European Journal of Psychology of Education

2009, Vol. XXIV, nº 4, 513-528

© 2009, I.S.P.A.

Conception of learning and motivation of Spanish

psychology undergraduates in different academic
levels
Samuel Rabanaque
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

J. Reinaldo Martínez-Fernández
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, Venezuela

Three conceptions of learning (rote, interpretative and constructive),

and two aspects of motivation (level and value of motivation) were
identified in 258 Spanish psychology undergraduates classified in three
different academic levels (initial, intermediate and final course).
Results about conceptions of learning showed final-course students are
the most constructive and interpretative whereas students in the initial
level have higher scores in rote conception. With respect to motivation,
level and value are significantly related to one another, with a specific
correlation between a high level of motivation and an intrinsic value
whereas a low level was related to an extrinsic value. Additionally,
intrinsic value in final-course students is significantly higher than in
initial and intermediate-course students. Besides, we observed that
students with both higher motivation and intrinsic value have a
significantly higher score in interpretative and constructive conceptions.
With respect to the academic level in psychology, initial-course
students with intrinsic value or high motivation have a higher score in
the constructive conception of learning. Intermediate students obtain a
high score in the constructive conception if they are highly motivated.
Final-course students did not show significant differences as regards
the conception of learning dependent on motivation.

Introduction

During the last two decades, the number of studies on conceptions of learning has
increased and many investigators have become interested in discussing learning and instruction

We gratefully acknowledge the help in English revision and for the comments of Professor Elisa Rosado.
514 S. RABANAQUE & J.R. MARTÍNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ

processes, and to analyze different relations between conceptions of learning and other
variables. In this work we analyse the relationship between value and level of motivation (two
specific components of the motivational processes) and conception of learning in Spanish
psychology undergraduates from different academic levels.

Conception of learning

First studies on conceptions of learning, during the seventies, were based on students’
beliefs on how knowledge acquisition and learning worked. This line of research continued
with questions about whether theories or conceptions were linked with specific actions or
strategies used by the students in order to reach their learning aims. Pioneer studies were
based on the phenomenographic tradition by Säljö (1979) and further developed (Students
Approaches to Learning – SAL). This trend usually employs, for instance, the question “What
do you actually mean by learning?” to analyse the students’ conceptions of learning. With
respect to this approach, an essay could be elaborated that were called, for instance: “My
Conception of Learning” (e.g., Tynjälä, 1999). These “personal voices” are analysed to
determine the conceptions of learning and the category systems. In that sense, the most widely
known study about conceptions of learning is the one by Säljö (1979), who determined five
categories to understand learning: (1) an increase of knowledge, without further specifying
neither the nature of this knowledge nor the characteristics of the activity of learning; (2)
memorising, i.e., reproduction of acquired information; (3) the acquisition of facts, procedure,
etc., which can be retained and/or utilized in practice, thus reflecting “useful knowledge” as
something to be remembered and used in practice outside the purely educational context; (4)
the abstraction of meaning, which means not only memorising, remembering and using
information but also selecting, summarizing, understanding and arguing the ideas; and (5) an
interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality, which means that what is learned
should be helpful in order to interpret reality.
Starting from Säljö’s studies, Marton’s works validate and support them adding a sixth
category: “changing as a person” (Marton, 1981; Marton, Dall’Alba, & Beaty, 1993). This
category was used to classify students who interpret learning as changing themselves throughout
their life (lifelong learning viewpoint). Later, in this line of research (SAL), two opposite
levels of conception of learning were distinguished, (1) a quantitative or surface-level approach
(including Säljö’s categories 1 to 3, see above) and (2) a qualitative or deep-level approach
(including categories 4 to 6). The former is based on the acquisition and application of knowledge,
emphasising reproductive and quantitative conception, with the students directing their attention
towards test learning itself (the sign). The latter qualitative conception, with the students directing
their attention towards the contents of the material to be learned (selecting what is significant), is
based on emphasising the constructive learning tasks (Boulton-Lewis, 1994).
In Argentina and Spain, Scheuer et al. (Pozo & Scheuer, 1999; Scheuer, de la Cruz, Pozo,
& Neira, 2006) discussed different conceptions of learning based on an implicit theory
framework (ITF). According to this framework, the subjects express this learning process in
terms of procedural, formal and mental changes; and three categories about conceptions of
learning are identified: rote, interpretative and constructive. (1) Rote conception understands
learning as an imitation, photograph or accurate copy of reality. (2) Interpretative conception
respects the meaning of an accurate copy of reality but it adds an active mental process (active
but reproductive learning). Finally, (3) constructive conception breaks off the relation between
knowledge and reality, accepting the existence of multiple knowledge (all knowledge is
dependent on the context and is, therefore, a relative construction).
With respect to empirical contributions related to conceptions of learning, a greater part
of phenomenographic (SAL) – usually based on self-reports and interviews – and implicit
theory studies (ITF) – usually based on the researcher’s inferences from their development
subjects’ – indicates that rote or interpretative conception (quantitative or surface-level) are
the most common amongst lower-level students. Thus, an instructional design is required to
support a conceptual change towards a qualitative-approach or deep-level learning (e.g.,
 CONCEPTION OF LEARNING AND MOTIVATION 515

