The older,the wiser? Profiles of string instrument teachers with different experience according to their conceptions of teaching,learning,and evaluation

Abstract

Recent research on music teaching and the curricula proposed in different countries increasingly insists on moving towards teaching centered on managing students’ mental processes according to the constructivist approach. However, studies on conceptions and practices of teaching–learning show that these still largely focus on transmitting the musical and technical knowledge needed to produce the correct sound. Our main aim was to study the conceptions of teaching–learning held by 53 string teachers at elementary levels, and to test how they are affected by the variable teaching experience (in three groups: [a] less than 7 years; [b] 7–14 years; and [c] more than 14 years). We also wanted to determine whether these conceptions give rise to consistent profiles in three pedagogical dimensions: teaching, learning, and evaluation. We collected data by means of a multiple-choice questionnaire, and applied cluster analysis, correlations, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc tests. Agreeing with prior research, we found three distinct profiles in the answers to the questionnaire: direct, interpretative, and constructive. Teachers’ beliefs were more constructive regarding teaching and evaluation than regarding learning, although younger teachers held more complex positions regarding teaching and learning music, in contrast to much research on teaching-expertise.

Keywords

conceptual change conceptions of teaching learning evaluation constructivism music conservatories teaching experience string instrument teachers

Introduction

The traditional approach to teaching a musical instrument is almost entirely based on the teacher’s activity, through a model that transmits and preserves knowledge (Baker, 2006; Jørgensen, 2001; Schmidt, 1998). Thus, for example, in Spain, where this research was conducted, the teacher’s role in the curriculum at music conservatories prior to recent educational reforms (Spanish Organic Law of Education [LOE], 2006) was to develop students’ “talents” and the technical-expressive abilities they needed to tackle the established syllabus. This syllabus was made up mainly of works from the classical repertoire for the instrument and based on consensus, usually organized according to the technical skills to be developed. However, in the current educational system the curriculum takes a different approach to teaching an instrument, having moved from being teacher-directed to more centered on the student, according to his/her interests, motivation, and ability to construct knowledge. The teacher guides this process, which is the true driver of learning (LOE, 2006).

This new curricular orientation is in line with the contributions of the new science of learning, which, in contrast to traditional or “instructionist” educational approaches (Swayer, 2006; see also Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000), emphasizes that teaching should be orientated to promote a deep understanding based on the integration of students’ prior knowledge and curricular outcomes, as well as helping students to take metacognitive control of their own learning. Thus, from the viewpoint of the learning sciences, in musical instrument teaching it would also be more appropriate or “wiser” to take a student-centered approach instead of an outcome-centered approach. This idea is also largely supported by recent research on musical education (Bautista, Pérez Echeverría, & Pozo, 2010, 2011; Burwell, 2005; Hallam, 1995; Hallam, Cross, & Thaut, 2009; Hultberg, 2002; Viladot, Gómez, & Malagarriga, 2010). Learning and content selection must be designed according to an “integrating conception of means and ends” (Bautista & Pérez Echeverría, 2008, p. 30), where the means is the mastery of the musical instrument, the end is communication and transmission of feelings and emotions, and the main aim is to help the student develop learning strategies that will enable his/her self-regulation and autonomy.

But in the face of this demand for change, it is worth asking whether teachers will accept and use these new curricular approaches deriving from recent research. More specifically, how do conservatory teachers conceive efficient instrumental teaching practices, their students’ learning, and more adequate ways of evaluating this? Are these conceptions consistent with the new methods of teaching required both by the new curricular approaches and by research?

To answer these questions, we started from the assumption that whenever knowledge is taught in any specific domain – in our case playing a musical instrument – the teacher, whether or not he/she has formal pedagogical knowledge, holds an often implicit representation, a prior pedagogical idea regarding what both he/she and the student should do to achieve that learning. According to Olson and Bruner (1996) and Strauss (2005), all teachers would therefore believe in “folk pedagogy.” Teaching is a set of activities designed with the aim of producing learning in others, starting from the belief that the “others” do not possess certain knowledge or only possess it partially – that is, there is intentionality (Strauss, 2005; Ziv & Frye, 2004; Ziv, Solomon, & Frye, 2008), which is evaluated to determine both whether the student has learned or attained the aims of the curriculum and whether the quality of teaching is appropriate (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Crooks, 1988; Hill, 2000). Between the traditional teaching standpoint at conservatories, where the teacher is in charge of transmitting knowledge to the student (Gaunt, 2006, 2008), and – in the words of Musumeci (2005) – the “more humanly compatible” position, according to which the teaching of music is based on the student constructing his/her knowledge (Andrews, 2004; Eley, 2006), there is a wide range of conceptions regarding what is taught, what is learned, and how both the processes and the product of playing an instrument are evaluated.

Thus, knowing what conceptions teachers have of teaching and learning a musical instrument can help us to understand what factors determine their classroom practices, since it is claimed that the organization and increasing complexity of teaching practices may be influenced by teachers’ conceptions (Olafson & Schraw, 2006; Trumbull, Scarano, & Bonney, 2006). However, the stability and internalization of these beliefs and their strong resistance to change (Atkinson & Claxton, 2000; Pozo et al., 2006; Strauss & Shilony, 1994) do not facilitate the aim. We know that the conceptions that are held at conservatories and in other educational spheres are organized according to principles that provide cohesion and give rise to different implicit theories on teaching and learning in different domains. According to recent studies conducted on different domains of knowledge (Scheuer, De la Cruz, Pozo, & Huarte, 2009; Scheuer, De la Cruz, Pozo, Huarte, & Sola, 2006; Strauss & Shilony, 1994) and specifically in the field of musical knowledge (Bautista et al., 2010, 2011; Bautista, Pérez Echeverría, Pozo, & Brizuela, 2012; Marín, Pérez Echeverría, & Hallam, 2012), these theories seem to be based on epistemological assumptions (the relationship between the subject and the object of knowledge; the nature of knowledge), ontological assumptions (the kind of entity learning is; whether learning is understood as a process, a result, or a condition), and conceptual assumptions (how the components of the theories are related). Those studies have identified three implicit theories – direct, interpretative, and constructive – which differ in the above-mentioned assumptions (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Assumptions of the different theories about learning and instruction (from Bautista et al., 2010).

