09 SES 13 B JS, Developing the Assessment Capacity of Teachers and Intending Teachers: Theory and Practice (Part 1)
Joint Symposium NW 09 and NW 10 to be continued in 09 SES 14 B JS
Agreeing on a minimum consensus that teacher professionalization is not limited to providing teachers with professional knowledge but also with a number of competences including those needed to adapt to constantly changing needs (cf. Zeichner, 2014), potential outcome variables in teacher education research are manifold (Cochran-Smith et al., 2012). Following the logic of a ‘chain of effects’ of teacher education (Frey & Jung, 2011), teachers’ (and student teachers’) competences are important intermediate variables linking the ‘inputs’ of teacher education to outcome variables on the pupil level (such as gains in learning and achievement). While the call for competence orientation in teacher education is not a ‘new’ idea, but has already been raised decades ago (e. g. Dodl, 1973; Deutscher Bildungsrat, 1970), surprisingly little empirical research has specifically focused on teachers’ competences as outcome variables.
In order to evaluate (future) teachers’ competences, it is necessary to first agree upon which competence elements are crucial to the teaching profession. Although a number of EU member countries have, on a national level, issued standards for professional teacher acting, there is still no consensus on a European level (European Commission, 2012). It is our hope that, by exemplarily applying one national (German) set of standards for practical evaluation purposes, researchers from different countries may identify convergence in the contents of competence elements comprising essential teachers’ competences.
Longitudinal monitoring of student teachers’ development of professional pedagogical competence is the focus of the KOSTA (competence and standard orientation in teacher education) project. In KOSTA, student teachers rated (amongst other aspects) the importance of a number of competence elements pertaining to the four broad domains of ‘teaching’, ‘education’, ‘assessment’ and ‘innovation’. The theoretical framework for monitoring specifically these four competence domains was provided by a normative collection of standards for teacher training issued by a national authority on educational matters in Germany (KMK [Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the FRG], 2013). Findings from KOSTA have been reported at earlier ECER conferences and in Schneider & Bodensohn (2014).
In applying a normatively gathered system of standards and the structure of competences proposed therein (namely the conception of the four abovementioned domains), it is necessary to investigate whether this four-domain-model holds true in empirical structural analyses of the student teachers’ importance ratings. A lack of overlap between the normatively proposed and the empirically determined structure of competences would indicate that in practical evaluation, student teachers are forced to look through glasses not fitting their proper vision. This would, in consequence, represent a threat to the validity of the competence ratings.
Based on findings in an earlier competence monitoring project (Schneider & Bodensohn, 2007) applying a different set of standards as proposed by Oser and Oelkers (2001), we expect that there is high agreement on which competences are important in the domains of ‘teaching’, ‘assessment’ and ‘education’. In ‘innovation’, however, we assume that some competence elements (e. g. the readiness to adopt and to incorporate evidence from research on teaching and learning into classroom teaching) might be perceived as comparatively unimportant. These competence elements, however, constitute a key feature in teaching in the 21st century: “So teaching staff nowadays also need the competence needed to constantly innovate and adapt; this includes having critical, evidence-based attitudes, enabling them to respond to students’ outcomes, new evidence from inside and outside the classroom, and professional dialogue, in order to adapt their own practices” (European Commission, 2012, p. 22f.). Thus, relatively low importances assigned to ‘innovation’ competences by student teachers, may ring alarm bells.
Cochran-Smith, M., Cannady, M., McEachern, K. P., Piazza, P., Power, C., & Ryan, A. (2012). Teachers´ Education and Outcomes: Mapping the Research Terrain. Teachers College Record, 114(100301), 1–49. Deutscher Bildungsrat (1970). Strukturplan für das Bildungswesen: Empfehlungen der Bildungskommission. Bonn (Verabschiedet auf der 27. Sitzung der Bildungskommission am 13. Februar 1970). Dodl, N. R. (1973). Selecting Competency Outcomes for Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 24(3), 194–199. doi:10.1177/002248717302400305 European Commission. (2012). Supporting the Teaching Professions for Better Learning Outcomes. Strasbourg. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2012:0374:FIN:EN:PDF Frey, A., & Jung, C. (2011). Kompetenzmodelle, Standardmodelle und Professionsstandards in der Lehrerbildung: Stand und Perspektive [Special issue]. Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand, 4. Landau: Empirische Pädagogik. KMK [Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany] (2013). The Education System in the Federal Republic of Germany 2012/2013 (Excerpt). Retrieved from http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/doc/Dokumentation/Bildungswesen_en_pdfs/teachers.pdf Oser, F., & Oelkers, J. (Eds.). (2001). Die Wirksamkeit der Lehrerbildungssysteme: Von der Allrounderbildung zur Ausbildung professioneller Standards ; Nationales Forschungsprogramm 33, Wirksamkeit unserer Bildungssysteme. Chur: Rüegger. Schneider, C. & Bodensohn, R. (2007). Fachkompetenzen in der Schulpraxis - Zur Bedeutung der Oserschen Standards professionellen Lehrerhandelns für den Berufsalltag und zur Kompetenzeinschätzung in Schulpraktischen Studien der ersten Phase der Lehrerbildung. In D. Flagmeyer (Eds.), Mehr Praxis in der Lehrerbildung - aber wie? Möglichkeiten zur Verbesserung und Evaluation (pp. 149–176). Leipzig: Leipziger Univ.-Verl. Schneider, C., & Bodensohn, R. (2014). Core competences of students in university teacher education and their longitudinal development: First results of the KOSTA study. In K.-H. Arnold, A. Gröschner, & T. Hascher (Eds.), Pedagogical Field Experiences in Teacher Education: Theoretical Foundations, Programmes, Processes, and Effects (pp. 147-163). Münster: Waxmann. Zeichner, K. (2014). The Struggle for the Soul of Teaching and Teacher Education in the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 1–18. doi:10.1080/02607476.2014.956544
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.