tertiary education) (Entwistle & McCune, 2004; Lonka, Joram, & Bryson, 1996; Marshall,
Summers, & Woolnough, 1999; Martínez-Fernández, 2000, 2004; Tynjälä, 1997; Van Rossum
& Schenk, 1984). Such a conceptual change implies passing from previous and/or naive
conceptions to explicit conceptions based on scientifically validated theories. However, the
mechanisms and factors (namely, metacognitive strategies or motivation) involved in
conceptual change with respect to conceptions of learning and how they are interrelated are
not yet clear. Moreover, we wanted to find out why not all final-course students have changed
their naive conceptions towards more scientifically validated conceptions reported by some
authors (e.g., Cano, 2005a,b; Lindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 2000; Martínez-Fernández, 2004).
In relation to the assessment of conceptions of learning, Martínez-Fernández (2004)
designed a self-reported questionnaire (CONAPRE) based on Säljö’s (1979) and Marton’s (1981)
categories. His empirical contribution lies on the relation identified between both category
systems: implicit theories and the phenomenographic approach. It showed three main factors
(rote, interpretative and constructive learning) which are clearly defined according to the actions
and thoughts previously pointed out in Pozo and Scheuer’s (1999) category system (see Table 1).

Level and value of motivation

A second set of components that we analyse in this work are level and value of
motivation as variables in the motivational dimension in relation with conceptions of learning.
In our view, the importance of motivation in learning and instruction processes begins with
Weiner’s (1979) works continuing with Pintrich’s contributions. After these authors,
motivational beliefs arise from the goals, values and purposes of the students engaged in
academic tasks (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993).
Particularly, and in accordance with Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle (1993), we understand
goal orientation and value as cognitive representations of the different purposes students may
adopt according to their learning aims or achievement situations. There exists a variety of
categorizations concerning goal orientations and value with the most important differentiation,
on the one hand, between mastery and performance orientation and, on the other hand,
between intrinsic and extrinsic value (e.g., Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 1986;
Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Students adopting a mastery orientation or intrinsic value are
focused on comprehension, understanding and deep knowledge with interest and effort,
whereas those adopting a performance orientation or extrinsic value are focused on good
grade, to please others’ external reasons.

Conceptions of learning and motivation

We are interested in analysing the relationship between different conceptions of learning

categories and the two main variables of motivation dependent on the academic level within
higher education. Dweck (1986) postulated that implicit theories of intelligence affect the
students’ learning approach and therefore, their effort to obtain good achievement and goals.
In addition, Dweck indicated that the idea of knowledge and intelligence being malleable and
controlled processes (incremental theory) would lead towards mastery goals usually related to
reported use of deep-processing or constructive conception of learning. In contrast, the belief
of knowledge and intelligence being a fixed process which cannot be controlled (entity theory)
is connected with students focused on obtaining a good grade. Performance goals are usually
related to reported use of shallow-processing strategies such as rote learning, memorization or
interpretative conception of learning (e.g., Braten & Olaussen, 2005; Meece, Blumenfeld, &
Hoyle, 1988; Miller, Green, Montalvo, Ravindran, & Nichols, 1996; Nolen, 1988; Vermunt &
Vermetten, 2004).
Thus, several studies confirm a significant relation between the qualitative approach of
learning and some variables related to an active role of students. Furthermore, a significant
relation between the quantitative learning approach and the students’ passive learning mode
could be found (see Table 2) (consonance pattern: basic or complex, according to Cano, 2005a).
Table 1
516

Category system referring to conceptions of learning

Authors
Säljö (1979)
Van Rossum & Schenk (1984)
Marton et al. (1993)
Olson & Bruner (1996)
Tynjäla (1997, 1999)
Pozo & Scheuer (1999)
Characteristics
Note. After Martínez-Fernández (2004).
Category system
Increase of knowledge Memorization Acquisition of facts Abstraction of meaning Interpretative process
Surface-level approach (quantitative) Deep-level approach (qualitative)
Increase of knowledge Memorization Acquisition of facts Abstraction of meaning Interpretative process Changing as a person
Imitation Comprehension Interpreter Knowledge constructor
Externally determined event/process Student activity Creative process
Developmental process Strategies/styles/approaches
Processing of the information
Interactive process
Rote Interpretative Constructive
Automatic learning Active learning Interaction
External obstacles learning for Activation of processing of the information (attention, memory) Reconstruction
Exposition and demonstrate teaching Intentional observation Transformation
Internal obstacles learning for Life long learning

Table 2
Consonance pattern with respect to conceptions of learning, teaching strategies, learning strategies and motivation
Constructive/interpretative Conception of learning (Martínez-Fernández, 2004; Pozo & Scheuer, 1999; Säljö, 1979) Rote
Transforming Reproducing
Qualitative Processing of information (Cano, 2005a; Marton & Säljö, 1976) Quantitative
Organization/Elaboration Rehearsal
Deep Cognitive approaches (Marton et al., 1993) Surface/Shallow
Incremental Intelligence theories (Dweck, 1986) Entity
Contextual Fixed
Relative Incontrollable
Malleable Stable
S. RABANAQUE & J.R. MARTÍNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ

Controllable
Selecting Tasks (Lonka & Lindblom-Ylänne, 1996; Säljö, 1979) Memorizing
Arguing Copying
Transforming Remembering
Collaborator Teaching strategies (Olson & Brunner, 1996) Demonstration
Information Manager Expositor
Deep Learning strategies and motivation(Biggs, 1985) Surface
Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation
Intrinsic Motivation value (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993) Extrinsic
Mastery Goal orientation (Dweck, 1986) Performance
 CONCEPTION OF LEARNING AND MOTIVATION 517

