View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Investigating How Teacher Educators Perceive and Manage Their Diverse Conceptions of Teaching

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Investigating How Teacher Educators Perceive and Manage Their Diverse Conceptions of Teaching
Language: English
Authors: Hong-Yu Cheng (ORCID 0000-0001-7436-5780), Feng Bin-Qian, Hao-Zhe Jiang (ORCID 0000-0002-7870-0993)
Source: European Journal of Education. 2025 60(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Teacher Educators, Teacher Attitudes, Foreign Countries, Educational Research, Research Methodology, Instructional Design, Teaching Methods, Instructional Effectiveness
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12907
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: Many previous studies have indicated that teachers often hold a blend of conceptions of teaching, combining both teacher-oriented and student-oriented perspectives. This research extends the existing literature by investigating whether these mixed conceptions lead to dissonant combinations, and by examining how teachers perceive and manage these diverse teaching perspectives. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a group of Chinese teacher educators at a university. Based on data from 93 participants, the study identified nine strategies employed by participants to integrate teacher-oriented and student-oriented perspectives at both individual component and cross-component levels. It was also found that the use of these strategies enabled participants to construct four distinct combinations of conceptions of teaching, each corresponding to a specific approach to instruction. The research reminds education researchers to exercise caution when adopting a dichotomous perspective for categorising teaching approaches. The findings contribute to instructional design and teacher education by providing a deeper understanding of the relationships between distinct teaching conceptions, and encouraging teachers and teacher educators to explore more effective ways of integrating various teaching perspectives and methods to enhance instructional effectiveness.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1461322
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEj-4jUwM5Wkcla0MayXCboAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEq4dOTq6vF3c-CLVwIBEICBmyv3KRTHywenB3hUJSRWW-sH0iJnOEgO04HIVe46CJ4jJNDoeSbCwrj69mkOKbphuJU3r4ppLPLPhhnn1Qez2R-zERpn-Kqax_VgwI_JWuLOJHOSouRyAW2tU5Q5fRe5Ho10MQWNp5UG1Hrc_jirGAdy-AEChJW19M0JHZo21zDwmahnI0oBVWHlWJuUUhBEJiZFYbI7sJOxQy5Z
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183654395;eje01mar.25;2025Mar17.06:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183654395-1">Investigating How Teacher Educators Perceive and Manage Their Diverse Conceptions of Teaching </title> <p>Many previous studies have indicated that teachers often hold a blend of conceptions of teaching, combining both teacher‐oriented and student‐oriented perspectives. This research extends the existing literature by investigating whether these mixed conceptions lead to dissonant combinations, and by examining how teachers perceive and manage these diverse teaching perspectives. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a group of Chinese teacher educators at a university. Based on data from 93 participants, the study identified nine strategies employed by participants to integrate teacher‐oriented and student‐oriented perspectives at both individual component and cross‐component levels. It was also found that the use of these strategies enabled participants to construct four distinct combinations of conceptions of teaching, each corresponding to a specific approach to instruction. The research reminds education researchers to exercise caution when adopting a dichotomous perspective for categorising teaching approaches. The findings contribute to instructional design and teacher education by providing a deeper understanding of the relationships between distinct teaching conceptions, and encouraging teachers and teacher educators to explore more effective ways of integrating various teaching perspectives and methods to enhance instructional effectiveness.</p> <p>Keywords: conceptions of teaching; strategies of management; student‐oriented perspectives; teacher‐oriented perspectives</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Education researchers have extensively studied the conceptions of teaching held by teachers and student teachers for decades (Alt [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>]; Al‐Balushi et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]; Blumberg [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]; Gonzalez [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]; Lam and Kember [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref5">22</reflink>]; Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>]; Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>]; Yilmaz [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref8">42</reflink>]). However, conceptions of teaching embody a complex psychological construct comprising diverse and sometimes conflicting teaching perspectives (Al‐Balushi et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]; Hordern and Tatto [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref10">16</reflink>]; Kember and Kwan [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref11">20</reflink>]; Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref12">31</reflink>]; Virtanen and Lindblom‐Ylänne [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref13">38</reflink>]). How teachers perceive and manage the relationships among the varied teaching perspectives is an intricate topic worthy of further exploration. Conceptions of teaching refer to teachers' underlying perspectives and beliefs regarding the instructional process, which guide their actions and behaviours in teaching (Lindblom‐Ylänne et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref14">25</reflink>]). Conceptions of teaching held by teachers can generally be classified into two broad orientations: teacher‐oriented and student‐oriented perspectives (Alt [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>]; Al‐Balushi et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>]; Gonzalez [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]; Lam and Kember [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]). A teacher with teacher‐oriented perspectives considers teaching as transmitting structured or unstructured knowledge within a hierarchically organised teacher‐student relationship (Richter et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref19">33</reflink>]). Whereas a teacher with student‐oriented perspectives considers teaching as impelling the conceptual changes or promoting the cognitive/personal development of students within a relatively equal teacher‐student relationship (Al‐Balushi et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the existing literature, extensive research has explored the advantages and disadvantages of student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented teaching perspectives, as well as the varied pedagogical approaches informed by these perspectives (Jo and Seo [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref21">18</reflink>]; Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]; Lee and Boo [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>]). Substantial comparative analyses have assessed the educational outcomes associated with these approaches, resulting in inconsistent findings. Some studies suggest that teacher‐oriented perspectives lead to more favourable practical outcomes (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]; Mayer [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref25">27</reflink>]), while others report contrary results, favouring student‐oriented perspectives and methods (Seidel and Shavelson [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]; Wilder [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref27">40</reflink>]). Notably, these discussions are underpinned by the assumption that student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented perspectives are dichotomous and can be distinctly separated in pedagogical practice. However, another stream of studies from both Western and Eastern countries (Chen and Yang [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref28">9</reflink>]; Eley [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]; Huang, Yang, and Li [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref30">17</reflink>]; Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]; Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref32">31</reflink>]; Swinkels, Koopman, and Beijaard [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref33">35</reflink>]; Trevisan and Smits [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref34">37</reflink>]; Yang and Xu [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref35">41</reflink>]) has revealed that many teachers and student teachers do not adhere to a single orientation of conceptions of teaching. Instead, they tend to develop mixed conceptions, incorporating both student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented perspectives. This observation raises important questions that remain to be explored: how do teachers with mixed conceptions perceive and navigate the relationship between the two teaching philosophies, and how do their mixed conceptions guide their teaching practices?</p> <p>Scholars have reported varying understandings of the relationships between teacher‐oriented and student‐oriented teaching perspectives. Some scholars (Cano [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref36">8</reflink>]; Lindblom‐Ylänne [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref37">24</reflink>]; Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref38">26</reflink>]; Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref39">31</reflink>]) perceived these relationships as conflicting and suggested that teachers with mixed conceptions might have a dissonant or incoherent combination of teaching perspectives. This refers to a blending of teaching conceptions and strategies from different orientations/approaches that may lack theoretical alignment (e.g., upholding the facilitator role of teachers while advocating for knowledge dissemination; Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref40">31</reflink>]). If teachers did not propose effective solutions to address the dissonant combinations of teaching conceptions, it was found to be significantly associated with their low teaching quality (Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]). Whereas other scholars view the various teaching perspectives as complementary (Yang and Xu [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref42">41</reflink>]; Zhu, Valcke, and Schellens [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref43">45</reflink>]) and argue that teaching conceptions and strategies from different orientations each have their own value in addressing diverse student populations and teaching scenarios. Currently, there is a lack of empirical evidence to determine whether educators and teachers with mixed conceptions of teaching should be viewed as holding dissonant combinations of teaching perspectives or if they possess a more functional understanding of the relationships among these perspectives, enabling them to better address diverse teaching scenarios.</p> <p>Thus, this study aims to explore how teachers perceive and manage diverse teaching perspectives, as well as the solutions or strategies they may have to address or prevent issues related to dissonant combinations of these perspectives. This exploration might help achieve a deeper understanding of the dynamic structure of teachers' conceptions of teaching and contribute to a more accurate comprehension of how they actually instruct in the classroom. Nowadays, the values of student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented teaching perspectives are generally both recognised (Lee and Boo [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>]), but how to integrate them and effectively apply them to teaching practice remains an underexplored area. The present study endeavours to contribute valuable insights towards addressing this gap.