Fostering Professional Vision in Pre-Service Teacher Education · 2012-06-27 · Fostering Professional Vision in Pre-Service Teacher Education Tina Seidel Friedl Schöller Endowed

Technische Universität München

Fostering Professional Vision in Pre-Service Teacher Education

Tina Seidel Friedl Schöller Endowed Professor of Education

TUM School of Education Technische Universität München, Germany

Keynote presentation at the Special Interest Group (SIG) ‘Teaching

and Teacher Education’ meeting in Bergen 14th June 2012


2


Overview

•  Professional vision and teacher competencies

•  Current methodological approaches

•  Development of professional vision in PST education

•  Student capacities and professional vision

•  Learning environments in PST education and their effect on professional vision


Overview







Processes and effects of teacher learning Kunter et al., 2011

Context Educational system, individual school

Nutzung von Lern-

gelegenheiten

Professionelle Kompetenz

-  Professions-wissen

- Überzeugungen

-  Motivationale Merkmale

-  Selbst-regulative Fähigkeiten

Lern-gelegenheiten

Professionelles Verhalten

-  Unterricht -  Beratung -  Kooperation -  Allgemeines

Arbeits-verhalten

Teacher learning -  Innovation and

development -  Professional

careers -  Psychological

well-being

Use of opportunities of

learn

Professional competencies

-  Knowledge -  Beliefs -  Motivational

characteristics -  Self-regulation

skills

Opportunities to learn

Individual pre-requisites cognitive abilities, motivation, personality

Professional acting

-  Teaching -  Counceling -  Cooperation -  Working

strategies

Student learning -  Cognitive -  Motivational-

affective

Professional vision as indicator for ability to apply competencies to

professional situations


Model of teacher competencies Baumert & Kunter, 2011

Beliefs Values Goals

Motivational orientation

Self-regulation

Professional knowledge

Aspects of professional competencies

Content Knowledge

Pedagogical-psychological

knowledge

Counceling knowledge

Pedagogical content

knowledge

Organizational knowledge

Competence areas

Knowledge about

student content thinking

Knowledge about tasks

Knowledge about

teaching and

learning processes

Knowledge about

effective classroom manage-

ment

Deep under-

standing of subject content

Explanatory knowledge

Knowledge about

assessment and

evaluation

Competence facets


Professional vision Describes how individuals observe and interpret events and situations specific to their profession (Goodwin, 1994)

Two processes (van Es & Sherin, 2012)

Noticing

Reasoning

...ability to direct attention to situations that are relevant for teaching and learning

...ability to use knowledge about teaching and learning in order to reason about noticed situations


Professional vision: noticing •  paying attention to the complexity of classroom settings

•  necessity to select relevant teaching and learning situations

•  Basis: Teaching effectiveness research

•  Teaching components shown as relevant for student learning (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007)

–  Goal setting and orientation

–  Execution of learning activities

–  Evaluation of learning progress

–  Teacher guidance and support

–  Learning climate

Effects on student learning -  Cognitive -  Motivational-affective

Noticing: ability to direct

attention to situations that represent

instances of effective teaching and learning


•  the ability of teachers to process and interpret classroom situations based on their professional knowledge (Borko, 2004; Sherin, 2007; van Es & Sherin, 2007)

•  provides insights into the quality of teachers’ mental representations and transfer to the classroom context

•  distinguishes three qualitatively different dimensions (Berliner, 1991; Borko & Livingston, 1989; Evertson & Green, 1986; Sherin & van Es, 2009)

Professional vision: reasoning

Describing Explaining Predicting

identify and differentiate between observed events without making any further

judgments

link observed events to conceptual knowledge

about teaching

predict consequences of observed events based on knowledge about effects of

teaching on student learning


Integrated knowledge

Professional vision: structure

Describing

Explaining Predicting

Reasoning Noticing Ø  Structure of

professional vision based on qualitative descriptions

Ø  Learning about

the structure required for modeling teacher learning processes

Diff

icul

ty le

vel


Professional vision in pre-service teacher (PST) education •  Sensitive learning context:

–  initial acquisition of professional knowledge –  quality of knowledge acquisition decisive for continuing learning

•  Fostering pre-service teacher‘s professional vision –  helps to avoid inert knowledge (Blomberg et al., 2011)

–  equips teachers with knowledge and skills to reflect teaching as an element of life-long learning (Santagata & Guarino, 2011)

–  Provides settings for ‚approximations of practice“ (Grossman et al., 2009) and ‚lessons as experiments‘ (Santagata & Yeh, 2012)

