Implicit Theories
RUNNING HEAD: Implicit Theories
Impact of Coursework and Field Experience on Pre-service and In-service Teachers’
Implicit Theories of Development and Learning
Nancy DeFrates-Densch
Northern Illinois University
M Cecil Smith
Northern Illinois University
Thomas O. Schrader
College of DuPage
Júlio Ríque
Northern Illinois University
April 13, 2004
San Diego, CA
Paper Presented as Part of the “Theory in Action: Research on the Role of Field
Experiences in Educational Psychology” Symposium at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association
Draft. Do not reproduce without permission
Contact Information:
Nancy DeFrates-Densch
Northern Illinois University
Department of Leadership, Educational Psychology and Foundations
DeKalb, IL 60115
ndefrates@niu.edu
1
Implicit Theories
2
Abstract
This study examined the evolution of students’ implicit theories of development,
learning, and motivation across a 16-week period during which they were enrolled in
various educational psychology courses. Particular attention was paid to the role of field
experiences, formal and informal, concurrent and non-concurrent in the development of
students’ implicit theories.
No evidence was found to support that participation in field experiences while taking
educational psychology coursework enhances change in students’ implicit theories.
However, students’ implicit theories of development, learning, and motivation did exhibit
positive change across the 16-week period on dimensions of authenticity, explanatory
power, complexity, and alignment with formal theory. Student theories were relatively
stable with regard to theoretical orientation.
Implicit Theories
3
Impact of Coursework and Field Experience on Pre-service and In-service Teachers’
Implicit Theories of Development and Learning
In many social and behavioral science fields in higher education, students often come into
entry-level courses holding certain beliefs, presuppositions, and implicit theories about
the nature of human behavior and related social phenomena. These beliefs—often rooted
in common sense, other times founded on myth and misinformation—must frequently be
confronted and countered by instructors (Osberg, 2002). Implicit theories are defined as
personal constructions about particular phenomenon that reside in the minds of
individuals (Sternberg, Conway, Ketron, & Bernstein, 1981). Furnham (1988) describes
four characteristics of implicit theories. They are typically ambiguous and inconsistent in
regards to explanation for phenomena, tend to be descriptive of types or categories of
phenomena, often confuse cause and effect, and are deductive rather than inductive.
Furnham notes that implicit theories can, and often do, overlap with scientific theories
and may function in similar ways. In fact, formal, scientific theories often originate from
initial informal observations and implicit theories of scientists.
Social as well as cognitive psychologists have studied peoples’ implicit theories in a
variety of domains, including everyday views of intelligence (Dweck & Elliott, 1983;
Berg & Sternberg, 1992), interpersonal and romantic relationships, and creativity (Chan
& Chan, 1999; Puccio & Cheminto, 2001), and the role that implicit theories play in
social information processing (McConnell, 2001) and stereotype formation (Levy,
Stroesser, & Dweck, 1998). Implicit theories are influenced, in part, by cultural traditions
and expectations (Runco & Johnson, 2002) and are found to be highly stable over time
(Franiuk, Cohen, & Pomerantz, 2002).
Dweck and Leggett (1988) described children’s implicit theories in distinguishing
between their beliefs that human attributes, such as intelligence, are fixed or malleable.
Children who viewed intelligence as stable and unchanging were said to have an entity
theory of intelligence, whereas those who viewed intelligence as something that could be
improved were described as having an incremental theory. A belief in fixed intelligence
is associated with a performance goal orientation, that is, having a concern for
demonstrating one’s ability rather than a concern for learning and mastery. Such students
tend to adopt a "helpless" pattern when responding to failure. A belief in malleable
intelligence is associated with a learning goal orientation. These students demonstrate
mastery-oriented responses to failure, and have higher achievement outcomes (Dweck &
Leggett, 1988; Henderson & Dweck, 1990).
In the social domain, implicit theories can influence behavior in a variety of ways. For
example, parents’ beliefs about how children learn shape, in part, the ways in which they
interact with and teach their children. DeBaryshe, Binder, and Buell (2000) found that
mothers' implicit theories were associated with their modeling of literacy behaviors,
helping their children to write, and with their children's independent exploration of
writing and current levels of literacy skill.