Despite the fact that significant relations can be found in several studies, as shown in
Table 2, this is not the case in other studies that have tested the relationships between implicit
theories of intelligence and goal orientation in an academic context. These yielded
inconsistent and unstable results which were not conclusive (dissonance pattern according to
Cano, 2005a). Two studies by Dupeyrat et al. showed that the belief of a fixed entity did not
correlate with performance goals but was negatively correlated with mastery goals (Dupeyrat
& Escribe, 2000; Dupeyrat & Mariné, 2001). This was corroborated by Spinath and
Stiensmeier-Pelster (2001) who did not find much evidence of correlation in a series of
experiments testing the relation between implicit theories of intelligence and goal orientation.
Particularly, with respect to learning strategies and motivation, Biggs (1985) formulated
that deep strategies corresponded to an intrinsic motivation, whereas surface strategies
corresponded to an extrinsic motivation. As regards to motivation and academic level,
Alexander and Murphy (1998) found that, at the beginning of the semester, the students show
high levels of interest but, at the end of the semester, they present moderate levels of interest
instead. Martínez-Fernández (2004), however, found that motivation and learning strategies
seem to be linked. This highlights the significance of metacognitive strategies and the
academic level as parameters to predict undergraduates’ constructive learning conception
better than motivational factors. In this sense, Dupeyrat et al. (Dupeyrat & Mariné, 2005;
Dupeyrat, Mariné, & Escribe, 1999) found different significant correlations between deep
strategies, mastery goal and performance goal. Apparently, there exists neither an exclusive
relation between deep strategies and intrinsic motivation nor between surface strategies and
extrinsic motivation.
Thus, some authors have observed that the relationships between conceptions of learning
and motivation can be contradictory (e.g., Cano, 2005a; Meyer, 2000). Moreover, there are
only few studies that analyse specific components of cognition and motivation and how they
are interrelated according to different academic levels (in the tertiary education) and
conceptions of learning (Braten & Olaussen, 2005). As a consequence, we are interested in
analysing these relations separately in the case of undergraduates from different academic
levels in psychology including beginners, intermediate and final students.
Summarizing, the aim of the present study was to analyse the relationships between two
main variables: motivation (with two factors: level and value of motivation) and conceptions
of learning (with three categories: rote, interpretative and constructive). In addition, we are
interested in finding out what the role of the undergraduates’ academic level might be, linking
each category for conceptions of learning with level of motivation (high and low) and value of
motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic). Based on the results of previous research, we expected (1)
to find specific relations between different conceptions of learning and motivation factors
(consonance or dissonance patterns). Additionally, we expect that (2) there will be a more
significant relation between the constructive conception of learning, intrinsic value and a high
level of motivation in final-course students.

Method

Participants

The participants of our study were 258 psychology undergraduates from the Universidad
de Barcelona (Spain) who were following a four-year program in psychology. They were
analyzed in two ways, as a general sample and according to their academic level: initial
(n=141), intermediate (n=69) and final (n=48). Initial-level students were taking the first year
of the major, that is to say, with little or no academic training in psychology. Intermediate-
level students were all taking the third year of the program and it was established as a
requirement that they had passed the courses on Introduction to Psychology, Psychology of
Development and Psychology of Learning. Final-level students were surveyed at the end of
518 S. RABANAQUE & J.R. MARTÍNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ

the Practicum end-of-major seminar, which meant they had passed, among others, the courses
on Psychology of Memory, Language and Thought, and Educational Psychology, all of them
dealing with contents related to the conceptions of learning. The study involved 221 women
and 37 men with a mean age of 22.53 (SD=5.83).
This Psychology study program uses a basically traditional teaching methodology
focused on the professors’ lectures and with little participation from the students. According to
Martínez-Fernández (2004), the student participation becomes more active in the case of final-
level students compared to initial-level students, despite the fact that teaching remains lecture-
based. As for evaluation, and in accordance with the aforementioned type of teaching, the
school where the study takes place usually employs simple or multiple choice tests as the only
final evaluation, which, in our opinion, strengthens repetitive rote learning.

Instruments

Students completed a self-report questionnaire to show their conceptions of learning:

CONAPRE (Martínez-Fernández, 2004, see Appendix). The design of this questionnaire
initially used Säljö’s (1979) five factors (SAL); in its final version, as mentioned above, three
factors were included following ITF (Pozo & Scheuer, 1999).
Conception of learning was evaluated in the resulting 14-item questionnaire using three
subscales: rote, interpretative and constructive on a five-point Likert scale (alpha=.70). Rote
conception of learning (items: 3, 6, 10 & 14) (alpha=.65) means understanding the learning
processes like an exact copy or reproduction of the input you receive; for example: “I try to
memorize all the information exactly as it is presented”. Interpretative conception of learning
(items: 1, 4, 9, 12 & 13) (alpha=.66) reflects the idea that learning is an active process in
which the information is true and firm, for example: “I understand the academic contents and
I apply them in everyday situations”. Constructive conception of learning (items: 2, 5, 7, 8 &
11) (alpha=.72) goes further beyond this: learning is perceived as an active process with the
students being somehow uncertain of the acquired information and the request of doing their
own research and conclusions, for example: “On the basis of new information learned, I make
changes, transform and/or grow personally in the perception of myself as a person”. The
confirmatory factorial analysis of this solution using maximum likelihood with oblimin
rotation gave acceptable Goodness-of-Fit indices (χ2=720.7; p<.000) and sample adequacy
(KMO=.776).
Participants were asked to determine their motivation (level and value of motivation)
concerning psychology studies. Thus, two questions were used to determine the students’ level
of motivation (low or high) and their value of motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic), respectively
(see Appendix). Both of the questions formulated (about their motivation level and its
justification or value) were asked openly in order to allow the subject to express their thoughts
and beliefs freely (following the phenomenographic tradition). The researchers analyzed each
of the subjects’ answers independently, and these were classified according to their value
(intrinsic or extrinsic), following Pintrich and De Groot’s contributions (1990); the concordance
coefficient was calculated by the judges.

