10 SES 05.5 PS, General Poster Session - NW 10
General Poster Session
As a result of the alleged “transition shock” (Müller-Fohrbrodt, 1978), preservice teachers (PT) relapse into non-reflective beliefs about learning and teaching after field experiences. Relapse into experience-based assumptions could be approached by professional reflection (Davis, 2006), which is hypothesized to be interrelated with the professionalization of teacher trainees (Körkkö et al., 2016). In this research project, reflectivity is conceptualized as a “conscious process of identifying problematic issues in [...] practice and pursuing solutions that bring about valued effects for student learning” (Kaasila & Lauriala, 2012). students. Thereby, an attempt is specifically made to trigger “productive reflection“ (Davis, 2006) in English language preservice teachers (EPT) following the conjecture that productive reflection reverberates a multi-perspective view and integrated knowledge (Davis, 2006). Further, it is surmised that teacher trainees – engaging in productive reflection – will most likely imbue the complexities of teaching and learning in a more theory-oriented way.
The English Lab was implemented in English language teacher training at Freie Universität Berlin at the Didactics of English as an adaptation of the concept of the “Teaching and Learning Laboratory/TLL (German: Lehr-Lern-Labor)” which has a long-standing tradition in teacher training of the Natural Sciences (Krofta & Nordmeier, 2014). Since its pilot phase in summer term 2016, the English Lab already underwent four iterations (current state: 12-2018). The English Lab serves to develop reflective and teaching skills in PTs of the B.A. English language teacher training program. In order to guarantee comparability, all TLLs designed for the Humanities (i.e. History and Primary Education) as well as Physics are fundamentally based on a mutual conceptualization framework (Rehfeldt et al., 2017). The TLL comprises iterative field practices embedded in a regular university-based theory course. It is realised as the English Lab following a seven-step structure:
(1) Theory input (such as the promotion of English speaking skills)
(2) Peer-guided preparation of field practice activities
(3) Field practice 1
(4) Reflective session 1
(5) Modification of field activities
(6) Field practice 2
(7) Reflective session 2
In the English Lab, EPTs first get introduced to theory on the promotion of English speaking skills (1) (Sambanis, 2007; Thaler, 2014). It is assumed that theory enables them to design short 20-minute-speaking activities (2) for their first field practice (3). These activities are then explored twice with small groups of learners at stations in the English Lab (3 & 6). Following praxis, field experiences are mentally processed through reflection in highly-structured reflective sessions (Barth, 2017; Rodgers, 2002) (4). This particular “reflection-on-action” (Schön, 1983) presents teacher trainees with the opportunity to rationally and thus professionally reminisce on particulars of their teaching (i.e. concerning English language support). Additional theory input along with the analytical framework of the “reflective cycle“ (Rodgers, 2002) are assumed to assist in the development of pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987). Reflective sessions occur in peer-tandems and under constant guidance of the instructor (Kaasila & Lauriala, 2012). Insights from the first reflective session, peer and instructor feedback as well as observation protocols inform activity and instruction modifications (5). Via this seven-step-intervention, epistemic and practical knowledge are hypothesized to gradually become more integrated. Further, it is expected that PTs will pursue reasoning from the learner’s perspective. Along these seven steps, the English Lab aims at providing teacher trainees with early field experience (Makrinus, 2013), whereby theory is supposed to be experienced by EPTs as informing practice through means of reflection (Abels, 2011). Additionally, the English Lab poses an attempt to stimulate a fusion of epistemic knowledge and practical skills in order to transfer into a professional knowledge base that is both informed by theory and practice.