	Direct theory	Interpretative theory	Constructive theory
Epistemological	Ingenuous realism	Interpretative realism	Constructivism
	Knowledge reflects reality in an evident and objective way.	Knowledge reflects reality in an evident and objective way. However, the subject has an important and active role in the knowing process.	Knowledge is a construction elaborated by the subject, who builds own and personal models to interpret the reality (which can be more or less appropriate).
Ontological	States-products	Actions and processes	Complex systems
	Learning is conceived in terms of states or static products (e.g., academic content).	Learning is conceived in terms of actions and processes (e.g., cognitive, motivational, etc.), which are externally managed.	Learning is conceived in terms of complex systems (e.g., self-regulation processes) internally managed by the learner in order to build and develop abilities or strategies.
Conceptual	Simple causality	Lineal multiple causality	Interactive causality
	A direct and lineal relation is established between learning conditions and learning outcomes.	A direct and lineal relation is established between learning conditions, learning processes, and learning outcomes.	A complex and interactive relation is established between learning conditions, learning processes, and learning outcomes.

The first two theories would thus share an intuitive epistemology of realist character, according to which knowledge is a copy of the reality perceived or received. The direct theory assumes that the student has a passive, reproductive role in his/her learning, while the interpretative theory assumes the reproductive character of learning as copying. The interpretative theory posits that cognitive activity is required on the part of the student (in terms of attention, motivation, management of cognitive resources, etc.), although this is subordinate, as in the direct theory, to obtaining outcomes or products which are the most faithful reflection possible of the musical knowledge received, whether through sheet music or the teacher’s or another model’s musical production. This is why this model assumes that these two theories share a traditional conception of teaching and learning, though with different degrees of complexity. However, a true conceptual change from those two positions is needed for the constructive theory to be adopted (Chi, 2008; Pozo et al., 2006; Vosniadou, Vamvakoussi, & Skopeletti, 2009), representing a leap towards constructivist epistemology, in which the student’s learning processes are the main driver or aim of teaching. Teaching would be conceived as a complex system of interactions among musical content, instrument, teacher, and student, the aim of which would no longer be to reproduce a certain kind of sound, but rather to construct mental abilities that enable learners to manage their own mental activity in order to produce the sound appropriate to their communicative goals (Bautista et al., 2011; Casas & Pozo, 2008; Marín et al., 2012; Torrado & Pozo, 2008).

Conceptions of teaching, learning, and evaluation at music conservatories: The role of teaching experience

A study by Torrado (2003; Torrado & Pozo, 2008) on teachers of string instruments at Spanish conservatories identified the three implicit theories described (direct, interpretative, and constructive), and found, as did other studies conducted in other domains (e.g., Martín, Pozo, Mateos, Martín, & Pérez Echeverría, 2012; Olafson & Schraw, 2006; Tsai, 2002), that teachers do not hold the same conceptions regarding all the dimensions of their teaching practice (e.g., teaching, learning, and evaluation), but rather there is representational plurality, with the interpretative conception being the most frequent.

In a later study, Bautista and colleagues (2010) designed a written questionnaire containing open questions regarding representations of teaching and learning, which was answered by teachers of elementary and professional piano at Spanish conservatories. In order to investigate the relationship among these diverse representations held by a single teacher, the organization of these conceptions in terms of teacher profiles was analyzed using cluster analysis, identifying the three teacher profiles, as shown in Table 2. Moreover, these profiles were found to be associated with the variable teaching experience, so that the most sophisticated conception – in this case the constructive conception – was more frequent in teachers with less teaching experience, while teachers with more extensive experience were mainly associated with the direct conception.

Table 2.

Description of the different consistent implicit theories found in music teachers with different teaching expertise (adapted from Bautista et al., 2010).

Direct profile (Highly experienced teachers)	Music is conceived of from realist epistemological assumptions, since only one interpretation of the scores is considered to be correct. Learning outcomes of a technical/basic nature are understood as meaningful in themselves. Applying instructional strategies in order to improve students’ performance is thought to be unnecessary, because learning is essentially viewed as the result of their innate/natural predispositions and personal effort. In addition, learning is conceived of in terms of “content” (states or final products), and hence evaluation is interpreted as a “judgment” or assessment about the reproduction of this content. Therefore, the conceptions of these teachers are focused on the final outcomes of learning, and the student’s role is conceived as passive and reproductive.
Interpretative profile (Experienced teachers)	Music interpretation is understood in terms of the “correct vs. incorrect” dichotomy, although the students’ transforming role in the acquisition of the musical scores is recognized. Consequently, it seems that music is conceived of from an advanced realist epistemological perspective. Since from this assumption there is no room for students’ self-expression or creativity, learning outcomes of a technical/basic and analytic nature are considered enough. Learning is understood in terms of actions and externally managed processes, and consequently instructional strategies are based on the notion of teachers’ hetero-regulation of the students (by means of instruction, direct explanations, modeling, etc.). Finally, evaluation is attributed a “corrective” function, in which the students’ self-evaluation is not promoted. In short, these teachers’ conceptions are focused on the student, whose role is conceived as active but reproductive.
Constructive profile (Novice teachers)	Creative and personal interpretations of the scores are allowed and the students are encouraged to explore them, since music itself is conceived of in constructivist epistemological terms. Learning outcomes are understood as a way to promote a comprehensive whole of artistic, interpretative, and technical/basic musical capacities. From sophisticated ontological and conceptual assumptions, instructional strategies aim for continuous promotion of students’ reflection and metacognitive processes, self-regulation, and autonomy. Situations of evaluation are also understood as a learning context, working fundamentally with a “formative” function. In conclusion, the conceptions of these teachers are focused on the students, whose role is conceived as active and constructive.

This effect of teaching experience may seem paradoxical upon considering research conducted in completely different domains comparing experts and novices (Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, & Hoffman, 2006), which usually shows that experts have superior performance. Some studies show that more experienced teachers do in fact seem to have more sophisticated educational conceptions or practices regarding different dimensions of teaching (Fives & Buehl, 2010; Prosser, Ramsden, Trigwell, & Martín, 2003; Rubie-Davis, Flint, & McDonald, 2011).

Other studies find no difference among teachers’ conceptions according to experience (Norton, Richardson, Hartley, Newstead, & Mayes, 2005; Porlan & Martín del Pozo, 2004). Nevertheless, still others have found instead that more experienced teachers have more traditional conceptions than less experienced teachers (Bautista et al., 2010, 2011; Castejón & Martinez, 2001; Martín et al., 2012; Tsai, 2002).