Procedure

The students answered the questionnaires during their courses. In previous agreement
with the teachers, the last 30 minutes of the lectures were reserved for thus purpose.
First, students answered a personal data questionnaire including questions about their
age, gender, level of studies and other personal information. Next, they answered both of the
aforementioned questions to inform us about their level of motivation and their value,
respectively. To determine intrinsic value (e.g., “I want to learn about psychology because I
am very interested in these studies”) or extrinsic value (e.g., “I am studying at the university
in order to please my parents or family”), answers were analysed by two experts with a very
 CONCEPTION OF LEARNING AND MOTIVATION 519

good agreement between them (Cohen’s Kappa=.86). In order to determine their level of
motivation, students selected an option between low or high level and justified their answer.
Finally, students completed a self-report CONAPRE questionnaire about conceptions of
learning (Martínez-Fernández, 2004). The participation was voluntary and their responses
were anonymous.
The results were analysed by means of SPSS for Windows to obtain descriptive data,
crosstabs, chi-square, t-test and one-way ANOVA.

Results

Conception of learning

The effect of academic level on different conceptions of learning was explored by means
of a 3 (academic level: initial, intermediate and final) x 3 (conceptions of learning: rote,
interpretative and constructive) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Scheffé multiple
comparison. With regard to the conceptions of learning and the level of studies in Psychology,
it is observed that there exist significant differences in the rote conception [F(2,255)=4.252;
p=.015]. Scheffé’s multiple comparison analysis indicates that these differences occur
specifically between the initial-level and the intermediate-level students (p=.016). In this
sense, the first-year subjects show a higher score in the rote conception than the intermediate-
level students (see Table 3), but there are no differences between the initial and the final levels
or between the intermediate and the final levels. Therefore, a decrease seems to occur in the
dominance of the rote conception, but it never reaches really low levels at the end of the
major.
As regards the interpretative conception, differences are also observed between the
groups [F(2,255)=8.647; p<.001], but in this category, Scheffé’s multiple comparison analysis
indicates that these differences occur among the final-level students with respect to the initial-
level students (p<.001). Therefore, as regards the interpretative conception, there seems to be
a significant increase, but only at the end of the major. Consequently, initial-level students seem
to be more reproductive, whereas final-level students are significantly less reproductive. In this
sense, co-dominance of the conceptions appears as a common pattern, but with differences as to
what conception dominates significantly in every moment (initial, intermediate or final-level of
tertiary education).
On the other hand, the scores for constructive conceptions also show significant
differences between the levels of study [F(2,255)=6.897; p=.001], and Scheffé’s analysis
indicates that high-level students get a higher score in the constructive conception than initial-
level students (p=.001) and intermediate-level students (p=.017) (see Table 3). Therefore, a
greater dominance of the constructive conception is observed in end-of-major students who, as
has been commented above, are in turn more interpretative and less reproductive.

Table 3
Conception of learning and academic level (ANOVA)
Academic level
Initial (n=141) Intermediate (n=69) Final (n=48)
Conception of learning (scale) M SD M SD M SD F p
Rote (4-20) 11.56 (2.56)a 10.46 (2.39)b 11.04 (2.89)b 4.252 .015
Interpretative (5-25) 17.08 (2.62)b 17.80 (2.93)b 18.88 (2.12)a 8.647 .000
Constructive (5-25) 16.58 (3.21)c 16.80 (2.98)b 18.46 (2.72)a 6.897 .001
520 S. RABANAQUE & J.R. MARTÍNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ

To sum up, it seems that the dominance of a really qualitative conception (interpretative
or constructive) is limited to students who are about to finish their major, and not to previous
levels. However, while initial-level students are more reproductive, the profile of beliefs about
learning in intermediate-level students is more similar to a general co-dominance. This seems
to be a pertinent link when changing from one type of reproductive conception to a
constructive one.

Motivation

Regarding motivation, a significant relation between components (level and value) could
be observed (phi correlation was r=.530; p<.001). This demonstrates that students with high
motivation are more intrinsic than students with low motivation and, in turn, students with low
motivation are more extrinsic than students with high motivation.
There exists a significant relation between value and level of motivation that appears
regardless whether we address the whole sample including all students χ2(2,258)=72.581; p<.001
(phi correlation was r=.530; p<.001) or the student distribution sample with final
χ2(1,48)=21.167; p<.001 (phi correlation was r=.664; p<.001), intermediate χ2(1,69)=8.976;
p=.003 (phi correlation was r=.361; p=.003) or initial academic level χ2(1,141)=45.589; p<.001
(phi correlation was r=.569; p<.001). These relations are specific between extrinsic value with
low level of motivation and intrinsic value with high level of motivation (see Table 4).

Table 4
Value and level of motivation by academic level (Chi-squared)
Value
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Motivation n % n % χ2 p

Whole sample
Low 110 065.5 09 010.0
72.581 <.001
High 058 034.5 81 090.0
168 1000. 90 1000.
Initial academic level
Low 65 071.4 06 0120
. 45.589 <.001
High 26 028.6 44 0880.
91 1000. 50 1000.
Intermediate academic level
Low 30 053.6 01 007.7
08.976 <.001
High 26 046.4 12 092.3
56 01000. 13 1000.
Final academic level
Low 15 071.4 02 007.4
21.167 <.001
High 06 028.6 25 092.6
21 1000. 27 1000.