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-3">Chinese Teacher Educators as the Target Population for the Present Research</hd> <p>In this research, Chinese teacher educators involved in preservice teacher education programs at universities (PTEP teachers) were chosen as the target population for investigation, because this group of teachers exhibits prominent mixed features in their conceptions of teaching (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref45">26</reflink>]; Yang and Xu [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref46">41</reflink>]; Zhu, Valcke, and Schellens [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref47">45</reflink>]). On one hand, Chinese PTEP teachers are inevitably subject to the influence of the traditional teacher‐centred approach. In conventional Chinese classrooms, a hierarchical teacher‐student relationship is generally inherited from the Confucian culture (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref48">15</reflink>]; Wan [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref49">39</reflink>]), and teacher‐centred instructional strategies are often considered more effective in helping students achieve higher grades compared to student‐centred approaches (Pang, Shui, and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref50">29</reflink>]; You [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref51">43</reflink>]). On the other hand, there has been a global trend in recent decades towards promoting student‐centred teaching reforms in school education (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref52">26</reflink>]). Affected by this trend, most teacher education programs in Chinese universities explicitly declare that cultivating student teachers' learner‐centred teaching thinking and abilities is one of the main tasks of the programs (Zhang, Xi, and Zhao [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref53">44</reflink>]). Chinese PTEP teachers are generally expected to have a good grasp of the learner‐centred/student‐oriented approach, and then transmit relevant knowledge to student teachers (Zhang, Xi, and Zhao [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref54">44</reflink>]). Therefore, Chinese PTEP teachers, while inevitably influenced by traditional teaching approaches, have more opportunities to engage with student‐oriented teaching concepts and strategies compared to university teachers who are not involved in teacher education work (Pang, Shui, and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref55">29</reflink>]). Consequently, research (Yang and Xu [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref56">41</reflink>]; Zhu, Valcke, and Schellens [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref57">45</reflink>]) has shown that many PTEP teachers hold both student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented perspectives.</p> <p>As such, Chinese PTEP teachers are likely to encounter and learn to manage collisions among diverse teaching perspectives, making them an excellent sample for illustrating how various teaching conceptions and strategies might be handled by educators. Studies have revealed that teachers from Western countries may also exhibit mixed features in their conceptions of teaching (Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref58">31</reflink>]; Swinkels, Koopman, and Beijaard [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]; Trevisan and Smits [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref60">37</reflink>]), and make compromises between student‐centred and teacher‐centred approaches when facing challenges in teaching (Trevisan and Smits [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref61">37</reflink>]). It is unclear whether Western teachers manage their teaching perspectives and strategies from different orientations similarly to Chinese teachers. However, the exploration in this study can offer valuable insights to assist in future investigations into their configurations of conceptions of teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-4">The Orientations and Components of Conceptions of Teaching</hd> <p>Academic discourse emphasises that examining teachers' conceptions of teaching should consider it as composed of multiple components or dimensions (Boulton‐Lewis et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref62">6</reflink>]; Muimongkol, Subramaniam, and Wickstrom [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref63">28</reflink>]). Five components of conceptions of teaching were frequently mentioned and explored by scholars (Gonzalez [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref64">14</reflink>]; Lam and Kember [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref65">22</reflink>]; Virtanen and Lindblom‐Ylänne [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref66">38</reflink>]): the view of teachers' role, the view of students' role, the view of teaching task, the view of content and the view of knowledge. Take the view of teachers' role as an example, it involves two distinct or opposing perspectives: one is to deem the teacher as a facilitator playing supportive role in teaching (reflecting a student‐oriented perspective), and the other is to deem the teacher as an authoritarian figure (reflecting a teacher‐oriented perspective). Similarly, the remaining four conception components all contain student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented perspectives (refer to Table 1 for specific descriptions). Thus, there are five components of conceptions of teaching with two sets of teaching perspectives (Kember and Kwan [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref67">20</reflink>]; Lam and Kember [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref68">22</reflink>]; Muimongkol, Subramaniam, and Wickstrom [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref69">28</reflink>]). The first set of teaching perspectives is considered student‐oriented, including: facilitator view of teachers' role, explorer view of students' role, fostering‐development view of teaching task, flexible view of content and subjective view of knowledge (Table 1). Whereas the other set of teaching perspectives is considered teacher‐oriented, including: authoritarian view of teachers' role, receiver view of students' role, knowledge transmitting view of teaching task, fixed view of content and objective view of knowledge (Table 1).</p> <p>1 TABLE The codes and criteria used to label and distinguish student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented perspectives.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">View of teachers' role</th><th align="center">View of students' role</th><th align="center">View of teaching task</th><th align="center">View of content</th><th align="center">View of knowledge</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Student‐oriented</td><td align="center">TS.Facilitator view:The teacher should play a facilitator/supportive role in teaching</td><td align="center">SS.Explorer view:Students are autonomous explorers managing their own learning and relying on themselves to explore knowledge</td><td align="center">IS.Fostering‐development view:The task of instruction is to promote understanding or impel conceptual/personal development</td><td align="center">CS.Flexible view:Learning contents are flexible and subject to changes according to the needs of students</td><td align="center">KS.Subjective view:Knowledge is subjective and constructed by the learner</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher‐oriented</td><td align="center">TT.Authoritarian view:The teacher should take on an authoritarian or leading role in instruction</td><td align="center">ST.Receiver view:Students are passive receivers of knowledge accepting whatever the teacher conveys</td><td align="center">IT.Knowledge transmitting view:The task of instruction is to transmit knowledge</td><td align="center">CT.Fixed view:Learning contents are fixed and pre‐arranged</td><td align="center">KT.Objective view:Knowledge is objective, stable and should be memorised</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Neutral</td><td align="center">TN.Neutral view: Teachers can play both authoritarian and facilitator roles in teaching</td><td align="center">SN.Neutral view: Students can be both recipients of knowledge and autonomous explorers</td><td align="center">IN.Neutral view:The tasks of instruction include: transmitting knowledge, promoting conceptual changes and impelling personal development</td><td align="center">CN.Neutral view:Pre‐arranged contents are necessary, but should keep the flexibility in choosing complementary materials to meet the needs of students</td><td align="center">KN.Neutral view:Some knowledge is relatively subjective, and some knowledge is relatively objective</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> The first letters of the codes stand for the components of conceptions of teaching, and the second letters of the codes stand for a student‐oriented, teacher‐oriented or neutral perspective of the participant on particular components. For instance, in the code 'TS', the first letter 'T' refers to the view of teachers' role, and the second letter 'S' refers to a student‐oriented perspective on this component (i.e., facilitator view of teachers' role).</p> <p>However, the above discussion only offers a simplified way to comprehend the categorisation of the teaching perspectives. Kember ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref70">19</reflink>]) argued that while some scholars saw student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented perspectives as opposite ends on continua, some others perceived them in hierarchical relations (Gonzalez [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref71">14</reflink>]). Still, other scholars interpreted them as qualitatively different or independent categories (Degago and Kaino [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref72">10</reflink>]; Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref73">26</reflink>]). Teachers may consider that the 'facilitator' role and the 'authoritarian' role of teachers can coexist or complement each other (Zhu, Valcke, and Schellens [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref74">45</reflink>]), these teachers are deemed to have a neutral perspective of teachers' role. Similarly, teachers can have neutral perspectives on other four conception components (see Table 1). Nevertheless, student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented teaching perspectives sometimes appear to be in conflict. For instance, in Liu et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref75">26</reflink>]), certain student teachers encountered difficulties in adopting a facilitator role during their internship, leading them to embrace an authoritarian approach. Whereas, some other teachers were able to incorporate the facilitator role by structuring specific teaching segments that required the teachers to facilitate students' independent exploration, despite being in a teacher‐centred school environment (Chen and Yang [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref76">9</reflink>]). It seems that some teachers relatively have a better management of the relation between the authoritarian and the facilitator roles, applying these roles interchangeably to support teaching. It sometimes requires methods or strategies for teachers to effectively manage the seemingly opposing teaching perspectives. The lack of strategies may lead to confusion or the adoption of conservative or ineffective teaching strategies by teachers (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref77">26</reflink>]; Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref78">31</reflink>]). The question of how teachers perceive and manage the relationships between opposing teaching perspectives has not yet received sufficient exploration.