The influence of these differences in teaching experience on teaching practices and conceptions might be due to the diversity in methodologies, domains of knowledge, and cultural contexts covered by these studies. We are interested in finding out whether the results that Bautista et al. (2010, 2011) found in a study of piano teachers can be replicated for teachers of other instruments – specifically string instruments – and in testing whether the profiles identified in those studies are useful for explaining their representations of the following dimensions: teaching, learning, and evaluation. Finally, we want to analyze whether, as the theoretical model presented assumes, the main obstacle to changing teaching conceptions lies in taking the step from direct and interpretative conceptions – which share some common assumptions – to the constructive conception – which is based on different assumptions and has greater structural complexity. If so, we could expect a close relationship between the direct and interpretative conceptions, while they would both be opposed to the constructive position. We are also interested in finding out whether those conceptions differ according to the pedagogical dimension or educational domain – specifically, whether they vary among the contexts of teaching, learning, and evaluation.

Aims

The first aim was to classify teachers according to their answers to the multiple choice questionnaire, allowing us to assign them to teaching profiles, which – according to other studies – would be related to the three implicit theories described in the introduction. We also wanted to analyze whether those profiles differed according to three didactic dimensions: teaching, learning, and evaluation.

Second, we analyzed whether there are relationships among those profiles, in order to determine whether they fit the theoretical model described in the introduction. Specifically, we were interested in testing whether – as the model predicts – the more traditional conceptions (direct and interpretative) are closer in the minds of the participants, differing from the constructive conception, which is more complex and harder to attain.

Our third aim was based on a quantitative analysis of whether the variable teaching experience has an influence on the conceptions held by teachers in elementary teaching. Following the work by Bautista et al. (2010, 2011), we believe that there may be differences among teachers according to their teaching experience. Similarly, given that the sample selected contained a balanced number of participants according to gender, age, and different musical instruments, we analyzed the effect of those variables (gender, age, and musical instrument). However, since there are no prior studies of the influence of these variables on teaching conceptions (though they do exist regarding teaching styles; see Lacey, Saleh, & Gorman, 1998; and Starbuck, 2003, quoted in Nelson-Laird, Garver, & Niskodé-Dosset, 2007), we had no specific hypothesis.

Method

Participants

Fifty-three active teachers (22 men and 31 women) of string instruments with degree-level qualifications¹ took part in this study. Their ages ranged from 26 to 49 years (M = 36.94, SD = 6.95) and they taught at elementary level (children aged 8 to 12 years, approximately) at 27 music conservatories in eight different regions of Spain. They taught one of four bowed string instruments in the four elementary level courses: violin (19 participants); viola (11 participants); cello (21 participants); and double bass (7 participants). We grouped teachers according to their years’ teaching experience, so that there would be three homogeneous groups (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Sample composition.

Teaching experience	Participants	Gender
< 7 years	16	6 men, 10 women
7–14 years	17	7 men, 10 women
> 14 years	20	9 men, 11 women

Tasks

The multiple choice questionnaire originally prepared and validated by Bautista et al. (2012; see also Bautista, 2009) for piano students was adapted for use with typical situations of teaching, learning, and evaluating string instruments at elementary music conservatories. The questionnaire presents 16 situations typical of dimensions such as teaching, learning, and evaluating musical interpretation in conservatory classrooms (see examples in Table 4), followed by three different answer options based on the framework of implicit theories (direct, interpretative, and constructive), according to their epistemological, ontological, and conceptual assumptions. Participants were asked to accept the option they most agreed with (selection) and reject the one they least agreed with (rejection).

Table 4.

Examples of the didactic dimensions in the multiple-choice questionnaire. The options correspond to the implicit theories: (1) direct; (2) interpretative; and (3) constructive.

Teaching dimension	In a normal one-to-one lesson, a student taught by one of your colleagues cannot play a piece because it is technically highly demanding. In your opinion, what could the teacher do to help her improve the piece?
	1 Play the passage slowly for the student, so that she can observe how it should be played, and then assign technical exercises for homework.
	2 Explain what the difficulties are and give instructions for solving them, making sure that she understands what to do.
	3 Ask different questions in order to help her think and reason about the reasons for the mistakes and how to work them out.
Learning dimension	One of your students has been practicing the same repertoire for several months. However, because of the technical difficulties, most of the pieces could still be improved on. Why this is happening?
	Most likely, the student is…
	1 . . . not practicing enough. I would recommend that she practice more. It takes perseverance to solve technical difficulties.
	2 . . . studying incorrectly. I would recommend that she solve the technical problems by following my instructions.
	3 . . . studying without considering specific musical outcomes. I would recommend that she think first about the musical idea, and then about the technical skills.
Evaluation dimension	In your opinion, the evaluation of the instrumental lessons is good above all for . . .
	1 . . . teachers to check the students’ musical knowledge and grade their playing at the end of each academic term.
	2 . . . teachers to grade the performance of the students and analyze which aspects should be corrected during subsequent lessons or academic years.
	3 . . . students, so that after talking with their teachers they can reflect upon their own learning and realize which are their strong and weak points.

The teaching dimension (seven questions) dealt with technical difficulties for the student and in the music, student involvement in class, features of the ideal teacher, homework assignments, and how to teach fingering and bowing in a new piece. The learning dimension (four questions) enquired about aspects related to cooperative learning, memory, technical difficulties, and approach to a new repertoire. The evaluation dimension (five questions) asked about topics such as performance, interest, and student autonomy.

Procedure

We distributed 310 hard copy questionnaires among teachers of string instruments at 35 Spanish conservatories. Teacher participation (voluntary and unpaid) was 17.1%. Although the percentage of participation was low, most of the conservatories involved in the investigation were represented, which was preferable having to the same number of participants from fewer conservatories. They were asked to complete the questionnaire individually and deliver it to the head of studies or head of department within a month. Collection ended immediately before the end of the first quarter of the academic year.

Design

This was a simple prospective ex post facto study. The dependent variable teacher profile (direct, interpretative, and constructive) was contrasted with the independent variables didactic dimension (with three levels: [1] teaching; [2] learning; and [3] evaluation) and teacher experience (also resulting in three levels of experience: [1] less than 7 years; [2] 7–14 years; and [3] more than 14 years; see Table 3).