With respect to the academic level, we observed no significant differences in relation to

the distribution in the level of motivation χ2(2,258)=3.270; p=.195 (with Cramer’s V=.113;
p=.195). However, in the initial level, 49% of the students were highly motivated, compared
to 65% in the final level. In contrast to this finding, the academic level resulted in significant
differences in value, showing that final-level students are more intrinsic (56%) than
intermediate (19%) or initial level students (36%) χ2(2,258)= 17.486; p<.001 (with Cramer’s
V=.260; p<.001). We observe that lower-division students, especially those in the intermediate
level (81%), present a high tendency toward extrinsic orientation; it even surpasses the initial-
level students. However, final-level students show a more balanced tendency, and an even
greater number of students declare themselves intrinsically oriented (see Table 5).
 CONCEPTION OF LEARNING AND MOTIVATION 521

Table 5
Motivation (level and value) and academic level (Chi-squared)
Academic level
Initial Intermediate Final
n % n % n % χ2 p
Level of motivation
Low 071 050.4 31 044.9 17 035.4
03.270 <.195
High 070 049.4 38 055.1 31 064.6
141 1000. 69 1000. 48 1000.
Value
Extrinsic 091 064.5 56 081.2 21 043.7
17.486 <.001
Intrinsic 050 035.5 13 018.8 27 056.3
141 1000. 69 1000. 48 1000.

Relationship between conception of learning and motivation

With regard to conceptions of learning, it could be observed that, in the whole sample,
the constructive and the interpretative conceptions were significantly higher when they had
both a high level of motivation and intrinsic orientation. The students admitting to have a
greater level of motivation obtain significantly higher scores both in the constructive
t(256)=3.828; p<.001, d=.46 and in the interpretative conception t(256)=2.664; p=.008, d=.35.
Likewise, we observe differences in the scores of the interpretative t(256)=2.721; p=.007,
d=.37 and the constructive t(256)=3.139; p=.002, d=.41 conceptions when the students have
been classified as intrinsically oriented (see Table 6).

Table 6
Conception of learning, level of motivation and value (t-test)
Motivation
Low (n=119) High (n=139)
M SD M SD t p d
Conception of learning
Rote 11.24 (2.63) 11.11 (2.61) .-.415 .678 .05
Interpretative 17.13 (2.49) 18.01 (2.82) 2.664 .008 .35
Constructive 16.20 (3.20) 17.66 (2.92) 3.828 .000 .46
Value
Intrisic (n=168) Extrinsic (n=90)
M SD M SD t p d
Conception of learning
Rote 11.22 (2.65) 11.08 (2.55) .-.416 .677 .05
Interpretative 17.27 (2.58) 18.22 (2.83) 2.721 .007 .37
Constructive 16.55 (3.04) 17.81 (3.16) 3.139 .002 .41

Analysing the results with respect to the academic level, we observed that, in the initial
level, students who had a high level of motivation t(139)=2.530; p=.013, d=.40 and those with
intrinsic orientation t(139)=2.317; p=.023, d=.42 showed significantly higher scores in the
constructive conception of learning (for interpretative and rote conceptions no significant
differences were found). However, there is a small size of the effect in relation to the
interpretative conception in both cases (level and value of motivation) (see Tables 7 and 8).
522 S. RABANAQUE & J.R. MARTÍNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ

Students of the intermediate academic level are more constructivist when they have a
high level of motivation t(67)=2.693; p=.009, d=.73. However, we found no significant
differences either for interpretative and rote conceptions or for value (in any case). Although,
we observe that there is a medium size of the effect in relation to the interpretative conception
in both cases (level and value of motivation). Likewise, there is a medium size of the effect in
the rote conception in relation to value of motivation (in favour of the extrinsic value).
Finally, the results from final academic students level did not show any significant
differences in score for any conception of learning referring to motivation (either for level or
for value) (see Table 7 and 8). Therefore, we observe that there exists a small size of the effect
in relation to the interpretative conception in both cases (level and value of motivation), and a
small effect in the rote conception in relation to the value of motivation (in favour of the
extrinsic value).

Table 7
Motivation and conception of learning by academic level (t-test)
Initial academic level
Motivation

Low (n=71) High (n=70)

M SD M SD t p d
Conception of learning
Rote 11.38 (2.55) 11.74 (2.58) 0.839 .403 .14
Interpretative 16.82 (2.50) 17.34 (2.73) 1.193 .235 .21
Constructive 15.92 (3.39) 17.26 (2.89) 2.530 .013 .40
Intermediate academic level
Motivation

Low (n=31) High (n=38)

M SD M SD t p d
Conception of learning
Rote 10.87 (2.64) 10.13 (2.15) -1.283- .204 .28
Interpretative 17.10 (2.37) 18.37 (3.23) 1.825 .073 .54
Constructive 15.77 (2.55) 17.63 (3.07) 2.693 .009 .73
Final academic level
Motivation

Low (n=17) High (n=31)

M SD M SD t p d
Conception of learning
Rote 11.35 (3.02) 10.87 (2.85) -.549- .586 .16
Interpretative 18.47 (2.29) 19.10 (2.02) .978 .333 .28
Constructive 18.18 (2.88) 18.61 (2.67) .527 .600 .15