</p> <p>Furthermore, despite conceptions of teaching being categorised into two dominant orientations (Lam and Kember [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref79">22</reflink>]), studies (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref80">26</reflink>]; Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref81">31</reflink>]) have indicated that teachers might hold student‐oriented perspectives on certain conception components, while maintaining teacher‐oriented perspectives on others. When the five conception components are taken into account, there are a number of possible combinations of teaching perspectives. Some scholars might describe the mixed combinations of teaching conceptions held by teachers as incoherent, dissonant or incompatible (Cano [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref82">8</reflink>]; Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref83">31</reflink>]), because they lack theoretical or logical coherence. However, in theory, professional teachers wouldn't randomly combine their teaching perspectives across conception components. Teachers' conceptions of teaching are shaped under the influences of a few critical factors, among which their educational philosophy holds fundamental impact (Bataineh, Al‐Rub, and Al‐Bataineh [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref84">3</reflink>]). Educational philosophy refers to the beliefs and values that underpin how learning and teaching should occur (Papadima [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref85">30</reflink>]). Teachers may have a philosophical tendency towards perennialism, essentialism, progressivism or constructivism (Papadima [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref86">30</reflink>]). Table 2 lists the primary educational philosophies alongside their corresponding educational beliefs. Teachers who adhere to perennialism or essentialism would lean towards teacher‐oriented perspectives and strategies, while those who embrace progressivism or constructivism are more inclined towards student‐oriented perspectives and strategies (Bataineh, Al‐Rub, and Al‐Bataineh [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref87">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>2 TABLE Educational philosophies and their major beliefs.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">The major beliefs</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Progressivism</td><td align="center">It argues that learning is achieved by doing and exploring. It places students' interests, needs and experiences at the forefront of education. It advocates for a democratic classroom. It often aligns with teaching methods that involve group work, projects and real‐world problem‐solving. It aims to nurture the holistic development of students</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Constructivism</td><td align="center">It posits that knowledge is constructed by learners themselves and is based on their previous knowledge and experiences. It values diverse viewpoints and encourages learners to explore various perspectives and solutions to problems. It emphasises interactive, student‐centred approaches. Teachers play a supportive role to help learners build their understanding gradually</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perennialism</td><td align="center">It focuses on enduring ideas and universal truths, advocating for a curriculum centred around classical knowledge and critical thinking. It emphasises the study of great works from various cultures and time periods. It typically employs a teacher‐centred approach. It emphasises rigorous intellectual development of learners</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Essentialism</td><td align="center">The primary goal is to ensure academic excellence by prioritising the mastery of essential subjects and skills. It typically involves a teacher‐centred approach. There's an emphasis on a structured and standardised curriculum. The teaching methods involve direct instruction and standardised testing</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note:</emph> The information in this table was sourced from: Bataineh, M., Al‐Rub, M. A., & Al‐Bataineh, A. T. (2022). <emph>The principles of teaching and learning</emph>. San Diego, California: Cognella, Incorporated.</p> <p>Other than the influence of educational philosophy, teachers' conceptions of teaching place a focus on practical applications in the classroom, and thus tend to adapt to the influences of instructional experiences and environmental requirements (Huang, Yang, and Li [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref88">17</reflink>]; Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref89">26</reflink>]; Pang, Shui, and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref90">29</reflink>]). The combined influence of educational philosophy and environmental factors may lead to the mixed features in conceptions of teaching for teachers. In Liu et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref91">26</reflink>]), some student teachers shifted their endorsement from the facilitator role to the authoritarian role due to their internship experiences in an exam‐oriented school. However, they still expressed at least partial support for encouraging autonomous learning and promoting emotional/personal development among students, possibly stemming from their philosophical beliefs (progressivism or constructivism). Consequently, the collision between educational philosophy and the teaching reality led to a 'dissonant combination' of teaching conceptions as defined by Postareff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref92">31</reflink>]). Nevertheless, there is a question regarding whether the 'dissonant combination' is an inevitable outcome of this collision. Scholars (Beauchamp and Thomas [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref93">4</reflink>]; Tilson, Sandretto, and Pratt [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref94">36</reflink>]) have suggested that when teachers are aware of the inconsistencies among their own teaching beliefs/perspectives, or the gaps between beliefs and the teaching reality, they might experience cognitive dissonance. They would make adjustments of their teaching beliefs/perspectives to solve the cognitive dissonance. Currently, it is unclear to what extent Chinese PTEP teachers are aware of this dissonance, and whether they assume any solutions or strategies to resolve it.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-5">The Present Study</hd> <p>This study aims to explore how Chinese PTEP teachers perceive and manage the various teaching perspectives from the two orientations. Based on the above literature review, it was inferred that PTEP teachers' conceptions of teaching should be examined at two levels. Firstly, at the individual conception component level, it was anticipated that at least a portion of PTEP teachers would tend to hold neutral perspectives. The study needs to explore how these PTEP teachers perceive and manage the relations between the seemingly opposing teaching perspectives on each component. Secondly, at the cross‐component level, it was expected that certain PTEP teachers, due to their shared educational philosophies and comparable teaching environments, would exhibit similar combinations of teaching perspectives from the two orientations. The study needs to explore how these PTEP teachers manage the diverse teaching perspectives across components. In short, the study seeks to address the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> At the individual component level, how do PTEP teachers perceive and manage the relations or conflicts between student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented teaching perspectives?</item> <p></p> <item> At the cross‐component level, how do PTEP teachers perceive and manage their mixed combinations of teaching perspectives, which may stem from the divergence between their educational philosophy and the practicalities of teaching?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0183654395-6">Research Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654395-7">Participants</hd> <p>Participants consisted of 93 PTEP teachers from a university that is the sole provincial‐level teacher education institution in Zhejiang Province located in Eastern China. Research approval was obtained from the university administrative office. The sample group consisted of 51 females and 42 males, aged between 27 and 43. Their teaching service ranged from 3 to 21 years. These teachers held titles of lecturer, associate professor or professor, and represented various professional fields, including chemistry, physics, mathematics, history, Chinese language and literature, primary education and secondary education.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-8">Instrument</hd> <p>The study employed semi‐structured interviews to reveal the participants' teaching perspectives on the five conception components. Semi‐structured interviews combine flexibility and structure, allowing for in‐depth exploration of participants' viewpoints while generating rich qualitative data for analysis (Brown and Danaher [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref95">7</reflink>]). Interview questions were crafted at two levels. At the individual component level, questions were developed for each component. Taking the view of teachers' role as an example, a general question (e.g., 'What are your views on the role of a teacher in teaching?') was posed to gather data. In cases where a participant had misinterpretations of the general questions and provided unrelated answers, auxiliary questions (e.g., 'How do you view the authoritarian role, facilitator role, or any other relevant roles of teachers?') were used to identify whether the participant had a facilitator, an authoritarian or a neutral perspective of teachers. For participants with the neutral perspective, follow‐up questions would be posed to them, such as 'how do you perceive the relations between the authoritarian and the facilitator roles of teachers? how do you manage these two roles as a teacher?' Similar questions were developed for the other four conception components and are presented in Table 3. On each component, participants would be identified as having a student‐oriented, teacher‐oriented or neutral perspective (refer to Table 1 for the specific criteria used in making these identifications).</p> <p>3 TABLE Interview questions used at the individual component and cross‐component levels.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">View of teachers' role</th><th align="center">View of students' role</th><th align="center">View of teaching task</th><th align="center">View of content</th><th align="center">View of knowledge</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. Interview questions used at the individual component level</td></tr><tr><td align="left">General questions</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What are your views on the role of a teacher in teaching?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What are your views on the role of students in the classroom?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What are your thoughts on the tasks/aims of teaching?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What are your thoughts on selecting and using teaching materials for students?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>How do you view the nature of subject knowledge?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Auxiliary questions (optional)</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>How do you view the authoritarian role, facilitator role or any other relevant roles of teachers?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Do you think students should act as knowledge receivers, autonomous explorers or any other roles in the classroom?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What do you think is the task of teaching: to assist students in gaining the subject knowledge, enhancing their deep understanding or something else?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Do you believe teaching materials should be fixed and pre‐arranged or flexibly chosen by teachers or students?</p></list-item><list-item><p>What are the sources of teaching materials that you would use in instruction?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Do you believe that subject knowledge is subjective or objective?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do you allow students to have personal interpretations of knowledge?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do you prefer to evaluate students through standardised testing or employ alternative assessment methods?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Follow‐up questions</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>You indicated support for both the authoritarian and the facilitator roles of teachers. How do you perceive the relationship between these two roles?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How do you manage these two roles as a teacher?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>You mentioned students both as knowledge receivers and independent explorers of knowledge. How do you perceive the relationship between the two roles of students?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How do you manage these two roles of students?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>You mentioned that the tasks of teaching include transmitting knowledge, promoting understanding, etc. How do you perceive the relationships among these teaching tasks?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How do you manage them?