10 SES 05.5 PS, General Poster Session - NW 10
General Poster Session
Ongoing national debate about the constituents of teacher professionalism has not reached consensus among researchers in History teacher training up to current date (Sauer, 2013). Therefore, Hericks’ (2006) model of teacher professionalism comprising three dimensions is applied to teacher trainees of History. The model is implemented to trace preservice History teachers’ (PHT) developments in these three dimensions throughout a one-term teacher training course. The course was specifically designed as a so-called “History Lab” for PHTs to acquire theory knowledge about the didactic mediation of History contents, while experiencing field practice in combination with succeeding theory-based reflective sessions. Due to the fusion of theory and practice through reflective sessions in the History Lab, it is hypothesized that PHTs will
(1) start shedding light on practical issues by making more pronounced references towards theoretical frameworks of History teaching
(2) tackle the three dimensions of Hericks’ (2006) developmental tasks as a result of sensitive irritations during field experiences in the History Lab
Multiple strategies to include field practice into university training can by now be found nationwide (Hascher, 2011). However, practice alone (and presented in isolation from theory) is at risk to promote disintegration rather than integration of theoretical knowledge and action (Hascher, 2005, 2011). Thus, a type of practice in teacher training is required which combines theory with practice (Baumert, 2007, S. 8). Additionally, field practice is only assumed to be effective and valuable when being relevant to the preservice teacher and theoretically grounded (Hericks, 2012). The so-called “History Lab”, being an adaptation of the “Teaching and Learning Laboratory/TLL (German: Lehr-Lern-Labor)” format which originates from teacher training in the Natural Sciences (Krofta & Nordmeier, 2014), might pose a setting which conforms with the aforementioned demands. The History Lab enables PHTs to explore various theories about imparting History contents in a safe field environment. Further, exploration of didactic theories by PHTs is encouraged to prevent “unreflected implementation of didactic truisms as rule-based knowledge” (Hericks, 2012, S. 12). Thereby, PHTs will probably experience discrepancies between didactic theories and their beliefs about issues of pedagogical practice. These irritations, then, are assumed to trigger transformative processes with regard to the developmental levels advocated in Hericks’ model of teacher professionalization (2006).
Hericks’ modelof teacher professionalization proves suitable to tackle this challenge, as three developmental tasks (Hericks, 2006) within the individual professionalization of any preservice teacher are proclaimed: 1. Role-finding, 2. Didactic mediation, and 3. Recognition.
According to Hericks (Kunze & Hericks, 2002; Hericks, 2015), tackling those developmental tasks is an infinite process, never fully concluded. Subsequently, specification of the developmental tasks advocated by Hericks is presented:
Firstly, role-finding concerns the in-depth reflection of any kind of predisposition that might have imprinted on the personality and belief system of the PHT in order to develop a professional, hence reflective, teacher persona.
Secondly, didactic mediation takes into account the subject specificity of History contents. History teaching depends on fluid rather than consolidated knowledge which needs to be reflected in constructivist, reflective teaching. In the face of the complexities and peculiarities of the teaching profession, History contents need to be treated and imparted in a sensitive fashion. Reflective practice constitutes a way out of fixed teaching instructions in the face of contingent History contents that may provide History learners with unique educational opportunities while experiencing irritation and/or identification.
Eventually, recognition targets History learners as the main subjects of attention of PHTs. Building awareness in PHTs that learners are the focal point of their teaching aspirations is a prerequisite for History teaching aiming beyond mere reproduction of factual knowledge.
