Teacher education depends on systematic didactical strategies to manage and overcome the potential gap between theory and practice (Korthagen 2011). Especially so in contexts, in which the education of future teachers is divided into a more theoretical or academic part (i.e. university education) and a subsequent practice-oriented part (i.e. teacher training in schools). Related to this, the German national standards for teacher education request that universities strengthen the element of practical training in the higher education curriculum (KMK, 2019). Such a request corresponds with teacher educations’ aim to foster professional competencies of future teachers. These professional competencies include both cognitive competencies, such as pedagogical psychological knowledge, and motivational-affective competencies, such as motivational orientations and attitudes (Baumert & Kunter, 2006). Research indicates that both of these dimensions of professional competencies are needed to successfully cope with the demands of the future teaching profession (Kleickmann et al., 2013, Schiefele, 2017). One important aspect of pedagogical content knowledge is the teacher’s professional vision of classroom interaction (Blomberg et al., 2013; Sherin, 2007; Seidel & Stürmer, 2014). Within this field, numerous studies in various international teacher education contexts have been conducted, congruently showing that the use of classroom videos in teacher education is a valuable instrument to foster the reflective competencies of pre-service teachers by training them how to observe, describe, and analyze classroom interactions (Blomberg et al. 2013; Krammer et al. 2006; Santagata & Guarino 2011; Sherin 2007). However, to view and discuss these videos in class with one’s students relies on a purposeful didactical design (Seago 2004).

The research project presented in this contribution addresses these crucial points in teacher education by combining the use of classroom videos with the didactical design of a flipped classroom (Willems et al., 2020). 

The inverted (or flipped) classroom model (ICM) seeks to enhance the value of in-class interaction, discussion and collaboration by outsourcing the elements of (teacher-centered) input, knowledge acquisition and self-assessment and thereby allowing for both more detailed, complex and elaborated explanations of the teacher in class as well as more high quality collaborative student learning opportunities (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015; Baker, 2016; O’Flaherty  & Phillips, 2015; Sailer & Figas, 2018). Facilitated by (pre-structured) students’ self-directed individual (or collaborative) preparation, ICM can foster learning processes as well as the interaction in class (and beyond) (Spannagel & Freisleben-Teutscher, 2016). Based on these assumptions, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a flipped classroom seminar into a German Master of Education program within a module called “Teaching and Research on Teaching”. As part of our project called FlipViU: A Flipped Classroom to foster the competence development of pre-service teacher’s professional vision of classroom interaction [Willems et al., 2020; translated from German]), this seminar has been realized, re-designed and continuously re-evaluated since winter term 2019. 

Our contribution, in addition to introducing the didactical design behind FlipViU, seeks to share the findings of the research that frames our project In FlipViU, we investigated both (i) the effect of our ICM concept on the development of the students’ knowledge and motivation and (ii) the students’ perceived quality of the ICM by using a longitudinal pre-post intervention design. Our analyses and discussion will focus on the question, how a flipped classroom design effects the development of students’ knowledge and motivation concerning their professional vision of classroom interaction. 

In FlipViU, a pre-post control group design was used to examine the impact of ICM on various cognitive and motivational-affective characteristics of future teachers. Three different courses were implemented as part of the Master of Education program. (1) An ICM course (intervention group 1, n = 30), in which self-learning material was provided online, including videos, quizzes, self-assessments and feedback, followed up by collaborative classroom meetings (winter 2019/2020). (2) An e-ICM course (intervention group 2, n = 80), in which the identical self-learning material was used, yet the collaborative elements which, in intervention group 1, used to be exclusively in-class elements, were now split into self-organized online group tasks and follow-up meetings in class via video conferences. This implementation was designed as reaction to Covid-19, and realized in summer 2020 and winter 2020/2021. In both groups, the intervention took place over the course of 10 weeks. Within that time frame, three consecutive online self-learning modules were implemented, all of which were followed by cocluding in class meetings (resp. video meetings). Eventually, the last group (3) serves as a control group (n = 102): Here, we used the identical learning material but varied the didactical design: In brief, the learning environment was organized alongside ‘more traditional’ input and discussion phases taking place in class only (winter 2018/2019 until winter 2019/2020). To measure the students’ motivational and cognitive development, standardized questionnaires and tests were administered at two points of measurement: at the beginning of the intervention (tpre) and right after the intervention (tpost). We also designed standardized questionnaires to measure the instructional quality of the intervention and administered them in the middle (tinter) and right after the intervention (tpost). Our presentation will – for the time being – focus on the data obtained via student questionnaires: To assess the students self-reported professional vision of classroom interaction, we designed multiple item scales that measure the facets (i) description (αprä=.72, αpost=.79), (ii) explanation (αprä=.87, αpost=.90), and (iii) prediction (αprä=.91, αpost=.85) as separate dimensions of teachers’ professional vision (Seidel & Stürmer, 2014). To assess the students’ motivational orientation, we used different multiple item scales based on the expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002): Task values were measured using four subscales representing (i) the intrinsic value, (ii) the attainment value, (iii) the utility value, and the (iv) perceived costs. The internal consistencies of the scales are satisfactory to very good (.70 ≤ α ≤ .95).

