When prospective biology teachers visualize their beliefs about teaching and learning by drawing it, is it more than a reproduction of their experienced school lessons?

Professional teaching competence is significantly influenced by beliefs about teaching and learning. Prospective teachers start their teacher training with quite persistent beliefs about learning processes. These beliefs are mainly influenced by the way they experienced their own lessons as a student at school. Previous biology lessons at school might be linked to the imagined biology lessons of prospective teachers. We interpret these future lessons as a representation of their beliefs about teaching and learning. The present study investigated how prospective teachers remembered their previous biology lessons as well as how they imagine the lessons they will conduct in the future. The drawings of 181 prospective biology teachers in Germany (Mage = 22.1; SD = 3.6; 64.1 % female) were analyzed using the Draw-a-Science-Teacher-Test Checklist (DASTT-C). Results of the study indicate that the lessons they experienced were mainly teacher-centered, whereas the lessons they imagined were mainly student-centered. Results of a chi-square-test indicate that there is no connection between these two drawings of biology lessons. This suggests that experiences from one’s own schooling may have no connection with the way prospective teachers would like to teach in the future. The results of this study might be used as a basis for further studies examining the development of prospective biology teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning.


Introduction
For more than two decades now, science education research has demanded a constructivist and student-oriented approach to biology lessons to ensure successful teaching processes (Treagust et al., 1996). However, the findings regarding the implementation of this approach in German biology classes are based on little research (Fischer et al., 2003). Presumably, these experiences at school influence the formation of beliefs about teaching and learning (Jones & Leagon, 2014). Thus, it can be assumed that prospective (biology) teachers start their teacher training with preconceptions about the teaching and learning process (Dann, 2000;Pajares, 1992). Beliefs about teaching and learning influence the way one teaches Jones & Leagon, 2014;Luft & Roehrig, 2007). As a result, they are an important object of investigation in teaching-related research (Kervan et al., 2021;Prawat, 1992). Several instruments for ascertaining prospective teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning have been developed. Generally, quantitative questionnaire surveys or qualitative interviews are conducted. In the present study, the Draw-a-Science-Teacher-Test Checklist (DASTT-C) was used (Thomas et al., 2001). This instrument has participants imagine their future lessons and draw them on a sheet of paper, which serves as a means to analyze their beliefs about teaching and learning.
In this study we were interested in the experienced and the imagined future biology classes of prospective biology teachers. To obtain comparable data, we used the DASTT-C and modified it by adding a further section in which the students drew their experienced biology lessons.

Teacher beliefs
The actions of prospective teachers are guided by assumptions and mental processes (Dann, 2000). Many of these preconceived notions originate from their own experiences as students at school and from their formal university education (Kleickmann, 2008). These experiences help them to build mental models of how they should interact in a given environment (Norman, 1983). These mental representations about teaching and learning in a specific subject are also referred to as beliefs Pajares, 1992). In the present study, we use the term beliefs as the overarching term of these mental models. Clandinin and Connelly (1987) have determined a large number of different definitions of these beliefs. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate a theoretical classification and definition of the understanding of beliefs that is used here.
In our study, beliefs about teaching and learning are regarded as a part of the professional knowledge of teachers (Dann, 2000;Kleickmann, 2008). According to Baumert and Kunter's (2013) model of professional competence, there are three different components of this professional knowledge: general pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK) and subject-specific pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Baumert & Kunter, 2013;Bromme, 1992Bromme, , 1997Shulman, 1986Shulman, , 1987. Subject-specific beliefs in this study are regarded as a part of the PCK in the taxonomy of professional knowledge of teachers (Magnusson et al., 1999). These beliefs about teaching and learning serve as a framework or a conceptual map of the general understanding of teaching and learning in a specific subject (Borko & Putnam, 1996;Bromme, 1992;Kleickmann, 2008;Krauss et al., 2008).
When it comes to the beliefs about teaching and learning, affective and cognitive aspects as well as opinions and knowledge are all intertwined. Magnusson and colleagues' (1999) model describes beliefs about teaching and learning as a form of (rational) knowledge that is based on one's own (subjective) teaching and learning experiences (Kleickmann, 2008).
In the present study, our definition of beliefs about teaching and learning includes the knowledge aspects of Magnusson et al. (1999) and the component of subjective beliefs by Richardson (1996) and Pajares (1992). Based on Kleickmann et al. (2010), we understand beliefs about teaching and learning as subjective perspectives on learning in the subject and include epistemologically validated knowledge as well as subjective convictions.