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>How do you perceive the relationship between textbooks and other sources of learning materials?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How do you manage them?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>How do you perceive the relationship between subjective knowledge and objective knowledge?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How do you manage them?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Interview questions used at the cross‐component level</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center">Can you articulate your philosophical beliefs regarding school teaching?In what ways do your teaching views align with your educational philosophy?In what ways do your teaching views serve the practical demands of teaching?Do you perceive any connections or conflicts among your teaching views?How do you manage the conflicts?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>At the cross‐component level, interview questions were tailored for participants who demonstrated inconsistent view orientations across components, as identified through their responses to questions posed at the individual component level. These questions were used to examine in what aspects the participants' teaching perspectives were aligned with their educational philosophy, in what aspects their teaching perspectives were in accordance with environmental requirements, and to identify any strategies the participants might use to resolve possible conflicts and establish logical connections among diverse teaching perspectives (Table 3).</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-9">Data Gathering Procedure</hd> <p>The research team for this study consisted of experienced researchers (i.e., the authors) and five trained research assistants. Teacher educators from various disciplines were invited to participate through academic seminars, faculty meetings and other venues. Those who agreed were interviewed individually in their offices or meeting rooms for 30 to 50 min. The interviews took place between February and May 2023, and all participants signed an informed consent form.</p> <p>During the interview, each participant was first asked to respond to the interview questions developed at the individual component level. Immediately afterward, the interviewer conducted a preliminary assessment of the participant's view orientations across the five components. If the participant indicated inconsistent orientations across components, the interviewer would then present the assessment results to the participant and proceed with the interview questions at the cross‐component level. The interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interview data were collected in three phases. The final phase involved the collection and analysis of data from 20 participants. Its results did not generate new strategies or themes that differed from those identified in the analyses of the first two phases. Consequently, it was concluded that data saturation had been reached.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-10">Data Analysis</hd> <p>All transcript files were uploaded to ATLAS.ti 9 for analysis. This study collected qualitative interview data and primarily utilised content analysis to identify any strategies or methods participants might employ in managing mixed teaching conceptions. To strengthen the robustness of the qualitative analysis, the researchers of this study also incorporated some quantitative analyses. For example, prior to conducting the content analysis at the individual component level, the researchers assigned codes to participants to identify their view orientations, as the software was unable to effectively complete this task due to the participants' often mixed or ambiguous responses to related questions. Thus, Cohen's kappa coefficients were calculated to assess the inter‐rater reliability of the data coding process. The researchers also presented quantitative data on the extent to which participants held neutral perspectives, which can help determine how necessary it is to analyse management strategies at the individual component level. Moreover, prior to the content analysis at the cross‐component level, the researchers identified participants who shared similar combinations of teaching conceptions and categorised them into groups. The qualitative interview data for each group were then subjected to content analysis to identify potential strategies employed at this level.</p> <p>Previous studies (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref96">26</reflink>]; Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref97">31</reflink>]) have indicated that teachers can hold student‐oriented, teacher‐oriented or neutral teaching perspectives. Based on these findings, the researchers edited codes in Table 1 to label the view orientations of participants. Two raters read through the transcripts and independently assigned the codes to each participant. Cohen's kappa coefficient revealed a strong agreement between raters, at <emph>κ</emph> = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78–0.93; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). To support further data analyses, the two raters engaged in discussions regarding cases with disagreements to reach a consensus. Through this procedure, all participants were identified in terms of their perspectives on each conception component, which generated a dataset with a portion of it presenting in Table 4.</p> <p>4 TABLE A segment of the dataset.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">No.</th><th align="center">View of teachers' role</th><th align="center">View of students' role</th><th align="center">View of teaching task</th><th align="center">View of content</th><th align="center">View of knowledge</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">T1</td><td align="center">TS</td><td align="center">SN</td><td align="center">IS</td><td align="center">CS</td><td align="center">SN</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2</td><td align="center">TN</td><td align="center">SN</td><td align="center">IS</td><td align="center">CN</td><td align="center">SS</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T3</td><td align="center">TT</td><td align="center">ST</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CN</td><td align="center">SN</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T4</td><td align="center">TS</td><td align="center">SS</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CT</td><td align="center">ST</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T5</td><td align="center">TN</td><td align="center">SS</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CN</td><td align="center">SN</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T6</td><td align="center">TN</td><td align="center">SN</td><td align="center">IS</td><td align="center">CN</td><td align="center">SN</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T7</td><td align="center">TN</td><td align="center">SN</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CN</td><td align="center">SN</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T8</td><td align="center">TT</td><td align="center">ST</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CT</td><td align="center">SN</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T9</td><td align="center">TT</td><td align="center">SN</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CS</td><td align="center">SS</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T10</td><td align="center">TN</td><td align="center">SS</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CS</td><td align="center">SN</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T11</td><td align="center">TS</td><td align="center">SN</td><td align="center">IS</td><td align="center">CN</td><td align="center">SS</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T12</td><td align="center">TS</td><td align="center">SN</td><td align="center">IS</td><td align="center">CT</td><td align="center">ST</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T13</td><td align="center">TN</td><td align="center">SN</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CN</td><td align="center">SN</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T14</td><td align="center">TN</td><td align="center">SS</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CT</td><td align="center">ST</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T15</td><td align="center">TN</td><td align="center">SN</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CT</td><td align="center">ST</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T16</td><td align="center">TN</td><td align="center">SS</td><td align="center">IS</td><td align="center">CT</td><td align="center">ST</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T17</td><td align="center">TT</td><td align="center">ST</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CT</td><td align="center">SN</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T18</td><td align="center">TS</td><td align="center">SS</td><td align="center">IS</td><td align="center">CT</td><td align="center">ST</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T19</td><td align="center">TT</td><td align="center">SS</td><td align="center">IN</td><td align="center">CN</td><td align="center">SS</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T20</td><td align="center">TN</td><td align="center">SN</td><td align="center">IS</td><td align="center">CT</td><td align="center">ST</td></tr><tr><td align="left">...</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The dataset was first analysed at the individual component level to determine how many participants held a student‐oriented, teacher‐oriented or neutral perspective on each component. Although this analysis does not directly address the first research question, it can inform us about the prevalence of neutral perspectives among participants, highlighting the necessity of conducting subsequent content analysis. For those participants holding neutral perspectives, their interview responses to follow‐up questions were subjected to content analysis. The researchers carried out content analysis using ATLAS.ti 9, in accordance with the methodological framework proposed by Denzin and Lincoln ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref98">11</reflink>]). Grounded theory was adopted as the analytical approach, utilising the Constant Comparison Method (CCM) to systematically refine the data. Conceptual categories were generated via an emergent categorosation system, with relevant codes subsequently identified to delineate the specific properties of each category. Two researchers independently conducted the content analysis and compared their results to achieve inter‐rater consensus. A third researcher then cross‐checked the analysis to ensure that the results and interpretations accurately reflected the original meaning. Through this procedure, the researchers identified seven management strategies suggested by the participants.</p> <p>The dataset was then analysed at the cross‐component level. It was inspected how many participants held all student‐oriented perspectives (with codes: TS, SS, IS, CS, KS and MS), how many held all teacher‐oriented perspectives (with codes: TT, ST, IT, CT, KT and MT), and how many held mixed teaching perspectives across components. For those with mixed teaching perspectives, it was investigated whether some of them shared similar conception combinations. For participants with similar conception combinations, their transcripts of responses to the interview questions composed at the cross‐component level would be combined and subjected to content analysis. The steps of content analysis at this stage involved: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>) determining participants' philosophical tendencies by assessing how their self‐described philosophical beliefs aligned with those outlined in Table 2; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>) identifying participants' teaching perspectives that aligned with their philosophical tendencies; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref101">3</reflink>) identifying participants' teaching perspectives that deviated from their philosophical tendencies but aligned with environmental requirements; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref102">4</reflink>) identifying strategies potentially used by participants to reconcile the diverse teaching perspectives. At the first step, two raters independently identified the philosophy tendencies for participants. The calculated Cohen's kappa coefficient indicated a strong agreement between raters, at <emph>κ</emph> = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73–0.89; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). At the second and third steps, most participants (91%) involved in this phase of the interview were found to have certain teaching perspectives aligned more with their educational philosophy, while simultaneously holding other teaching perspectives more in line with environmental requirements. At the fourth step, by following a similar content analysis procedure used to identify strategies at the individual component level, the researchers reached a consensus on two management strategies employed by participants to reconcile diverse teaching perspectives.