. Effort and attention. In this fifth category, beliefs represent the basic idea of ‘ themore, the harder, the better’ . Pupils express this belief as: working hard; puttingin a lot of effort; paying attention; concentration; or spending time on a task.

Q: How do you explain the differences between good and poor pupils? S: Onepays a lot of attention and checks on the tasks, but the other one thinks, “ah,it’s alright, I don’ t want to pay attention anymore” .


4.2.5. Mental activitiesAt a first glance, three sub-categories could be constructed from the responses

with respect to beliefs about mental activities: beliefs about the preparation of learn-ing, beliefs about the actual learning activities and the processing of information,and beliefs about adequate or preferred ways of regulating one’s learning.

1. Preparing activities. Activities in this category represent regulation activities pre-paratory to the processing activities. Examples are: orientation to a task, planningthe homework, motivating oneself, setting goals, concentrating or thinking of astrategy.

Q: How do you study for a history test? S: Well, I go to my room, becauseit’s quiet there, and then… (S: 2-18).

S: I’m going to study at home, not the whole chapter at one time, but 10 minevery day for about a week (S: 4-4).

2. Processing activities. These beliefs concern the cognitive learning activities whichare aimed at the actual processing of the learning content. Beliefs assigned to thissecond sub-category could be divided into another five different categories.2.1. Curriculum subjects. Included in this category are responses that refer to

subjects in the curriculum, like writing, drawing, math, languages, andscience. The responses do not represent beliefs about the actual learningactivities that must be performed while learning, instead, it shows pupils’general interpretation of the question.

Q: What is learning, according to you? S: math and languages and soon… (S: Vl-14).

2.2. Rehearsal activities. The second category consists of beliefs that are focusedon rehearsal activities. These activities involve rote learning using memoriza-tion techniques to remember information. Pupils expressed these beliefs as:recalling, memorizing, repeating, or answering questions from a textbook.

2.3. Elaboration activities. Beliefs in this category represent the idea that learningis a form of elaborating prior information by integrating new information(instead of just memorising information). Pupils who give evidence of thisbelief show a high meta-cognitive awareness of learning activities. Forexample, they generate and internalise new knowledge by comparing andconnecting old and new information, expressing this in terms of ‘ thinking’and ‘understanding’ in order to ‘ integrate’ or ‘use information in a new con-text’ .

Q: How do you study for a history test? S: …learning by heart is notuseful, you forget it again. You simply have to be able to tell it in yourown words and think logically… some things are very logical. You have


to think about it and then put it in your own words (S: 4-13).

2.4. Organisational activities. This category comprises beliefs that refer to outli-ning course material or reading material and selecting the main idea fromthe text. Pupils expressed these kinds of beliefs in terms of activities likeselecting the main idea or summarising important parts of the text.

Q: How do you study for a history test? S: Usually, I start reading thethings which I think are important, which will be asked in the test (S: W-20).

2.5. Critical thinking activities. Beliefs with respect to these activities refer to acritical attitude towards the learning content. Pupils’ beliefs assigned to thiscategory were expressed as: questioning what is read; trying to think of alter-nate points of view; or comparing the authors’ ; and your own opinion.

Q: What is learning, according to you? S: thinking of things, kinds oftheories, or something. Q: What do you mean by thinking of theories? S:Well, let’s say, if you believe in something, e.g. how the earth came intoexistence. If you believe that and read something different in books, thenyou have to think about it (S: Cs-1).

3. Regulation activities. The third main category of the mental activities consists ofbeliefs reflecting regulatory activities. These beliefs refer to activities concerningthe control and diagnosis of the processing activities and of the learning behaviourduring or after the actual processing activities. Beliefs belonging to this categorywere expressed as: checking by posing questions; judging; testing or keeping thefinal goal in mind.

S: I read it a couple of times, then I make questions for myself. If there arequestions given with the text, I repeat them. Then I ask my parents to test me,and if don’ t know it very well, I reread it another time (S: 9-6).

4.3. Conclusions study I

In this qualitative study, young pupils’ beliefs about different aspects of learninghave been explored. Although pupils at the end of primary school are, generally,not used to thoroughly consider and express their beliefs about learning in a system-atic way (Berry & Sahlberg, 1996), a number of these beliefs were revealed by usingsemi-structured interview techniques. In collecting the data for this study, we aimedat minimising social desirability by organising the in depth-interviews outside dailyschool life, by an interviewer who was an unfamiliar person and unrelated to theschool and school affairs. The pupils also knew their responses should be treatedconfidentially. This aim seems to have succeeded as a number of pupils openly


criticized their teacher or admitted a dislike of school. Moreover, at the end of theinterviews, many pupils stated that it was hard to talk about the topic but also easy,‘because you just have to say what you think!’

Regarding the five aspects of purpose of school, learning orientation, regulation,learning demands, and mental activities, a broad range of beliefs were triggered. Itshould be noted that, in contrast to the hierarchical presentation of Saljo’s (1979)categories of learning conceptions, the positioning of the categories of beliefs asdescribed in the present study is rather arbitrary.

