See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233331713

Trainee teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning,

classroom layout and exam design

Article  in  Educational Studies · September 2004

DOI: 10.1080/0305569042000310309

CITATIONS READS

16 593

2 authors:

Fernando Doménech Betoret Amparo Gómez-Artiga

Universitat Jaume I University of Valencia
38 PUBLICATIONS   574 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   142 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Learning demands, teacher support, intention to learn, course satisfaction and academic achievement (Demandas
de aprendizaje, apoyos docentes , intención de aprender, satisfacción y rendimiento académico) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fernando Doménech Betoret on 21 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Educational Studies
Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2004

Trainee teachers' conceptions of

teaching and learning, classroom
layout and exam design
Fernando DomeÂnech Betoreta* and Amparo GoÂmez Artigab
a
Universitat Jaume I, CastlloÂn, Spain; bUniversitat de ValeÁnncia, Spain

The objective of this study centres on identifying and classifying the conceptions of teaching and
learning held by future secondary school teachers, and on analysing the relationship between these
conceptions and the way classroom space is organized and exams are designed. The test
instruments used were applied to a sample of 138 graduates, who were all following the
Pedagogical Aptitude Course (CAP) during the academic year 2002/03. Results show that the
more traditional teaching/learning models are related to a more vertical classroom layout.
Signi®cant correlations between beliefs and exam demands were also found.

Keywords: Classroom layout; Exam demands; Initial teacher training; Psychopedagogical

beliefs; Teacher conceptions

Introduction
The current importance of studies concerning the thought processes of teachers
constitutes a change of a paradigmatic approach in teaching research resulting from
the resurgence of cognitive psychology. From this perspective, the teacher is
understood as being a dynamic agent who plays an essential role in implementing
the curriculum and who takes decisions, weighs up situations and expresses her
thoughts and theories through her acts (Clark & Peterson, 1990).
One of the aspects concerning the way teachers think that has received most
attention by researchers involves the personal conceptions and beliefs that they have
about teaching and/or learning, both at university (Kember, 1997; Kember & Kwan,
2001) and non-university level (Marrero, 1993; Lingbiao & Watkins, 2001; Martinez
et al., 2001; Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001). The fundamental motive behind the study of

*Corresponding author: Department of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Universitat

Jaume I, Campus Riu Sec, 12071 CastelloÂn, Spain. Email: betoret@psi.uji.es
ISSN 305±5698(print)/ISSN 1465±3400 (online)/04/040355-18
ã 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0305569042000310309
356 F. D. Betoret and A. G. Artiga