Analysis

Data were analyzed in three stages corresponding to the three aims. With regards to the first aim, teacher profiles were identified by means of cluster analysis. In this case, K-means conglomerate analysis was performed using as variables their answers to all the items in the questionnaire in terms of preference and rejection, and subsequently to each of the dimensions. This method of classification of groups, which depends on the distance between the cases (the answers of the participants to the questions), allowed patterns to be identified in cases in which their answer modes were similar, which were grouped into three different conglomerates. This was done using the K-means conglomerate classification method. A score was assigned to each participant for the whole questionnaire and for each dimension (let us remember that there were seven questions in the teaching dimension, four in the learning dimension, and five in the evaluation dimension), by adding one point for every relevant choice and subtracting one point for rejections, so that the scores were 7 to −7 for the teaching dimension, 4 to −4 for the learning dimension, and 5 to −5 for the evaluation dimension.

For the second aim, the analysis was based on Pearson’s correlation test to ascertain the independence of each profile identified in the first analysis and see whether those relationships fit the model’s theoretical predictions.

For the third aim we used four variance analyses, 3 (profile) × 2 (gender); 3 (profile) × 24 (age); 3 (profile) × 4 (instrument); and 3 (profile) × 3 (teaching experience), to corroborate the three profiles according to gender, age, type of instrument, and years’ teaching experience, in order to examine the differences between them and consider the details per dimension using the repeated means model. These analyses were performed using SPSS statistical analysis software version 19.0.

Results

We will begin with a brief description of the global percentages of teachers’ choices and rejections in the questionnaire, to exemplify the frequency with which each implicit theory appeared. Then we will describe the cluster analyses performed during the first stage of analysis to test the existence of different conceptions of teaching and learning among the teaching staff, both globally in the questionnaire and according to didactic dimensions. In the second phase, correlations among the profiles obtained previously were analyzed in order to test consistency between those profiles and our theoretical model, based on Pearson’s test. The last phase was variance analysis to test the effect of gender, age, instrument, and teaching experience on these profiles.

Globally, teachers seemed to prefer the interpretative options (400 choices, 47.17% of the total), followed by the constructive options (368 choices, 43.4%) and, last, direct options (80, 9.43%). Similarly, most rejected the direct option (463, 54.6%), followed by the interpretative (233, 27.48%), and constructive (152, 17.92%).

Nevertheless, beyond these global data, which – like other studies – confirm the predominance of the interpretative theory, teachers tended to hold multiple representations. In this regard, considering our first aim, we performed a cluster analysis according to total participant selections and rejections, both for the full questionnaire and for each pedagogical dimension separately, as described in the following sections.

Existence of different teacher profiles

The analyses in the first and second phases allowed us to assign our participants to three well-differentiated theoretical profiles – direct, interpretative, and constructive – according to their choices and rejections for each multiple choice question, which would correspond to the implicit theories described in the introduction. For our second aim we tested the relationships between the profiles assigned to each teacher using Pearson’s test. This tested the theoretical consistency of the profiles with regard to the model described in the introduction.

As mentioned earlier, the interpretative profile represented the greatest number of participants (n = 24; measurement on the scales for the implicit theories: M = 3.92; SD = 3.39), related to the group of teachers with medium number of years’ teaching experience, followed by the constructive profile (n = 18; measurement on the scales for the implicit theories: M = 2.24; SD = 6.91), mainly associated with new teachers, and the direct profile (n = 11; measurement on the scales for the implicit theories: M = −6.16; SD = 6.19), represented mainly by the more experienced teachers.

We used the same data to study the characteristics of these profiles in greater depth according to the three didactic dimensions in the questionnaire, and thus describe the conceptions held by these teachers in more specific teaching–learning contexts: teaching, learning, and evaluation. As shown in Table 5, more teachers selected constructive options for learning and evaluation, although for the learning dimension there are fewer teachers with a direct profile. However, in the teaching dimension these teachers proved to be more traditional, with most of them corresponding to the interpretative profile, followed by the direct profile. In this regard, the constructive profile shows the greatest difference in the number of teachers assigned to it in the different dimensions.

Table 5.

Number of participants associated with each profile in each dimension, according to the measurements on the scales for the implicit theories.

	Direct profile	Interpretative profile	Constructive profile
Teaching dimension	18M = −2.15 SD = 3.23	22M = 2.13 SD = 1.72	13M = .056 SD = 3.51
Learning dimension	10M = −1.39 SD = 1.86	20M = .55 SD = 1.7	23M = .79 SD = 2.04
Evaluation dimension	14M = −2.56 SD = 2.34	15M = 1.28 SD = 1.71	24M = 1.32 SD = 2.67

As shown in Table 6, no significant correlation was found, r_DI = .02 for the relationship between direct and interpretative profiles held by the 53 participants for the total questions in the multiple choice questionnaire, whereas the constructive profile correlated negatively with both direct profile, r_CD = −.89, p < .001, and interpretative profile, r_IC = −.43, p < .01, such that the higher the acceptance of one position, the higher the rejection of the other.

Table 6.

Correlation coefficients and p values of the total of the sample in the complete questionnaire.

	Correlations
	Direct-interpretative	Interpretative-constructive	Constructive-direct
Complete questionnaire	r_DI = .02, p = .895	r_IC = −.43*	r_CD = −.89**

p < .01; **p < .001.

The same trend was found upon analyzing each dimension independently, as appears in Table 7. Thus for the teaching dimension there was a significant negative correlation between the constructive and direct profiles, r_CD = −.87, p < .001, and to a lesser extent, though significant, between the interpretative and constructive profiles, r_IC = −.44, p < .01, while the direct conception did not correlate with the interpretative conception, r_DI = −.05.

Table 7.

Correlation coefficients and p values of the total of the sample in each dimension.

	Correlations
	Direct-interpretative	Interpretative-constructive	Constructive-direct
Teaching dimension	r_DI = −.05, NS, p = .695	r_IC = −.44*	r_CD = −.87**
Learning dimension	r_DI = .19, NS, p = .158	r_IC = −.52**	r_CD = −.57**
Evaluation dimension	r_DI = −.11, NS, p = .422	r_IC = −.50**	r_CD = −.76**

p < .01; **p < .001.

In the learning dimension there were negative correlations similar to those of the full questionnaire, while the constructive profiles correlated negatively to the direct, r_CD = −.57, and interpretative profiles, r_IC = −.52 (both p < .001), and once again there was no significant relationship between the latter two, r_DI = .19.