Beliefs about the purpose of school were found to reflect pupils’ personal motivesfor going to school. Five different categories could be distinguished, and the beliefsof several categories were rather similar to the ones reported by Saljo (1979) andVermunt (1992), like, personal development, use of knowledge, and personal future.Interesting here is the finding that, regarding personal future, young pupils’ beliefsare not as crystallized as those of older pupils. Twelve-year olds reasoned in achronological manner: getting good grades (test orientation) is needed to get a goodcertificate (diploma orientation), which is needed to get a good job (vocationorientation), to support a family (future orientation). Obviously, young pupils seemto understand this system, and they do not conceive these goals as being separate.In comparison to the motives of college pupils as found by Vermunt (1992), twonew beliefs with respect to the purpose of school could be distinguished: a socialmotive and an avoidance attitude. Both may be the result of different educationalsettings. In contrast to more mature pupils, primary school children might be muchmore explicitly encouraged to be socially engaged, and as a result, these youngpupils may conceive of social aspects as a separate purpose of school. Similarly, theavoidance attitude can also be explained by the different types of education, as highereducation is voluntary while primary and secondary education are both forms ofcompulsory education in the Netherlands. Therefore, in theory, we may assume thatstudents participating in higher education generally lack avoidance motivation.

Our findings with regard to pupils’ learning orientation resemble the researchliterature as achievement goals (Dart, 1994; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Duda & Nich-olls, 1992), in which the two different goal orientations are called task-involvementand ego-involvement goals (Nicholls, 1984) or learning and performance goals(Dweck, 1986). Recently, Slaats, Lodewijks, and Van der Sanden (1999) found simi-lar classifications with respect to students’ motivational orientation in secondaryvocational education: intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic motivation. Obviously,this dichotomy does not only exist among adult students but also seems to occuramong younger primary school pupils.

Looking at the categories of the first two aspects of learning, it should be notedthat the meaning of ‘goal orientation’ differs from the meaning of ‘purpose of school’with respect to the level of the perspective taken. While the latter term refers to allkinds of motives for going to school in a general sense, goal orientation refers tothe pupils’ reasons for learning, i.e. the things they aim at when learning. This simi-larity in content (goal), and simultaneously differentiation of level (school versuslearning), may point at a so-called ‘nested construct’ . This means that particularbeliefs concerning the purpose of school may imply certain beliefs about the learning


orientation, and therefore may show some overlap. As the possible interrelatednessof these two concepts is not very clear yet, we decided to operationalise both aspectsseparately in the questionnaire that was developed to measure the learning concep-tions of young pupils.

Beliefs with respect to regulation refer to coordination and control of the learningprocess, i.e. monitoring the processing activities. Pupils differ in the degree to whichthey operate these regulatory processes themselves, or, instead, expect teachers tocontrol these processes for them (Vermunt, 1998). Two types of beliefs could bedistinguished that were similar to those found by Vermunt (1992). They were relatedto either internal or external ways of regulating learning processes. However, incontrast to Vermunt, we could make an additional distinction with regard to pupils’beliefs about internal regulation. Young pupils mentioned reasons for internal regu-lation like the pleasure and satisfaction of successfully completing a task indepen-dently. Similarly, a further refinement could be made with respect to a new categoryof beliefs: shared regulation. Young pupils believe that forms of shared regulationare helpful, in particular when the learning content is difficult or when any newlearning content is introduced. A third category proposed by Vermunt (1992) relatesto shortcomings in the way learning is regulated, which is manifested in a low degreeor a lack of regulation. In our data, we found no indication, however, that thinkingabout possible imperfections in the regulation of learning plays an important role inthe experience of younger pupils. It may well be that, contrary to what is generallythe case with more mature students, elementary school pupils do not experience anyproblems in this respect, as regulation is always taken care of in some way or another,and support and help are always around (Slaats et al., 1999).

Learning demands refers to the student’s beliefs about the factors that may affectthe learning processes and outcomes (Tynjala, 1997). Five distinctive types of beliefscould be described, which in contrast to beliefs of other learning-related aspects,seem to reflect a kind of hierarchy from the perspective of proximity to the learningprocess. Cognitive and meta-cognitive aspects concern the learning process directly,whereas social aspects are rather indirectly related to the learning process. Effortand attention, actually are the basic requirements for learning, while pupils whobelieve external aspects to be important learning demands do to some extent laylearning responsibilities outside themselves. Learning demands described as such,may be conceived as the opposite of attributions with regard to individual functioningand criteria for success (Duda & Nicholls, 1992). In general, these aspects of learningare two sides of the same coin, with the difference that learning demands precedethe learning process, whereas attributions emerge at the closing end of a learningepisode, after the learning process. Beliefs about learning demands may also beimportant determinants of intentional learning activities and situations for improve-ment, and therefore for conceptual change.

The fifth aspect, mental activities, resembles the original construct of a learningconception most, as it was defined with respect to university students in earlier stud-ies (Marton et al., 1993; Saljo, 1979). However, in order to trigger the tacitly heldbeliefs of young primary school children, questions in this study were sometimesformulated at a more concrete level. Likewise, we still got insight into pupils’ beliefs


about mental activities, as their responses concern the activities they believe mustbe undertaken in order to learn a history lesson. Still, we admit that the two enti-ties — beliefs and activities — are conceptually intertwined or at least related to eachother, as young childrens’ ideas probably derive from their actual learning activities.

Categorization of beliefs with respect to mental activities generally resulted inthree types of activities corresponding to a division of learning functions as proposedby Boekaerts and Simons (1995): preparing, processing, and regulation activities.Next, the processing activities could, in their turn, be divided into five sub-categories.Except for the first sub-category of ‘curriculum subjects’ , the four other categoriesresemble the classification made by Pintrich and Garcia (1992) in a study on motiv-ation and self-regulation among college students, i.e. rehearsal activities, elaborationactivities, organisational activities, and critical thinking. Strikingly enough, it seemedthat even young pupils are, to a large extent, aware of the various learning activitiesthat are documented by educational and learning research (Pintrich & Garcia, 1992;Boekaerts & Simons, 1995). Though it is generally assumed that younger pupilshave yet to develop higher levels of meta-cognitive awareness, our results suggestthat even last-year elementary school pupils, are very well able to disclose theirbeliefs about learning, if they are adequately approached.