Studying pre-service teacher learning of particular importance to improve teaching


Overview







Methodological approaches Qualitative Quantitative •  Prompts: video-based examples, lesson

plans, classroom situations •  Analysis of teacher elaborations while

reflecting upon classroom examples •  Teacher reflections in teacher

professional development groups •  Analysis of changes in noticing and

knowledge-based reasoning over time

•  Prompts: video-based examples, paper-pencil test items

•  Item format -  Multiple-choice -  Ratings / judgments

•  Analysis of solutions -  Correct or incorrect answers -  Comparison to expert norms

Research Contexts: ²  Video club (Sherin, van Es)

²  Lesson analysis framework (Santagata, Stigler, van Es)

²  Problem-Solving Cycle (Borko, Seidel/Gröschner)

²  Adaptive Teaching (Guldimann/Baer/Vogt/Rogalla)

Research Contexts: ²  Pedagogical-content knowledge test (Ball,

Baumert/Kunter)

²  Pedagogical-psychological knowledge -  Paper-pencil test

(Kunter, Voss, Baumert)

-  Video-based judgments (Oser, Seidel/Stürmer/Blomberg)


Example 1: Lesson Analysis Framework

teacher preparation is to equip teachers with knowledge

and skills to continue to learn and improve over time, weneed to consider seriously what that knowledge and skills

entail (Hiebert et al. 2007). Our premise is that we need to

go beyond the teaching of general reflective practices andprovide future teachers with opportunities to learn to reflect

on teaching in disciplined and structured ways.

Building on research by others on teacher noticing (vanEs and Sherin 2002), professional vision (Sherin 2007),

productive reflection on teaching (Davis 2006), and onresearch on lesson analysis conducted by the first author

(Santagata, Zannoni, & Stigler 2007; Santagata & Angelici

2010), we consider as fundamental skills for reflecting andlearning from teaching the ability: (a) to attend to impor-

tant elements of instruction, (b) to reason about these ele-

ments in integrated ways, and (c) to propose alternativeinstructional strategies. To assist teachers in developing

these skills, we have designed a framework that we use to

guide their analyses of teaching.

2.1 The Lesson Analysis Framework

The Lesson Analysis Framework (Santagata, Zannoni, &

Stigler 2007; Santagata & Angelici 2010) includes ele-

ments of reflection on teaching typical of Lesson Studygroups (Lewis and Tsuchida 1998). It also resembles and is

informed by the work conducted by Hiebert, Morris, and

Glass (2003) on lessons as experiments. The frameworkcenters the analysis of teaching on classroom lessons,

which represent natural units in the process of teaching

(Hiebert et al. 2007; Santagata et al. 2007). It consists of aseries of questions that guide teachers through a process of

lesson analysis.

The first question asks PSTs to analyze the lessonlearning goals: What are the main ideas that students are

supposed to understand through this lesson? PSTs then

move to the analysis of student learning by attending to thefollowing questions: Did the students make progress

toward the learning goals? What evidence do we have that

the students made progress? What evidence do we havethat students did not make progress? What evidence are we

missing? Analyzing the particulars of student learning and

understanding as evidenced in the lesson lead PSTs to thenext question, focused on the impact of teachers’ decisions

on student learning: Which instructional strategies sup-

ported students’ progress toward the learning goals andwhich did not? This sort of reasoning on teaching and

learning is typical of expert teachers (Berliner 2001; Borko

& Livingston 1989). It also integrates various elements ofteaching (i.e., learners and learning, subject matter

knowledge, assessment, and instruction) supporting what

Davis (2006) calls ‘‘productive reflection.’’ This processalso assists in teaching in ways that are responsive to

student learning as recommended by reform efforts

(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 2000; Smith1996).

Finally, building on the analysis of the cause–effect

relationship between teaching and learning, PSTs areasked: what alternative strategies could the teacher use?

How do you expect these strategies to impact on students’

progress toward the lesson learning goals? If any evidenceof student learning was missing, how could the teacher

collect such evidence? The generation of alternatives is animportant element of the framework because it serves as a

link between reflection on practice and action on practice

(van Es & Sherin 2002). Although this phase of theframework can be challenging for novices with a limited

knowledge of teaching strategies, we believe it is important

for PSTs to develop the habit of considering alternatives. Astudy by Kersting, Givvin, Sotelo, & Stigler (2010) found

that more effective teachers were better at proposing

alternative strategies to those observed in video clips thanteachers who were not as effective in terms of student

learning.