University students studying to become elementary and secondary education teachers
presumably have some ideas about the characteristics of children and/or adolescents, as
well as how children and adolescents change through the processes of growth and
Implicit Theories
4
development. These ideas are, no doubt, shaped through their own experiences in
growing up, as well as their observations of and interactions with children and
adolescents. Thus, teacher aspirants come into their teacher education classes pre-existing
assumptions, i.e., implicit theories, about human learning, motivation, and development.
These “naïve” theories are just that—relatively uninformed and primitive—but they may
also be highly consistent with formal scientific theories in terms of offering a sound
explanation for aspects of human behavior and learning. Because teachers’ implicit
theories about student characteristics such as intelligence may play a role in influencing
their instruction and their views about the likelihood of certain students being
academically capable, it is important to understand the nature of the implicit theories held
by aspiring teachers. We wondered if, and how much, students’ implicit theories might be
influenced, challenged or corrected through their exposure to formal theories and current
research on development, learning, and motivation. Jonassen (2003) argued that teacher
education students should not be taught formal theory because they lacked the
background necessary to effectively incorporate them into their cognitive schemata.
This study investigated the evolution of implicit theories held by pre-service and inservice teachers regarding development, learning, and motivation across a 16-week
course experience. During these courses all students were exposed to formal theory in the
disciplines. In addition, some students were participating in a field experience that
paralleled their fist education courses—Educational Psychology and Development of the
Elementary School Child. This first field experience involved conducting 14 weekly,
structured, 30-minute observations of elementary or middle school students in classroom
situations and tutoring an assigned student for 30 minutes across the same 14-week
period. The observations involved a focus on theory and/or research in child development
and educational psychology. For instance, students analyzed children’s performance on
Piagetian conservation tasks and engaged in reciprocal teaching. Such experiences have
been recognized as important components of teacher education programs (e.g. NCATE,
2000). The goals of the research were to discover how stable students’ implicit theories
are over time and to what extent they are influenced by coursework and focused field
experience.
Method
Participants. The sample was comprised of students (n = 113) enrolled in three
undergraduate educational psychology courses, Educational Psychology (n = 19),
Development of the Elementary School Child (n = 37), and Development of the
Adolescent in Middle School (n = 31), and one graduate course, Theories and Research in
Adolescent Behavior and Development (n = 26). Some of the students enrolled in
educational psychology and child development were concurrently enrolled in a newly
developed, focused field experience (n=38).
Participants ranged in age from 19 to 51, with a mean age of 23.79 years. The sample was
comprised predominantly of female (n = 88, 77.9%) elementary education majors (n =
79, 69.9%). Other majors represented included arts education (n = 5), English education
(n = 5), social studies education (n = 5), mathematics education (n = 4), music education
(n = 2), special education (n = 1), adult education (n = 1), physical education, and
counseling (n = 1). The remaining students were undeclared majors.
Implicit Theories
5
Instruments. At the beginning of the course, students were asked to write about their
implicit theories of development, learning, and/or motivation, without consulting their
textbooks. They were asked to indicate the basic tenets of their theories and to describe
the sources of their theories (e.g. their own childhood experiences, observations of
siblings, parenting experience, teaching experience, other coursework). In addition, they
were asked to describe any evidence in support of their theories. At the end of the
semester, they were asked to repeat the exercise, but to include ties to formal theory in
support of their own theories.
Data analysis. Content analysis of theory papers was conducted by one of the
researchers. Papers were coded using a 5-point scale on each of the following
dimensions: authenticity, or the extent to which the theory reflected the real world of
adolescence or childhood, explanatory power, complexity, and consistency with formal
theory. A second researcher, to determine inter-rater reliability, also coded approximately
60% of the papers.
Inter-rater reliability was computed using Pearson correlation method. Inter-rater
reliability ranged from .869 to .906. See table 1 below.
Table 1.