As the present study was based on a relatively small sample and was of an explora-tory nature, it is important to stress that we do not claim too high levels of generalityfor our data, nor for the categories of beliefs that could be formed with respect tothe interview data (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1992). As far as six-graders are concerned,however, we believe that both types of interviews made it possible to cover a broadand comprehensive range of beliefs and aspects concerning different learning situ-ations and individual considerations. Finally, in terms of attitude theory, strictlyspeaking, we have only depicted young pupils’ cognitions about learning. We stilldo not know to what extent six-graders are committed to these cognitions, and inwhat way these beliefs are interrelated in the pupils’ minds. These issues are centralin the second study, aiming to depict different kinds of learning conceptions definedas clusters of learning-related beliefs.

5. Study II — a questionnaire study

5.1. Method

5.1.1. ParticipantsAll sixth-graders (N=367, 169 males, 198 females) from 13 primary schools in

the south of the Netherlands completed a questionnaire about learning-related beliefs.These schools were selected mainly because a substantial number of their pupilswould later continue at one of the two high-schools that decided to take part in ourlongitudinal study for the two forthcoming years. The average age of the pupils was12.3 years.


5.1.2. Instrument and procedureBased on the results of the interview study, a 100-item questionnaire was

developed, called the Learning Conception List (LCL), with 92 items referring tothe various beliefs regarding each of the five different aspects of learning: 17 itemsconcerned the purpose of school (A); 12 items concerned learning orientation (B);32 items concerned regulation (C); 16 items concerned learning demands (D), and15 items concerned mental activities (E). Four additional items addressed motiv-ational issues with respect to school and learning in general, and mathematics andlanguage in particular. Three items addressed the subjects’ familiarity with the con-tent of the items and the difficulty of the questionnaire, and one item was an open-ended question: “For me, learning is…” . With the exception of the last item, theitems were formulated as statements to which the pupils could respond on a five-point Likert-scale (1=completely disagree, 5=completely agree) (see Table 1 for sam-ple items). Information on two other student variables was also collected: genderand recommendation1 for level of secondary school. In addition, information aboutseveral educational variables was supplied by the respective teachers, viz.: the parti-

Table 1Sample items from LCL (translated from Dutch)

Scale Sample items

Purpose of schoolPersonal development The main purpose of school is to develop myselfFuture goals I just go to school so I can earn a lot of money in the future

Learning orientationTask orientation I often want to know more about the subjects we talk about in

schoolEgo orientation Only if we get easy subjects, do I like learning

RegulationInternal I often like to try different ways of learning, rather than simply

following the teacher’s methodExternal If I don’ t understand something, I like to ask the teacher for help,

immediately

Learning demandsMetacognitive activities To get good grades, you have to like thinking carefully about the

subjectExternal aspects Actually, you have to be lucky to pass a test

Mental activitiesRehearsal You have to repeat your homework until you know it by heartElaboration While learning, you have to think about what you’ve been reading

1 In the final year of primary school (grade 6), Dutch pupils are advised by their teachers on the levelof secondary education. In general, there are three levels of secondary education: low, middle and high,which will admit pupils to lower forms of vocational education, higher forms of vocational education,or to university, respectively


cular textbooks used for math and language, the percentage of class teaching basedon teacher’s instructions, and cooperative learning and individual learning.

The questionnaire was administered at class level. After a short introduction aboutthe aim of the study, the questionnaires were handed out. It was stressed that pupils’answers could neither be right nor wrong and that they had to express their ownopinion. The pupils filled out the questionnaire during schooltime, which took about20–30 min.

5.1.3. AnalysisIn order to identify learning conceptions, defined as clusters of beliefs about the

five different aspects of learning, several analyses were performed. First, factoranalyses (PAF, oblimin-rotations) were performed on the items of the separateaspects of learning. In order to construct scales with close factorial structures andhigh reliability coefficients, the following procedure was performed. The Eigenvalueof an initial factor had to be higher than 1. Items with high factor loadings on multiplefactors, or with factor loadings between �0.30 and 0.30 were removed. Cronbach’sAlpha (α) was used to calculate the reliability of the scales. Items with low item-restcorrelations were also removed. Next, hierarchical cluster analyses (Ward’s method,squared euclidic distances) were performed on the factor scores to identify homo-geneous groups of pupils with particular belief systems. Criteria for the cluster so-lution were based on the rescaled distance cluster combination (by means of adendrogram), as well as on how well the clusters could be interpreted. Analyses ofvariance (ANOVA) were performed to determine differences between the clusters.Finally, cross-tabulations were used to test the relationship between student and gen-eral educational variables on the one hand, and the particular learning conceptionon the other.

5.2. Results

Factor analyses performed on the five aspects of learning separately led to scalesthat were different from the categories of the interview study. The first aspect ofpurpose of school resulted in two factors, which was also the case for the secondaspect: learning orientation. The content of each of the factors of both aspects, how-ever, showed considerable overlap, while the reliability coefficients of the scaleswere not really satisfying. Since the combination of the items of these two aspectscould be explained and justified conceptually (Section 5.3), the items of both aspectsof purpose of school and learning orientation were factor-analysed as a whole.Results of initial analyses regarding the learning demands and mental activitiesseemed to run parallel with the results of the first two aspects. Also for these aspects,a combination of the items could be explained conceptually, and therefore, the pro-cedure described above was also used for the last two aspects of learning. Given thatthe results of the factor analyses regarding regulation were satisfying, this alternativeapproach resulted in a diminution of the five aspects of learning into three moregeneral aspects of learning: (1) purpose of school and learning; (2) regulation and;(3) and learning demands and activities. With respect to these three parts, eight scales


could be extracted whose Eigenvalues were higher than 1. The reliability coefficientsof the scales varied between 0.59 and 0.80. They have been summarized in Table2. The content of the scales is briefly described below.