Figure 1 summarizes the main elements of the LessonAnalysis Framework.

2.2 Previous research on the use of the Lesson AnalysisFramework

Previous research on the use of the Lesson AnalysisFramework as a tool for developing PSTs’ lesson analysis

skills has provided promising results. Three studies were

conducted with PSTs enrolled in a secondary teacherpreparation program at an Italian university. The first two

studies (Santagata, Zannoni, & Stigler 2007) included a

pre-/post-test design and utilized a similar intervention.The second study replicated findings from the first. PSTs

were introduced to the Lesson Analysis Framework and

practiced using it with three videotaped lessons. Theirability to analyze teaching was measured prior to and on

Fig. 1 Lesson Analysis Framework

134 R. Santagata, J. Guarino

123

Author's personal copy

2007). Figure 2 summarizes the orientations, knowledge,

and skills we hypothesize are necessary to analyze lessonseffectively.

3 Using video to develop analysis skills

Video constituted the main artifact of practice we used todevelop PSTs’ analysis skills. Several authors have inves-

tigated the benefits of using video as a tool for PSTlearning. For brevity, we summarize here their main find-

ings. Video has been found to promote elaborated reflec-

tion on teaching (Star & Strickland 2008; van Es & Sherin2002; Wang & Hartley 2003). Videotaped lessons and

interviews with students have been used effectively to

focus PSTs’ attention on student thinking (Franke, Car-penter, Levi, & Fennema 2001; Herrington et al. 1998;

Jacobs, Lamb, & Philipp 2010; Santagata et al. 2007;

Towers 1998; van Es & Sherin 2006). Finally, video caseshave been used successfully to assist PSTs in learning

classroom practices aligned with recent recommendations

that otherwise they seldom have opportunities to observeduring their fieldwork experiences (Barron & Goldman

1996; Carlson and Falk 1991; Merkley and Jacobi 1993;

van Es & Sherin 2006).

3.1 Types of video

We have built on the body of literature summarized above

to design video-based activities to be included in the

‘‘Learning to Learn from Mathematics Teaching’’ course.In this section, we will describe the different kinds of

videos we used, the purposes they served (i.e., the sub-

skills they were intended to support), and the types ofactivities in which they were incorporated.

3.1.1 Videos of interviews with individual children

At the beginning of the course, we used videos of inter-views with individual students. We used two published

resources: the video clips included in the book ‘‘Children’s

Mathematics: Cognitive Guided Instruction’’ by Carpenteret al. (1999) and the ‘‘Integrating Mathematics and Peda-

gogy’’ video clips by Philipp and Cabral (2005).

The main purpose of using these clips was to developPSTs’ appreciation of the complexity of students’ mathe-

matical thinking and ability, to attend to students, and to

draw inferences about their mathematical understanding.Although these orientation and abilities can be developed

also in the context of the analysis of a classroom lesson,

interviews with individual students allow novices to focuson student thinking without too many distractions typical

of more complex classroom environments. We thus used

these clips at the beginning of the course and then transi-tioned to the analysis of students’ thinking as portrayed in

videos of classroom lessons.

In addition, the IMAP clips were used to introduce keymathematical ideas related to fractions before PSTs were

asked to analyze the video of a fraction lesson. We thought

that using clips that show children’s misconceptions mightbe a good way to address similar conceptions in PSTs

(Philipp and Cabral 2005). We, as many others involved in

elementary teacher preparation, had to deal with PSTs’limited mathematical understanding (Ball 1990; Ma 1999).

The first clip illustrated the role of the unit in fraction

problems. We believed that for some PSTs, this would bethe first time they realized that the unit of reference when

working with fractions is crucial. The second IMAP clip

showed how understanding of the meaning of fractionsallowed a second grader to solve a fraction problem

involving adding unlike fractions she had never seen

Fig. 2 Orientations andanalysis, planning, andenactment abilities


123


PST learning context:

Santagata & Guarino, 2011

Qualitative analysis of PST professional vision with regard to


Example 2: Observer

Seidel, Stürmer & Blomberg, 2011

Descrip(on+

Explana(on+

Predic(on+

Goal+clarity+

Teacher+Support+

Learning+Climate+

No(cing+ Knowledge@based+Reasoning+

Video clips 2-4 minutes Content: goal clarity, teacher support, learning climate

Format: Rating items Referring to knowledge-based reasoning 4-point likert scale Expert judgment: 1= hit, 0 = miss Integration of video and rating items in online-tool Duration: ca. 90 min