Thus, it is noticed that the differences in the conceptions of learning according to the
levels of motivation (high or low) and value of motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) depending on
the level of studies seem to have greater nuances than those presented herein. However, in
general, the subjects with low motivation are more rote whereas those highly motivated are
more interpretative and constructive. Likewise, the subjects with intrinsic values present
higher scores in the interpretative and constructive conceptions; while those with extrinsic
value are more reproductive.
 CONCEPTION OF LEARNING AND MOTIVATION 523

Table 8
Value and conceptions of learning by academic level (t-test)
Initial academic level
Value

Extrinsic (n=91) Intrinsic (n=50)

M SD M SD t p d
Conception of learning
Rote 11.47 (2.54) 11.72 (2.62) 0.547 .585 .10
Interpretative 16.85 (2.57) 17.50 (2.69) 1.422 .157 .25
Constructive 16.12 (3.13) 17.42 (3.21) 2.317 .023 .42
Intermediate academic level
Value

Extrinsic (n=56) Intrinsic (n=13)

M SD M SD t p d
Conception of learning
Rote 10.70 (2.50) 9.46 (1.56) -1.700- .094 .50
Interpretative 17.54 (2.57) 18.92 (4.07) 1.175 .259 .54
Constructive 16.61 (2.71) 17.62 (3.95) 0.874 .396 .37
Final academic level
Value

Extrinsic (n=21) Intrinsic (n=27)

M SD M SD t p d
Conception of learning
Rote 11.52 (3.37) 10.67 (2.45) 0-.981- .333 .25
Interpretative 18.43 (2.29) 19.22 (1.95) 1.296 .201 .34
Constructive 18.24 (2.96) 18.63 (2.56) 0.491 .626 .13

Discussion

In general, our results indicate that, with reference to the conception of learning, students
from the final academic level had the highest scores in interpretative and constructive
categories, as previously shown by Martínez-Fernández (2004), Pozo and Scheuer (1999) and
Tynjälä (1999); while rote conception is most common amongst initial level students, as also
reported by other authors (Entwistle & McCune, 2004; Martínez-Fernández, 2004; Tynjälä,
1997). Does this mean that developing qualitative conceptions of learning is parallel to the
academic level? Taking into account that this work represents a transversal study, further
research – including a longitudinal design – is required in order to answer this question and
their relations.
Additionally, with respect to motivation, students in the initial and intermediate levels
have extrinsic value (contrary to Alexander & Murphy, 1998), while students in the final
academic level have intrinsic value in their learning aims. However, that does not mean that
they have a higher level of motivation. In each academic level, there exist close relations
between value and level of motivation (extrinsic with low level and intrinsic with high level).
As regards the above-mentioned objectives of this work, the first aim was to find specific
relations between the different conceptions of learning and motivation factors. The results of
our work concerning the relation between motivation (level and value) and conceptions of
learning are consistent with previous theoretical research (see Table 2 mentioned above).
Therefore, the students with a higher level of motivation and an intrinsic value for their studies
are the ones who obtain the highest scores in the constructive conception, regardless of their
524 S. RABANAQUE & J.R. MARTÍNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ

level of studies (initial, intermediate or final) (Biggs, 1985; Dupeyrat & Mariné, 2005; Dweck,
1986). However, this does not imply that the subjects with low motivation and extrinsic value
are more direct or reproductive in their conception of learning, as pointed out by other authors
(contrary to Braten & Olaussen, 2005; Meece et al., 1988; Miller et al., 1996; Nolen, 1988).
Consequently, a high motivation seems to be a condition for triggering the constructive
conception of learning (complex consonance after Cano, 2005a), whereas the rote conception
of learning is not clearly related to extrinsic motivation (dissonance pattern after Cano,
2005a).
The second aim was to evaluate the significance of the academic level in order to identify
the link between conceptions of learning and motivation (level and value). It is observed that
highly motivated students are more constructive when they are in either the initial or the
intermediate academic level. In reference to value, intrinsically oriented students are more
constructive, but only in the initial level and not in the final level. In this sense, it seems that
the final-level students present a higher extrinsic value, which can be linked to a significant
decrease in their major-related expectations, or the fact that, from mid-major on (in the case of
the intermediate-level subjects), many students re-define their goals and interests, and they
even drop out of university, and that this may account for the high proportion of extrinsic-
value subjects in this level.
Why are there no significant differences in the constructive conception in relation to
motivation in the final academic level? If there is no relation between motivation and
conceptions of learning in the final academic level, there must be other factors which can
determine the degree of constructiveness. We conclude that motivation is an important factor
with respect to the conception of learning in the initial and intermediate levels in contrast to
the final level. A probable explanation is that the students have general conceptions about
learning (as evaluated in the present study), but their level and the value of motivation for the
specific tasks put forward in the program of studies may not agree with their general
framework of beliefs. This is one of the limitations of the current study, which has evaluated
the conceptions of learning from a general framework, in the specific domain of psychology,
whereas the motivational factors have been surveyed in relation to the specific experience
with the program of studies.
According to Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle (1993), these results might explain why the
transfer of the acquired knowledge is not as effective as students expected. Moreover, during
lectures, it is not possible for the students to control their activities, which in turn might
decrease their interest and intrinsic value or goal orientation (e.g., Alexander & Murphy,
1998). Additionally, these authors proposed that students and teachers might perceive the
tasks differently and this could be a possible explanation for the dissonance pattern in this
relation.
Another possible explanation, as indicated by Dupeyrat and Mariné (2005), could be that
goal orientation (in this case value) is determined by different factors such as purpose of the
tasks, lectures or the learning structure. However, after Martínez-Fernández (2004), the
classroom learning environment seems to have no lineal effect on the undergraduates’
motivation or conception of learning beliefs. Thus, it seems that others variables have an effec-
tive influence on this factors (e.g., metacognitive strategies).
Therefore, there is a need for more research projects that analyse the complex relation
between conceptions of learning and motivation, taking into account the different patterns that
may occur between them. In order to do that, carrying out studies based on structural models
(e.g., path analysis) and in-depth interviews might be an interesting empiric path to follow.
Moreover, this kind of studies should respond to key variables such as context, domain and
the subjects’ level of expertise. In this way, we will better approach more specific and deep
explanations, thus enabling us to understand self-regulation processes and to promote them in
higher education.
As a conclusion, like Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2007), we lean to constantly
monitoring the evolution of the students’ motivation and conception of learning because it is
individual and not easily predictable due to high complexity.
 CONCEPTION OF LEARNING AND MOTIVATION 525