5.2.1. Purpose of school and learning

1. Avoidance orientation. Items of this scale are characterised by a negative attitudetowards school and learning. Items like ‘ I only go to school because its compul-sory’ have a high factor loading. Pupils underline statements referring to the use-lessness of the school tasks, and they wonder why they have to learn all thesubject matters.

2. Development orientation. This motivational orientation refers to having a personalinterest in the subject matter. In this case, pupils agree to a large extent withstatements such as “knowing more about different subjects from the curriculum” ,the “ joy of learning” and the “pursuit of personal growth and independence” .

5.2.2. Regulation of the learning process

1. Regulation by the teacher. Typically, pupils holding this belief do strongly relyon the instructions and help provided by the teacher. They belief that it is theteacher’s job to supply detailed instruction and explanation about the task that

Table 2Number of items, Crohnbach’s alpha, mean scale scores (s.d.), Eigenvalue, proportion explained variance,and cumulative variance of the three main aspects of learning: (A/B) purpose of school and learningorientation, (C) regulation, (D/E) learning demands and mental activities, (N=367)

Aspects of learning N items α Mean (s.d.) Eigen value Explained Cumulative(scales per aspect) variance variance (%)

(%)

Purpose of school 23and learningAvoidance 13 0.80 2.47 (0.62) 3.37 14.7 14.7orientation

10 0.77 3.27 (0.55) 2.79 12.2 26.9

Regulation 19Reg. by teacher 8 0.76 3.26 (0.67) 2.65 12.7 12.7Focus on peers 7 0.69 2.71 (0.61) 1.91 9.1 21.8Individual 4 0.59 2.83 (0.82) 1.42 6.8 28.6

Learning demands 23and activitiesSurface 7 0.73 3.05 (0.69) 3.30 14.4 14.4Deep 9 0.67 3.55 (0.49) 1.73 7.5 21.9Undirected 7 0.70 2.36 (0.57) 1.10 4.8 26.7


must be completed. They also want the teacher to tell them what issues will beexamined in forthcoming tests.

2. Focus on peers. Pupils holding this kind of belief prefer to get tips about learningand all kinds of study advice from their classmates. They not only make use oftheir help, but are also interested in the others’ way of learning and thinking andcompare their own learning habits with what they see around them. They believethat it is important to know how other pupils think and learn.

3. Working individually. This scale represents beliefs that express a preference forlearning and working individually. It seems obvious to link this factor to internalregulation. However, as the items of this factor refer to ‘working individually,rather than working together’ , we cannot exclude external regulation straightaway.

5.2.3. Learning demands and mental activities

1. Surface. This scale reflects beliefs that can be described as surface learning. It ischaracterised by a quantitative approach to learning. Spending a lot of time andmaking an effort are emphasised as being important learning demands, whilerehearsal and memorising activities are believed to be relevant mental activities.

2. Deep. The second scale appears to be the opposite of the first, with its focus ondeep learning activities and learning strategies. For example, items refer to elabor-ation and understanding of the learning content, but also to meta-cognitive aware-ness, like using certain strategies for particular tasks.

3. Undirected/helpless. These beliefs point to a rudderless approach towards learningactivities. Pupils with this belief find it impossible to learn a task as they do notknow how to start. Their learning approach to math or languages is believed tobe mostly insufficient, and the luck needed to pass a test is stressed. In this scale,evaluative beliefs resound about one’s learning behaviour and self-efficacy.

Factor scores were computed to depict the level of agreement for each of the eightscales. Based on these individual factor scores, a hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward’smethod, squared euclidic distances) distinguished three groups of pupils with specificanswering profiles, representing different types of learning conceptions. Mean scoresof the eight scales per cluster are shown in Table 3. Analyses of variance (ANOVA)showed significant differences between the mean scores regarding all eight scales,for at least two of the three clusters. These differences, however, concerned a rathersmall variation (2.15�x�3.80). The three clusters are depicted in Fig. 3 anddescribed by means of their strongest characteristics as well as on the basis of themost significant differences between them.

Cluster 1. Within the profile of the first cluster, pupils reported the highestscores on developmental orientation and deep learning strategies and the lowestscores on an avoidance attitude and undirectedness. Although these scores suggesta positive orientation towards school and learning, and though the beliefs concern-ing learning activities seem to facilitate deep learning processes, the absolute


Tab

le3

Mea

nsc

ores

(s.d

.)of

the

eigh

tfa

ctor

spe

rcl

uste

r(f

oral

lfa

ctor

s:p�

0.01

)(F

1=av

oida

nce

orie

ntat

ion;

F2=d

evel

opm

ent

orie

ntat

ion;

F3=r

egul

atio

nby

the

teac

her;

F4=f

ocus

onpe

ers;

F5=i

ndiv

idua

lw

orki

ng;

F6=s

urfa

cele

arni

ngac

tiviti

es;

F7=d

eep

lear

ning

activ

ities

;F8

=und

irec

ted

lear

ning

)

Clu

ster

N(%

)F1

F2F3

F4F5

F6F7

F8

116

2(4

4.1)

2.20

(0.5

3)3.

11(0

.54)

2.91

(0.5

9)2.

48(0

.62)

2.59

(0.6

7)2.