Origin and organization of beliefs
Prospective teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning are strongly influenced by their experiences (Jones & Leagon, 2014;Kleickmann et al., 2010). Richardson (1996Richardson ( , 2003 has identified various sources and influencing factors in the development of beliefs. For subject-specific beliefs about teaching and learning, two major influencing factors can be found (Richardson, 2003;Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2006): one's own experience as a pupil in a subject at school such as biology classes and one's formal academic education at university.
Prospective biology teachers do not start their teacher training at university without prior beliefs, as the notions they hold about good and standard practice has already been influenced by the education they received as students at school (Jones & Leagon, 2014;Kagan, 1992aKagan, , 1992bWoolfolk Hoy et al., 2006;Pajares, 1992). These experiences may influence their notions of what constitutes good or bad teaching (Pajares, 1992) such as whether and how teachers can activate their students (Stofflett & Stoddart, 1994). Hence, these experienced biology classes have a significant influence on the development of one's beliefs about teaching and learning (Huibregtse et al., 1994;Jones & Leagon, 2014;Kagan, 1992aKagan, , 1992b. According to the concept of anticipatory socialization, the experiences prospective teachers gain during their own school time and their university education constitute a framework for teaching and learning (Kohli, 1986). The beliefs formed during these times have a socializing effect on their actions in school and can have a greater effect than the formally gained PCK (Kagan, 1992b;Klinghammer et al., 2016). All interactions between teacher and student are strongly influenced by beliefs about teaching and learning (Koballa et al., 2000).
Currently, two general frameworks for teaching and learning can be distinguished: student-centered constructivist and teacher-centered transmissive approaches (Norton et al., 2005;Reusser & Pauli, 2014). In accordance with the designations of the original test instrument (Thomas et al., 2001), we use the term teacher-centered as a synonym for the transmissive and student-centered for the constructivist approaches. Teacher-centered approaches result from transmissive beliefs and are based on behaviorist learning theories (Dubberke et al., 2008). In this approach, learning is understood as the transmission of knowledge (e.g., Skinner, 1971). Learners are mostly passive (Dubberke et al., 2008;Kleickmann et al., 2010). Teachers with transmissive beliefs do not often provide learners with opportunities to actively engage in the subject matter (Dubberke et al., 2008). By contrast, student-centered approaches stem from constructivist beliefs that are based on active learners (Drechsel, 2001). Teachers tend to create learning opportunities that are individually attuned to the students (Buelens et al., 2002;Marsch et al., 2009). Encouraging students to formulate their own ideas and to reflect on their own way of learning are characteristics of a constructivist learning environment (Reinmann & Mandl, 2006).
The data of prospective teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning at the beginning of their university education are based on little research. The few existing studies from the German context have found that prospective biology teachers start their teacher training with mostly constructivist beliefs about teaching and learning (Brauer et al., 2014;Markic & Eilks, 2007;Markic et al., 2006).
Several studies have investigated the learning environments and the influence they have on the beliefs of prospective teachers in science (biology secondary-level: Da-Silva et al., 2007;physics secondary-level: Fischler;Klinghammer et al., 2016; chemistry secondary-level: Koballa et al., 2000;elementary-level: Southerland & Gess-Newsome 1999). Jones and Leagon (2014) emphasize the need to conduct country-specific analyzes, as beliefs are always affected by country-specific experiences and cultures. Likewise, it is important to assess the beliefs for the specific subject, as there may be different forms of learning culture (Koballa et al., 2000). However, Dorfner et al. (2017) summarize in their review that the learning environments in secondary-level biology classes have been scarcely investigated in Germany (Fischer et al., 2003).

Research questions
Prospective biology teachers usually acquire certain beliefs about teaching and learning during their own school time as school students (Jones & Leagon, 2014;Kleickmann et al., 2010). Consequently, at the beginning of their teacher training they have often already developed quite persistent beliefs about teaching and learning (Pajares, 1992;Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2006). The formation of these beliefs appears to be significantly influenced by the perception of one's previous learning environments as being mainly teacher-or mainly student-centered.
In our study, we sought to investigate the connection between the experienced learning environments of prospective biology teachers with the imagined learning environments of their future lessons. We evaluated and classified the learning environments of their biology lessons at school by interpreting the participants' drawings and descriptions thereof. We also investigated what the participants imagined their future learning environments in their biology lessons would look like by having them draw a visual representation thereof as well as write answers to prompts asking what roles the teachers and students play. These drawings function as windows providing insight into the beliefs they hold regarding teaching and learning (Al-Balushi et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2001). In the present study, we view teacher-centered drawings as a representation of transmissive beliefs and student-centered drawings as a representation of constructivist beliefs. Our research questions were: Q1) What type of biology lessons did the students experience in their own biology lessons at secondary school? Q2) What type of biology lessons do the students imagine teaching in the future?
Prospective teachers start their teacher training as insiders with assumptions about learning and teaching (Pajares, 1992). These beliefs are based on the lessons they experienced at school (Huibregtse, et al., 1994;Kagan, 1992aKagan, , 1992b. This lead to the third research question: Q3) Do the biology lessons prospective teachers experienced at secondary school correlate with the imagined biology lessons they want to teach in the future?