Example 2: Observer

https://ww3.unipark.de/uc/observer_engl/demo/kv//




Example 2: Observer

Seidel, Stürmer & Blomberg, 2011

Descrip(on+

Explana(on+

Predic(on+

Goal+clarity+

Teacher+Support+

Learning+Climate+

No(cing+ Knowledge@based+Reasoning+

Video clips 2-4 minutes Content: goal clarity, teacher support, learning climate

Format: Rating items Referring to knowledge-based reasoning 4-point likert scale Expert judgment: 1= hit, 0 = miss Integration of video and rating items in online-tool Duration: ca. 90 min

Scaling: IRT-models 4 scores: PV total, description, explanation, prediction


•  Comparison of models by IRT model testing

•  Model with 3-dimension shows best fit indices

Observer: IRT Scaling Results

PV

Description

Explanation

Prediction

PV

Description Explanation/Prediction

PV

Description/Explanation/Prediction


Observer: item difficulty

Scaling-Study: N=151; Seidel, Stürmer & Blomberg, 2012

Increasing difficulty for more complex sub-components


Observer: stability of measurement

Ø  High stability over time with differing intervals Ø  No learning without further instruction or support Ø  Observer as a measure to study PST development

Scaling-Study: N=151; Seidel, Stürmer & Blomberg, 2012


Summary

•  Significant advances in the development of measures for teacher competencies

•  Professional vision: research and methodology in PST education is developing

•  Structure of professional vision: –  Noticing as an important element to study selective attention

–  Reasoning as an indicator for the quality of knowledge acquisition


Overview







PST‘s professional vision abilities

Without instruction pre-service teachers are •  not able to direct attention to

relevant teaching and learning elements of classroom instruction (Star & Strickland, 2008)

•  tend to follow intuitive and naïve beliefs (Hammerness et al., 2002)

•  tend to provide fast judgments and overgeneralizations (Schwindt, 2008)


Development of PST professional vision With instruction pre-service teachers •  Learn to direct attention and to

notice relevant situations (Star & Strickland, 2008)

•  Are better able to use precise descriptions of observed events (Santagata & Guarino, 2011)

•  Learn to use knowledge about teaching and learning to explain and predict classroom situations (Stürmer, Könings and Seidel, 2012)


Development of PST professional vision Study: Stürmer, Seidel & Schäfer, 2012 Sample: N=109 PST, Teacher Education Program, University of Jena, Germany Gender: female 65.5% Age: M=21.4; SD=1.42 Number of study terms: M=4.95; SD=0.21 Number of attended courses: educational sciences M = 7.01; SD = 2.90

teaching and learning: M = 2.55; SD = 1.12


Development of PST professional vision Study: Stürmer, Seidel & Schäfer, 2012 Design:

(1) goal clarity

(2) teacher support

(3) learning climate

winter term 2009/10

video-based courses on effective teaching and learning components

practical experiences in schools

Protocols of observed lessons Observer Observer

1. week 16. week


Development of PST professional vision Study: Stürmer, Seidel & Schäfer, 2012 Results: differential effects for low and high entry level of PST

** * ** **


Development of PST professional vision Study: Stürmer, Seidel & Schäfer, 2012 Results: qualitative analysis of observation protocols

“[The teacher] welcomes students, [he] instructs students about using the burner, [and] asks students which failed the burner test to come in front of class (teacher activities); [the students] alert listening, students which failed the burner test come in front of class (student activities); [I think] the burner test wasn’t estimated, students which failed the burner test were already informed by the teacher (thoughts).”

“[The teacher] welcomes students, [he] repeats the content of the last

lesson and asks the students for their records; [the teacher] hands out worksheets with a gap-text [In

my opinion] that should serve for repeating and consolidating the

content of the last lesson (teacher activities); [the students]

listen, take the worksheet and start to fill out the text (student

activities);[I think] the aim of the activity is to secure the results of

the last lesson (thoughts).”