62(0

.57)

3.32

(0.4

7)2.

19(0

.59)

214

0(3

8.1)

2.91

(0.5

2)3.

38(0

.51)

3.75

(0.4

5)2.

94(0

.55)

2.74

(0.7

8)3.

44(0

.65)

3.79

(0.4

2)2.

66(0

.46)

365

(17.

7)2.

24(0

.50)

3.44

(0.5

6)3.

10(0

.63)

2.78

(0.5

2)3.

64(0

.70)

3.27

(0.4

3)3.

59(0

.41)

2.16

(0.4

8)T

otal

367

(100

)2.

47(0

.62)

3.27

(0.5

6)3.

26(0

.67)

2.71

(0.6

1)2.

83(0

.82)

3.05

(0.6

9)3.

55(0

.49)

2.36

(0.5

7)


Fig. 3. Clusters of beliefs (learning conceptions) for sixth graders (n=367).

scores represent rather unspoken/indistinct beliefs. These pupils also prefer moreexternal regulation rather than cooperating with peers or working individually.Since pupils of this first cluster reported the lowest mean scores for all of theeight factors, they demonstrate, in our view, a rather uncrystallised and unsophisti-cated or naive system of beliefs. Therefore, it is called a restricted learning con-ception.

Cluster 2. As pupils in the second cluster have relatively high scores on devel-opment as well as on avoidance, they appear to have an ambiguous attitudetowards the goal of school and learning. Regarding the regulation of the learningprocess, they strongly prefer external regulation. In contrast to the pupils with arestricted learning conception, these pupils report the highest levels of surface aswell as of deep learning activities and demands. They also value their undi-rectedness during learning relatively highly. In sum, pupils in this cluster, withthe highest reported levels of learning activities, strive for good grades and devel-opment, with an eye on the future. External regulation facilitates these goals mosteffectively, which at the same time reduces the undirectedness. Pupils in thiscluster seem to conceive of learning in terms of functionality. This particularcombination of beliefs can, therefore, be called a functional learning conception.

Cluster 3. Pupils in the third cluster reported low scores on avoidance andhigh scores on development. Compared to the first two learning conceptions, thismotivational attitude is most strongly focused on the content of the learning tasks.The high score on individual working is in accordance with this developmentalorientation. These pupils also report high levels of surface and deep learning


activities, which are comparable to the functional learning conception. Comparedto the pupils with a restricted learning conception, these pupils do not value theirlearning activities as undirected either. Pupils of this third cluster appear to com-bine characteristics of the first cluster, (i.e. no avoidance attitude and no undi-rectedness towards their own learning) with characteristics of the second cluster(i.e. a belief that learning is about both surface and deep learning activities). Thiscombination of beliefs can be referred to as a developmental learning conception.

The results of cross-tabulation analyses showed no significant relations betweenthe learning conceptions and the three general items with respect to pupils’ famili-arity with the content of the items and the difficulty of the questionnaire. Thereare, however, significant relations between learning conceptions and the motivationalvariables. The more pupils enjoyed learning (χ2=28.3; df=8; p�0.000), enjoyed lang-uage (χ2=27.3; df=8; p=0.001), or enjoyed mathematics (χ2=11.1; df=4; p�0.05),the more often they demonstrated a developmental learning conception. Such arelation was also detected for motivation to go to school (χ2=16.3; df=4; p�0.01).With respect to relations between the different types of learning conceptions and thegeneral variables collected in conjunction with the questionnaire, no significantrelation was found between gender and the type of learning conceptions. Learningconceptions and the level of secondary school recommendation made by the teacher2

were related significantly (χ2=42.2; df=12; p�0.001). Pupils who were rec-ommended to enroll in a higher level of secondary education more frequently showeda developmental learning conception than other pupils. School variables, like theparticular methods used for language and mathematics, did not relate significantlyto learning conception. Similarly, two of the three didactic issues, cooperative learn-ing and individual learning, were not related to learning conception. Conversely,class teaching was found to be significantly related with learning conception(χ2=25.4; df=12; p�0.05); those pupils who most often received class teaching morefrequently demonstrated a developmental learning conception. In addition, learningconception was not proportional to the primary schools involved in this study(χ2=38.4; df=24; p�0.05); at some schools that happened to report little class teach-ing, more pupils with a restricted learning conception participated.

5.3. Conclusions study II

In this second study we examined different types of learning conceptions, usinga questionnaire developed in accordance with the categories of beliefs that emergedfrom our previous interview study. Factor analyses regarding the items of the separateaspects of learning revealed eight different factors that represent pupils’ learning-related beliefs. As pupils’ commitment to these beliefs differ to a certain extent,their scores show specific combinations of the relative positions on these factors. It

2 When the analyses were performed, the pupils had moved to secondary education. All pupils actuallyenrolled in the level of education as recommended by their teachers.


is exactly this combination that finally represents a specific learning conception,defined as a cluster of beliefs. By using cluster analyses, we found three differentclusters of beliefs, which could be labelled as a restricted learning conception, afunctional learning conception, and a developmental learning conception. However,a number of remarks, can be made about the realization and characteristics of thelearning conceptions.