Instrument
The instrument Draw-a-Science-Teacher-Test Checklist (DASTT-C) by Thomas et al. (2001) was originally used to assess the beliefs about teaching and learning of prospective elementary teachers. Several recent studies have also used this method to assess the beliefs of science teachers (Al-Balushi et al., 2020;Alkış Küçükaydın & Gökbulut, 2020;Buldur, 2017;Klinghammer et al. 2016;Markic & Eilks, 2008;Minogue, 2010). It is based on drawings of the imagined learning environment in future science classes (Weber & Mitchell, 1996). Specifically, participants are asked to draw a picture of themselves as a science teacher (in our case, as a biology teacher) at work and to describe their drawing in writing.
In order to measure the influence of prior school experience on preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching (Thomas & Pedersen, 2003), we added another aspect to the established instrument. The students were also asked to draw their experienced learning environment in their secondary biology lessons at school. The approach of this test was equivalent to the established part.

Data Collection
The participants received two pre-structured pages. On the first page was a square where participants were asked to draw the biology lessons they experienced as students. On the second page, they should draw the biology class they would like to teach in the future. Below both images was an opportunity to briefly explain the drawing. The participants were given approximately 15 minutes to complete the test.

Sample
The opportunity sample consisted of 181 prospective secondary school-level biology teachers from one university in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany (Mage = 22.1, SD = 3.6; 64.1 % female; Msemester = 2.64, SD = 2.23). The test was conducted during the beginning of a university lecture about learning and teaching biology in school. The assessment was conducted during the first lecture of the course titled "Introduction to Biology Education". Participation in the survey was a voluntary part of the lecture.
This was the first time these students were confronted with didactic topics in their biology teacher training at university, although the lecture is approximately 1.5 years after the start of their university education. At the beginning of their teacher training in biology, students take courses on the basics of biology. Didactic topics in biology are first taught in the examined lecture (Bielefeld University, 2020). Thus, it can be assumed that this was the first time that they had been confronted with topics about learning and teaching biology during their first phase of teacher training at university.

Data analysis
The drawings were rated using a 13-level dichotomous checklist. The checklist can be retrieved from the original publication by Thomas et al. (2001). One point was given for the presence of a characteristic and zero points for the absence of a characteristic of the checklist. The sum of the distributed values ranged between 0-13. The higher the sum values of a test, the more transmissive and teacher-centered the rater considered the drawing of the learning environment to be (Thomas et al., 2001). Three basic categories were distinguished: student-centered (0-4 points), undecided (5-6 points), and teacher-centered (7-13 points). Responses were classified as student-centered illustrations (see Fig. 1) if they showed various types of active teacher-student interactions. In these cases, the teacher is seen as a part of the pupils' spatial surroundings and includes him/her in the pupils setting instead of as a separate and superior actor; student-teacher interactions take place on the same level. In these drawings, no rows of desks are shown, but various activities such as experiments or activating methods instead. By contrast, teacher-centered illustrations (see Fig. 2) depict the teacher in front of the class. The desks are organized in rows and teacher and students can be clearly distinguished from each one another. Moreover, typical characteristics of this teaching style are illustrated (teaching from a chalkboard, step by step guidelines, etc.).
Of the total sample of 197 drawings, only 16 tests were not analyzed due to insufficient information being found in the drawings. Therefore, 181 tests were included in the reported results. Pearson's chi-square test was calculated in order to analyze the correlation between part one (experienced lessons) and part two (imagined lessons). To estimate the inter-rater-agreement, two researchers rated independently the two parts. In an interpersonal argumentative validation process, differing interpretations of the data were discussed and a second run was performed (Mayring, 2016). The inter-rater-agreement (Cohen's kappa coefficient κ) for the experienced lessons (κ = .88) and for the beliefs about teaching and learning (κ = .81) was good (Döring & Bortz, 2016;Wirtz & Caspar, 2002). The internal consistency of the scale 'experienced lessons' with Cronbach's alpha α =.75 and the scale 'imagined lessons' with Cronbach's alpha α =.69 turned out to be acceptable for group comparisons (Lienert & Raatz, 1998). If the pictures were ambiguous, the written prompts could be used as an aid to interpretation (Thomas et al., 2001). However, a triangulation of the data from the drawings and the short explanations had to be omitted, as the written answers were insufficient in quantity and explanatory power to evaluate them separately. This problem has already been mentioned in a previous study (Klinghammer et al., 2016).