Overview







•  Studies indicate individual differences as well as differential developments

•  Professional vision as knowledge-guided process influenced by (Stürmer, Könings & Seidel, 2011)

–  Pre-knowledge in teaching and learning –  Interest in teaching and learning –  Self-concept of ability

•  Socialization in teacher education programs –  e.g. social sciences versus math/science (Blomberg, Stürmer & Seidel, 2011)

Student capacities and professional vision


Student capacities and professional vision Study: Stürmer, Könings, & Seidel 2012

Sample: - N=55 PST, Teacher Education Program, University of Jena - Gender: female 63.6%; Age: M=20.7; SD=2.10 - Number of study terms: M=2.31; SD=2.23 - Sample comparative to 443 PST enrolled in introductory lecture

Design: Data collection in lecture ‚principles of teaching and learning‘

Instruments: Independent variables: -  Pre-Knowledge: Number of courses on teaching and learning -  Interest: interest in educational studies, interest in teaching and learning -  Self-concept of ability: teaching-related self-concept (career choice)

Dependent variables -  Observer: PV total, description, explanation, prediction


Student capacities and professional vision Dependent variable Independent variable F R2 ∆ R2 B SE B ß

Professional vision (total)

Number of courses in teaching and learning

8.01** .26 -.04 .12 .04 .36**

Interest in teaching and learning

.54 .25 .29*

Description Teaching-related self-concept (career choice)

6.40* .12 -.05 .62 .24 .35*

Explanation Number of courses in teaching and learning

11.34** .34 -.03 .11 .04 .33*

Interest in teaching and learning

.79 .25 .40**

Prediction Number of courses in teaching and learning

12.05** .21 -.04 .19 .05 .46**


Conclusions (1)  Professional vision is systematically related to

students’ entry capacities (2)  Professional vision is a process which seems to be

guided through specific knowledge of teaching and learning, combined with topic-specific interest

(3)  Student capacities and their influence on individual PST developments should be studied in more detail and specifically fostered in PST education

Student capacities and professional vision


Overview







Design of learning environments for PST Core Instructional Components (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007)

(1)  Constructive active learning, higher-order learning processes

(2)  Content-specific targets teacher professional knowledge facets

(3)  Social learning in a community of students

(4)  Goal directed related to specific learning goals

(5)  Evaluative self-evaluation, formative and summative assessment

(6)  Regulative fosters self-regulation of learners


Design of learning environments for PST Example: Effects of educational courses on PST professional vision (Stürmer, Könings, & Seidel, 2012)

Sample: 3 compulsory ‚teaching and learning‘ courses

(1)  Video teaching and learning course: N = 16 (2)  Nature of learning processes: N = 16 (3)  Hot topics of instruction: N = 21

Courses comparable with regard to Core Instructional Components however variation in content-specificity No significant differences in student characteristics: female: 66 %; age: M=22.89, SD = 3.71; academic half year: M = 7.54, SD =1.83 Design: Observer instrument as pre- and post-test measure



Pre-Post-Main Effect: Description: F (1, 52) = 27.08** ; p = < .01 ; n2 = .34; Pre-Post-Main Effect: Explanation: F (1, 52) = 26.44**; p = < .01 ; n2 = .34; Pre-Post-Main Effect: Prediction: F (1, 52) = 36.19**; p = < .01; n2 = .41



Conclusions (1) Educational courses showed positive effects on development of

professional vision

(2) Specific effects of content-specificity on sub-dimensions of professional vision

(3) Findings have implications for the specific design of learning environments: Professional vision can be trained and developed specifically


Design of learning environments for PST Example: Learning to Learn from Mathematics Teaching (LLMT) (Santagata & Guarino, 2011; Santagata & Yeh, 2012)

teacher preparation is to equip teachers with knowledge

and skills to continue to learn and improve over time, weneed to consider seriously what that knowledge and skills

entail (Hiebert et al. 2007). Our premise is that we need to

go beyond the teaching of general reflective practices andprovide future teachers with opportunities to learn to reflect

on teaching in disciplined and structured ways.

Building on research by others on teacher noticing (vanEs and Sherin 2002), professional vision (Sherin 2007),

productive reflection on teaching (Davis 2006), and onresearch on lesson analysis conducted by the first author

(Santagata, Zannoni, & Stigler 2007; Santagata & Angelici

2010), we consider as fundamental skills for reflecting andlearning from teaching the ability: (a) to attend to impor-

tant elements of instruction, (b) to reason about these ele-

ments in integrated ways, and (c) to propose alternativeinstructional strategies. To assist teachers in developing

these skills, we have designed a framework that we use to

guide their analyses of teaching.

2.1 The Lesson Analysis Framework

The Lesson Analysis Framework (Santagata, Zannoni, &

Stigler 2007; Santagata & Angelici 2010) includes ele-

ments of reflection on teaching typical of Lesson Studygroups (Lewis and Tsuchida 1998). It also resembles and is

informed by the work conducted by Hiebert, Morris, and

Glass (2003) on lessons as experiments. The frameworkcenters the analysis of teaching on classroom lessons,

which represent natural units in the process of teaching

(Hiebert et al. 2007; Santagata et al. 2007). It consists of aseries of questions that guide teachers through a process of

lesson analysis.