Inter-rater Reliability Statistics
Dimension
r
Pre-course Authenticity
.882
Pre-course Explanatory Power
.888
Pre-course Complexity
.894
Pre-course Consistency with Formal Theory
.869
Post-course Authenticity
.891
Post-course Explanatory Power
.906
Post-course Complexity
.880
Post-course Consistency with Formal Theory
.895
Differences between students’ pre-course scores were determined using independent
samples t-tests (see Table 2 below). Statistically significant differences were found on the
pre-course measure between students currently enrolled in a course with an attached field
experience and those enrolled in the same courses without the attached field experience,
in terms of consistency with formal theory, favoring those without the concurrent field
experience. Statistically significant differences in precourse scores were also found
between students who had prior field experience and those who had none with regard to
authenticity and explanatory power, favoring those who had never participated in a field
experience. A statistically significant difference in pretest score regarding consistency
Implicit Theories
6
with formal theory was found between those with prior tutoring experience and those
without, favoring those without. No statistically significant differences were found
between under-graduate and graduate students, nor between pre-service and in-service
teachers. Our sample had too few participants with counseling experience (n=4), or
juvenile justice experience (n=3) for valid comparisons to be made.
Table 2
Group Differences in Pre-course Scores
Dimension
Authenticity
Explanatory Power
Complexity
Consistency with Formal
Theory
*p<.05
Dimension
Authenticity
Explanatory Power
Complexity
Consistency with
Formal Theory
p>.05
Dimension
Authenticity
Explanatory Power
Complexity
Consistency with Formal
Theory
Concurrent
Field Experience
Pre-Course
t(52)
No
Yes
n=16 n=38
2.00 1.79 .85
1.81 1.61 .99
1.81 1.55 1.29
2.63 1.76 3.19*
Prior
Field Experience
Pre-Course
t(99)
No
Yes
n=76 n=25
2.34 1.76 2.22*
2.25 1.64 2.26*
2.12 1.60 1.90
2.29 1.92 1.46
Parenting
Experience
Pre-Course
No
Yes
n=90 n=11
2.20 2.18
2.10 2.09
2.00 1.91
2.24 1.82
t(99)
.961
.981
.813
.229
Student Status
Pre-Course
UG
Grad
n=85 n=26
2.13 2.54
2.07 2.23
1.93 2.08
2.15 2.31
Volunteer
Experience
Pre-Course
No
Yes
n=52 n=48
2.40 2.00
2.25 1.96
2.15 1.83
2.23 2.17
Coaching
Experience
Pre-Course
No
Yes
n=82 n=19
2.15 2.42
2.05 2.32
1.94 2.21
2.23 2.05
Teaching Status
t
-1.60
-.605
-.562
-.626
Pre-Course
Pre
In
n=64 n=37
2.31 2.00
2.11 2.08
2.14 1.73
2.13 2.32
Tutoring
Experience
t(98) Pre-Course
No
Yes
n=75 n=26
1.76 2.24 2.08
1.22 2.21 1.77
1.34 2.16 1.50
0.28 2.28 1.96
t(99)
-0.93
-0.88
-0.89
0.63
t
1.31
.11
1.68
-.87
T(99)
0.62
1.65
2.49*
1.27
Implicit Theories
7
Change scores for each of the dimensions were calculated by subtracting pre-course
scores from post-scores. Differences in pre and post scores were determined through the
use of paired sample t-tests. Statistically significant differences were found between pre
and post-course implicit theories for all dimensions. See Table 3 below.
Table 3
Pretest to Posttest Change in Mean Scores
Dimension
Pre-Course
Mean
Post-Course
Mean
Mean
Change
t(108)
Authenticity
2.23
2.87
0.66
6.32**
Explanatory Power
2.11
2.73
0.62
5.81**
Complexity
1.96
2.73
0.75
6.89**
Consistency with Formal Theory
2.19
3.22
1.05
8.84**
**p<.01
Further analyses were conducted to determine what, if any differences existed in the
amount of change across the 16-week period by students in the groups described above.
As shown in Table 4, no statistically significant differences in change scores were found
between students currently enrolled in a course with an attached field experience and
those enrolled in the same courses without the attached field experience, between
graduate and undergraduate students, nor between pre-service and in-service teachers.
Implicit Theories
8
Table 4
Group Differences in Change Scores
Dimension
Authenticity
Explanatory Power
Complexity
Consistency with Formal
Theory
**p<.01
Concurrent
Field Experience
Change
t(52)
No
Yes
n=16 n=38
0.69 0.71 -0.85
0.69 0.63 0.26
0.94 0.63 1.52
0.87 0.97 -0.45
Student Status
Change
UG
Grad
n=83 n=26
0.64 0.73
0.55 0.84
0.63 1.15
0.85 1.65
Teaching Status
t(107)
Change
Pre
In
n=64 n=37
0.37
0.59 0.81
1.16
0.66 0.68
2.09
0.72 0.92
2.98** 1.06 1.13
t(99)
0.93
0.81
0.82
0.78
Some of our participants had participated in prior field experiences, although they were
not currently enrolled in a course with an attached field experience. No statistically
significant differences were found in the amount of change from pretest to posttest
between students who had and had not participated in prior field experiences.