The effectiveness of the English Lab with regard to the development of reflective skills of the English language teacher trainees is systematically investigated based on a quasi-experimental research design (GFD, 2016). Examinations occur in the research paradigm of Mixed Methods (Kuckartz, 2014), specifically in the type of a Mixed Model (Gläser-Zikuda, 2012) for the intersection of qualitative and quantitative data. A distinction is made between experimental (EG) and control group (CG). Instruction quality of EPTs is elicited twice quantitatively after English Lab field experiences (INTER & POST) with self-rating-scales (6-point-Likert) of a questionnaire (adapted based on Drexl, 2013). According to initial hypothesis, positive alterations in professional action of teacher trainees throughout the course of the English Lab are to be traced this way. Eventually, reflective skills of EPTs are captured qualitatively with open written discourse vignettes (Rehm & Bölsterli, 2014). Assessment of EPTs’ vignettes has occurred by means of a Qualitative Content Analysis (Kuckartz, 2016). Inductively, through several expert ratings of two double-blind coders, a category system evolved. Based on the category system, both double-blind coders allotted students’ vignettes to four levels of reflectivity adapted according to Abels (2011). Calculation of mean intercoder reliablility across all times of measurement yielded an “almost perfect” overlap (M Kappa = .82, according to Landis & Koch, 1977).
Quantification of level assignments indicates a more pronounced increase rate in reflective skills for English Lab-participants (d*** = 1.07, N = 50; CI: 0.65; 1.50) as compared to teacher trainees of a comparable control group (d** = .50, N = 31; CI: 0.02; 1.02). The increase in reflective skills of Lab-participants indicates that the design of the English Lab which explicitly links theory with practice through reflective sessions has evinced effectiveness with regard to the promotion of reflective skills of teacher trainees. Currently, statistical analyses proceed on the instructional quality of teacher trainees in the English Lab. Self-evidently, these preliminary results on reflectivity must be considered within measurement uncertainty due to the quasi-experimental design and the small sample size up to current date. Covariate control analyses will occur in the upcoming future.
Abels, S. (2011). LehrerInnen als “Reflective Practitioner.” VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Barth, V. L. (2017). Professionelle Wahrnehmung von Störungen im Unterricht / Victoria L. Barth. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Davis, E. A. (2006). Characterizing productive reflection among preservice elementary teachers: Seeing what matters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(3), 281–301. Drexl, D. (2013). Qualität im Grundschulunterricht Der Einfluss der Elementar- auf die Primarpädagogik. Dordrecht: Springer. Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2012). Mixed Methods in der empirischen Bildungsforschung. Münster: Waxmann. Kaasila, R., & Lauriala, A. (2012). How do pre-service teachers’ reflective processes differ in relation to different contexts? European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 77–89. Körkkö, M., Kyrö-Ämmälä, O., & Turunen, T. (2016). Professional development through reflection in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 198–206. Krofta, H., & Nordmeier, V. (2014). Bewirken Praxisseminare im Lehr-Lern-Labor Änderungen der Lehrerselbstwirksamkeitserwartung bei Studierenden? Kuckartz, U. (2014). Mixed Methods: Methodologie, Forschungsdesigns und Analyseverfahren. (Vol. 13). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Kuckartz, U. (2016). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Kurtz, J. (2001). Improvisierendes Sprechen im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung spontansprachlicher Handlungskompetenz in der Zielsprache. Tübingen: Narr. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. Makrinus, L. (2013). Der Wunsch nach mehr Praxis: Zur Bedeutung von Praxisphasen im Lehramtsstudium. Springer VS, Heidelberg. Müller-Fohrbrodt, G. (1978). Der Praxisschock bei jungen Lehrern: Formen, Ursachen, Folgerungen. Stuttgart: Klett. Rehfeldt, D., Seibert, D., Klempin, C., Mehrtens, T., & Nordmeier, V. (2017). Fächerübergreifende Wirkungen von Lehr-Lern-Labor-Seminaren: Adaption für die Fächergruppen Englisch, Geschichte und Sachunterricht. In. S. Bernholt (Ed.), Implementation fachdidaktischer Innovation im Spiegel von Forschung und Praxis: Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik. Kiel. Rehm, M., & Bölsterli, K. (2014). Entwicklung von Unterrichtsvignetten. In. Methoden in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung. Springer Spektrum, Berlin, Heidelberg, 213–225. Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: teacher change and the role of reflection. In. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253. Sambanis, M. (2007). Sprache aus Handeln: Englisch und Französisch in der Grundschule / Michaela Sambanis. Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action / Donald A. Schön. New York: Basic Books. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. Thaler, E. (2014). Sprech-Kompetenz. In Englisch unterrichten: Grundlagen - Methoden - Kompetenzen (1st ed., pp. 181–188). Berlin: Cornelsen.
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.