In the evaluation dimension the direct profile once again correlated negatively with the constructive profile, r_DC = −.76, p < .001, and there was also a negative correlation between the interpretative and constructive profiles, r_IC = −.50, p < .001, while, as in the previous analyses, there was no significant correlation between the direct and interpretative profiles, r_DI = −.11.

We thus found high negative correlations between the direct and constructive profiles, and between the interpretative and constructive profiles (although the correlations are higher between direct and constructive profiles). These results corroborate the theoretical assumptions of the model proposed by showing that the direct and interpretative theories are based on the same epistemological assumptions, being a simpler and a more elaborate version, respectively, of the same traditional view of teaching, learning, and evaluation. In turn, this traditional conception is opposite to the constructive position in its beliefs regarding the three dimensions.

What are the variables that influence the conceptions: The older, the wiser?

Based on these data, and with regard to the third aim of our study, we wanted to know which variables might influence the existence of the three profiles. As mentioned earlier, we are interested in testing the effect of teaching experience as well as other variables in the sample, namely gender, age, and musical instrument, on these conceptions. We found that neither gender (teaching, p = .19; learning, p = .44; evaluation, p = .32), nor age (teaching, p = .28; learning, p = .49; evaluation, p = .07), nor instrument (teaching, p = .37; learning, p = .06; evaluation, p = .47) produced any difference in the profiles assigned to each teacher.

In contrast, analysis of variance for each dimension showed that the conceptions held by new and more experienced teachers seem to be influenced by experience, F(4, 100) = 45.45, p < .001, η² = .476, direct M = −6.16 (<7 = −10.19; 7–14 = −6.71; >14 = −2.5), interpretative M = 3.92 (<7 = 3.62; 7–14 = 3.23; >14 = 4.75), constructive M = 2.24 (<7 = 6.75; 7–14 = 3.59; >14 = −2.5). The results for each dimension are detailed in the following sections.

Teaching dimension

For the teaching dimension, ANOVA showed that teaching experience has a significant effect on profile, F(4, 100) = 25.68, p < .001, η² = .249, direct M = −2.15 (<7 = −4,06; 7–14 = −2,06; >14 = −.2), interpretative M = 2.13 (<7 = 2.06; 7–14 = 1.7; >14 = 2.55), constructive M = .056 (<7 = 2; 7–14 = 1; >14 = −2.3).

The simple effects analysis showed that there were significant effects on direct profiles, F(2, 50) = 8.59, p ≤ .001, and constructive profiles, F(2, 50) = 10.32, p < .001. Figure 1 shows that among teachers with less experience, the direct option is most often rejected and the constructive options are preferred, while the opposite is true of more experienced teachers.

Figure 1.

ANOVA means for the teaching dimension, according to profile and teaching experience.

Post hoc multiple comparisons with Scheffé and MSD tests showed differences in the direct profile between teachers with more and less teaching experience (p ≤ .001), as well as between more experienced teachers and those with intermediate experience (p < .05), since teachers with less and intermediate experience more often tend to reject the direct position. Moreover, there were significant differences in the constructive profile between more experienced teachers, who were less accepting of it than were teachers with little experience (p ≤ .001) or intermediate experience (p < .01).

Learning dimension

In the learning dimension, ANOVA showed that teaching experience has no significant effect on each teacher’s profile, F(4, 100) = 16.36, p = .188 NS, η² = .059, direct M = −1.39 (<7 = −1,87; 7–14 = −1,64; >14 = −.8), interpretative M = .55 (<7 = 1.06; 7–14 = .17; >14 = .45), constructive M = .79 (<7 = .93; 7–14 = 1.35; >14 = .2).

Figure 2 shows that participants with greater teaching experience selected the constructive option less often, more often preferring the direct response, compared to the rest of the participants. However, teachers with less teaching experience selected the constructive responses less often than those with intermediate teaching experience, although they did reject the direct options more often than the others.

Figure 2.

ANOVA means for the learning dimension, according to profile and teaching experience.

Evaluation dimension

In the evaluation dimension, ANOVA showed that teaching experience also has a significant effect on profiles, F(4, 100) = 48.10, p < .001, η² = .267, direct M = −2.56 (<7 = −4; 7–14 = −2.52; >14 = −1.45), interpretative M = 1.28 (<7 = .5; 7–14 = 1.35; >14 = 1.85), constructive M = 1.32 (<7 = 3.56; 7–14 = 1.23; >14 = –.4).

The simple effects analysis showed significant effects on the direct, F(2, 50) = 6.36, p < .005, and constructive profiles, F(2, 50) = 2.99, p < .001. Figure 3 shows that all participants, regardless of teaching experience, largely tend to reject the direct option, although the newer teachers reject it more often than the more experienced teachers do. However, the more experienced teachers do not select constructive options, although they select them here more often than they do in the other dimensions. This is consistent with the hypothesis of evaluation in general being conceived in a less traditional manner, which does not mean that it is more constructive, at least in more experienced teachers.

Figure 3.

ANOVA means for the evaluation dimension, according to profile and teaching experience.

As happened in the teaching dimension, the post hoc multiple comparisons showed no significant difference between participants with more and less teaching experience in the direct (p < .005) and constructive (p < .001) profiles. In the group with intermediate experience, only the constructive profile showed differences between more experienced teachers (p < .001) and less experienced teachers (p < .05), showing that, in this case, experience indeed makes a difference, although it does not necessarily show how advanced their conceptions may be (the greater the experience, the less acceptance of more complex conceptions).

Conclusions and discussion

The aim of this article was to investigate the conceptions of teachers of string instruments at conservatories regarding learning, teaching, and evaluation. As mentioned in the introduction, these conceptions not only mediate in teaching practices, but are probably also an obstacle to change in the methods of teaching and learning music, which, despite the conclusions of much research in the field and increasingly of the suggested curricula, are still anchored in traditional practice. According to our theoretical framework, which we wanted to test in this study, the conceptions of music teachers – like those of teachers in other domains (e.g., Martín et al., 2012; Pozo et al., 2006) – can be grouped into three large implicit theories, which we have called direct, interpretative, and constructive (Bautista et al., 2010). With regard to our first aim, the data in this research show that although all the teachers – according to the hypothesis of representational plurality – hold ideas corresponding to different theories, these conceptions can in fact be grouped into three large clusters or profiles which correspond to the three theories identified, and are largely consistent with the data obtained by Bautista et al. (2010) for piano teachers.