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-11">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654395-12">Inspecting Participants' Teaching Perspectives at the Individual Component Level</hd> <p>The researchers calculated the numbers of participants holding student‐oriented, teacher‐oriented or neutral perspectives on each conception component (see Table 5). It was shown that the percentages of participants holding neural perspectives on the five components ranged from 36.6% to 71%. While analysing the interview responses to the questions regarding the view of teachers' role for the participants who held the neutral perspective (<emph>n</emph> = 53), the researchers identified three strategies employed by these participants to manage both the authoritarian and the facilitator roles. 46 of these participants suggested that the choice of which role a teacher plays depends on conditions such as students' learning abilities, class size, teaching aims, etc. Their responses implied a 'conditioning strategy' to resolve conflicts between the two roles of teachers. This strategy was also employed by participants to manage opposing teaching perspectives on some other conception components (see Table 6). The descriptions of this strategy and other identified strategies are presented in Table 6.</p> <p>5 TABLE The view orientations for the participants (N  = 93) on the five components of conceptions of teaching.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">View of teachers' role</th><th align="center">View of students' role</th><th align="center">View of teaching task</th><th align="center">View of content</th><th align="center">View of knowledge</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Teacher‐oriented</td><td align="center">35 (37.6%)</td><td align="center">30 (32.3%)</td><td align="center">6 (6.5%)</td><td align="center">37 (39.8%)</td><td align="center">35 (37.6%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student‐oriented</td><td align="center">5 (5.4%)</td><td align="center">7 (7.5%)</td><td align="center">21 (22.5%)</td><td align="center">21 (22.6%)</td><td align="center">24 (25.8%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Neutral</td><td align="center">53 (57%)</td><td align="center">56 (60.2%)</td><td align="center">66 (71%)</td><td align="center">35 (37.6%)</td><td align="center">34 (36.6%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 TABLE The strategies of management identified at the individual component and the cross‐component levels.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Strategies</th><th align="center">Used on the specific components</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Individual component level</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Conditioning strategy: the teacher makes choices regarding what role to play, what to teach, and how to process knowledge, depending on conditions such as students' learning ability, teaching purposes, assessment criteria, class size and so on. (This strategy was mentioned by 57 participants)</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">The view of teachers' role; the view of students' role; the view of content; the view of knowledge</td></tr><tr><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Staging strategy: determining the roles of teachers and students and what to teach based on the phasic characteristics and requirements of instruction. (This strategy was mentioned by 51 participants)</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">The view of teachers' role; the view of students' role; the view of teaching task</td></tr><tr><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Knowledge‐type strategy: deciding the roles that teachers and students should assume based on the types of knowledge and the nature of instructional tasks. (This strategy was mentioned by 41 participants)</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">The view of teachers' role; the view of students' role</td></tr><tr><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Strategy of settings: deciding which roles students may be encouraged to take on, and whether to utilise alternative or complementary learning materials, based on the learning settings. (This strategy was mentioned by 37 participants)</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">The view of students' role; the view of content</td></tr><tr><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Hierarchical strategy: recognising the hierarchical relationship among various teaching tasks, and being aware that teaching tasks at varying levels need to be accomplished using different teaching and learning strategies. (This strategy was mentioned by 54 participants)</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">The view of teaching task</td></tr><tr><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Intertwining strategy: recognising the intermingling and mutually influential relationships between the processes of knowledge transmission and students' cognitive development, as well as between subjective and objective knowledge. (This strategy was mentioned by 29 participants)</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">The view of teaching task; the view of knowledge</td></tr><tr><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Enrichment strategy: other than textbooks that offer fundamental frameworks for guiding teaching and learning, leveraging multiple learning resources can significantly enrich students' learning experiences. (This strategy was mentioned by 12 participants)</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">The view of content</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cross‐component level</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>The strategy of focusing on 'learning effectiveness': 'learning effectiveness' serves as an anchor that helps learning‐oriented instructors establish connections among various teaching views across the components. (This strategy was implied by 25 participants)</p></list-item><list-item><p>The strategy of focusing on 'achieving a deep understanding of knowledge': 'achieving a deep understanding of knowledge' serves as an anchor for knowledge‐oriented instructors in establishing connections among various teaching views across the components. (This strategy was implied by 17 participants)</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The second strategy was identified among 23 participants who implied the use of a 'staging strategy' by stating that teachers can play different roles at different stages or segments of instruction. For example, the teacher may assume an authoritarian role to provide foundational knowledge at an early stage of instruction, while adopting a facilitator role to encourage students' autonomous exploration at a later stage. The third strategy was identified among 32 participants who implied the use of a 'knowledge‐type strategy' by stating that teachers may adopt various roles when teaching different types of knowledge. For instance, they may take on an authoritarian role when imparting declarative knowledge, while assuming a facilitator role for teaching certain conceptual or practical knowledge that lends itself to self‐exploration.</p> <p>A fourth strategy was identified among 33 participants for managing the autonomous explorer role and passive receiver role of students. These participants implied the use of a 'strategy of settings' by stating that students can be encouraged to conduct autonomous exploration outside of the classroom, but should largely follow the lead of the teacher within the classroom. This strategy involves determining which role students may be encouraged to play based on the learning settings. A fifth strategy was identified among 54 participants for managing opposing perspectives on the teaching task. They implied the use of a 'hierarchical strategy' by stating that from knowledge transmission to cognitive/personal development, these represent distinct levels of teaching tasks, each requiring implementation at certain phases of the teaching process. A sixth strategy was also identified on the view of teaching task. 25 participants implied the use of a 'intertwining strategy' by stating that a teacher should promote students' cognitive development through well‐designed knowledge instruction, and the cognitive development of students contributes to their acquisition of knowledge. They suggested that the processes of knowledge transmission and the cognitive development of students are intertwined. A seventh strategy was identified on the view of content. 12 participants implied the use of a 'enrichment strategy' by stating that textbooks provide basic frameworks to guide teaching and learning, but multiple resources of learning materials can be used to enrich the learning experiences of students.</p> <p>Overall, seven strategies of management for dealing with the opposing teaching perspective were identified at the individual component level. Some strategies are used across multiple components, while some are employed only within specific components. The number of participants mentioning each strategy is indicated in Table 6. It should be noted that on each conception component, there was a number of participants (ranging from 7 to 21 cases) only made vague statements indicating their support for the coexistence of the student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented teaching perspectives. Their strategies were not clearly articulated.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-13">Inspecting Participants' Teaching Perspectives and Strategies of Management at the Cross‐Comp...</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654395-14">Searching for Participants With Similar Combinations of Conceptions of Teaching</hd> <p>The researchers used dataset (see Table 4) to inspect whether there were some participants share similar combinations of conceptions of teaching. As the first step, the researchers searched for how many participants holding teaching perspectives with a consistent orientation (student‐oriented, teacher‐oriented or neutral) across all five conception components, and how many participants holding mixed teaching perspectives. The findings indicated that none of the participants held teaching perspectives exclusively either students‐oriented or teachers‐oriented. 12 participants were found to hold neutral perspectives on all five components. Additionally, 9 participants held neutral perspectives on more than half of the components, combining them with one or two student‐oriented perspectives. Thus, these 21 participants predominantly or wholly embraced neutral perspectives and were categorised as the 'neutral instructors' group. 10 participants predominantly embraced teacher‐oriented perspectives but combined with one or two neutral perspectives. They were categorised as the 'teacher‐oriented instructors' group.</p> <p>All the other participants displayed a prominent mix in their combinations of conceptions of teaching. The researchers first examined how many of them shared similar orientations across three conception components regarding the views of teachers' role, students' role and teaching task. Because scholars most frequently referred to these components when defining what constitutes student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented approaches (Alt [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref103">2</reflink>]; Gonzalez [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref104">14</reflink>]). Subsequently, the researchers proceeded to inspect the remaining two components. It was found that 34 of these participants mostly held neutral perspectives across the first three components, occasionally accompanied by student‐oriented perspectives. The researchers then examined their perspectives on content and knowledge. It was found that 30 out of the 34 participants held the fixed view of content and the objective view of knowledge. These 30 participants largely shared similar combination of teaching conceptions. While conducting the content analysis of transcripts for this group, the term 'learning effectiveness' appeared most frequently. Thus, the researchers labelled this group as 'learning‐oriented instructors'.