The first question asks PSTs to analyze the lessonlearning goals: What are the main ideas that students are

supposed to understand through this lesson? PSTs then

move to the analysis of student learning by attending to thefollowing questions: Did the students make progress

toward the learning goals? What evidence do we have that

the students made progress? What evidence do we havethat students did not make progress? What evidence are we

missing? Analyzing the particulars of student learning and

understanding as evidenced in the lesson lead PSTs to thenext question, focused on the impact of teachers’ decisions

on student learning: Which instructional strategies sup-

ported students’ progress toward the learning goals andwhich did not? This sort of reasoning on teaching and

learning is typical of expert teachers (Berliner 2001; Borko

& Livingston 1989). It also integrates various elements ofteaching (i.e., learners and learning, subject matter

knowledge, assessment, and instruction) supporting what

Davis (2006) calls ‘‘productive reflection.’’ This processalso assists in teaching in ways that are responsive to

student learning as recommended by reform efforts

(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 2000; Smith1996).

Finally, building on the analysis of the cause–effect

relationship between teaching and learning, PSTs areasked: what alternative strategies could the teacher use?

How do you expect these strategies to impact on students’

progress toward the lesson learning goals? If any evidenceof student learning was missing, how could the teacher

collect such evidence? The generation of alternatives is animportant element of the framework because it serves as a

link between reflection on practice and action on practice

(van Es & Sherin 2002). Although this phase of theframework can be challenging for novices with a limited

knowledge of teaching strategies, we believe it is important

for PSTs to develop the habit of considering alternatives. Astudy by Kersting, Givvin, Sotelo, & Stigler (2010) found

that more effective teachers were better at proposing

alternative strategies to those observed in video clips thanteachers who were not as effective in terms of student

learning.

Figure 1 summarizes the main elements of the LessonAnalysis Framework.

2.2 Previous research on the use of the Lesson AnalysisFramework

Previous research on the use of the Lesson AnalysisFramework as a tool for developing PSTs’ lesson analysis

skills has provided promising results. Three studies were

conducted with PSTs enrolled in a secondary teacherpreparation program at an Italian university. The first two

studies (Santagata, Zannoni, & Stigler 2007) included a

pre-/post-test design and utilized a similar intervention.The second study replicated findings from the first. PSTs

were introduced to the Lesson Analysis Framework and

practiced using it with three videotaped lessons. Theirability to analyze teaching was measured prior to and on

Fig. 1 Lesson Analysis Framework


123



Design of learning environments for PST Example: Learning to Learn from Mathematics Teaching (LLMT) (Santagata & Yeh, 2012)

Results: Post-test scores for PST quality of analyzing classroom video, comparison of LLMT versus NON-LLMT group

1

LLMT (N=12)

NON-LLMT (N=12)

Low Sophistication Student thinking only minimally visible

1 5

Medium Sophistication Student thinking made visible

3 5

High Sophistication Student thinking made visible and pursued

8 2

Table 4. Ability to make student thinking visible and to pursue student thinking during teaching

by group.

LLMT (N=12)

NON-LLMT (N=12)

Low Sophistication Teacher Focused 0 7

Medium Sophistication General focus on students

4 3

High Sophistication Math-specific focus on students

8 2

Table 5. Ability to use evidence of student learning to assess successes in teaching by group.

LLMT (N=12) NON-LLMT (N=12)

Low Sophistication Teacher Focused 0 6

Medium Sophistication General focus on students

3 3

High Sophistication Math-specific focus on students

9 3

Table 6. Ability to use evidence of student learning to assess missed opportunities in teaching by

group.

)LQGLQJV�WDEOH


Conclusions & future directions Professional vision as an important objective in PST education

Initial acquisition of professional knowledge and professional vision Long-term studies to describe PST development

Individual differences and differential effects

Implications for student selection Adaptive learning environments in pre-service

Design of learning environments for PST

Integrating knowledge from instructional design Contributions to Higher Education Research


Thank you for your attention

[email protected]


Development of PST professional vision Study: Stürmer, Seidel & Schäfer, 2012 Results: differential effects for low (lowest) and high (highest quartile) entry level students

** ** ** **

Documents

Fostering Professional Vision in Pre-Service Teacher Education · 2012-06-27 · Fostering Professional Vision in Pre-Service Teacher Education Tina Seidel Friedl Schöller Endowed