teachers' conceptions is to analyse the latent structure that gives teaching a meaning
and is capable of predicting and explaining teacher behaviour.
Yet, in spite of the tremendous amount of progress made in this line of research in
recent years, authors still do not agree on some important aspects, such as the way to
categorize the teaching and learning conceptions held by teaching staff. These
divergences have hindered the rate at which research has been conducted in this ®eld,
and this has recently led some authors to carry out exhaustive reviews of the work
published over the past few years (Calderhead, 1996; Kember, 1997; Samuelowicz &
Bain, 2001) in order to search for meeting points that enable research to continue
advancing. These studies show that when it comes to categorizing the conceptions
held by teaching staff, authors disagree on two fundamental issues. The ®rst involves
how to determine the number of categories that exist and establish their boundaries,
while the second concerns deciding whether the conceptions about teaching and
learning are to be studied separately or jointly as an integrated whole.
When teaching staff's conceptions about teaching and about learning were studied
separately and later submitted to analyses to determine the extent to which they
coincide, no signi®cant differences were found between the two constructsÐas has
also been con®rmed by some recent studies (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Gow &
Kember, 1993; Kember, 1997; Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001). On the basis of this
research and because we understand teaching and learning to be two interrelated
processes that cannot be separated when seeking to gain an overall view of the
educational situation, in this paper we carry out an integrated study of trainee
teachers' conceptions of teaching/learning.
Generally speaking, authors who have studied teachers' conceptions of teaching
and learning have used the major educational approaches or paradigms in an attempt
to identify and categorize them within a continuum (Fox, 1983; Samuelowicz & Bain,
1992; Gow & Kember, 1993; Prosser et al., 1994; Kember, 1997; McCombs &
Whisler, 1997). The integrated categorization of teaching/learning we propose here
(DomeÂnech, 1999a, b, 2004), presented in Table 1, has been determined and
delimited according to the four classical instructional paradigms, namely the
traditional paradigm (teacher-centred approach), the behaviourist paradigm (prod-
uct-centred approach), the cognitive paradigm (student-centred approach) and the
humanist paradigm (process-centred approach). Unlike other categorizations, this
proposal enables us to achieve a clear, operative de®nition of the pro®le of teachers'
psychopedagogical beliefs. This characterization revolves around two opposing,
bipolar axes (teacher-centred versus student-centred and process-centred versus
product-centred) which, if represented graphically, can be seen to cross each other at
right angles and are delimited by each of the approaches under consideration. This
conceptual framework has provided the theoretical support needed to be able to
create a measuring instrumentÐa questionnaireÐthat can be used to explore the
beliefs of large samples of subjects, as in this study, quickly and ef®ciently. This
implies lower costs, of both time and resources, than is the case in qualitative and
phenomenographic studies, although it does not examine matters in such depth.
On the basis of these considerations and with teacher training as the context for our
 Teaching/learning conceptions of trainee teachers
Table 1. Characterization of the four proposed types of teaching/learning beliefs (DomeÂnech,
1999a, 1999b, 2004)
Teachers' beliefs on teaching/learning
Teacher-centred (Traditional approach)
± All knowledge comes from the teacher and
nothing she says can be questioned.
± Education is essentially logocentric,
conducted by the teacher and strongly centred
on her (moral or physical) authority.
± The teacher's role is to pass on
knowledge.
± The student plays a passive-receptive
role.
± Value is given to the amount of
information that is assimilated and not to its
quality.
± The methodology employed is essentially
expositive.
± Reproductive evaluation.
School: a place in which to know
Teacher: an expert in or transmitter of
information
Process-centred (Humanist approach)
± Human beings have a natural urge to learn
(due to their curiosity).
± The importance of developing socio-
affective and social skills (critical sense,
re¯ection).
± Students decide on their own pace and set
their own rhythm (learning agreements),
which encourages responsibility, autonomy
and independence.
± The training strategy is very ¯exible and the
rigidity of operative objectives is therefore
rejected. They criticize the rigidity of school in
general.
± True learning takes place when both the
intellect and the emotions are involved.
± The importance of cooperative learning,
dialogue and interactions.
± Far more value is given to the affective
aspect than to results.
± Evaluation is processual.
School: a place in which to learn to live and to
live together/share
Teacher: an educator
357
Student-centred (Cognitive approach)
± The educational situation is organized
around the student.
± The teacher does not conduct the teaching;
instead her role is limited to guiding and
orienting the teaching/learning process.
± Aims to develop students' learning and
thinking skills.
± The student is actively involved in the
construction of his or her own knowledge.
± The teacher creates learning situations and
proposes cognitive con¯icts in order to favour
that construction.
± The teacher tries to favour students'
intrinsic motivation. That is to say, their
motivation comes from within rather than
from the outside.
± Evaluation is focused on the process.
School: a place in which to think
Teacher: an instructor
Product-centred (Behaviourist approach)
± The educational situation must be
understood as a technical type of process.
± A great deal of importance is given to
planning and setting aims.
± The process is rigid because it depends on
the accomplishment of the objectives, which
were formulated in an operative manner.
The teacher provides her students with a lot of
practice.
± Teaching must be on an individual basis.
± Evaluation is aimed at valuing the degree to
which objectives are accomplished.
School: a place in which to know and to know
how
Teacher: a technician
358 F. D. Betoret and A. G. Artiga

work, we considered it of interest to determine, identify and classify the conceptions

held by future secondary school teachers because of the implications such information
may have in improving the teacher training education of graduates who are to become
secondary school teachers:
The extent to which teachers are aware of their speci®c assumptions and beliefs about
teaching and learning helps to prevent hidden cultures from appearing in the classroom.
Both students and teachers notice the presence of such cultures but cannot tackle them
because they are not acknowledged. (McCombs & Whisler, 1997, p. 38)

On the other hand, we posed the question that if thought guides action (Bandura,
1986), or it is in¯uenced by action, we may assume a correlation to exist among the
conceptions that sustain teachers and their teaching actions in the classroom such as
curriculum design, teaching approaches, assessment process, etc. Kember uses
similar terms (1997, p. 270) when he states that `at the level of the individual teacher,
the methods of teaching adopted, the learning tasks set, the assessment demands
made and the workload speci®ed are strongly in¯uenced by the orientation to
teaching'. If this is the case, teachers focused on a teacher/content orientated
approach, and who regard teaching as imparting information, will develop a teaching
methodology and also an assessment process in accordance with their pedagogic
beliefs. In this sense, these teachers may be expected to organize the physical layout of
the classroom vertically to develop their teaching, and design their exams or tests to
include predominantly memory-based demands; on the other hand, teachers
classi®ed within the student-centred learning approach prefer to organize the physical
layout horizontally to develop their teaching, and design their exams or tests to
predominantly include demands of a superior cognitive nature such as analytical or
applied questions.
To summarize, the purposes of this research were as follows: ®rst, to analyse
teachers' beliefs about teaching/learning according to the four proposed theoretical
approaches as characterized above. Second, to relate their conceptions with the
physical layout of the classroom they proposed. Third, to relate their conceptions and
the physical layout proposed with the exam demands. These questions were of
particular interest in the context of initial teacher training since the data obtained will
provide valuable information not only for a better understanding of their classroom
behaviour, but also in the design of effective programmes aimed at the initial training
of the secondary school teacher.