</p> <p>Among the remaining participants, it was observed that 23 of them tended to uphold teacher‐oriented perspectives regarding the views of teachers' role and students' role, while holding student‐oriented or neutral perspectives of teaching task, content and knowledge. When conducting the content analysis of transcripts for this group, the phrase 'deepen understanding of knowledge' appeared most frequently. Thus, the researchers labelled this group as 'knowledge‐oriented instructors'.</p> <p>To summarise, the analysis of the dataset at the cross‐component level identified four groups of instructors: neutral instructors (<emph>n</emph> = 21), learning‐oriented instructors (<emph>n</emph> = 30), teacher‐oriented instructors (<emph>n</emph> = 10) and knowledge‐oriented instructors (<emph>n</emph> = 23). There were still some cases (<emph>n</emph> = 9) that were not identified with shared combination of teaching conceptions. They were treated as outliers in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-15">The Strategies Used to Reconcile the Diverse Teaching Perspectives at the Cross‐Component Lev...</hd> <p>Among the four instructor groups identified in this study, neutral instructors and teacher‐oriented instructors more or less held neutral perspectives. Their strategies to integrate opposing teaching perspectives have been analysed at the individual component level. Learning‐oriented and knowledge‐oriented instructors held mixed teaching perspectives across components, and might face the challenges of managing these teaching perspectives to avoid dissonant combinations of conceptions of teaching.</p> <p>The transcripts encompassing responses to interview questions at the cross‐component level from the learning‐oriented group were combined and underwent content analysis. The researchers identified some high‐frequency terms (or codes) used by learning‐oriented instructors in describing their philosophical beliefs which include: student‐centred, autonomous learning, holistic development, active participation, interactive relationships, etc. By using these terms, 25 out of 30 group members indicated a leaning towards progressivism. This philosophical tendency is consistent with the student‐oriented perspectives on teachers' role, students' role and teaching task that were partially or fully embraced by learning‐oriented instructors. However, these participants also highlighted the prevalent exam‐oriented reality in school teaching which made them embrace the fixed view of content and the objective view of knowledge. The teacher‐oriented perspectives of content and knowledge were inconsistent with their philosophical tendency.</p> <p>While inspecting how they perceived these inconsistent teaching perspectives, some key terms (or codes) appeared prominently in their responses, including 'learning effectiveness', 'teaching efficiency' and 'learning outcomes'. They argued that the student‐oriented perspectives and strategies are not entirely at odds with the exam‐oriented teaching reality. Certain teaching perspectives and strategies, such as advocating for equal teacher‐student interaction and facilitating autonomous learning of students, contribute to enhancing teaching and learning effectiveness. However, in pursuit of the 'learning effectiveness', they argued that teachers have to establish clear learning objectives and schedules, use textbooks aligned with national curriculum standards and implement standardised assessments alongside objective criteria to facilitate teaching and learning. The combined influence of progressivism philosophy and the exam‐oriented teaching reality resulted in the specific conception combination for this group. Whereas, 'learning effectiveness' which is largely oriented towards better exam results, served as an anchor for the learning‐oriented group to establish connections among various teaching perspectives across the components. Thus, the use of a strategy of focusing on 'learning effectiveness' to reconcile diverse teaching perspectives was implied by a substantial portion of the group members (22 out of 30).</p> <p>The analysis of the transcripts for the knowledge‐oriented group revealed some high‐frequency terms (or codes) appeared in their descriptions of philosophical beliefs that include: personal interpretation, knowledge construction, knowledge framework, diverse viewpoints, collaborative learning, etc. These terms indicated a leaning towards constructivism for 20 out of 23 group members. This philosophical tendency is consistent with the student‐oriented perspectives of teaching task, content and knowledge that were partially or fully embraced by the knowledge‐oriented group. Meanwhile, based on practical considerations of teaching, they suggested that effective teaching and classroom management require teachers to play a leading role, rigorously planning and guiding the teaching process. Thus, they held teacher‐oriented perspectives of the roles of teachers and students which were inconsistent with their philosophical tendency.</p> <p>While inspecting how they perceived their inconsistent teaching perspectives, some key phrases (or codes) appeared prominently in their responses, including 'in‐depth understanding of knowledge', 'deep exploration', 'establishing knowledge structures', etc. They argued that teachers equipped with sufficient subject knowledge can play authoritarian roles to guide students to achieve deep understanding of knowledge. Students should have a solid mastery of the knowledge imparted by their teachers, then utilise a variety of learning resources to deepen their understanding, and finally develop their own knowledge frameworks. 'Achieving deep understanding of knowledge' served as an anchor for knowledge‐oriented instructors in establishing connections among various teaching perspectives across conception components. Thus, a substantial portion of the group members (17 out of 23) suggested the adoption of the strategy of focusing on assisting students to 'achieve deep understanding of knowledge' as a means to build a compatible combination of conceptions of teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-16">Discussion</hd> <p>Previous research (Eley [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref105">12</reflink>]; Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref106">26</reflink>]; Zhu, Valcke, and Schellens [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref107">45</reflink>]) has shown that many teachers hold both student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented teaching perspectives. However, how teachers perceive and manage the relationships between these teaching perspectives has not been sufficiently explored. In this study, interviews were conducted with 93 Chinese university teachers from preservice teacher education programs to uncover the strategies they employed to integrate student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented teaching perspectives at two levels: the individual component level and the cross‐component level.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-17">Integrating Teaching Perspectives at the Individual Component Level</hd> <p>This study identified, at the individual component level, a few strategies employed by PTEP teachers to integrate their teaching perspectives. These strategies enable teachers with neutral perspectives to base their instruction judgements on conditions and circumstances, allowing them to flexibly employ teaching strategies from different approaches to meet situational needs. If teachers' teaching perspectives are sophisticatedly integrated, they might demonstrate a form of cognitive flexibility. This flexibility, as argued by scholars (Gabrys et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref108">13</reflink>]), involves the capacity to quickly and effectively switch between different modes of thinking, perspectives and adapt to the demands of different contexts. When a teacher holds alternative perspectives and strategies of teaching and can adeptly switch between them based on changing circumstances, it helps in fostering adaptability in instructional methods, catering to diverse learning needs. However, how the strategies identified in the study can be effectively employed to enhance the flexibility and adaptability of teaching among teachers requires further investigation.</p> <p>Four instructor groups, each characterised by specific combinations of teaching conceptions, were identified in this study. Among them, the neutral instructors and the teacher‐oriented instructors more or less held neutral perspectives on the five conception components. The neutral instructors heavily relied on the strategies of management to integrate student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented teaching perspectives. It appeared that none of the PTEP teachers in this study could be counted as pure followers of the student‐oriented or teacher‐oriented approaches. These findings underscored the prevalence of teachers holding a blend of teaching perspectives from both orientations, emphasising the crucial importance of examining how these teaching perspectives may intersect to shape teachers' instructional practices.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-18">Integrating Teaching Perspectives at the Cross‐Component Level</hd> <p>Studies (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref109">26</reflink>]; Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref110">31</reflink>]) have revealed that teachers could have mixed combinations of teaching perspectives across components. In this study, two types of mixed combinations were identified for PTEP teachers, labelled as the learning‐oriented group and the knowledge‐oriented group.</p> <p>The learning‐oriented group held teacher‐oriented perspectives of content and knowledge, which as suggested by their interview responses, could be attributed to the exam‐oriented education system in China. In Chinese conventional schools (from primary to secondary schools), classroom instruction typically revolves around standardised tests with fixed assessment criteria to evaluate teaching outcomes (Pang, Shui, and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref111">29</reflink>]). The selection of textbooks is in accordance with national curriculum standards, also aiming to assist students in attaining ideal grades (Zhang, Xi, and Zhao [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref112">44</reflink>]). Many Chinese teachers would prioritise 'learning effectiveness', focusing on methods that effectively enhance students' exam performance. While PTET teachers operate within university settings that relatively have a lesser emphasis on exams, it should be recognised that higher education, in certain aspects, extends the principles established in primary and secondary education (Yang and Xu [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref113">41</reflink>]). Their conceptions of teaching would also be influenced by the exam‐oriented values. Hence, the learning‐oriented group in this study were motivated by the quest for learning effectiveness when structuring diverse teaching perspectives. For this group, student‐oriented/neutral perspectives on teachers' role, students' role and teaching tasks rooted in progressivism philosophy are aligned with the pursuit of 'learning effectiveness' and were amalgamated to form their specific combination of teaching conceptions.</p> <p>Judging from the specific conception combination among the learning‐oriented instructors, they may adopt a specific approach to instruction. They would advocate for a relatively equal teacher‐student relationship, interactive and autonomous learning, while expecting students to complete predefined tasks within a structured timetable. This approach due to its focus on learning effectiveness and achievements, could be labelled as learning‐centred instruction. Similarly, the knowledge‐oriented group may also assume a specific approach to instruction which was labelled by the researchers of this study as knowledge‐centred instruction. Judging from their conception combination, they tend to prioritise the importance of teacher guidance, believing in the utilisation of teachers' professional expertise and authoritative status to ensure teaching effectiveness. Simultaneously, they employ diverse learning resources to assist students in constructing their own knowledge.