Professional error competence of teachers

Transcription

1 Professional error competence of teachers Eveline Wuttke & Jürgen Seifried EAPRIL Challenges in professional learning across the disciplines Lisbon

2 Outline Professional Error Competence of Teachers 2. Method 3. Sample 4. Findings 5. Conclusions & ongoing research

3 Teacher Competences Various teacher competences (Shulman, 1987; Graeber & Tirosh, 2008; Hill, Ball, & Schilling, 2008) Content knowledge Pedagogical content knowledge General pedagogical knowledge Professional teacher competence as a complex construct (Baumert & Kunter, 2006; Desimone, 2009) (content-)knowledge and Beliefs/personal orientations/world views

4 Error competence of teachers (Wuttke & Seifried, 2009) Knowledge (knowing what students know) about domain specific students errors (1) Recognition of students errors (2) Knowledge of potential causes for students errors Strategies (knowing how to act) Effective handling of students errors (1) Discover actual cause of students errors (2) Quality of feedback Beliefs (about inherent benefit of errors) Evaluation of the benefit of dealing with errors during lessons (1) Errors as learning opportunities (2) Errors as obstacles

5 Constructive view and handling of errors Negative knowledge/expertise (Minsky, 1994, Oser & Spychiger, 2005; Parviainen & Eriksson 2006; Gartmeier et al., 2008): Declarative knowledge: knowledge, how something is not Procedural knowledge: knowledge, how something does not work To become aware of your deficits learning processes Processes of reflection and error analysis are crucial! Measures to support learners (Seifried & Wuttke, 2010) Positive error culture Teacher s supportive behavior in class: Teachers have to know how to get to the bottom of errors Teachers have to know how to give constructive and elaborate feedback

6 Outline Professional Error Competence of Teachers 2. Method 3. Sample 4. Findings 5. Conclusions & ongoing research

7 Measurement of PEC (mixed methods) Preliminary study: Identification of typical errors in accounting (Interviews with teacher trainers, teachers and students) Basis for Video vignettes Main study (mixed methods): 1. How do teachers perceive their own knowledge about students errors (self-reports / questionnaire SR EK) 2. Analysis of teachers knowledge about students errors: paper-pencil-test EK 1 Video vignettes & interviews EK 2 Longitudinal study (repeated observations): teacher training at the university practical training career entry after 2 years teaching

8 Outline Professional Error Competence of Teachers 2. Method 3. Sample 4. Findings 5. Conclusions & ongoing research

9 Sample (n = 325) Sample structure: Stage 1: teacher training at university (n = 170) Stage 2: practical training (n = 75) Stage 3: career entry (n = 45) Stage 4: 2 years teaching experience (n = 35)

10 Sample of first findings (n = 182) Sex Stage 1: Teacher training at university (n = 109) Stage 2: Practical training (n = 73) Female Male Age M SD

11 Outline Professional Error Competence of Teachers 2. Method 3. Sample 4. Findings 5. Conclusions & ongoing research

12 Self-Report Self-reports (questionnaire, SR EK) Scale Items Alpha M SD Min Max Diagnosis (1 = full disagreement to 6 = full agreement) Example-Item: I know in which tasks my students usually make errors.

13 Measurement of PEC Paper-pencil-test (EK 1) class-test Participants have to: identify errors correct errors Achievement is measured (Range: 0 until 8 points) Time-limit: 10 min.

14 Measurement of PEC Video vignettes (EK 2) Performance in a simulated error situation Participants have to: identify errors correct errors Achievement is measured (Range: 0 until 5 points)

15 Knowledge about student errors Differences (Stage 1 vs. Stage 2, t-test) Stage 1 Stage 2 M SD M SD t p d SR EK Questionnaire (scale from 1 = disagreement to 6 = agreement) EK 1 Paper-pencil-test (0-8 points) EK 2 Video vignettes (0-5 points) n.s n.s..12

16 Knowledge about student errors Correlations (Pearson, two-tailed tested) SR EK --- SR EK EK 1 EK 1 n.s. EK 2 n.s..38***

17 Outline Professional Error Competence of Teachers 2. Method 3. Sample 4. Findings 5. Conclusions & ongoing research

18 Conclusions & ongoing research Conclusions: SR EK: significant differences (small effect size) EK 1: no significant differences, low score EK 2: no significant differences, low score Ongoing research: Completion of sample Further analysis of PEC-components (knowledge, handling of errors & beliefs) Relation between PEC-components Analysis of variables such as self-efficacy, selfregulation, etc.

19 Back up

20 Video Vignettes & Competence Measurement (1.1) Identification of student errors by questioning experts (1.2) Development of quality criteria for effective handling of student errors (2) Production of video vignettes (Representation of typical error situations) (3) Competence measurement - Knowledge about/diagnosis of student errors - Strategies for handling student errors (4) Quality criteria - knowledge of student errors - knowledge of possible causes of error - Quality of research on the causes of error - Quality of teacher feedback - Ability to justify chosen strategies - Teacher gives concrete indication of solution Direct intervention Work on solution with individual students Work on solution with the whole class No direct intervention Indicate solution is incorrect without further help