Because structured field experiences attached to education courses are not the only
manner in which students might have gained experience working with or knowledge
about children, we also examined other possibilities, such as coaching, tutoring,
volunteering, and teaching experience. Statistically significant differences with regard to
change in authenticity were found between those with more than three years of
experience of volunteer work with children and those with no volunteer experience [F
(3,96)=2.712, p<.05]. No other statistically significant differences were found. Due to our
small sample size, interactions were not examined as many cells had too few participants.
We also examined pretest and posttest data to determine with which formal theories
students’ implicit theories were most consistent. The theory most often either mentioned
or with which students’ theoretical tenets were most consistent was Skinner’s theory of
operant conditioning. The vast majority of students made at least some reference to
reinforcement as an important factor in development, learning, and/or motivation.
Aspects of Bandura’s social cognitive theory also appeared frequently in our students’
theories, most notably the effects of modeling. Piaget’s stages of cognitive development
were also featured prominently in many students’ theories, as were Vygotsky’s concepts
of the zone of proximal development and scaffolding. While students’ implicit theories
became more consistent with formal theory across the 16-week period, most did not alter
their main theoretical perspectives (i.e. if they began the semester as behaviorists, they
ended the semester as behaviorists).
Discussion
While we found no evidence to support that participation in field experiences while
taking educational psychology coursework enhances change in students’ implicit
Implicit Theories
9
theories, it is important to note that students’ implicit theories did change across the 16week period. Perhaps, given that other researchers have found implicit theories to be
stable over time (Franiuk, Cohen, & Pomerantz, 2002), it would be unrealistic to expect
even greater change from those students participating in concurrent field experiences of
such limited duration.
It was surprising, and perhaps even disturbing, to find that students with some types of
experience working with children and adolescents prior to taking these courses scored
lower than those with no such experience on some dimensions. It is possible that their
experiences resulted in the construction of implicit theories based on narrow or
idiosyncratic experience. Such differences highlight the importance of confronting and
countering students’ pre-existing notions regarding development and learning by
educational psychology instructors.
References
Berg, C.A., & Sternberg, R.J. (1988). Adults’ conceptions of intelligence across the adult
life span. Psychology & Aging, 7, 221-231.
Chan, D.W. & Chan, L. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers' perception of
student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal. 12(3), 185195.
DeBaryshe, B.D, Binder, J.C, & Buell, M.J. (2000). Mothers' implicit theories of early
literacy instruction: Implications for children's reading and writing. Early Child
Development & Care, 160, 119-131.
Dweck, C.S., & Elliott, E.S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E.M. Hetherington
(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and
social development (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Franiuk, R., Cohen, D., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2002). Implicit theories of relationships:
Implications for relationship satisfaction and longevity. Personal Relationships,
9(4), 345-367.
Furnham, A. (1988). Lay theories: Everyday understanding of problems in the social
sciences. New York: Pergamon.
Jonassen, D.H. (2003, April). The case against learning theories in educational
psychology courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Levy, S.R., Stroessner, S.J., & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Stereotype formation and
endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality & Social
Implicit Theories
10
Psychology, 74(6), 1421-1436.
McConnell, A.R. (2001). Implicit theories: Consequences for social judgments of
individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 215-227.
Osberg, T.M. (2002). Psychology is not just common sense: An introductory psychology
demonstration. In R.A. Griggs (Ed.), Handbook for teaching introductory
psychology, Vol. 3: With an emphasis on assessment (pp. 180-181). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Puccio, G.J. & Chimento, M.D. (2001). Implicit theories of creativity: Laypersons'
perceptions of the creativity of adaptors and innovators. Perceptual & Motor
Skills, 92(3, Pt. 1), 675-681.
Runco, M.A. & Johnson, D.J. (2002). Parents' and teachers' implicit theories of children's
creativity: A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3-4),
427-438
Sternberg, R.L., Conway, B.E., Ketron, J.L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People's
conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 3755.