</p> <p>The examination of the conception combinations for both learning‐oriented and knowledge‐oriented PTEP teachers suggested that the combined influences of educational philosophy and the teaching reality would lead to some teachers exhibiting mixed features in their conceptions of teaching. Their mixed conception combinations should not be merely labelled dissonant, incoherent or contradictory, as suggested by some scholars (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref114">26</reflink>]; Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref115">31</reflink>]). A substantial portion of the PTEP teachers in this study, whether consciously or unconsciously, employed strategies to logically structure their diverse teaching perspectives, thereby more effectively guiding their teaching practices.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-19">Theoretical and Practical Implications</hd> <p>The relationships between student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented teaching perspectives have been extensively studied by scholars (Degago and Kaino [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref116">10</reflink>]; Gonzalez [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref117">14</reflink>]). Some scholars deemed them as two extremes on continua, while some described these relationships as hierarchical or independent (Kember [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref118">19</reflink>]). In the present study, findings revealed varying views among participants. Some participants considered these teaching perspectives to be conflicting or independent concepts. However, among participants who suggested certain strategies of management, they might perceive these teaching perspectives as having complementary, intertwined or hierarchical relations. The relationships between teaching perspectives could differ across different conception components as perceived by participants. For instance, one participant suggested that the authoritarian role and the facilitator role of teachers are in a complementary relation, the teaching tasks of knowledge transmission and promoting cognitive development are in a hierarchical relation, and the subjective knowledge and the objective knowledge can be intertwined. These findings implied the diverse understandings held by educators and the complexity of the relationships among various teaching perspectives, calling for further in‐depth research.</p> <p>The dichotomous method used to categorise teaching approaches and their underlying conceptions of teaching into student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented camps has been challenged by some scholars (Zhang, Xi, and Zhao [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref119">44</reflink>]). Postareff and Lindblom‐Ylänne ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref120">32</reflink>]) argued that the theory of teaching approaches should go beyond the dichotomous perspective. The present study identified four types of conception combinations for PTEP teachers, upon which the researchers would propose four distinctive approaches to instruction. All of these approaches were discovered to be more or less integrated with both student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented teaching perspectives and strategies. Hence, the findings of the study also presented evidence to challenge the dichotomous method and might contribute to the further development of theories related to teaching approaches and conceptions of teaching. Substantial previous research has been devoted to comparing the effectiveness of student‐centred and teacher‐centred teaching designs. However, the findings of this study suggest that practical factors may hinder teachers from fully adopting a single teaching paradigm in their actual practice. This highlights the need to focus more on exploring how to better integrate the two teaching paradigms to meet diverse needs.</p> <p>Many scholars have investigated the development of conceptions of teaching among teacher educators and student teachers (Alt [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref121">2</reflink>]; Al‐Balushi et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref122">1</reflink>]; Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref123">26</reflink>]). Nevertheless, there has been insufficient investigation into their perceptions and management of teaching perspectives stemming from distinct approaches. The present study revealed that although some PTEP teachers had a clear awareness of the distinctions or conflicts among diverse teaching perspectives, a portion of them did not display a definite understanding. The strategies of management identified in this research may be helpful in aiding these teachers to deal with possible conflicts and to develop more sophisticated conceptions of teaching, thereby enhancing their engagement effectiveness in teacher education. In Chinese teacher education programs, student‐oriented and teacher‐oriented perspectives are typically presented to student teachers in a way as if they are independent and unrelated (Zhang, Xi, and Zhao [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref124">44</reflink>]). Student teachers commonly lack knowledge about how teaching concepts and strategies from different sources can be integrated and combined. Consequently, it was found in Liu et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref125">26</reflink>]) that if student teachers encountered challenges while trying to implement learner‐centred principles in real classrooms, they easily reverted to traditional approaches. The findings of this study suggest that teacher educators need to assist student teachers in deeply exploring how to perceive and navigate the diverse teaching conceptions, thereby fostering their advancement of professional competence.</p> <p>Finally, from the perspective of classroom teaching, the strategies identified in this study offer valuable tools for teachers to integrate diverse teaching philosophies and methods. This integration enables them to leverage the strengths of each approach to address varied instructional contexts, enhancing the flexibility and adaptability of teaching practices. For instance, teachers might employ teacher‐centred approaches during the knowledge transmission phase to ensure clarity and structure, transitioning to learner‐centred strategies in the application phase to foster engagement and deeper understanding. Moreover, these strategies facilitate personalised and differentiated instruction. By acknowledging variations in students' learning styles and ability levels, the integration of various teaching approaches enabled by these strategies allows teachers to design a range of activities tailored to individual needs.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-20">Conclusions and Limitations</hd> <p>The study reveals that nearly all participants exhibited hybrid characteristics in their conceptions of teaching. Nine strategies were identified for integrating these conceptions, applied at either the individual component or cross‐component levels. This integration enabled participants to adapt their teaching methods and strategies to diverse instructional contexts and address varying educational needs. It was also found that through the use of these strategies, participants developed four distinct combinations of teaching conceptions, each corresponding to a specific instructional approach. These findings offer valuable insights for the development of related research and practice.</p> <p>This study primarily employed a qualitative method, which, although capable of providing an in‐depth understanding of the participants' perspectives, is limited by its relatively small sample size and inability to encompass a broader range of participants. Future research should incorporate quantitative methods and conduct large‐scale surveys to validate the findings. Additionally, since only a group of teacher educators from a Chinese university were involved, there is a concern regarding the generalisability of the findings to other teacher populations. Similar to Chinese teachers, some Western teachers, as revealed in previous studies (Postareff et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref126">31</reflink>]; Trevisan and Smits [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref127">37</reflink>]), tend to adapt their teaching beliefs and methods to balance teacher‐centred and student‐centred approaches. On the other hand, previous academic discourses suggest that Chinese teachers, in comparison to their Western counterparts, are more likely to adopt authoritarian roles, utilise lecture‐style methods and rely heavily on assigned textbooks (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref128">26</reflink>]). Thus, Western teachers and Chinese teachers may share similarities in some aspects while differing in others regarding the dynamic configurations of their conceptions of teaching. The present research has not addressed this projection. However, based on the insights provided by this study, future investigations could involve examining Western teachers and other teacher groups, thereby enabling us to test and further expand the findings of this research.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-21">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The study was supported by the Chinese National Social Sciences Fund (Education) (award number: BHA210144): The discourse reconstruction of learner‐centred instruction paradigm in the new era.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-22">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0183654395-23">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <ref id="AN0183654395-24"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: The study was supported by the China's National Social Sciences Fund (Education) (Award number: BHA210144).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0183654395-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Al‐Balushi, S., A. Ambusaidi, K. Al‐Balushi, F. Al‐Hajri, and M. Al‐Sinani. 2020. " Student‐Centred and Teacher‐Centred Science Classrooms as Visualized by Science Teachers and Their Supervisors." Teaching and Teacher Education 89 : 103014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alt, D. 2018. " Science teachers' Conceptions of Teaching and Learning, ICT Efficacy, ICT Professional Development and ICT Practices Enacted in Their Classrooms." Teaching and Teacher Education 73 : 141 – 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref84" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bataineh, M., M. A. Al‐Rub, and A. T. Al‐Bataineh. 2022. The Principles of Teaching and Learning. San Diego, CA : Cognella, Incorporated.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref93" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beauchamp, C., and L. Thomas. 2009. " Understanding Teacher Identity: An Overview of Issues in the Literature and Implications for Teacher Education." Cambridge Journal of Education 39, no. 2 : 175 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902252.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref3" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blumberg, P. 2016. " Assessing Implementation of Learner‐Centered Teaching While Providing Faculty Development." College Teaching 64, no. 4 : 194 – 203. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2016.1200528.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref62" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boulton‐Lewis, G. M., D. J. H. Smith, A. R. McCrindle, P. C. Burnett, and K. J. Campbell. 2001. " Secondary teachers' Conceptions of Teaching and Learning." Learning and Instruction 11, no. 1 : 35 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959‐4752(00)00014‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref95" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, A., and P. A. Danaher. 2017. " CHE Principles: Facilitating Authentic and Dialogical Semi‐Structured Interviews in Educational Research." International Journal of Research & Method in Education 42, no. 1 : 76 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2017.1379987.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref36" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cano, F. 2005. " Consonance and Dissonance in students' Learning Experience." Learning and Instruction 15, no. 3 : 201 – 223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref28" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, Y.