Session Information
10 SES 05.5 PS, General Poster Session - NW 10
General Poster Session
Contribution
The national debate of improving the teacher education in Germany is characterized by the demand of combining university-based training with early field experiences (Hascher, 2005). According to this debate the described project is orientated on combining the theory-based education with practical experience (Nordmeier et al., 2014). In science teacher education concepts of Teaching and Learning Laboratories (TLL) are already entrenched as an essential link between theory-based education and practical experience at the university (Rehfeldt et al., 2017). In the TLL teacher trainees develop theory-based learning environments which are iterative approved in university space with visiting students and embedded in reflective session to evaluate and develop the learning environments (Rehfeldt et al., 2017).
Teaching and Learning Laboratory (TLL-E) for training of elementary school preservice teachers (EPT) is theoretically framed by two factors. As a first reference framework serves the model of professional knowledge which consists of pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge and pedagogical-content knowledge (Shulman, 1987; Baumert & Kunter, 2006). The concept of Inquiry Based Science Learning (IBSL) constitutes the second theory on which the TLL-E was conceptualized (Köster & Galow, 2014; Labudde & Börlin, 2013, Benchi & Bell, 2008). Additionally, reflective skills are regarded a crucial component in the development of teacher professionalism (Artmann et al., 2013). Therefore, the TLL-E poses a suitable training environment for EPTs, as reflections on theory and authentic field experiences are enabled which, in turn, might foster subject-specific knowledge in teacher trainees (Kolbe, 2004).
According to these theories and consistent with other TLLs (i.e. English, History, and Physics) the TLL in Primary Education adapt the conceptualization of TLLs by Rehfeldt and colleagues (2017). The TLL-E is structured by eight steps:
(1) Exploring a physical-scientific phaenomenon
(2) Theory input (e.g. design criteria of an IBSL-environment)
(3) Design of IBSL- environment for practice activities
(4) Field practice and participatory observation 1
(5) Reflective session 1
(6) Modification and optimization of the IBSL-settings
(7) Field practice and participatory observation 2
(8) Reflective session 2
The EPTs are exploring a Physics’ phenomenon (e.g. magnetism, electricity, optics, or mechanics) (1) to expand their content knowledge (CK). Theoretical input for an IBSL-based design of learning environments is further presented by the instructor (2). Based on the aforementioned theory, hence, pedagogical-content knowledge (PCK), the learning environments are designed (3) and explored in practice by the EPTs. Modifications and optimizations of learning settings (6) are derived from peer observations of student activities during field practice (4) as well as the first reflective session (5).
In the TLL-E, IBSL can be experienced by EPTs on three levels. First in process of exploring a physical-scientific phenomenon on an “open inquiry level” (Köster & Galow, 2014; Banchi & Bell, 2008; Spronken-Smith, 2012). Secondly, as part of the process of design and re-modification of learning environments respective of Design-Based-Research (Reinmann, 2005). On the third level, IBSL is implemented as Action Research based (Ralle & Di Fuccia, 2013) on student’s field studies as part of the peer observations. In sum, the TLL-E can be classified as an IBSL-based learning environment for the EPTs. Appropriate to these approaches the following questions are deduced:
To which extent are EPTs…
(a) …able to explore a Physics’ phenomenon in the TLL-E to expand their content knowledge?
(b) …able to transform theory into PCK to design and modify a learning environment?
(c) … able to use information from peer observations to reflect on their learning environments and to modify them accordingly?
Method
The research questions mentioned above are explored in an explorative-qualitative design. To answer research question (a) EPT´s concept maps are utilized to gather data on the development of their content knowledge. These Concept Maps are created at the beginning and end of EPT´s scientific research process (1) (Graf, 2014, 330). Concept maps are considered appropriate instruments for the approximation of individual knowledge structures and their modifications (Stracke, 2004). For the assessment of EPT´s concept maps, we pursue the qualitative analysis proposed by Kinchin & Hay (2000). Within this approach, focus on and description of single aspects of the respective concept maps is allowed. Compared to quantitative approaches, this method enables quality-orientated interpretation of EPT´s content knowledge (Stracke, 2004; Kinchin & Hay, 2000). During the course of the TLL-E, teacher trainees are further asked to create portfolios. Portfolios contain EPT´s descriptions of their research process, their IBSL-based learning environment design as well as EPT’s reflection essays (Ziegelbauer et al., 2013). On the basis of this portfolio, the development of EPT´s PCK, teaching and reflective skills (Abels, 2011) with respect to IBSL is traced conducting a Qualitative Content Analysis (Mayring, 2015). Aiming at subject-specific aspects, categories are derived inductively from EPT´s portfolios.
