Content-related solution quality in invention activities and worked solutions – promoting the professional vision of classroom management

Year 2022, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 523 - 546, 31.12.2022

Sonja Wedde Annette Busse Dorit Bosse

Abstract

Invention activities and worked solutions are considered to be effective learning tasks. To date, limited research has been conducted regarding these tasks in teacher education and the process of solving these tasks. This study focuses on the solution quality of student teachers’ task solutions. 149 students were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: invention activity and worked solution. The latter group were given a set of categories; the former group had to invent their own categories to compare two constructed contrasting auditive cases with a focus on the subject classroom management. To determine whether it is more effective to compare cases with given categories (worked solution) or with self-generated categories (invention activity), we coded the 149 solutions regarding the content-related solution quality using qualitative content analysis. Students in the worked solution condition demonstrated a significantly higher content-related solution quality than those in the invention activity condition. Thus, it may be assumed that students of the worked solution gained a better conceptual understanding of classroom management through working on this task. Implications for the use of this task format in teacher education are discussed.

Keywords

Content-related solution quality, Invention activities, Worked solutions, Classroom management, Professional vision

References

• Anderson, D. H., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2006). Video-case instruction for teachers of students with problem behaviors in general and special education classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643406021002
• Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers’ ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.005
• Barth, V. L. (2017). Professionelle Wahrnehmung von Störungen im Unterricht. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16371-6
• Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6
• Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312026004473
• Bromme, R. (2001). Teacher expertise. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 15459–15465). Pergamon.
• Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D. C. (1988). Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718803900306
• Chaplain, R. (2008). Stress and psychological distress among trainee secondary teachers in England. Educational Psychology, 28(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701491858
• Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.
• Doyle, W. (2013). Ecological approaches to classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (2nd ed., pp. 97–125). Routledge.
• Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Anderson, L. M. (1980). Effective classroom management at the beginning of the school year. The Elementary School Journal, 80(5), 219–231.
• Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., Clements, B. S., & Worsham, M. E. (1994). Classroom management for secondary teachers (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
• Erickson, F. (2007). Ways of seeing video: Toward a phenomenology of viewing minimally edited footage. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Denny (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 145–155). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., & Worsham, M. E. (2006). Classroom management for elementary school teachers (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Classroom management as a field of inquiry. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp. 3–15). Routledge.
• Glogger-Frey, I., Treier, A.‑K., & Renkl, A. (2022). How preparation-for-learning with a worked versus an open inventing problem affect subsequent learning processes in pre-service teachers. Instructional Science, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09577-6
• Gold, B., Pfirrmann, C., & Holodynski, M. (2020). Promoting professional vision of classroom management through different analytic perspectives in video-based learning environments. Journal of Teacher Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120963681
• Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE.
• Hammond, Z. L. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain. Corwin.
• Häusermann, J. (2010). Zur inhaltlichen Analyse von Hörbüchern. In J. Häusermann, K. Janz-Peschke, & S. M. Rühr (Eds.), Das Hörbuch: Medium - Geschichte - Formen (pp. 139–231). UVK.
• Heemsoth, T., & Kleickmann, T. (2018). Learning to plan self-controlled physical education: Good vs. problematic teaching examples. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.021
• Holmes, N. G., Day, J., Park, A. H. K., Bonn, D. A., & Roll, I. (2014). Making the failure more productive: scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in invention activities. Instructional Science, 42(4), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9300-7
• Junker, R., Gold, B., & Holodynski, M. (2021). Classroom management of pre-service and beginning teachers: From dispositions to performance. International Journal of Modern Education Studies, 5(2), 339–363. https://doi.org/10.51383/ijonmes.2021.137
• Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Thompson, B. J., Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2012). Measuring usable knowledge: Teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 568–589. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212437853
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
• König, J., Blömeke, S., Klein, P., Suhl, U., Busse, A., & Kaiser, G. (2014). Is teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge a premise for noticing and interpreting classroom situations? A video-based assessment approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.004
• Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
• Kunter, M., & Voss, T. (2013). The model of instructional quality. A multicriteria analysis. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 97–124). Springer US.
• Landrum, T. J., & Kauffman, J. M. (2006). Behavioral approaches to classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp. 47–71). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874783.ch3