‐Q., and H. Yang. 2022. " Learning‐Centered Instruction: An Effective Rout to High Quality Education." People's Education 23, no. 3 : 83 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Degago, A. T., and L. M. Kaino. 2015. " Towards Student‐Centred Conceptions of Teaching: The Case of Four Ethiopian Universities." Teaching in Higher Education 20, no. 5 : 493 – 505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1020779.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2008. The Landscape of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eley, M. G. 2006. " Teachers' Conceptions of Teaching, and the Making of Specific Decisions in Planning to Teach." Higher Education 51, no. 2 : 191 – 214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734‐004‐6382‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabrys, R. L., N. Tabri, H. Anisman, and K. Matheson. 2018. " Cognitive Control and Flexibility in the Context of Stress and Depressive Symptoms: The Cognitive Control and Flexibility Questionnaire." Frontiers in Psychology 9 : 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02219.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzalez, C. 2011. " Extending Research on 'Conceptions of Teaching': Commonalities and Differences in Recent Investigations." Teaching in Higher Education 16, no. 1 : 65 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.507302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstede, G., G. Hofstede, and M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 3rd ed. New York, NY : McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hordern, J., and M. T. Tatto. 2018. " Conceptions of Teaching and Educational Knowledge Requirements." Oxford Review of Education 44, no. 6 : 686 – 701. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2018.1438254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, R., W. Yang, and H. Li. 2019. " On the Road to Participatory Pedagogy: A Mixed‐Methods Study of Pedagogical Interaction in Chinese Kindergartens." Teaching and Teacher Education 85 : 81 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jo, S., and Y. S. Seo. 2021. " Does Maths Self‐Concept Mediate the Relation Between Instructional Approaches and Students' Maths Achievement? Evidence From the U.S. TIMSS 2015 Data." Research Papers in Education 38, no. 2 : 143 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1961294.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kember, D. 1997. " A Reconceptualisation of the Research Into University academics' Conceptions of Teaching." Learning and Instruction 7, no. 3 : 255 – 275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959‐4752(96)00028‐X.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kember, D., and K. P. Kwan. 2000. " Lecturers' Approaches to Teaching and Their Relationship to Conceptions of Good Teaching." Instructional Science 28 : 469 – 490. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026569608656.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirschner, P. A., J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark. 2006. " Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem‐Based, Experiential, and Inquiry‐Based Teaching." Educational Psychologist 41, no. 2 : 75 – 86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lam, B. H., and D. Kember. 2006. " The Relationship Between Conceptions of Teaching and Approaches to Teaching." Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 12, no. 6 : 693 – 713. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600601029744.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, H., and E. Boo. 2022. " The Effects of Teachers' Instructional Styles on Students' Interest in Learning School Subjects and Academic Achievement: Differences According to Students' Gender and Prior Interest." Learning and Individual Differences 99 : 102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102200.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindblom‐Ylänne, S. 2003. " Broadening an Understanding of the Phenomenon of Dissonance." Studies in Higher Education 28, no. 1 : 63 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070309306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindblom‐Ylänne, S., K. Trigwell, A. Nevgi, and P. Ashwin. 2006. " How Approaches to Teaching Are Affected by Discipline and Teaching Context." Studies in Higher Education 31, no. 3 : 285 – 298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680539.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, M., R. Zwart, L. Bronkhorst, and T. Wubbels. 2022. " Chinese Student Teachers' Beliefs and the Role of Teaching Experiences in the Development of Their Beliefs." Teaching and Teacher Education 109 : 103525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103525.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E. 2004. " Should There Be a Three‐Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? " American Psychologist 59, no. 1 : 14 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.59.1.14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muimongkol, S. C., K. Subramaniam, and C. D. Wickstrom. 2022. " Dimensions and Orientations of Pre‐Service Early Childhood Teachers' Conceptions of Teaching Science." Early Childhood Education Journal 50, no. 2 : 145 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643‐020‐01146‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pang, H.‐S., Y. Shui, and Y.‐Y. Zhang. 2021. Student‐Centered Teaching Innovation: Concept and Practice. Beijing : Beijing Institute of Technology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papadima, G. 2021. " IS There a Split Between Adult Educator's Educational Philosophy in Learning and Teaching Process? " International Journal of Instruction 14, no. 3 : 583 – 596. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14334a.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Postareff, L., N. Katajavuori, S. Lindblom‐Ylänne, and K. Trigwell. 2008. " Consonance and Dissonance in Descriptions of Teaching of University Teachers." Studies in Higher Education 33, no. 1 : 49 – 61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701794809.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Postareff, L., and S. Lindblom‐Ylänne. 2008. " Variation in Teachers' Descriptions of Teaching: Broadening the Understanding of Teaching in Higher Education." Learning and Instruction 18, no. 2 : 109 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richter, D., M. Kunter, O. Lüdtke, U. Klusmann, Y. Anders, and J. Baumert. 2013. " How Different Mentoring Approaches Affect Beginning Teachers' Development in the First Years of Practice." Teaching and Teacher Education 36 : 166 – 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seidel, T., and R. J. Shavelson. 2007. " Teaching Effectiveness Research in the Past Decade: The Role of Theory and Research Design in Disentangling Meta‐Analysis Results." Review of Educational Research 77, no. 4 : 454 – 499. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swinkels, M. F. J., M. Koopman, and D. Beijaard. 2013. " Student Teachers' Development of Learning‐Focused Conceptions." Teaching and Teacher Education 34 : 26 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tilson, J., S. Sandretto, and K. Pratt. 2017. " Connecting Theory to Practice: Using Preservice Teachers' Beliefs, Theories and Video‐Recorded Teaching to Prompt a Cycle of Praxis." Teaching and Teacher Education 67 : 454 – 463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trevisan, O., and A. Smits. 2023. " Probing the Quality of Preservice Teachers' Pedagogical Reasoning & Action (PR&A) in Internships." Teaching and Teacher Education 125 : 103983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103983.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Virtanen, V., and S. Lindblom‐Ylänne. 2010. " University Students' and Teachers' Conceptions of Teaching and Learning in the Biosciences." Instructional Science 38, no. 4 : 355 – 370. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11251‐008‐9088‐z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wan, S. W. Y. 2016. " Differentiated Instruction: Hong Kong Prospective Teachers' Teaching Efficacy and Beliefs." Teachers and Teaching 22, no. 2 : 148 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilder, S. 2015. " Impact of Problem‐Based Learning on Academic Achievement in High School: A Systematic Review." Educational Review 67, no. 4 : 414 – 435. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2014.974511.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, F., and Q.‐Y. Xu. 2015. " Examining the 'Teacher‐Centered' and 'Learner‐Centered' Teaching Ideas." Higher Education Research 36, no. 12 : 78 – 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yilmaz, K. 2008. " Social Studies Teachers' Views of Learner‐Centered Instruction." European Journal of Teacher Education 31, no. 1 : 35 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760701845008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> You, Y. 2018. " The Seeming 'Round Trip' of Learner‐Centred Education: A 'Best Practice' Derived from China's New Curriculum Reform? " Comparative Education 55, no. 1 : 97 – 115. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1541662.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, X.‐J., Y.‐M. Xi, and L. Zhao. 2017. Research‐Led Education: Student‐Centered Teaching Innovation in Universities. Beijing : China Machine Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu, C., M. Valcke, and T. Schellens. 2010. " A Cross‐Cultural Study of Teacher Perspectives on Teacher Roles and Adoption of Online Collaborative Learning in Higher Education." European Journal of Teacher Education 33, no. 2 : 147 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619761003631849.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Hong‐Yu Cheng; Feng Bin‐Qian and Hao‐Zhe Jiang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref120"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1461322
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Investigating How Teacher Educators Perceive and Manage Their Diverse Conceptions of Teaching
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hong-Yu+Cheng%22">Hong-Yu Cheng</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7436-5780">0000-0001-7436-5780</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Feng+Bin-Qian%22">Feng Bin-Qian</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hao-Zhe+Jiang%22">Hao-Zhe Jiang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7870-0993">0000-0002-7870-0993</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Educators%22">Teacher Educators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Design%22">Instructional Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12907
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Many previous studies have indicated that teachers often hold a blend of conceptions of teaching, combining both teacher-oriented and student-oriented perspectives. This research extends the existing literature by investigating whether these mixed conceptions lead to dissonant combinations, and by examining how teachers perceive and manage these diverse teaching perspectives. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a group of Chinese teacher educators at a university. Based on data from 93 participants, the study identified nine strategies employed by participants to integrate teacher-oriented and student-oriented perspectives at both individual component and cross-component levels. It was also found that the use of these strategies enabled participants to construct four distinct combinations of conceptions of teaching, each corresponding to a specific approach to instruction. The research reminds education researchers to exercise caution when adopting a dichotomous perspective for categorising teaching approaches. The findings contribute to instructional design and teacher education by providing a deeper understanding of the relationships between distinct teaching conceptions, and encouraging teachers and teacher educators to explore more effective ways of integrating various teaching perspectives and methods to enhance instructional effectiveness.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1461322
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1461322
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12907
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Educators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Investigating How Teacher Educators Perceive and Manage Their Diverse Conceptions of Teaching
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hong-Yu Cheng
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Feng Bin-Qian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hao-Zhe Jiang
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1