1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Since late 1980’s research reports (Koulaidis & Ogborn, 1989; Aguirre et al., 1990; Lederman, 1999; López-Mota et al., 2000) start giving importance to students and teachers conceptions of science and learning in the process of teaching and learning science. Teachers and students’ conceptualizations of science, at a theoretical level, are more studied than those related to learning (Gallagher, 1991; Porlan et al., 1998; Nott & Wellington, 1998; Flores et al. 2000). After a reviewing of 42 articles related to teachers conceptions only 11 of them refer to learning and just seven (Lederman & Zeidler, 1987; Dillon et al. 1994; Mellado, 1996, 1997 & 1998; Lopez-Mota et al., 2004; and Rodriguez & Lopez-Mota, 2006) use observations within the classrooms, but not always making explicit their categories and analytical stand point. Therefore, the premise that the idea teachers have in relation to science and learning, depend on their teaching practice its worth studying in detail. So, the question: teaching practice within classrooms is coherent with theoretical conceptions of physics teachers about learning? 2. OBJECTIVE - Elicit and characterize secondary teachers’ learning conceptions, from analytic system. - Identify possible relationships between what it is and what it means learning and the way teachers act in class. - Obtain support from facts that allow some speculations in relation to in-service teachers’ training. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The framework of the study is designed to provide ways to classify both conceptions of learning and teaching practice. It is based on the mains streams of educational psychology and allows the correlation among learning categorizations and teaching. Three main streams within this field were established in the previous research (Flores et al., 2003): connexionism, cognositivism and constructivism. Within connexionism are located behaviourism and informations processing theories that are summarized as mechanistic learning. Cognoscitivism comprehends Gestalt theory -the pragmatic view of insight learning and Ausubel’s meaningful learning-. Constructivism includes cognitive development, socioconstructivism and conceptual change theories. That explains conceptual or structural transformations in the mind. STREAM THEORY CONCEPTION Behaviourism CONNEXIONISM Mechanistic Information Processing Learning Gestalt Insight learning COGNOSCITIVISM Pragmatism Discovery learning Ausubel’s subsumption theory Meaningful learning Piaget’s cognitive development Constructivistic learnig CONSTRUCTIVISM (structural or conceptual) Socioconstructivism, Graphic 1 Bachelard’s idea of epistemological profile -every philosophical position can not explain reality, so every one of them has a notional spectrum- is used in a different context: learning. So, ‘learning profile’ means the subject variability in relation to learning. Therefore, an attempt is made to identify teachers’ learning profile.

4. METHODOLOGY Sample: The study use both qualitative and quantitative techniques with 16 secondary (students 12-15 years old) physics teachers, with diverse origin in training -university and êcole normale-, experience within 1 and 25 years, coming from several school in Mexico City. Instruments and moments research: A questionnaire was applied (CECEA1-B) with 8 questions that correspond to the developed categorical system base on main streams of learning, in order to identify teachers’ learning conceptions. Afterwards, teaching practice was observed and registered by using five categories of behaviour. Teachers were observed an average of the classroom sessions of 45 minutes. Finally, every teacher was interviewed to look for explanations for their lack of coherence between learning conceptions and teaching practice. Interpreting working frame: Teachers’ conceptions were analyzed by classifying answers to questionnaire according to the three main learning streams already defined: (1) connexionism, (2) cognoscitivism and (3) constructivism. Levels of research: Conceptual level: within this perspective fit mental representations teachers have about learning. Here, analytical categories are circumscribed to concepts developed by psychology, using a questionnaire and an interview. Only five analytical categories were used to find out possible relationships with teachers’ practice (See them below). Practical level: teachers’ behaviour is characterized by deriving analytical categories form those used at the conceptual level, using an observation guide -sessions were video-recorded-. Analytical categories: 1. Subjet’s role in learning 2. Object of learning 3. Cognitive processes. 4. Origin and elements of learning 5. Verification of learning

5. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS An individual learning profile was elaborated at both conceptual and practical –teaching- levels and then qualitative-non- statistical correlations were established between them. Crossing of information between answers to the questionnaire and the interviews were made to corroborate teachers’ conceptions of learning and those explanations given in the interview. Each answer in the questionnaire and behaviour in the teaching practice was identified by a stream number: connexionism (1), cognoscitivism (2) and constructivism (3) (See Table 1). To establish whether there was coherence or not between teachers’ conceptions of learning and their teaching practice the following system was developed: Coherence = “Does what he/she says” CORRELATION Negative – “Says more than he/she does” Positive + + “Does more than he/she says” Graphic 2 As it can be seen in Table 1, 10/16 teachers show a coherence correlation between their learning conception and their teaching practice in the origin and elements category. In the other four categories correlations tend to be negative. Then it is assumed that teachers tend to ‘say more than they do’. This might mean that it is easier to pick up a learning discourse rather than to implement it into practice. Teacher Categories Case1 Case2 Case3 Case4 Case5 Case6 Case7 Case8 Case9 Case10 Case11 Case12 Case13 Case14 Case15 Case16 C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR C P CR Subjet’s role of learning 2 2 = 3 2 - 1 1 = 3 2 - 3 2 - 2 1 - 2 3 + 2 2 = 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 2 = 2 1 - 2 2 = 2 1 - 2 1 - Object of learning 2 1 - 3 2 - 3 1 - 2 1 - 3 2 - 2 1 - 3 2 - 2 2 = 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 2 = 3 1 - 2 1 - 2 2 = 1 1 = 3 2 - Cognitive processes 2 2 = 3 2 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 2 = 3 1 - 3 3 = 2 2 = 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 3 2 - 2 1 - 2 2 = 2 2 = 2 2 = Origin and elements of learning 2 1 - 2 2 = 2 1 - 1 1 = 3 2 - 3 1 - 3 3 = 3 2 - 1 1 = 2 2 = 1 1 - 2 2 = 2 2 = 2 2 = 1 1 = 2 2 = Verification of learning 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 2 = 2 1 - 2 1 - 3 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 3 1 - Learning Profile 2 1 - 3 2 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 3 2 - 2 1 - 3 3 = 2 2 = 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 2 - 2 1 - 2 2 = 2 1 = 2 2 - Table 1 Agreements: C: Conception P: Practice cr: correlation 1: Connexionism 2: Cognoscitivism 3: Constructivism