Methodology
Sample
The sample consisted of a total of 138 students, 49 males (35.5%) and 89 females
(64.5%), who were studying the Pedagogical Aptitude Course (CAP) during the
academic year 2002/03. This course provides students with the quali®cation they
need in order to sit the public examinations to become secondary school teachers. The
subjects in the sample were all between 20 and 50 years old, and ages were distributed
 Teaching/learning conceptions of trainee teachers 359

Table 2. Characteristics and distribution of the sample

Sex (138 valid cases) Frequency Percentage

Males 149 35.5%

Females 189 64.5%
Age (138 valid cases)
20±29 years old 122 88.3%
30±39 years old 113 19.1%
40±50 years old 113 12.1%
Degree/diploma course (131 valid cases)
Humanities and Social Sciences 160 45.8%
Technology and Experimental Sciences 141 31.3%
Language Studies 130 22.8%

as follows: 122 students were aged between 20 and 29, 13 students were between the
ages of 30 and 39 and, ®nally, there were 3 students in the 40 to 50 age bracket. The
students' degree courses can be grouped into three categories: Technology and
Experimental Sciences (Mathematics, Chemistry, Engineering, etc.), Humanities and
Social Sciences (Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology, Economics, etc) and Language
Studies (Philology, Translation, etc.). The characteristics and distribution of the
sample used in the study can be seen in Table 2.

Procedure and instruments

Two measuring instruments were used to conduct this study. The ®rst was a
questionnaire (DomeÂnech, 1999a, b, 2004) used to identify and determine beliefs and
conceptions of the future secondary school teachers. It was made up of two
dimensions, as follows.

Teacher±student centred (12 items). To check the construct validity a principal-

components factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted. The analysis
yielded two factors with eigenvalues exceeding unity, and the factor solution
accounted for 40.05% of the total variance. Factor 1 (Teacher centred), made up
of six items, accounted for 27.53% of the total variace (eigenvalue=3.30). Factor 2
(Student centred), made up of six items, accounted for 12.52% of the total
variance (eigenvalue=1.50). Resultant indices evidence satisfactory levels of internal
consistency (Cronbach's a=0.69 and 0.67 respectively).
Examples of factor 1 items: `Knowledge of subject content is the most important
requirement of a good teacher', `The amount of knowledge assimilated by the student
during the learning process indicates the progress made', `Teachers must keep a
distance from students; in this way, they will have more respect and fewer problems in
class'. Examples of factor 2 items: `Trying to see things from the student's angle is the
360 F. D. Betoret and A. G. Artiga

key to their achieving good academic results', `Teachers should take into account
students' opinions before making decisions which will affect the class group',
`Teachers should allow every student to make progress at their own learning pace'.

Process±product centred (13 items). To check the construct validity a principal-

components factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted. The analysis
yielded two factors with eigenvalues exceeding unity, and the factor solution
accounted for 39.30% of the total variance. Factor 1 (Process centred), made up of
seven items, accounted for 25.90% of the total variance (eigenvalue=3.36). Factor
2 (Product centred), made up of six items, accounted for 13.40% of the total
variance (eigenvalue=1.74). Resultant indices evidence satisfactory levels of internal
consistency (Cronbach's a=0.71 and 0.68 respectively).
Examples of factor 1 items: `Students' personal self-ful®lment and understanding
of others should be a major teacher concern', `The level of student satisfaction is an
important indicator of the quality of the teaching process', `Developing students'
passion for knowledge and learning should be placed before academic achievement'.
Examples of factor 2 items: `I consider it a priority to complete the syllabus designed
at the begining of the course', `It is good to create a competitive climate in class,
because in this way students become more motivated and work harder', `Tests and/or
exams are the best way to ®nd out the students' progress'.
In order to perform a weighted quanti®cation of the four factors, we calculated a
percentage coef®cient for each of them that was obtained by applying the following
formula: the direct score obtained in each of the four factors divided by the maximum
possible score multiplied by 100. In this way, a higher score obtained in each category
(ranging from 10 to 100) indicated a greater predominance of this kind of beliefs:
C1=Total score Teacher 3 100 / (13 items 3 6) C3=Total score Process 3 100 / (11 items 3 6)
C2=Total score Student 3 100 / (13 items 3 6) C4=Total score Product 3 100 / (11 items 3 6)

The second instrument to be applied was a grid consisting of ®ve elements and 12
bipolar constructs that was used to ®nd out which physical layout the future secondary
school teachers preferred in their classrooms and their reasons for making that
particular choice. The elements were images (see Figures 1±6) depicting different
types of physical layout in the secondary school classroom (A±B±C±D±E). All of them
were made up of the same elements, including the number of students (they were
designed for 30 pupils), but with a different layout in each case. Each of the students
was given a sheet of paper with the ®ve images that went to make up the test and a
blank space in which they were to draw a sixth image, if they thought it necessary.
They were asked to evaluate, from their own point of view, the 12 bipolar constructs
for each of the images. The constructs referred to the way the type of classroom layout
can affect the hypothetical teaching/learning process to be carried out within it. In this
way, it is possible to explore `indirectly' what sort of conception future secondary
school teachers have about teaching and learning and a considerable amount of social
desirability is therefore eliminated. The constructs to be evaluated were: 1, ef®cient±
 Teaching/learning conceptions of trainee teachers 361