Findings
First, we were interested in the type of learning environment the participants experienced in their biology lessons at school. According to Thomas et al.'s (2001) three-stage classification, 71.8% of the prospective teachers had experienced teacher-centered lessons. By contrast, only 9.4% of them drew classes that were classified as studentcentered and 18.8% were assigned to the medium category 'mixed' (see Table 1). On average, the prospective teachers in this sample reported having experienced mostly teacher-centered lessons (M = 7.76, SD = 2.45).
Regarding our second research question, we assessed the participants' beliefs about teaching and learning by evaluating their imagined future biology lessons. The results showed that 59.1% of the drawings were rated as studentcentered, whereas only 20.5% turned out to be teacher-centered and 20.4 % fell into the medium category. The mean value indicates that the drawings were mostly student-centered (M = 3.94, SD = 2.40).
For our third research question, we were interested in whether the participants' beliefs about teaching and learning were correlated with the type of learning environments they experienced in their biology lessons at school. We found no significant correlation between the two (² = 7.995, p = .084, N = 181).

Discussion
In our study, we were firstly interested in the nature of the biology lessons our prospective teachers experienced. Secondly, we were interested in what they imagined their future biology lessons would be like so we could see whether there is a correlation between the two. The students in this sample reported having experienced mainly teachercentered biology lessons during their own school time. One possible explanation for this might be the fact that constructivist approaches are still lacking in schools. The findings of our study underline the fact that constructivist didactics should be more strongly emphasized in teaching methodology courses at universities in the sciences (Commission of the Federation and the Länder for Educational Planning and Research Promotion, 1997). Another explanation could be a bias in the way the students remembered their previous lessons. As teacher-centered views are often referred to as 'traditional' or 'old' perspectives, they might be more inclined to remember these 'old' lessons as being more teacher-centered than they actually were.
Although the majority of the participants seem to have experienced teacher-centered teaching in their biology lessons, their beliefs about teaching and learning were mainly student-centered (Q1, Q2). This is in line with recent findings on the beliefs about teaching and learning of prospective biology teachers (Brauer et al., 2014;Brauer et al., 2015;Markic et al. 2006;Markic & Eilks, 2007;Schumacher et al., 2018). This might be explained by the fact that students in the sample have already gained some exposure to current teaching and learning theories. Even though this was their first course in biology education, they might have encountered constructivist theories in other courses. Indeed, preservice teachers in Germany are generally required to take courses not only in educational sciences, but also teaching methodology courses in the two subjects they wish to teach.
In our third research question we were interested whether there is a correlation between the experienced biology lessons and the imagined lessons concerning the beliefs about teaching and learning of prospective biology teachers. The correlation turned out to be not significant. This finding is not in line with the results of previous studies (Da-Silva et al., 2007;Kagan, 1992b;Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2006;Pajares, 1992;Thomas et al., 2001). However, there appears to be a lack of empirical evidence for this assumed relationship because most of these studies were qualitative in nature and had quite small sample sizes. Another explanation could be that the response behavior was distorted by the specific subdivision of the two parts into experienced lessons and imagined lessons. This may have led the test persons to recognize the purpose of the survey and to draw their imagined lessons intentionally differently from what they experienced.

Conclusion
Overall, the advantage of the DASTT-C survey method is that the teaching environment and the participants' beliefs can be surveyed very directly (Ainsworth et al., 2011;Al-Balushi et al., 2020) and no specific verbal skills are required to answer (Finson et al., 1995). These advantages of drawings as nonverbal ways to assess beliefs have been demonstrated in other contexts as well (Oztabak, 2020). Likewise, comparing images with verbalized statements in questionnaires enable internal beliefs to be linked to external situations. In our study, this applies to the possibly unconscious influence of the experienced lessons (Van der Veen, 2012).
Although teaching and learning beliefs are considered to be relatively persistent (Pajares, 1992;Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2006), a trend towards more student-centered, constructivist teaching and learning beliefs could be identified in the context of this study. The results of this study show a positive trend in biology teacher training at German universities. The prospective teachers seemed to be willing to adopt a more student-centered approach in the future even though most of them reported having had teacher-centered biology lessons during their school time. Therefore, a positive conclusion can be drawn. The prospective biology teachers of this study are very likely to enter their teaching career as "future change agents" regarding student-centered approaches (Heinz & Flemming, 2019).

