@article{ZarubaWestphalGutmannetal.2021,
  author    = {Zaruba, Nicole and Westphal, Andrea and Gutmann, Franziska and Vock, Miriam},
  title     = {Preservice teachers' implicit and explicit attitudes towards teaching and learning},
  series = {Frontiers in education},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Frontiers in education},
  publisher = {Frontiers Media},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {2504-284X},
  doi       = {10.3389/feduc.2021.619098},
  pages     = {14},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {When it comes to teacher attitudes towards teaching and learning, research relies heavily on explicit measures (e.g., questionnaires). These attitudes are generally conceptualized as constructivist and transmissive views on teaching and learning with constructivism often considered to be more desirable. In explicit measures, this can have drawbacks like socially desirable responding. It is for this reason that, in this study, we investigated implicit attitudes as well as explicit attitudes towards constructivism and transmission. N = 100 preservice teachers worked on a questionnaire and two Single-Target Implicit Association Tests (ST-IAT constructivism and ST-IAT transmission) before (T1) and after (T2) a single master's semester. One group (n = 50) did student teaching while a second group (n = 50) took master's courses. We evaluated preservice teachers' views on teaching at the end of their masters' studies. Participants agreed with transmission and constructivism (T1) on both an explicit and implicit level. Implicit measures seem to exceed explicit measures in differentially assessing constructivist and transmissive views on teaching and learning. After student teaching (T2), there was no overall effect of attitude development but changes in rank indicate that participants' implicit attitudes towards constructivism and transmission developed differently for each individual.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchinkoethAntoniewicz2017,
  author    = {Schinkoeth, Michaela and Antoniewicz, Franziska},
  title     = {Automatic Evaluations and Exercising},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02103},
  pages     = {1 -- 19},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {The general purpose of this systematic review was to summarize, structure and evaluate the findings on automatic evaluations of exercising. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported measuring automatic evaluations of exercising with an implicit measure and assessed some kind of exercise variable. Fourteen nonexperimental and six experimental studies (out of a total N = 1,928) were identified and rated by two independent reviewers. The main study characteristics were extracted and the grade of evidence for each study evaluated. First, results revealed a large heterogeneity in the applied measures to assess automatic evaluations of exercising and the exercise variables. Generally, small to large-sized significant relations between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise variables were identified in the vast majority of studies. The review offers a systematization of the various examined exercise variables and prompts to differentiate more carefully between actually observed exercise behavior (proximal exercise indicator) and associated physiological or psychological variables (distal exercise indicator). Second, a lack of transparent reported reflections on the differing theoretical basis leading to the use of specific implicit measures was observed. Implicit measures should be applied purposefully, taking into consideration the individual advantages or disadvantages of the measures. Third, 12 studies were rated as providing first-grade evidence (lowest grade of evidence), five represent second-grade and three were rated as third-grade evidence. There is a dramatic lack of experimental studies, which are essential for illustrating the cause-effect relation between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise and investigating under which conditions automatic evaluations of exercising influence behavior. Conclusions about the necessity of exercise interventions targeted at the alteration of automatic evaluations of exercising should therefore not be drawn too hastily.},
  language  = {en}
}