First, factor analyses did not result in the same structuring that was found in theinterview study. Therefore, the items for four aspects, purpose of school and learningorientation, as well as learning demands and mental activities, were combined intotwo sets. The need for this combination could be due to the small number of itemsper belief. A similarly reasonable explanation could be related to the apparent simi-larities that the pupils experience with respect to the constructs, as was already men-tioned in our discussion on Study I. It seems that young pupils do not conceive largedifferences between purpose of school and learning orientation, represented as anoverall goal orientation. When explicitly questioned in the interviews, the pupils’responses could be split into distinct categories. The questionnaire items related topurpose of school and those related to learning orientation, however, were interpretedin much the same manner by the pupils, which suggests that the purpose of schooland learning orientation are indeed closely related for such young pupils. This argu-ment may also hold for the aspects learning demands and mental activities. Youngpupils’ beliefs about what is needed to be successful at school appeared to coincidewith the particular activities they believe must be employed while learning. As learn-ing demands more or less represent intentional beliefs preceding the actual learningactivities, the items pertaining to learning demands and mental activities in the ques-tionnaire seem to reflect the same underlying construct. In this way, transformationof four of the five aspects of learning, resulting from the interview study into anapparently rough division of two entities in the questionnaire study accommodates,in our view, the clarity of the construct of a learning conception.

A second remark can be made about the profiles of the learning conceptions.Although we are interested in characteristics that discriminate between the differenttypes of learning conceptions, there are some noteworthy similarities. The pupils inall three clusters are more developmentally oriented than avoidance oriented. Thisresult is rather striking as educational goals are not often the subject of discussionin the classroom, and therefore, the underlying purposes of schooling usually remainimplicit for the pupils (Bolhuis, 2000). Despite this implicit character, young pupils’motives for going to school apparently run parallel with those of primary education.Similar to this motivational aspect, beliefs with respect to learning demands andactivities show comparable profiles for all three clusters. All the pupils, except forthose with a restricted learning conception, attach more value to deep learning activi-ties than to surface learning activities, although the latter are also valued as reason-ably important. Strong commitment to both types of beliefs ‘allow’ pupils to employa broad scale of learning and thinking activities that may be characterised not onlyby a high level of metacognition, like regulative or elaborative activities, but mayalso include the more basic cognitive activities, like memorising or repeating partsof a text. Pupils holding such beliefs, like those with a functional or a developmental


learning conception, have a broad learning approach (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1992)that is assumed to lead to qualitatively high learning results. However, pupils witha restricted learning conception, who even so predominantly believe deep learningactivities or strategies to be worthwhile for learning, do not seem to recognise theinterest of the so-called surface learning activities. Accordingly, these pupils may,in a sense, become limited or restricted in their learning. It would appear that, withregard to learning demands and activities, these pupils overvalue deep processingand meta-cognitive activities, and disparage the more surface and cognitive activities.However, as meta-cognitive activities only exist because of cognitive activities(Elshout-Mohr, 1992), the latter should, in our view, be considered as important andbasic learning activities. Finally, as none of the three clusters showed similar profileswith respect to regulation, this aspect seems to discriminate best between the threedifferent learning conceptions. External regulation, however, is, according to all thepupils, preferable to help from peers. Yet, with an eye on secondary school demands,pupils in the final year of primary school are expected to rely on teachers’ instructionsdecreasingly. This, however, is not in line with beliefs held by pupils with a restrictedor functional learning conception, as they reported the highest scores for externalregulation. Accordingly, during the transitional period from primary to secondaryschool, these pupils may face considerable difficulties when it comes to regulationof their learning processes. This idea is supported if we examine pupils’ beliefs withrespect to undirectedness. Those pupils who strongly prefer external regulation alsoconsider their learning as relatively impossible and feel undirected as they do notknow how to start, regulate, or continue their learning adequately. Undirectednessmay, in this way, be conceived as a belief related to regulation, rather than relatedto the mental activities.

Thirdly, with a significant relation found between a developmental learning con-ception and pupils’ motivation for school and learning, as well as their interest inschool subjects like maths to language, we may conclude that motivational beliefsseem to play a relatively important role in the process of learning. Taking thesefindings together with the significant relation between learning conception and levelof secondary education that shows pupils with a developmental learning conceptionmore often pursue a higher level of secondary education than pupils with a restrictedor functional learning conception, we may find a connection between motivation andthe quality of the learning outcomes. These results seem to join the extensive researchliterature on motivation (Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Kember, Wong, & Leung,1999) which suggests that the various cognitive operations that result in deeper pro-cessing are often dependent on various motivational beliefs about for example theself as a learner, but also about learning and the learning process. Accordingly,motivational beliefs may not have a direct influence on cognitive activities, but, aspresuppositions or theories about the self and learning, they may influence the typesof inferences and belief formation that take place as pupils acquire knowledge andbuild their mental models (Pintrich, 1999).

Finally, the relation between class teaching, on the one hand, and learning concep-tions, on the other, suggests that class teaching contribute more to adopting a devel-opmental learning conception. One possible explanation may be the teacher’s func-


tion as role model. If pupils are taught by a teacher who illustrates deep learningactivities or explicates regulative strategies and, more or less explicitly emphasizesconstructive ideas, pupils may internalize these implicit messages and acknowledgethose as their personal learning-related beliefs. However, as the didactic issues weredealt with only at a very general level, i.e. the teachers’ impression about the percent-age class teaching, cooperative learning, and individual work, we cannot attach muchsignificance to this relation. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that these assumedteacher influences are much stronger than the basic principles of the textbooks used,which are, accordingly, not related to learning conceptions.

6. General discussion

In this article, two studies are described which explored young pupils’ learningconceptions. A theoretical exploration regarding the content and construct of a learn-ing conception led us to a range of ideas from social psychology, in particular, tothe construct of an attitude. The evaluative and multi-dimensional character of anattitude are, in our view, applicable to the construct of a learning conception, aseducational research has mainly reported results that indicate that conceptions referto many different aspects of learning (see Saljo, 1979; Marton et al., 1993; Vermunt,1996; Tynjala, 1997). At the same time, it is still unclear how these conceptions, orbeliefs, are interrelated. These characteristics are considered to be very useful fordefining a learning conception more precisely, i.e. as a system of interrelated beliefs.In order to study these matters in more detail with respect to young pupils in the finalyear of primary school, a qualitative as well as a quantitative study were carried out.