Figure 1±6 Arrangement of the types of classroom layout used in the study along the bipolar
continuum proposed by Kember (1997)

Figure 2 Layout type A

inef®cient; 2, favouring learning±hindering learning; 3, pleasant±unpleasant; 4,

motivating±demotivating; 5, relaxing±stressing; 6, productive±unproductive; 7,
discipline±indiscipline; 8, order±disorder; 9, innovative±routine; 10, active±passive;
11, ¯exibility±rigidity; and 12, quality±quantity.
Students were given the following instructions: `Look carefully at these ®gures.
They represent different ways of organizing the space inside the classroom, of setting
out the furniture and equipment and, in short, of working in the classroom. Read the
®rst pair of adjectives in the ®rst column. Then ask yourself, or think about, which of
the pairs of opposites best respond to or are best associated with each of the ®ve ®gures
362 F. D. Betoret and A. G. Artiga

Figure 3 Layout type B

Figure 4 Layout type C

 Teaching/learning conceptions of trainee teachers 363

Figure 5 Layout type D

Figure 6 Layout type E

Note: There is only one teacher but she has two positions in the classroom

you have been shown (A, B, C, D, E). State your opinion using the ®ve-point scale of
answers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Give it 1 if the training process carried out using that layout
corresponds exactly to the underlined adjective (the negative pole), and 5 if the
training process carried out using that layout corresponds exactly to the adjective
written in italics (the positive pole). The other scores (2±3±4) correspond to the
intermediate graduations. Once you have ®nished with the ®rst pair of adjectives,
364 F. D. Betoret and A. G. Artiga

continue with the other pairs using the same procedure until you complete the whole
chart.'
The way the constructs are scored for each element (or ways of organizing the
classroom) will mean that the higher the score obtained, the better the student's
perception, and vice versa. The purpose of this questionnaire was to ®nd out the
classroom layout preferred by students and, indirectly, what they understood teaching
and learning to mean. The different ways of organizing classroom space proposed in
the test can be arranged along a continuum which is delimited by two opposing
categories, the vertical layout and the horizontal layout. In this way, the ®ve types of
layout presented to the students (A, B, C, D, E) can be ordered both operatively and
sequentially. Layout A is the most vertical and traditional (where both the activity and
authority fall to the teacher), followed by C (which is a variation of the previous one),
and layout E is understood as being the most horizontal and innovative (where both
activity and authority are mainly carried out by students), followed by layout B.
Layout D would lie in an intermediate position (representing a discussed class in
which activity is shared by teacher and students).
Once the grid test had been carried out, we asked the CAP students to design an
exam, on a topic from their specialization, for secondary students. To guide them in
how to put the questions, they were provided with a sheet of paper that contained
various ways of formulating questions (based on PeÂrez et al., 2000), including
objective test and essay question types with corresponding examples. As a guideline,
they were told `to suppose that you have ®nished teaching a topic of a subject from
your specialization to secondary-level students (12±16 years old) having spent around
six one-hour class sessions. To assess what your students have learnt on that topic,
you are asked to design an exam, to be marked from 1 to 10, on the content of the
topic taught. First of all, write the title you originally gave the topic and then formulate
the questions that you consider appropriate. The sheet you have been given provides
you with different ways of formulating exam questions.'
We used the categories proposed by Sternberg (1998) to classify and operationalize
the exam demands. According to this author, different types of exam can be
distinguished according to the demands it contains. Each kind of demand is designed
to evaluate a different kind of learning, depending on the skill involved: memory
based, analytical, practical or creative. Recall is evaluated by presenting the students
with activities that involve memorizing data, facts and concepts; students' analytical
skills are evaluated through activities that involve analysis, evaluation, comparison,
®nding similarities and differences, explaining, etc.; creative skills are evaluated
through activities that involve creating, inventing, designing, hypothesizing, etc.; and
their practical skills are assessed by means of activities or tasks that require
application, use and demonstration (see Table 3).

Results
1. Applying the questionnaire has enabled us to identify the beliefs about teaching/
learning held by future secondary school teachers (objective 1). From the data
 Teaching/learning conceptions of trainee teachers 365

Table 3. Examples of exam questions to evaluate different skill categories proposed by Sternberg,
(1998) for different subject contents

1. Memorization: capacity to recall facts and concepts. Examples:

Literature: What is the name of the squire in Don Quixote?
Mathematics: Write down Pythagoras' theory.
Science: Which of these stones is bauxite?
Social: In what year was the Magna Carta signed?

The analytical skills: analysis, judgement, evaluation, comparison or contrast. Examples:

Literature: What are the similarities and differences between the Ouixote characters Sancho Panza
and Dulcinea del Toboso?
Mathematics: If 3 3 2 2 18=30, what is the value of x?
Sciences: Why have many types of bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?
Social: What were the events that led to World War II?