Appendix
CONAPRE: Conceptions of learning
A series of items/activities are presented. Please read them carefully and then answer according to the
frequency you do each of them during your learning process.
In order to answer, please use the following scale:
5= Always / 4= Most of the times / 3= Sometimes / 2= Rarely / 1= Never
Please be honest in your answers. Thank you for your collaboration!
01. I have information about some contents and I know exactly when to use it
02. I analyze situations and academic processes and I apply them in other daily contexts
03. I memorize the information in order to apply it
04. I think about different perspectives, ways and possibilities when solving a problem
05. Starting from new facts, I acquire a new perspective about the world from my personal position
06. I read twice, three or four times information in order to be able to repeat it
07. I understand the academic contents and I apply them in everyday situations
08. On the basis of new information, I make changes, transform and/or grow personally in the
perception of myself as a person
09. I know how to reproduce information and understand its meaning
10. I remember information in order to repeat it for exams
11. On the basis of new information, I challenge myself in order to make me think about the things
I do and the way I do them
12. I apply prior academic information to new situations
13. I link different information and I make inferences
14. I try to memorize all the information, exactly as it is presented

Motivation
1. What is your level of motivation at this moment regarding your psychology studies?: Low _____ High _____
2. Why do you think you have this level of motivation?

References

Alexander, P.A., & Murphy, P.K. (1998). Profiling the differences in students’ knowledge, interest, and strategic
processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 435-447.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation
processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.

Biggs, J. (1985). The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 185-212.

Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C.S. (2007). Theories of intelligence predict achievement across an
adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263.

Boulton-Lewis, G.M. (1994). Tertiary students’ knowledge of their own learning and a SOLO taxonomy’. Higher
Education, 28, 387-402.

Braten, I., & Olaussen, B.S. (2005). Profiling individual differences in student motivation: A longitudinal cluster-analytic
study in different academic contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 359-396.
526 S. RABANAQUE & J.R. MARTÍNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ

Cano, F. (2005a). Consonance and dissonance in students’ learning experience. Learning and Instruction, 15, 201-223.

Cano, F. (2005b). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: their change through secondary school and their
influence on academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 203-221.

Dupeyrat, C., & Escribe, C. (2000). Orientations de but: Validation du questionnaire de Hayamizu et Weiner et relations
avec les conceptions de l’intelligence. European Review of Applied Psychology, 50, 73-80.

Dupeyrat, C., & Mariné, C. (2001). Implicit theories of intelligence, achievement goals, and learning strategy use.
Psychologische Beitraege, 43, 34-52.

Dupeyrat, C., & Mariné, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and
achievement: A test of Dweck’s model with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
30, 43-59.

Dupeyrat, C., Mariné, C., & Escribe, C. (1999). Mastery and challenge seeking: two dimensions within learning goals?
Swiss Journal of Psychology, 58(1), 22-30.

Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.

Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review,
95(2), 256-273.

Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology
Review, 16(4), 325-345.

Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Lonka, K. (2000). Dissonant study orchestrations of high-achieving university students.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 19-32.

Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, and study practices in medicine and
psychology. Higher Education, 31, 5-24.

Lonka, K., Joram, E., & Bryson, M. (1996). Conceptions of learning and knowledge: Does training make a difference?
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 240-260.

Marshall, D., Summers, M., & Woolnough, B. (1999). Students’ conceptions of learning in an engineering context.
Higher Education, 38, 291-309.

Martínez-Fernández, J.R. (2000). Conceptions and conceptual change that undergraduates have about learning.
International Journal of Psychology, 35(3-4), 64.

Martínez-Fernández, J.R. (2004). Concepción de aprendizaje, metacognición y cambio conceptual en estudiantes

universitarios de psicología [Conceptions of learning, metacognitive strategies, and conceptual change in
psychology undergraduates]. Doctoral dissertation. Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography – describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-
200.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. I: Outcome and process. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

Marton, F., Dall’ Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research,
19(3), 277-300.

Meece, J.L., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Hoyle, R.H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in
classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.

Meyer, J.H.F. (2000). The modeling of “dissonant” study orchestration in higher education. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 15, 5-18.

Miller, R.B., Greene, B.A., Montalvo, G.P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J.D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The
role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 21, 388-422.

Nolen, S.B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5,
269-287.