In the first study, we elicited young pupils’ beliefs about the five aspects of learn-ing by means of semi-structured interviews. The interview questions were formulatedat a non-contextual level. Such a general level was chosen in light of the non-trans-parent nature of the construct of learning. However, the answers given by the pupilsoften descended from a domain-specific level, in particular when learning activitieswere at issue. Although the specific contexts were ignored when categorizing theresponses of the pupils, we nevertheless stress that research on conceptions aboutlearning should also take the domain specificity of the phenomena into account inorder to meet intra-individual differences regarding different learning contexts(Weinert & Helmke, 1998). We plan to focus on these issues in the next phase ofour longitudinal study.

Young pupils appeared to have a relatively clear-cut set of beliefs about learning,in which a remarkably broad set of beliefs concerning mental activities could bedistinguished. Their responses nevertheless varied considerably and differed in manyways from those of students at higher levels of education. Some new categories werefound with regard to, e.g. the goals or purpose of school, and refinements could bemade with respect to regulation. These results suggest that the instruments used withdifferent groups of subjects are not always interchangeable (Berry & Sahlberg, 1996),and examining the beliefs of the students under study is, therefore, necessary.

Going beyond the phenomenographic aims of the first study, discovering forms


of understanding a phenomenon, inter-individual differences were examined in thesecond study. We tried to identify homogeneous clusters of beliefs regarding thefive aspects of learning measured by means of a questionnaire. In this way, thequestionnaire study also explored the extent to which the aspects of learning dis-tinguished in Study I were conceptually distinct or overlapping in pupils’ minds. Wemay conclude that young pupils hold eight different beliefs regarding three mainaspects of learning, i.e. purpose of school and learning, regulation of the learningprocess, and learning demands and activities. Although with regard to the separateaspects of learning as well as to the number of beliefs, some of the nuances are lost,we feel that these more general scales still have the potential of reflecting theessences of individual differences in learning conceptions. Finally, three differenttypes of learning conceptions could be distinguished: a restricted learning conception,characterised by a relatively low commitment to different kinds of beliefs, a func-tional learning conception, characterised by ego-orientation, and external regulationfor future success and, a developmental learning conception, which is characterisedby an emphasis on personal growth and a deep approach to the learning process.

The results of this study also indicate that learning conceptions are influenced bydidactic variables as the developmental learning conception seems to go togetherwith a great deal of class teaching, as well as that teachers who report they userelatively little class teaching seem to have relatively many pupils in their classeswith a restricted learning conception. We, therefore, may assume that pupils’ beliefsare influenced by the amount of class teaching. Even more fundamentally, theseresults also suggests that young pupils’ beliefs are still subject to change. It is, how-ever, still questionable as to in what way pupils’ beliefs will change during thetransition of educational contexts. We intuitively assume that pupils with a restrictedlearning conception may change in one or the other direction. As the restricted learn-ing conception is characterised by a set of rather uncrystallised beliefs, these pupilsmay ‘develop’ either a functional learning conception, with its focus on effectiveness,or a developmental learning conception, with its focus on deep learning ensued froma need for personal growth.

In anticipating these matters, we would like to refer to a study among students inhigher education which focused on group differences with respect to three dimen-sions of the Inventory Learning Styles (Vermunt, 1992), i.e. the cognitive processingstrategies, meta-cognitive regulation strategies, and mental models of learning(Vermetten, Vermunt & Lodewijks, 1999). In this study, cluster analyses alsorevealed three homogeneous groups of students (with respect to responses to certaininstructional measures) that appeared to be comparable to our own findings. The firstgroup of students reported the lowest scores on all but one of the scales, and werelabelled inactive learners, which is comparable to pupils with a restricted learningconception. A second cluster was labelled surface/undirected learners, as they hadlow scores on deep and self-regulated strategies, but relatively high scores on externalregulation and the conception ‘ intake of knowledge’ . With respect to the scores onregulation, this group seems to be comparable to pupils with a functional learningconception. The third cluster consisted of deep learners, with the highest reportedlevels of deep, concrete processing and self-regulated strategies and the conception


‘construction of knowledge’ . Pupils in our study with a developmental learning con-ception could be recognized as deep learners, as they also prefer a kind of self-regulation and have a strong commitment to deep learning strategies.

The similarities between the results of both studies are striking. One major differ-ence, however, concerns students motivational orientations. Whereas Vermetten etal. (1999) left out students’ motivational beliefs, we more ore less implicitly inte-grated these orientations into the construct of a learning conception, by means ofthe purpose of school and learning. As motivational beliefs are increasingly assumedto be important resources for, and constraints on, conceptual change (Pintrich, 1999),we also want to plead taking into account a wider range of factors, including avariety of cognitive, motivational and social, and contextual factors, in attemptingto describe a learner’s conceptual ecology (Strike & Posner, 1992).

In labelling the different types of learning conceptions, we wondered whether anevaluative judgement was justified or not. In other words, is one learning conceptionpreferable to another? Considering the significant relation between the developmentallearning conception and level of secondary school, this type of conception seem tocomprise the most desirable beliefs with regard to the different aspects of learningthat seem to be related with most adequate learning outcomes. However, we are leftwith the question of causality, which means that we cannot yet conclude that aparticular learning conception determines a particular learning outcome or vice versa.The relationship between learning conception and level of secondary educationnevertheless constitutes an interesting issue for further research.