The creative skills: creating, invention, discovery, imagination. Examples:

Literature: Write an alternative end to Don Quixote.
Mathematics: Write down a problem of a certain type.
Sciences: If you had to design a space-suit to be used on Mars, what factors would you consider in
its design?
Social: If you were Harry Truman and wanted to end World War II without dropping any bombs,
what could you have done?

The practical skills: application, putting into practice or carrying out. Examples:
Literature: Write an announcement that could be placed in the newspaper to convince people to go
and see a certain play that we have seen.
Mathematics: How could trigonometry be used in the construction of a bridge?
Sciences: How can we reduce or even eliminate the colour red in a red title?
Social: Current implications of the events of September 11 in New York

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the psychopedagogical pro®le of CAP students

N Minimum Maximum Mean Typ.dev. Asym. Kurtosis

C1TEACH 139 16.67 79.49 54.0122 10.2446 20.426 21.068

C2STUDE 138 50.00 100.00 75.2137 19.4241 20.023 20.162
C3PROCE 139 43.94 100.00 70.6889 19.5107 20.304 20.679
C4PRODU 139 27.27 75.76 52.6924 10.7665 20.304 20.051

collected, shown in Table 4, it was found that most students in the sample analysed
possess a series of psychopedagogical beliefs which give rise to a teaching/learning
model that is essentially student and process centred. This was evidenced by the fact
that the coef®cients obtained in the process- and student-centred categories were
higher than those seen in the teacher- and product-centred categories.
2. Several different types of statistical analysis were carried out in order to establish the
relation between the teacher's psychopedagogical beliefs (and the teaching/learning
366 F. D. Betoret and A. G. Artiga

model derived therefrom) and the type of physical layout of the classroom (objective
2). First, correlations were established among the teaching/learning models that
derive from the teacher's psychopedagogical beliefs and the total scores, which were
obtained by adding up the scores from the 12 constructs for each kind of classroom
layout. The test used in each case was Pearson's correlation coef®cient, since we are
dealing with quantitative data. The results can be seen in Table 5.
The data in Table 5 show that the teacher- and product-centred teaching/learning
models correlate positively and signi®cantly with layouts type A (g=0.421, p<0.01;
g=0.330, p<0.01 respectively) and type C (g=0.355, p<0.01; g=0.360, p<0.01
respectively), and inversely and signi®cantly with layouts type B (g=20.293, p<0.01;
g=20.276, p<0.01 respectively) and type E (g=20.303, p<0.01; g=20.251, p<0.05
respectively). With the student- and process-centred models, however, virtually the
opposite occurs. It is interesting to point out that very low correlations were obtained
for layout type D in the four types of beliefs. This indicates that future secondary
school teachers' beliefs lead them neither to prefer nor reject it, and it is perceived as a
kind of layout that acts as a transition between the vertical, or hierarchical, and the
horizontal, or democratic, types.
If we turn to look at the intercorrelations between the teaching/learning models that
derive from the future secondary teachers' psychopedagogical beliefs, we ®nd a
statistically signi®cant correlation between the product-centred teaching/learning
model and the teacher-centred teaching/learning model (g=0.599, p<0.01); a
statistically signi®cant, but inverse, correlation between the student-centred teach-
ing/learning model and the teacher-centred teaching/learning model (g=20.201,
p<0.05); a statistically signi®cant correlation between the process-centred teaching/
learning model and the student-centred teaching/learning model (g=0.602, p<0.01);
and a statistically signi®cant, but inverse, correlation between the process-centred
teaching/learning model and the product-centred model (g=20.309, p<0.01).
On the basis of the intercorrelations among the different teaching/learning models
obtained (high positive correlation between the teacher/product-centred models and
high positive correlation between student/process-centred models), and in an attempt
to simplify matters, we considered it advisable to conduct a second correlation
analysis. This time the four initial approaches were grouped into two large, opposing
conceptions which were labelled student-process (stude-proce) and teacher-product
(teach-produ). This categorization of teachers' conceptions has been defended by
other researchers, such as Kember (1997), who classi®es teacher beliefs in two similar
dimensions: teacher/content centred versus student/learning centred. Table 5 shows
the results obtained and reproduces the ®ndings from the previous table in a clearer
fashion.
Finally, Student's t-tests were performed to determine the trainee teachers' beliefs
according to the type of layout they showed a preference for. To do so, we split the
students into two groups. One group was made up of students who scored higher in
the constructs dealing with vertical layouts (A + C), where (A + C)>(B + E). The
second group contained students with higher scores in the constructs concerning
horizontal types of layout (B + E), where (A + C)<(B + E). Layout type D, as stated
Table 5. Correlations between the teaching/learning model derived from the teacher's psychopedagogical beliefs and the way classroom space is
organized (ordered from the most vertical to the most horizontal)