Olson, D.R., & Bruner, J.S. (1996). Folk psychology and folk pedagogy. In D.R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The
Handbook of Education and Human Development (pp. 9-27). Oxford: Blackwell.
 CONCEPTION OF LEARNING AND MOTIVATION 527

Pintrich, P., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

Pintrich, P., Marx, R.W., & Boyle, R.W. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and
classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.

Pozo, J.I., & Scheuer, N. (1999). Las concepciones sobre el aprendizaje como teorías implícitas. In J.I. Pozo &
C. Monereo (Comp.). El aprendizaje estratégico (pp. 87-108). Madrid: Santillana.

Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learners’ perspective. I: Some common sense conceptions. Reports from the Institute of
Education, 76. University of Göteborg.

Scheuer, N., de la Cruz, M., Pozo, J.I., & Neira, S. (2006). Children’s autobiographies of learning to write. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 709-725.

Spinath, B., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2001). Implicit theories about the malleability of intelligence and ability.
Psychologische Beitraege, 43, 53-76.

Tynjälä, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in different learning
environments. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 277-292.

Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning
environment in the University. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357-442.

Van Rossum, E.J., & Schenk, S. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning
outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73-83.

Vermunt, J.D., & Vermetten, Y.J. (2004). Patterns in student learning: Relationships between learning strategies,
conceptions of learning, and learning orientations. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 359-384.

Weiner, B. (1979) A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.

Trois conceptions de l’apprentissage (par cœur, interprétatif et

constructif), et deux aspects de la motivation (niveau et valeur) ont été
identifiés sur 258 étudiants espagnols (psychologie) classifiés en trois
niveaux (première, deuxième et fin de cours). Les résultats au sujet des
conceptions ont montré que les de fin de cours sont les plus constructifs
et interprétatifs, tandis que les de début ont de meilleurs résultats dans
la conception par cœur. Le niveau et la valeur sont significative
connexes, avec une corrélation spécifique entre un à niveau élevé et
une valeur intrinsèque aussi bien qu’un niveau bas lié à une valeur
extrinsèque. La valeur intrinsèque chez les étudiants de fin de cours est
sensiblement plus haute qu’elle ne l’est chez les étudiants de début et
intermédiaire. Les étudiants avec une motivation plus élevée et une
valeur intrinsèque ont des points sensiblement plus hauts dans des
conceptions interprétatives et constructives. Les de début avec valeur
intrinsèque ou motivation élevée ont de plus hauts points dans la
constructive. Les intermédiaires obtiennent de hauts points dans la
constructive s’ils sont fortement motivés. Les de fin de cours ne
montrent pas de différences significatives en ce qui concerne les
conceptions basées sur la motivation.

Key words: Conception of learning, Motivation, Self-regulation, Undergraduates, Value.

Received: September 2007

Revision received: June 2008
528 S. RABANAQUE & J.R. MARTÍNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ

Samuel Rabanaque. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Facultat de Psicologia, Psicologia Bàsica,

08193 Barcelona, Spain.

Current theme of research:

Learning strategies and motivation.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Martínez-Fernández, J.R., & Rabanaque, S. (2007). Self-regulation and students’ autonomous task in a web-based
learning. 12th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction. Budapest, Hungary.

Martínez-Fernández, J.R., González, L., Rabanaque, S., & González, R. (2007). Concepción de aprendizaje y
estrategias metacognitivas en universitarios de comunicación y pedagogía en la UNACH. 31st Interamerican
Congress of Psychology. México, DF.

Rabanaque, S., Martínez-Fernández, J.R., & Castañeda, S. (2006). Self-regulation and students’ autonomous work in a
virtual environment. 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Athens, Greece.

J. Reinaldo Martínez-Fernández. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Facultat de Ciències de l’Educació,

Edifici G-6, Despatx 251, 08193 Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: Josereinaldo.martinez@uab.es;
Web site: www.uab.es / www.sinte.es

Current theme of research:

Learning strategies and motivation, conceptual change, metacognition and problem solving. Quantitative methods in
social sciences (education and psychology).

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Martínez Fernández, J.R. (2007). Concepción de aprendizaje y estrategias metacognitivas en estudiantes universitarios
de psicología [Conception of learning and metacognitive strategies in psychology undergraduates]. Anales de
Psicología, 23(1), 7-16. http://www.um.es/analesps/v23/v23_1/02-23_1.pdf

Martínez Fernández, J.R. (1999). Aprendizaje en la Universidad. Del énfasis en los productos al énfasis en los procesos.
Número Monográfico: Aprendizaje. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 31(3), 491-504.

Martínez Fernández, J.R. (2000). Conceptions and conceptual change that undergraduates have about learning.
International Journal of Psychology, 35(3-4), 64, summary proceedings. 27th International Congress of
Psychology.

Martínez Fernández, J.R., & Rabanaque, S. (2008). Autorregulación y trabajo autónomo del estudiante en una actividad
de aprendizaje basada en TIC [Self-regulation and students’ autonomous task in an ICT-based learning activity].
Anuario de Psicología, 39(3), 311-331.

Martínez-Fernández, J.R., Tubau, E., Guilera, Ll., Rabanaque, S., & Sánchez, E. (2008). Utilidad de distintas ayudas en
la resolución de un problema de insight y su relación con las estrategias metacognitivas [Usefulness of different
hints in solving an insight problem: Relation-ship with metacognitive strategies]. Anales de Psicología, 24(1), 1-8.
http://www.um.es/analesps/v24/v24_1/03-24_1.pdf
Copyright of European Journal of Psychology of Education - EJPE is the property of Instituto Superior de
Psicologia Aplicada and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.