Finally, because learning conceptions are supposed to mediate between the learn-ing environment and learning activities in such a way that different types of learningconceptions may lead to different learning activities and, consequently, to differentlearning outcomes, the findings of these studies may stress the importance of dis-cussing pupils’ learning related-beliefs explicitly to enable them to enrich or evenrevise (Vosniadou, 1994) their learning conceptions to the benefit of their learningoutcomes. The findings of these studies also stresses our assumption that also youngpupils do indeed entertain different beliefs with regard to the different aspects oflearning.

However, the stability and variability in their beliefs about learning over time,and how these different learning conceptions are related to actual learning behaviour,will be an issue in the remainder of our longitudinal research.

References

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

Boekaerts, M., Otten, R., & Simons, P. R. J. (1997). Een onderzoek naar de bruikbaarheid van de ILS.Leerstijlen in de onderbouw van het voortgezet onderwijs [An utility study of the ILS. Learning stylesin grade 7–9.]. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 22 (2), 15–36.

Boekaerts, M., & Simons, P. R. J. (1995). Leren en Instructie: Psychologie van de leerling en het leer-proces [Learning and Instruction: Psychology of the student and the learning process]. Assen: Dekkerand Van de Vegt.


Bolhuis, S. (2000). Naar zelfstandig leren. Wat doen en denken docenten? [Towards independent Learn-ing:what do teachers do and think?]. Academic dissertation, Nijmegen University, Garant, Apeldoorn.

Dart, B. D. (1994). A goal-mediational model of personal and environmental influences on tertiary stu-dents’ learning strategy use. Higher Education, 28, 453–470.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 290–299.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jonavich.Elliott, E., & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.Elshout-Mohr, M. (1992). Metacognitie van lerenden in onderwijsleerprocessen [Metacognition of learners

in teaching–learning processes]. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 17 (5), 273–289.Entwistle, A., & Entwistle, N. (1992). Experiences of understanding in revising for degree examinations.

Learning and Instruction, 2, 1–22.Entwistle, N., & Marton, F. (1984). Changing conceptions of learning and research. In F. Marton, D.

Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 211–236). Edinburgh, Great Britain:Scottish Academic Press.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, J. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to theoryand research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowl-edge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.

Kember, D., Wong, A., & Leung, D. Y. P. (1999). Reconsidering the dimensions of approaches to learn-ing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 323–343.

Klatter, E. B. (1996). Studievaardigheden in de brugklas. Een vergelijking tussen algemene en vakspeci-fieke verwerkingsstijlen van brugklasleerlingen. [Study skills in first year students of secondary school.A comparison between general and domain specific processing styles.]. Pedagogische Studien, 73 (4),303–316.

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography — describing conceptions of the world around us. InstructionalScience, 10, 177–220.

Marton, F., DallAlba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Edu-cational Research, 19, 277–300.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Reviewof Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constraints on conceptual change. In W.Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 33–50).Amsterdam/New York/Tokyo: Pergamon Press.

Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1992). An integrated model of motivation and self-regulated learning. Paperpresented at the American Educational Research Association. San Fransico.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement inclassroom academic tasks. In D. Schunk, & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom:causes and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Edu-cational Research, 69, 53–82.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes and values: a theory of organization and change. San Fransisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective.I. Some common-sense conceptions. Reports fromthe Department of Education, University of Goteborg.

Schommer, M., (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learn-ing. In R. Garner, & P. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and about text instruction (pp. 25–39).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sinatra, G. M., & Dole, J. A. (1998). Case studies in conceptual change: a social psychological perspective.In B. Guzzetti, & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change. Multiple ways to understandknowing and learning in a complex world. New Jersey/London: Mahwah.


Slaats, A., Lodewijks, H. G. L. C., & van der Sanden, M. M. (1999). Learning styles in secondaryvocational education: disciplinary differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 475–492.

Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl, & R. J.Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, educational theory and practice (pp.147–176). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Tynjala, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in different learn-ing environments. Learning and Instruction, 7, 277–291.

Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., Simons, P. R. J., & Volet, S. (2001). Active learning: self-directedlearning and independent work. In P. R. J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy, (Eds.) New learning.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Van der Pligt, J., & de Vries, N. K. (1995). Opinies en attitudes. Meting, modellen en theorie. [Opinionsand attitudes. Measurement and modelsand attitudes. Measurement, models and theory].Amsterdam/Meppel: Boom.

Van Rijswijk, F., Vermunt, J., Jong, F. de, & Kluvers, C. (1991). Inventaris Leerstijlen voor het voortgezetonderwijs. [Inventory Learningstyles for secondary education] Tilburg/Nijmegen: Tilburg University/Nijmegen University.

Van Rossum, E. J., & Schenk, S. M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategyand learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73–83.

Vermetten, Y., & Vermunt, J., Lodewijks, J. (1999). Powerful learning environments? How universitystudents differ in their response to instructional measures. In preparation.

Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs — naarprocesgerichte instructie in zelfstandig denken. [Learning styles and regulation of learning in highereducation — towards process-oriented instruction in autonomous thinking]. Amsterdam/Lisse:Swets & Zeitlinger.

Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and stra-tegies: a phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25–50.

Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning procdesses. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 68, 149–171.

Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learningand Instruction, 9, 257–280.

Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruc-tion, 4, 45–69.

Weinert, F. E., & Helmke, A. (1998). The neglected role of individual differences in theoretical modelsof cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 8, 309–323.

Learning conceptions of young students in the final year of primary education

Documents

Transcript of Learning conceptions of young students in the final year of primary education