C1 C2 C3 C4 Type A, Type C, Type D, Type B, Type E,

TEACH STUDE PROCE PRODU Total Total Total Total Total

N 139 138 139 139 102 101 101 101 101

C1TEACH 1.000 20.201* 20.380** 20.599** 20.421** 22.0.355** 20.132 20.293** 20.303**
C2STUDE 21.0001 20.602** 20.201*1 20.1601 20.082 20.194 20.409** 20.14211
C3PROCE 1.000 20.309** 20.266** 20.113 20.100 20.443** 20.308**
C4PRODU 1.000 20.330** 220.360** 20.039 20.276** 20.251*1
TEACH-PRODU 20.422** 220.404** 20.095 20.321** 20.311**
STUDE-PROCE 0.244* 20.111 20.163 20.479** 20.256*1
Type A, Total 1.0001 220.506** 20.026 20.317** 20.267**
Type C, Total 21.000 20.190 20.199*1 20.325**
Type D, Total 21.000 20.15611 20.01411
Type B, Total 21.00011 20.18711
Type E, Total 21.00011

Notes: C1 TEACH: teacher's psychopedagogical beliefs from which a teacher-centred model of teaching/learning is derived; C2STUDE: teacher's
psychopedagogical beliefs from which a student-centred model of teaching/learning is derived; C3PROCE: teacher's psychopedagogical beliefs from
which a process-centred model of teaching/learning is derived; C4PRODU: teacher's psychopedagogical beliefs from which a product-centred model
of teaching/learning is derived. TEACH-PRODU: teacher's psychopedagogical beliefs from which a teacher/product-centred model of teaching/
learning is derived; STUDE-PROCE: teacher's psychopedagogical beliefs from which a student/process-centred model of teaching/learning is
derived.**p<0.01; *p<0.05.
Teaching/learning conceptions of trainee teachers
367
368 F. D. Betoret and A. G. Artiga

Table 6. Student's t-test between the predominant type of layout (vertical versus horizontal) and
teachers' beliefs for the four categories under consideration

Predominant layout: Predominant layout: Student's

vertical (n=59) (A + C)>(B + E) horizontal (n=41) (B + E)>(A + C) t-test

Mean Typ.dev. Mean Typ.dev.

C1TEACH 58.5615 7.6902 50.1251 8.9368 5.047**

C2STUDE 72.7454 8.2688 77.1420 8.6237 22.560**
C3PROCE 66.4869 8.2129 74.2055 9.1192 24.417**
C4PRODU 57.1905 8.3255 51.1826 11.2597 3.068**

**p<0.01; *p<0.05.

above, lies in an intermediate position between the vertical and horizontal layouts and
was therefore not taken into account in grouping the students. The results obtained
are shown in Table 6. Teachers who propose a predominantly vertical layout in the
classroom display signi®cantly higher scores in teacher-centred (t=5.047, p<0.01)
and product-centred beliefs (t=3.068, p<0.01). Teachers who proposed a predom-
inantly horizontal classroom layout scored signi®cantly higher in student-centred
(t=22.560, p<0.01) and process-centred beliefs (t=24.417, p<0.01).
3. To analyse the possible relationship among the beliefs of the trainee teachers on
teaching/learning, explored in previous analyses, and the way they designed the exam
(objective 3), a correlational analysis using Pearson's correlation coef®cient was
carried out. In this analysis we set out to relate the initial four categories of beliefs
grouped into two categories: student-process (stude-proce) and teacher-product
(teach-produ), the four factors obtained when a factor analysis was conducted on the
grid test (effectiveness, management satisfaction and methodology) and the four
categories of exam demands (memory based, analytical, creative and practical or
applied) proposed by Sternberg (1998). The correlations were analysed by blocks of
specializations (grouped according to studies), because in a previous comparative
analysis, signi®cant differences were obtained in exam demands among the three
groups of subjects formed according to degree course similarities (arts, sciences and
languages). However, no signi®cant differences were obtained in relation to beliefs or
preferred layout when comparing the same groups.
In addition, two judges, the authors of this article, categorized the demands of the
exam according to Sternberg's categorization (1998). The percentages were calcu-
lated for each category and exam. The total sum of the four categories per exam was
equal to 100 points, hence a higher score in a certain category indicated a greater
presence of this category in the exam. The creative demands identi®ed were very
scarce (less than 5% of the total) and it was therefore decided not to include this
category in the analysis. The coincidence between the judges on the categorization of
the exam demands reached 80%. The results obtained in the correlational analysis are
shown in Table 7.
 Teaching/learning conceptions of trainee teachers 369

Table 7. Correlations between conceptions, grid factors (effectiveness, management satisfaction

and methodology and exam demands (EM, EA and EPr) under consideration for the three
groups (Arts, Sciences and Languages)

Arts correlations (social and humans sciences) n=32

C_MANA D_METHOD E_EFFECT E_MANAG
G

**p<0.01; *p<0.05.
EM 0.400*
EA 20.449**
EPr 20.374* 0.420* 20.395*
Sciences correlations (experimental and mathematics) n=38
A_EFFECT
EM 0.375*
EA
EPr 20.421**
Language correlations (native and foreign) n=26
A_METHOD D_MANAG PROFPROD
EM
EA
EPr 0.435* 20.434* 0.389*