The introductory confirmatory factor analyses for both the different dimensions of the students self-reported professional vision of classroom interaction and the students’ motivational orientations revealed a good fit of the three- (professional vision) respectively four-factor structure (motivational orientation) (CFI ≥ .96, RMSEA ≤ .05, p(RMSEA) = n.s., χ2/[df] ≤ 3). By conducting repeated measures ANOVAs, we saw an overall significant time effect for all three subscales covering the development of the students’ self-reported professional vision, i.e. students’ on average report higher values at the end of the course compared to the beginning of the course for all three subscales used (description, explanation, prediction). Yet, these developments do not significantly differ between the different experimental groups. On a descriptive level, however, we observe a more favorable development for students’ in the ICM condition (compared to the e-ICM condition and the control group). Concerning the students’ motivational orientation, we do not find significant changes over time. However, we observe that the average students’ motivation in all experimental groups at the beginning of the course was already pretty high, so we might be dealing with ceiling effects here. From a didactical point of view, or data reveals certain differences between the different ICM variations (traditional ICM vs. e-ICM) implemented in our project: Specifically, we find evidence, that the traditional ICM environment is more favorable for student learning than the e-ICM environment realized as distant learning environment. We conclude that the cooperative in-class elements are a vital aspect of ICM which should not be underestimated when designing higher education instructional elements.

Abeysekera, L. & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14. Baker, J. W. (2016). The origins of “the classroom flip”. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Higher Education Flipped Learning Conference (pp. 15-24). Greeley: Colorado. Baumert, J. & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520. Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Gamoran Sherin, M., et al. (2013). Five research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal for educational research online, 5(1), 90-114. Eccles, J. S. & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. In Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 109–132. Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., et al. (2013). Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 90–106. Korthagen, F. A. (2011). Making teacher education relevant for practice: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Orbis scholae, 5(2), 31-50. Krammer, K., Ratzka, N., Klieme, E., et al. (2006). Learning with classroom videos: Conception and first results of an online teacher-training program. ZDM, 38(5), 422-432. Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2019). Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften. Berlin: KMK. O'Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education. The internet and higher education, 25, 85-95. Sailer, M. & Figas, P. (2018). Umgedrehte Hochschullehre. die hochschullehre, 4, 317–338. Santagata, R., & Guarino, J. (2011). Using video to teach future teachers to learn from teaching. ZDM, 43(1), 133-145. Seago, N. (2004). Using video as an object of inquiry for mathematics teaching and learning. In Brophy, J. (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 259-286). Oxford: Elsevier. Seidel, T., & Stürmer, K. (2014). Modeling and Measuring the Structure of Professional Vision in Pre-Service Teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 739-771. Sherin, M. (2007). The development of teachers’ professional vision in video clubs. In R. Goldman et al. (Eds.), Video Research in the Learning Sciences (pp. 383–395). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Spannagel, C. & Freisleben-Teuscher, C. F. (2016). Inverted Classroom meets Kompetenzorientierung. In C. F. Freisleben-Teuscher et al. (Eds.), Kompetenzorientiertes Lehren und Prüfen (pp. 59–69). Brunn: ikon. Willems, A. S., Dreiling, K., Meyer, K. & Thielsch, A. (2020). Inverted Classrooms zur Förderung von forschungs- und praxisbezogenen Kompetenzen in der Lehrer*innenbildung. In G. Brandhofer et a. (Eds.), Inverted Classroom and beyond 2020 (pp. 274-294). Norderstedt: Books on Demand.