Limitations
Some limitations to our study need to be addressed. Beliefs about teaching and learning are a complex and wideranging construct that is influenced by various factors (Jones & Leagon, 2014;Thomas et al., 2001). The method of drawing may not be multifaceted enough to do this complex construct justice (Rheinisch et al., 2017). One instrument to compare in this context is the Draw-A-Scientist-Test, which assesses beliefs about perceptions of scientists (Chambers, 1983). Rheinisch et al. (2017) evaluated this rather similar instrument and noted that its use can be problematic, especially with older participants. Some participants in the study might have felt that drawings are not capable of adequately capturing their views on teaching biology (Finson et al., 1995;Finson & Pedersen, 2011). In their opinion the seriousness of the subject was not met by the method, so they may have refused to participate wholeheartedly or at all. Hence, their drawings could not be used. Another possible limitation could be the linking of graphic abilities to the drawing (Losh et al., 2008). In our study, only 16 drawings could not be used in our analysis.
Another problem with the DASTT-C checklist is that the notions of teaching and learning and the experienced learning environment are only classified on the basis of one dimension, namely the continuum between student-centered and teacher-centered classes. It would be interesting to add other standardized methods that describe the experienced and imagined future learning environments more precisely through an additional number of items. The recording of mental models and beliefs can often lead to the participants responding in a socially desirable way (Döring & Bortz, 2016). As the survey was conducted in a course on the education of biology, the participants may have felt compelled to act according to social norms (Döring & Bortz, 2016). It is, therefore, possible that the students might have thought that imagining more student-centered instruction would be more socially desirable, or at least constitute the right answer in the eyes of the researchers (Reinecke, 1986).
In several studies, the means to evaluate the type of learning environment has been problematic. This was also the case in other studies in which the DASTT-C was used (Markic & Eilks, 2008;Minogue, 2010). If the participants created very precise illustrations, a larger number of details usually resulted in a higher score. As a result, some drawings were allocated to the teacher-centered group even though this sometimes contradicted the written explanations they provided. It was also difficult to classify actions outside the classroom (Minogue, 2010).
The drawings that could not be clearly assigned to one of the two types (student-or teacher-centered) were problematic. Consequently, 18.8 and 20.4 percent of the participants' responses were classified as undecided. The existence of seemingly incompatible beliefs about teaching and learning was also a factor found in previous studies (Brauer et al., 2014;Magnusson et al., 1999;Pajares, 1992).

Recommendations
For the further development of science didactics, extensive and precise knowledge of the beliefs of prospective teachers is of great importance (Brown et al., 2013). In university education, it is necessary to develop seminar formats that encourage future teachers to reflect on their teaching and learning beliefs in order to promote their professionalization process and to improve the quality of teacher training. Several aspects can be concluded from our study. One way to help prospective teachers become aware of their own beliefs could be seminars that help them to reflect on their beliefs about teaching and learning (Jao, 2016;Utley et al., 2020). In these seminars, students should be provided with opportunities to reflect on their beliefs, for example, using methods based on the structure laying technique (Flick, 2018). Another way might be to use instruments such as the DASTT-C to enable students to explore their own mental models (Thomas et al., 2001). If this survey method is used in teaching education, it can help students to be aware of their own beliefs about teaching and learning (Pajares, 1992). Therefore, the results could be discussed with the students in order to help them to become more aware of their beliefs about teaching and learning and the extent to which these may be influenced by lessons they have experienced before (Savasci & Berlin, 2012;Thomas et al., 2001). In order to do this without a time-consuming survey, the study by Thomas et al. (2001) provides a checklist for students to use in seminars to interpret their own drawings.
In our study, the correlation between experienced biology lessons and imagined future biology lessons turned out to be not significant. However, various studies indicate that there is such a correlation (Da-Silva et al., 2007; Kagan, 1992b;Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2006;Pajares, 1992;Thomas et al., 2001). This needs to be investigated in future studies. Moreover, the time for completing the drawings might be extended. In our study, 16 drawings could not be evaluated because some of them were not detailed enough. As mentioned earlier, further studies could benefit from triangulating the images and the written statements. In this study, this was not possible due to the short written statements. It would also be possible to conduct interviews with some of the participants about drawings, allowing a more differentiated assessment of the beliefs.