Implicit Theories

People have different theories about the changeability of their own competences (Dweck, 1999). Concerning these “implicit theories” Leroy et al. (2007) distinguish two major perspectives: the incremental and the entity theory. According to the incremental view, intelligence can be chanced and enhanced. Consequently, incremental beliefs foster a learning orientation, emphasizing the development of competences through persistent effort. On the contrary, individuals with entity theory regard intelligence as stable and unchangeable. They tend to show a performance orientation, which leads to rather competitive learning environments. Cury et al. (2008) found that competences and individual skills can be improved especially when students as well as teachers are confident about the changeability and when teachers make this explicit during lessons.

Use of work forms in lessons

There are several empirical studies that suggest a relation between teachers´ implicit theories and the type of teaching they provide (i.e. Stipek et al. 2001; Pauli et al. 2005; Hartinger et al. 2006). In this context, Leroy et al. (2007) showed that teachers´ beliefs in the changeability of competences (mediated through their self-efficacy) use autonomy-supporting work forms in class. These different approaches to learning and teaching include for example open work forms (free work time, station- learning, project work, etc.), peer-mediated learning, teachers´ lectures, conversation in class, individual work during quiet time, encouragement of low-performing students and of high-performing students, inclusion of perspectives from other subjects, involvement of other persons and/or institutions during lessons.

Cultural and academic differences between Germany and Japan

Empirical research on cultural differences between western and eastern countries focuses on the different role of school in society (i.e. Sakurai, 2007). One finding is that Japanese students are encouraged to study by their parents even if their teachers are not very motivated (i.e. Ichikawa 1990). In the German school system there are selection processes during and between each academic year. In Japan however, the school itself has no function of selection as this is linked to entrance examinations (i.e. Ichikawa, 1990).

In most of the federal States of Germany, students undergo a relatively early selection process. After the 4th grade, there is a tracking into three different types of school: Hauptschule, Realschule and Gymnasium. At the end of the 4th grade, parents can ask the class teacher to issue a recommendation for a specific kind of secondary school. An important point is that the German school system is permeable, which means that students can switch between the different types of secondary schools after each year if they show certain competences (especially good marks).

In the Japanese school system there is nearly no between-class ability grouping during the compulsory education for nine years. Even in schools there is no external form of performance differentiation. Any external form of differentiation is rejected because it provides social and emotional damage to the pupils with learning difficulties. It is generally known in Japan that the results of entrance exams for universities are very important for students’ future career. The importance of school success determines the behaviour of Japanese students and their parents: Students learn more intensively and more persistently than students of the same age in Germany and they are intensively supported by their parents, i.e. by funding private lessons at a cram school (Juku).

Research Questions

Our present study presents research focused on the following questions:

1.         Are there differences between teachers´ and students´ implicit theories about changeability of competences?

2.         Are there correlations between teachers´ implicit theories and their use of work forms in lessons?

3.         Are there differences regarding the findings between a western country (Germany) and an eastern country (Japan)?

Cury, F., Da Fonseca, D., Zahn, I. & Elliot, A. (2008). Implicit theories and IQ test performance: A sequential mediational analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 783-791. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Hartinger, A., Kleickmann, T. & Hawelka, B. (2006). Der Einfluss von Lehrervorstellungen zum Lernen und Lehren auf die Gestaltung des Unterrichts und auf motivationale Schülervariablen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Jg.9, 1, 110-126. Ichikawa, S. (1990). A Proposal for Comparative Study concerning Japanese Education. Comparative Education: Bulletin of the Japan Comparative Education Society, 16, 5-17. Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P. & Trouilloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers’ implicit theories and perceived pressures on the establishement of an autonomy supportive climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 529-545. Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Grob, U. & Waldis, M. (2005). Teaching for understanding and/or self-directed learning? A video-based analysis of reform-oriented approaches of mathematics instruction at lower secondary level in Switzerland. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. Sakurai, K. (2007). Erscheinungsformen und Wahrnehmung von Gewalt bei Schülern und Schulverweigerung im deutsch-japanischen Vergleich. Frankfurt: Lang. Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M. & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213-226.