• Loibl, K., Roll, I., & Rummel, N. (2017). Towards a theory of when and how problem solving followed by instruction supports learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9379-x
• Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 42(3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9282-5
• Martin, N. K., & Sass, D. A. (2010). Construct validation of the behavior and instructional management scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1124–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.12.001
• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. (pp. 31–48). Cambridge University Press.
• Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (12th ed.). Juventa. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2007). Immediate and delayed effects of using a classroom case exemplar in teacher education: The role of presentation format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.194
• Nagarajan, A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2006). Scaffolding learning from contrasting video cases. In S. B. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 495–501). Erlbaum.
• Nagarajan, A., Hmelo-Silver, C., & Chernobilsky, E. (2004). The benefits & challenges of learning from contrasting video cases. In Y. B. Kafai, N. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (p. 624). Erlbaum.
• Oser, F., Näpflin, C., Hofer, C., & Aerni, P. (2012). Towards a theory of negative knowledge (NK): Almost-mistakes as drivers of episodic memory amplification. In J. Bauer & C. Harteis (Eds.), Human fallibility (Vol. 6, pp. 53–70). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3941-5_4
• Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system: Manual. Brookes.
• Piwowar, V., Barth, V. L., Ophardt, D., & Thiel, F. (2018). Evidence-based scripted videos on handling student misbehavior: the development and evaluation of video cases for teacher education. Professional Development in Education, 44(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1316299
• Plöger, W., Krepf, M., Scholl, D., & Seifert, A. (2020). Analytical competence of teachers: Assessing the construct validity by means of mixed methods and drawing consequences for teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 47(2), 134–158.
• Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Outcomes and mechanisms of transfer in invention activities. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 33(33), 2824–2829.
• Schipolowski, S., & Böhme, K. (2016). Assessment of writing ability in secondary education: comparison of analytic and holistic scoring systems for use in large-scale assessments. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 16, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2016.16.01.03
• Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025140
• Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317
• Seidel, T., & Stürmer, K. (2014). Modeling and measuring the structure of professional vision in preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 739–771. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214531321
• Sherin, M. G. (2007). The development of teachers´ professional vision in video clubs. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Denny (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 383–395). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(1), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0007
• Star, J. R., Lynch, K., & Perova, N. (2011). Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ abilities to attend to classroom features. In M. G. Sherin, V. Jacobs, & R. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 117–133). Routledge.
• Stürmer, K., Könings, K. D., & Seidel, T. (2013). Declarative knowledge and professional vision in teacher education: Effect of courses in teaching and learning. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 467–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02075.x
• Stürmer, K., Seidel, T., & Schäfer, S. (2013). Changes in professional vision in the context of practice: Preservice teachers’ professional vision changes following practical experience: A video-based approach in university-based teacher education. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 44(3), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-013-0216-0
• Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022193728205
• Syring, M., Bohl, T., Kleinknecht, M., Kuntze, S., Rehm, M., & Schneider, J. (2015). Videos oder Texte in der Lehrerbildung? Effekte unterschiedlicher Medien auf die kognitive Belastung und die motivational-emotionalen Prozesse beim Lernen mit Fällen. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 18(4), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-015-0631-9
• van den Bogert, N., van Bruggen, J., Kostons, D., & Jochems, W. (2014). First steps into understanding teachers’ visual perception of classroom events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.09.001
• Weber, K. E., Gold, B., Prilop, C. N., & Kleinknecht, M. (2018). Promoting pre-service teachers’ professional vision of classroom management during practical school training: Effects of a structured online- and video-based self-reflection and feedback intervention. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.008
• Wedde, S., Busse, A. & Bosse, D. (under review). Analytical solution quality in invention activities and worked solutions.
• Wedde, S., Busse, A. & Bosse, D. (2021). Zur Wirksamkeit von Invention Actitivities auf das Lernen von Lehramtsstudierenden. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 16(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.3217/zfhe-16-01/03
• Wiedmann, M., Leach, R. C., Rummel, N., & Wiley, J. (2012). Does group composition affect learning by invention? Instructional Science, 40(4), 711–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9204-y
• Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2017). See and tell: Differences between expert and novice teachers’ interpretations of problematic classroom management events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.015
• Wolff, C. E., van den Bogert, N., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2015). Keeping an eye on learning: Differences between expert and novice teachers’ representations of classroom management events. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114549810