Expected Outcomes
For a first investigation, twelve portfolios were randomly selected and analysed. The evaluation of concept maps indicates an increase in content knowledge indicated by more frequent occurrences of differentiated scientific ideas. Regarding this the first Concept maps are characterized by singular knowledge arranged as spoke structures without links between the concepts. In the later Concept maps linked concepts (chain and net structures) can be interpreted as development of content knowledge (Kinchin and Hay, 2000). Analysis of the portfolios further hints towards a reduced self-concept with respect to Natural Sciences. EPTs focused on content goals rather than on training learner’s skills. Eventually, teacher trainees also adapted their learning environments as result of information gained from learner observations. According to portfolio analysis results, a quantitative test adaptation to prove the self-concept of Natural Sciences with a quantitative approach is planed (Urahne & Hopf, 2004). The results are limited by the small number of analysed PT´s portfolios and can not be generalize.
References
Artmann, M., Herzmann, P., Hoffmann, M. & Proske, M. (2013): Wissen über Unterricht. Zur Reflexionskompetenz von Studierenden in der ersten Phase der Lehrerbildung. In: A. Gehrmann (Hrsg.), B. Kranz, S. Pelzmann & A. Reinartz (Hrsg.): Formation und Transformation der Lehrerbildung. Entwicklungstrends und Forschungsbefunde. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, 134-150. Banchi, H. & Bell, R. (2008): The Many Levels of Inquiry. Science and Children, 46 (2), 26-29. Baumert, J. & Kunter (2006): Baumert, J. & Kunter, M. (2006): Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. In Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 4/2006, 469 – 520. Graf, D. (2014): Concept Mapping als Diagnosewerkzeug. In: Krüger, D.,Parchmann, I., Schecker, H. (Hrsg.) (2014): Methoden der naturwissenschafts-didaktischen Forschung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Kinchin, I.; Hay, D.; Adams, A. (2000): How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. In: Educational Research, Vol. 42, No.1, 43- 57. Kolbe, F.-U. (2004): Verhältnis von Wissen und Handeln. In: Blömeke, S., Reinhold,P., Tulodziecki, G., Wildt, J. (Hrsg.) (2004): Handbuch Lehrerbildung. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Köster, H. & Galow, P. (2014): Forschendes Lernen initiieren. Hintergründe und Modelle offenen Experimentierens. Unterricht Physik, 25 (2014), 144, 24-26. Labudde, P. & Börlin, J. (2013): Inquiry-Based Learning: Versuch einer Einordnung zwischen Bildungsstandards, Forschungsfeldern und PROFILES. In S. Bernholt (Hrsg.): Inquiry-based Learning – Forschendes Lernen, Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik (GDCP), Jahrestagung in Hannover 2012. Bd. 33. Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik, 183-185. Ralle, B. & Di Fuccia, D.-S. (2013): Aktionsforschung als Teil fachdidaktischer Entwicklungsforschung. In: Krüger, D.; Parchmann, I.; Schecker, H.(Hrsg.) (2013): Methoden der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Spektrum. Reinmann, G. (2005): Innovation ohne Forschung? Ein Plädoyer für den Design-Based Research-Ansatz in der Lehr-Lernforschung. Unterrichtswissenschaft 33 (2005) 1, 52-69. Rehfeldt, D.; Klempin, C.; Seibert, D. Mehrtens, T. & Nordmeier, V. (2017): Fächerübergreifende Wirkungen von Lehr-Lern-Laboren: Adaption für die Fächergruppen Englisch, Geschichte und Sachunterricht. In C. Maurer (Ed.). GDCP Jahrestagung 2016. Kiel: IPN. Urahne, D. & HOPF, M. (2004): Epistemologische Überzeugungen in den Naturwissenschaften und ihre Zusammenhänge mit Motivation, Selbstkonzept und Lernstrategien. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 10, 71-87. Ziegelbauer, S., Ziegelbauer, C., Limprecht, S. Gläser-Zirkuda, M. (2013): Bedingungen für gelingende Portfolioarbeit in der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung- empiriebasierte Entwicklung eines adaptiven Portfoliokonzeptes. In: Koch-Priewe, B., Leonhard, Pineker, A., Störtländer, J. (Hrsg.) (2013): Portfolio in der Lehrerbildung. Konzepte und empirische Befunde. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.
Search the ECER Programme
- 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.