Discussion
As regards objective 1, from the data obtained it can be seen that most students in the
sample used in our study hold psychopedagogical beliefs in line with a cognitive
teaching/learning paradigm (i.e. student centred) and a humanist paradigm (i.e.
process centred). These ®ndings support what has been con®rmed by other similar
studies, in the sense that trainee teachers have more idealistic and altruistic values as
regards education than quali®ed teachers. These values are, to a certain extent, upset
after actually experiencing the classroom situationÐa `reality shock' (Veenman,
1984). Other authors coincide in pointing out that there is usually a traumatic
transition between the initial training period and the ®rst job in which the teacher has
to cope with the responsibility of managing a class (Esteve, 1994). When it comes to
actually teaching, the novice teacher will begin to review her attitudes and ideals in
order to adapt them to the `rough and harsh reality of the classroom' that Veenman
talks about (1984). The real world of teaching is very different to what they had
imagined.
With respect to the intercorrelations between the teaching/learning models derived
from teachers' psychopedagogical beliefs, we ®nd a positive and signi®cant correlation
between the product-centred teaching/learning model and the teacher-centred
teaching/learning model; a statistically signi®cant, but inverse, correlation between
the student-centred teaching/learning model and the teacher-centred teaching/
learning model; a positive and signi®cant correlation between the process-centred
teaching/learning model and the student-centred teaching/learning model; and,
370 F. D. Betoret and A. G. Artiga

®nally, a statistically signi®cant, but inverse, correlation between the process-centred

teaching/learning model and the product-centred teaching/learning model. From this
correlational analysis it can be deduced that the four initially proposed categories
could be reduced to two broad dimensions in an attempt to simplify matters, which is
a procedure in line with other researchers such as Kember (1997). Nevertheless, we
are in favour of maintaining the four proposed categories, as we believe that although
there is a certain amount of overlap, they provide us with a greater wealth of
information and ®ner distinctions.
Moreover, as regards the relationship between teachers' psychopedagogical beliefs
and the teaching/learning model derived from them, and the type of physical
classroom layout they themselves propose to use (objective 2), teachers who hold
predominantly teacher/product-centred beliefs obtain (often statistically signi®cant)
higher scores than teachers who hold predominantly student/process-centred beliefs
in vertical classroom layout, and vice versa. Similarly, teachers who propose a chie¯y
vertical classroom layout score signi®cantly higher than those who opt for a largely
horizontal layout in beliefs that re¯ect a teacher-centred and a product-centred
teaching/learning model, and vice versa.
These ®ndings are in line with our expectations, since a vertical classroom layout is
associated with a traditional model of understanding teaching/learning in which the
teacher is the sole authority. A horizontal layout in the classroom, however, will be the
result of a more democratic way of understanding education.
Concerning objective Table 3, Table 7 shows some signi®cant correlations between
the factors of the grid test and the exam demands when dividing the sample according
to specialization. The correlations results are interpreted from the initial view that the
exam demands are a re¯ection of the activities worked on in class.
Regarding the Arts students group, the results show that the practical type of
demands in the exams have a positive and signi®cant relationship with the level of
effectiveness and management that teaching students attribute to the type E layout. In
contrast, this relationship becomes signi®cant but negative with the management
perceived in the type C layout. These results seem to indicate that for the Arts group,
practical activities are dif®cult to manage in the type C layout; however, practical
activities would be effective and easy to manage in the type E layout. On the other
hand, it can be deduced that for the Arts group, the type C layout is better for teaching
memory-based knowledge, while on the contrary, it is not considered very appropriate
for analytical activities.
The Science students group revealed that the greater the level of effectiveness
attributed to the type A layout, the more memory-based demands are introduced
into the exam. However, the opposite occurs with the practical demands, which
tend to decrease because student teachers from the sciences perceive they are not
effective when applied in this kind of layout. Therefore, it can be deduced that for the
Sciences group, the type A layout would be effective to teach memory-based
knowledge, whereas they would not consider it very effective for applied or practical
activities.
The correlations obtained with the Languages student group appear to indicate that
 Teaching/learning conceptions of trainee teachers 371