In addition to confirming these profiles, we found that the most frequent position is the intermediate one, which we have called interpretative, and which supposes a traditional conception of the outcome of learning, although it assumes that learning is mediated by the activation of cognitive processes which must be managed by the teacher. This confirms the data obtained in other studies, not only on music teachers (Bautista et al., 2010; Torrado & Pozo, 2008) but also on teachers in different domains and by means of other tasks (e.g., Martin et al., 2012; Strauss & Shilony, 1994; Tsai, 2002).

Along with these general profiles, our data have shown that, regarding the first aim, the highest number of teachers with constructive conceptions is found in the evaluation dimension, and the highest number of teachers with direct conceptions is found in the teaching dimension. This may be evidence of a disturbing mismatch between two essential dimensions of teaching practice, with a trend towards the prevalence of realist, teacher-centered epistemology in teaching activities, and greater focus on the student and his/her skills in evaluation, even though these appear not to have been sufficiently considered during the teaching process.

Why do teachers of string instruments hold these traditional conceptions regarding music teaching? The results of the next two parts of the study helped us to approach an explanation. The second aim focused on analyzing the relationships among the profiles in order to test whether – as our model assumes – the real conceptual change in this domain lies in the transition from a realist conception to a constructivist conception. The realist conception focuses on musical products, and therefore on the teacher, and is shared by the direct and interpretative conceptions. However, these have different degrees of complexity, since the interpretative conception assumes the mediation of cognitive processes and encourages active learning through repetition. As mentioned, the data from the study show that constructive profiles in fact correlate negatively with both the direct and the interpretative profiles for all the dimensions studied, although the negative correlation with the interpretative profile is lower, supporting the assumption that the more one holds a constructivist position, the less likely one is to hold the realist positions (both direct and interpretative), which show compatibility in spite of their notable conceptual differences.

The idea that the direct and interpretative positions correlate negatively with the constructive conception supports the idea that accepting new, student-centered teaching conceptions (reflected in new curricula and recent research on music teaching [Bautista et al., 2010, 2011; LOE, 2006] and general learning [Bransford et al., 2000; Swayer, 2006]), requires a real change in the conceptions of learning, teaching, and evaluation, similar to that which is taking place in many domains of knowledge regarding the transition from intuitive knowledge to scientific knowledge. If so, changing methods of teaching music would require an in-depth review of the models of teacher training, which should be designed to promote those complex processes of conceptual change (e.g., Vosniadou, 2008) so that teachers would move from the more traditional conceptions towards others focusing on the learner’s cognitive activity, not only as a driver but also as the goal of teaching. We understand and accept that conceptual change would make it possible to implement progressive changes in teaching practice, approaching constructivism, moving from traditional regular, repetitive activities towards the aforementioned student-centered learning and its processes. It seems clear that both teachers and students experience difficulty in consciously accessing their cognitive and metacognitive processes.

The idea of the need for teacher training directed towards a change in the conceptions of teaching and learning is reinforced by the data from our third aim, which focuses on certain variables that may influence these conceptions. Having dismissed the effect of gender, age, or type of string instrument, our data nevertheless reflect a significant effect of years’ teaching experience on conceptions. However, instead of showing that more experienced teachers have more complex conceptions, the opposite was found: teachers with the least teaching experience most often adopt constructive profiles. This apparently paradoxical situation, which is at least contrary to data from traditional studies on the effect of expertise (Ericsson et al., 2006) and data from different studies on teaching conceptions and practices (e.g., Fives & Buehl, 2010; Rubie-Davis et al., 2011), confirms not only the data obtained in other studies performed on samples in Spain, both in the field of music (Bautista et al., 2010) and in other domains (Castejón & Martinez, 2001; Martín et al., 2012), but also those found in very different cultural contexts (e.g., Tsai, 2002).

It is difficult to find a single interpretation for these data because the teaching experience variable in fact masks two variables which are very difficult to separate in practical terms, namely years’ teaching experience per se and chronological age of participants (Bautista et al., 2010). Can the effect be attributed to years’ teaching practice, or is it rather a generational effect responding to changes that have taken place in educational culture during those years of teaching experience? Or might it even, more concretely, arise from curricular and institutional changes that have taken place in the educational reform in Spain over the last decades? In short, is it a change produced by the effect of years’ teaching experience or by the effect of different training or professional standing received by different generations of teachers?

Nonetheless, one point we should be cautious about in these results is the low percentage of participation, which could give rise to doubt about a bias in the sample selection in the results regarding the simple effects, as well as the presence of the profiles or the teaching experience influence. However, even if it might be desirable to conduct further research to confirm these tendencies with a larger sample of participants, we believe that our results support and are similar to those obtained in other investigations with a different number of participants or materials (Bautista & Pérez-Echeverría, 2008; Bautista et al., 2010, 2011; Castejón & Martinez, 2001; Martín et al., 2012; Tsai, 2002). But what conclusions can be drawn from the results of our study?

There are several alternative explanations for these data that cannot be distinguished due to the design of this study, which deals with a single cultural context and does not differentiate between years’ experience and generation. However, the possible interpretations could be broadly summarized in two ways. First, according to an optimistic interpretation, a real generational change is taking place so that new teachers, trained in constructivist principles and sometimes even constructivist practice as a result of the processes of the educational reform, more easily accept the new conceptions. This is in contrast to the more experienced teachers who developed and acquired their conceptions of teaching and learning within curricular frameworks which, although no longer in use, continue to have a place in their minds. Although it is true that all of us teach as we were taught, the learning cultures (Bruner, 1996) in which teachers were trained play an essential part in the development of their teaching conceptions. This interpretation would be optimistic to the extent that it would imply that, although it takes time to change conceptions, change is already taking place as the new generation of younger teachers joins music classrooms.

However, the supposed change in conceptions and ultimately in teaching practice may also be interpreted more pessimistically. It could be assumed that time does not pass in vain, so that, over the years, innovative ideas and approaches eventually wear out and end up becoming routine. Change is resisted at educational institutions, and all the more so at conservatories, which – honoring their name – tend to be conservative in their practices and organization. Thus the innovative conceptions of the younger teachers, simply by coming up against this resistance, eventually wear out. According to this pessimistic interpretation, as these new teachers acquire experience, they ultimately adapt their ideas to those of the more experienced teachers, who tend to hold more institutional power and therefore have greater influence in defining the educational culture at conservatories.