The TLL is a format in teacher training comprising iterative field practices embedded in a regular university-based theory course. The TLL as a History Lab is realised as the following seven-step structure: (1) Theory input (History teaching theory) (2) Peer-guided preparation of field practice activities (3) Field practice 1 (4) Reflective session 1 (5) Adaptation and modification of field activities (6) Field practice 2 (7) Reflective session 2 The effectiveness of the History Lab with regard to the developmental tasks of the PHTs is systematically investigated based on a quasi-experimental research design (GFD, 2016). Examinations occur in the research paradigm of Mixed Methods (Kuckartz, 2014) for the intersection of qualitative and quantitative data. Because of the two types of data being recorded at the same time it is referred to as a “parallel design” (Kuckartz, 2014a, S. 73). This allows for the complementation of both partial studies (Kuckartz, 2014, S. 58). For the quantitative data (which are not part of this abstract), a distinction between experimental (EG) and control group (CG) is made. For the qualitative data material, group interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed with a Qualitative Content Analysis (Kuckartz, 2016). Group interviews were utilized to determine mutual consensus of coders (Lamnek, 2005, S. 56). In sum, more than 15 focus group interviews covering three semesters were conducted with the same interview guideline
During the process of Qualitative Content Analysis, a category system developed inductively and deductively. The category system constitutes four generic main categories and 31 sub-categories. Most categories evolved a priori, the remaining emerged from the data material. The first three generic categories represent the three developmental tasks (role finding, didactic mediation, and recognition) of Hericks based on the requirements of the subject History. The fourth category reproduces effects of field practice during the History Lab. Through several expert ratings of two double-blinded coders, an “almost perfect” (K = 0.74; K = 0.88) intercoder-reliability (cf. Kuckartz, 2016, 206) was measured. The analytical process is ongoing with nine out of 15 interviews having been successfully coded and evaluated. Therein, more than 1000 statements could be assigned to the four generic categories. It can be concluded that all focal interview groups analyzed so far (nine out of 15 interviews were coded) have elaborated on the three development tasks by Hericks. However, preliminary analyses indicate inter-group differences with regard to quantity and quality ofelaboration. I hope to be able to derive from these BA´s history teacher student statements developmental tasks of professionalization for history didactics. Therefore, at the ECER-conference I would like to give an overview of my research process and the category system derived from the qualitative data material. Further, I plan to explain group differences with respect to potential effects stimulated by the design of the History Lab.
Baumert, J. (2007). Ausbildung von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Empfehlungen der Expertenkommission zur Ersten Phase. http://www.aqas.de/downloads/Lehrerbildung/Bericht_Baumert-Kommission.pdf. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520. Hascher, T. (2005). Die Erfahrungsfalle. Journal für LehrerInnenbildung, 5(1), 39–45. Hascher, T. (2011). Vom „Mythos Praktikum“. Abgerufen 11. Oktober 2016, von http://sowiport.gesis.org/search/id/fis-bildung-954180 Hericks, U. (2006). Professionalisierung als Entwicklungsaufgabe: Rekonstruktionen zur Berufseingangsphase von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern (1. Aufl). Wiesbaden: VS, Verl. für Sozialwiss. Hericks, U. (2012, Juni 27). Wie werden Lehrerinnen und Lehrer professionell – und was kann Lehrerbildung dazu beitragen? Abgerufen von https://www.uni-marburg.de/fb21/aktuelles/news/studiumgenerale/27.06.12I.pdf Hericks, U. (2015). Wie werden Lehrerinnen und Lehrer professionell - und was kann universitäre Lehrerbildung dazu beitragen? Zeitschrift für sportpädagogische Forschung, 3(2), S. 5-18. 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. (Bd. 13). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Abgerufen von http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93267-5 Kuckartz, U. (2016). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (3., überarbeitete Auflage). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Kunze, I., & Hericks, U. (2002). Entwicklungsaufgaben von Lehramtsstudierenden, Referendaren und Berufseinsteigern. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 5(3), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-002-0058-y Lamnek, S. (2005). Gruppendiskussion: Theorie und Praxis (2., überarb. und erw. Aufl). Weinheim: Beltz. Sauer, M. (2013). Zur Professionalisierung von Geschichtslehrerinnen und Geschichtslehrern. Einführung in ein Tagungsthema. In S. Popp, M. Sauer, B. Alavi, M. Demantowsky, & A. Kenkmann (Hrsg.), Zur Professionalisierung von Geschichtslehrerinnen und Geschichtslehrern (S. 19–38). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Abgerufen von http://www.v-r.de/de/zur_professionalisierung_von_geschichtslehrerinnen_und_geschichtslehrern/t-0/1010683/ Terhart, E. (2011). Lehrerberuf und Professionalität. Gewandeltes Begriffsverständnis - neue Herausforderungen. (K. Priem, Hrsg.). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Thiel, F., & Blüthmann, I. (2009). Ergebnisse der Evaluation der lehrerbildenden Studiengänge an der Freien Universität Berlin Sommersemester 2009. Freie Universität Berlin. Abgerufen von http://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/qm/verfahren/qualitaetssicherungsverfahren/zentrale-befragungen/lehramtsbefragung/Lehramtsmasterbefragung_2009.pdf
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.