for these student teachers, many of the practical or applied language activities
(understanding and written tasks, application of grammatical rules, etc.) can be
performed well by students working individually in a type A layout (vertical), whereas
the type D layout would be more appropriate for oral activities (speaking) and not very
appropriate for practical or applied activities requiring more individual work by the
student (it can be observed that a negative and signi®cant correlation is obtained
between practical demands and the type D layout). This interpretation is supported
by the positive and signi®cant correlation obtained among the practical or applied
activities included in the exams by the Languages group and their beliefs centred in
the teacher-product category.
To end, we highlight the following conclusions. Signi®cant relationship were found
between the beliefs valued through the questionnaire and the beliefs valued indirectly
through the grid test in which the elements were images. Evaluating beliefs indirectly
through images reduces the bias of social desirability presented by traditional
questionnaires, and as such, makes it an alternative to be borne in mind.
Some signi®cant relationships were found between the teachers' beliefs (mainly
beliefs valued through the grid) and the exam demands when the sample was divided
according to course specializations. This relationship, although weak, due to the
numerous mediating factors that exist between thought and teaching activity, allows
us to appreciate to a certain extent the in¯uence of the beliefs and conceptions held by
students teachers in the way they design exams.
Results indicate that layout preferences vary according to the activity type to be
carried out (memory based, analytical or practical), and that according to the degree
studied, different layouts are preferred for practical or applied activities.
Creative-type demands identi®ed were very few, amounting to no more than 5% of
the total, and thus were not included in the analyses. This is a direct re¯ection of what
currently tends to happen in the classroom.
As a ®nal conclusion, it is worth noting that the grid used in the study proved to be
an ef®cient tool that helped us to determine and identify the beliefs held by trainee
teachers concerning teaching/learning. It can therefore be used in future research as a
complement to other exploratory techniques, which can be both qualitative, such as
interviews, and quantitative, as with questionnaires. The advantages of the grid
technique, which has its foundations in Kelly's (1955) Theory of Personal Constructs
(TPC), have been claimed by numerous authors.

References
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall).
Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Smith, D. J. H., McCrindle, A. R., Burnett, P. C. & Campbell, K. J. (2001)
Secondary teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning, Learning and Instruction, 11, 35±
51.
Calderhead, J. (1996) Teachers: beliefs and knowledge, in: D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds)
Handbook of educational psychology (New York, Macmillan).
Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1990) Procesos de pensamiento de los docentes (Trad.), in: M. C.
 372 F. D. Betoret and A. G. Artiga

Wittrock (Ed.) La investigacioÂn de la ensenÄanza, Vol. III. Profesores v alumnos (Madrid, PaidoÂs-
MEC).
DomeÂnech, F. (1999a) Las teorõÂas educatives implõÂcitas del profesorado universitario, paper
presented at III CongresoInternacional de PsicologõÂa y EducacioÂn, Santiago de Compostela, 8±
11 September.
DomeÂnech, F. (1999b) Nivel de concordancia entre las teorõÂas educativas del profesor universitario
y su conducta de clase, paper presented at III Congreso Internacional de PsicologõÂa y EducacioÂn,
Santiago de Compostela, 8±11 September.
DomeÂnech, F. (2004) PsicologõÂa de la educatioÂn e instruccioÂn: su aplicacioÂn al contexto de la clase
(CastelloÂn, Universitat Jaume I).
Esteve, J. M. (1994) El malestar docente (3rd edn) (Madrid, PaidoÂs).
Fox, D. (1983) Personal teories of teaching, Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), 151±163.
Gow, L. & Kember, D. (1993) Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20±33.
Kelly, G. A. (1955) The psychology of personal construct (New York, Norton).
Kember, D. (1997) A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of
teaching, Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255±275.
Kember, D. & Kwan, K. P. (2001) Lecturers' approaches to teaching and their relationship to
conceptions of good teaching, Instructional Science, 28(5±6), 469±490.
Latorre, A. (1989) PsicologõÂa del proceso de ensenÄanza/aprendizaje: la situacioÂn educativa (Valencia,
Nau LLibres).
Lingbiao, G. & Watkins, D. (2001) Identifying and assessing the conceptions of teaching of
secondary school physics teachers in China, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(3),
443±469.
Marrero, J. (1993) Las teorõÂas implõÂcitas del profesorado: võÂnculo entre la cultura y la praÂctica de
ensenÄanza, in: M. J. Rodrigo, A. Rodriguez & J. Marrero (Eds) Las teorõÂas implõÂcitas una
aproximacioÂn al conocimiento cotidiano (Madrid, Visor).
Martinez, M. A., Sauleda, N. & Huber, G. L. (2001) Metaphors as blueprints of thinking about
teaching and learning, Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8), 965±977.
McCombs, B. L. & Whisler, J. S. (1997) The learner-centered classroom strategies for increasing student
motivation and achievement (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
PeÂrez, M. L., Carretero, M. R., Palma, M. & Rafel, E. (2000) La evaluacioÂn de la calidad del
aprendizaje en la universidad, Infancia y Aprendizaje, 91, 5±30.
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. & Taylor, P. (1994) A phenomenographic study of academics'
conceptions of science learning and teaching, Learning and Instruction, 4, 217±231.
Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J. D. (1992) Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers, Higher
Education, 24, 93±111.
Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J. D. (2001) Revisiting academics' beliefs about teaching and learning,
Higher Education, 41, 299±325.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998) Applying the triarchic theory of human intelligence in the classroom, in: R.
J. Sternberg & W. M. Williams (Eds) Intelligence, instruction, and assessment (Mahwah, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum), 1±15.
Veenman, S. (1984) Perceived problems of beginning teachers, Review of Educational Research,
54(2), 143±178.

View publication stats