Which of the explanations – the optimistic or the pessimistic – best interprets our data? Whichever seems more appealing to us, as the design of this study is cross-sectional rather than longitudinal, it cannot distinguish between these two alternatives because it cannot separate the generational effect from the years of teaching practice. However, if we consider our data in relation to other studies, some additional light can be shed on their interpretation. Most of the studies that have found a positive effect of age on complexity of conceptions (e.g., Fives & Buehl, 2010; Rubie-Davis et al., 2011), have been based on case studies performed on very small, unrepresentative samples, and have focused more on the analysis of teaching practice. In contrast, the studies that have found the opposite effect (newer teachers have more sophisticated conceptions) have used larger, more representative samples (e.g., Bautista et al., 2010; Rubie-Davis, 2010; Martín et al., 2012; Tsai, 2002), and, as in our study, were forced to use verbal questionnaires to reflect teaching practice itself as well as the conceptions held regarding it.

Newer teachers may have newer, more complex conceptions, but they also have little experience in putting them into practice. To the extent that putting these new conceptions into practice also requires institutional changes (in curriculum organization, evaluation, etc.), the mismatch between what these teachers believe and what they can actually do might ultimately alter their beliefs. It is well known that there is a gap between theory and practice (Torrado & Pozo, 2008), and new teachers might need support in order to bridge that gap. Part of this help may come from new research going beyond this study and overcoming some of its limitations. Longitudinal studies, such as the one conducted by Alger (2009), which showed that teachers’ conceptions become more complex as their experience increases, might help clarify the effect of teaching experience. But a more detailed analysis of the relationship between teaching conceptions and practices might also help us to understand whether the generational changes in the culture of learning affect only teachers’ conceptions or also their practices. One particularly relevant way to do this, in the light of these results, may be to ask, with Tikva (2010), to what extent teachers’ conceptions have an influence on students. Studying the learning conceptions and practices of students trained by teachers with differing cultures and/or conceptions of learning may help us to better understand not only the effect of these conceptions on practice but also the effect of teaching experience on teaching conceptions and practices.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the generous participation of all the teachers who cooperated in the study and to Alfredo Bautista for allowing us to use his multiple-choice questionnaire. We would also like to thank our colleagues at the Interdisciplinary Seminar on Learning and Educational Change at our university for their suggestions and comments for the development and improvement of this research ().

Funding

This research was financed by the Ministry of Science and Innovation, through project EDU2010-21995-C02-01, whose principal investigator is Juan Ignacio Pozo, and by the Autonomous University of Madrid, through the FPU-UAM (2008-2012) scholarship awarded to the first author.

Notes

Author biographies

Guadalupe López-Íñiguez is a PhD candidate in the Department of Cognitive Psychology at Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain. Her educational background comprises two different majors: cognitive/educational psychology and music performance (baroque, classical, and modern cello). She is currently finishing writing her thesis, which is focused on the analysis of teachers’ and students’ conceptions of teaching, learning, and evaluation within the field of music performance, as well as the analysis of constructivist approaches to string playing.

Juan-Ignacio Pozo is Professor at the Faculty of Psychology of Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, where he teaches topics related to psychology of learning. His research focuses on the processes of knowledge acquisition in different subject domains, such as science, history, geography, and also music. He has studied how to change teachers’ and learners’ conceptions of learning as a requirement transforming education, publishing several books and papers about learning and teaching in those domains.

María José de Dios is Teacher at the Faculty of Psychology at Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain. She has collaborated in several investigations about childhood and education, focusing on methodological counseling.

References

Alger

(2009). Secondary teachers’ conceptual metaphors of teaching and learning: Changes over the career span. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 743–751.

Andrews

B. W.

(2004). Musical contracts: Fostering student participation in the instructional process. International Journal of Music Education, 22(3), 219–229.

Atkinson

Claxton

(Eds.). (2000). The intuitive practitioner. Barcelona, ES: Octaedro.

Baker

D. C.

(2006). Life histories of music service teachers: The past in inductees’ present. British Journal of Music Education, 23(1), 39–50.

Bautista

(2009). Concepciones de profesores y alumnos de piano sobre la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de partituras musicales [Piano teachers’ and students’ conceptions of the teaching and learning of musical scores] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.

Bautista

Pérez Echeverría

M. P.

(2008). ¿Qué consideran los profesores de instrumento que tienen que enseñar en sus clases? [What do music performance teachers consider that they should teach in their classes?]. Cultura y Educación, 20(1), 17–34.

Bautista

Pérez Echeverría

M. P.

Pozo

J. I.

(2010). Music performance teachers’ conceptions about learning and instruction: A descriptive study of Spanish piano teachers. Psychology of Music, 38(1), 85–106.

Bautista

Pérez Echeverría

M. P.

Pozo

J. I.

(2011). Concepciones de profesores de piano sobre la evaluación [Piano teachers’ conceptions of evaluation and assessment]. Revista de Educación, 355, 443–466.

Bautista

Pérez Echeverría

M. P.

Pozo

J. I.

Brizuela

B. M.

(2012). Piano students’ conceptions of learning, teaching, assessment, and evaluation. Estudios de Psicología, 33(1), 79–104.

10.

Black

Wiliam

(1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Educational Assessment: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–74.

11.

Bransford

J. D.

Brown

A. L.

Cocking

R. R.

(2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

12.

Bruner

J. S.

(1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

13.

Burwell

(2005). A degree of independence: Teachers’ approaches to instrumental tuition in a university college. British Journal of Music Education, 22(3), 199–215.

14.

Casas

Pozo

J. I.

(2008). ¿Cómo se utilizan las partituras en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de la música? [How are scores used in music teaching and learning?]. Cultura y Educación, 20, 49–62.

15.

Castejón

J. L.

Martínez

M. A.

(2001). The personal constructs of expert and novice teachers concerning the teacher function in the Spanish educational reform. Learning and Instruction, 11, 113–131.

16.

Chi

M. T. H.

(2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In Vosniadou

(Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Crooks

(1998). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–481.

18.

Eley

M. G.

(2006). Teachers’ conceptions of teaching, and the making of specific decisions in planning to teach. Higher Education, 51(2), 191–214.

19.

Ericsson

K. A.

Charness

Feltovich

P. J.

Hoffman

R. R.

(2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Fives

Buehl

M. M.

(2010). Examining the factor structure of the teachers’ sense of efficacy scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 118–134

21.

Gaunt

(2006). Student and teacher perceptions of one-to-one instrumental and vocal tuition in a conservatoire (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Institute of Education, London University, UK.

22.

Gaunt

(2008). One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: The perceptions of instrumental and vocal students. Psychology of Music, 36(2), 215–245.

23.

Hallam

(1995). Professional musicians’ orientations to practice: Implications for teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 12(1), 3–19.

24.

Hallam

Cross

Thaut

(Eds.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of music psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

25.

Hill

M. F.

(2000). Remapping the assessment landscape: Primary teachers reconstructing assessment in self-managing schools. Hamilton, NZ: University of Waikato.

26.

Hultberg

(2002). Approaches to music notation: The printed score as a mediator of meaning in Western tonal tradition. Music Education Research, 4(2), 185–197.

27.

Jørgensen

(2001). Instrumental learning: Is an early start a key to success? British Journal of Music Education, 18(3), 227–239.

28.

Lacey

C. H.

Saleh

Gorman

(1998, October). Teaching nine to five: A study of the teaching styles of male and female professors. Paper presented at the Annual Women in Education Conference, 11–12 October, Lincoln, NE.

29.

Ley orgánica de educación (LOE). (2006). Ley orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de educación [Organic law of education 2/2006, 3rd May]. BOE.

30.

LOGSE. (1990). Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo. C.F.R. (4 de Octubre de 1990). [Education System General Order (1990, 4th October)]. BOE.

31.

Marín

Pérez Echeverría

M. P.

Hallam

(2012). Using the musical score to perform: A study with Spanish flute students. British Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 193–212.

32.

Martín

Pozo

J. I.

Mateos

Martín

Pérez Echeverría

M. P.

(2012). Conceptions of learning and teaching in primary and secondary teachers and their relation to educational variables. Manuscript submitted for publication.

33.

Musumeci

(2005) Audioperceptiva humanamente compatible [Human-compatible audio perception]. Eufonía, 34, 44–59.

34.

Nelson Laird

T. F.

Garver

A. K.

Niskodé-Dosset

A. S.

(2007, June). Gender gaps: Understanding teaching style differences between men and women. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, 2–6 June, Kansas City, MO.

35.

Norton

Richardson

J. T. E

Hartley

Newstead

Mayes

(2005). Teachers’ beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 50, 537–571.

36.

Olafson

L. J.

Schraw

(2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices within and across domains. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 71–84.

37.

Olson

D. R.

Bruner

J. S.

(1996). Folk psychology and folk pedagogy. In Olson

D. R.

Torrance

(Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 9–27). Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.

38.

Porlán

Martín del Pozo

(2004). The conceptions of in-service and prospective primary school teachers about the teaching and learning of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 39–62.

39.

Pozo

J. I.

Scheuer

Pérez Echeverría

M. P.

Mateos

Martín

De la Cruz

(Eds.). (2006). Nuevas formas de pensar la enseñanza y el aprendizaje: Las concepciones de profesores y alumnos [New ways to understand teaching and learning: Teachers’ and students’ conceptions]. Barcelona, ES: Graó.

40.

Prosser

Ramsden

Trigwell

Martin

(2003). Dissonance in experience of teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 37–48.

41.

Real Decreto. (1966). Reglamentación general de conservatorios de música. C.F.R. § M.E.C. (24 de Octubre de 1966). [Royal decree: Specific regulations for conservatoires of music (1966, 24th October)].

42.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

Flint

McDonald

L. G.

(2011). Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and school contextual factors: What are the relationships? British Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.2044–8279.2011.02025.x.

43.

Swayer

R. K.

(2006). The new science of learning. In Swayer

R. K.

(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Scheuer

De la Cruz

Pozo

J. I.

Huarte

M. F.

2009. Does drawing contribute to writing? Children think it does. In Andersen

Scheuer

Pérez-Echeverría

M. P. L.

Teubal

(Eds.), Representational systems and practices as learning tools in different fields of knowledge (pp. 149–65). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.

45.

Scheuer

Cruz

Pozo

J. I.

Huarte

M. F.

Sola

(2006). The mind is not a black box: Children’s ideas about the writing process. Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 72–85.

46.

Schmit

M. E.

(1998). Defining ‘good’ music teaching: Four student teachers’ beliefs and practices. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 138, 19–46.

47.

Starbuck

G. H.

(2003, April). College teaching styles by gender. Paper presented at the Western Social Science Association Annual Meeting, 9–12 April, Las Vegas, NV.

48.

Strauss

(2005). Teaching as a natural cognitive ability: Implications for classroom practice and teacher education. In Pillemer

White

(Eds.), Developmental psychology and social change (pp 368–388). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

49.

Strauss

Shilony

(1994). Teachers’ models of children’s minds and learning. In Hirschfeld

Gelman

(Eds.), Mapping the mind (pp. 45–65). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

50.

Tikva

J. B.

(2010). Socratic teaching is not teaching, but direct transmission is: Notes from 13- to 15-year-olds’ conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 656–664.

51.

Torrado

J. A.

(2003). Las concepciones de profesores y alumnos sobre el aprendizaje de la música. Un estudio sobre la enseñanza de instrumentos de cuerda en los conservatorios profesionales [Teachers’ and students’ conceptions about music learning: A research study on string musical instrument teaching in professional conservatories] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.

52.

Torrado

J. A.

Pozo

J. I.

(2008). Metas y estrategias para una práctica constructiva en la enseñanza instrumental [Goals and strategies for a constructive practice in musical performance teaching]. Cultura y Educación, 20, 35–48.

53.

Trumbull

Scarano

Bonney

(2006). Relations among two teachers’ practices and beliefs, conceptualizations of the nature of science, and their implementation of student independent inquiry projects. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1717–1750.

54.

Tsai

(2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teacher’s belief of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771–783.

55.

Viladot

Gómez

Malagarriga

(2010). Sharing meanings in the music classroom. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25, 49–65.

56.

Vosniadou

(Ed.). (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. London, UK: Routledge.

57.

Vosniadou

Vamvakoussi

Skopeliti

(2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In Vosniadou

(Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Routledge.

58.

Ziv

Frye

(2004). Children’s understanding of teaching: The role of knowledge and belief. Cognitive Development, 19, 457–477.

59.

Ziv

Solomon

Frye

(2008). Young children’s recognition of the intentionality of teaching. Child Development, 79, 1237–1256.