Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unterricht

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pädagogische Psychologie

Part of the book series: Springer-Lehrbuch ((SLB))

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Kapitel beleuchtet theoretische Grundlagen unterrichtlichen Lehrens und Lernens und gibt einen Überblick über wichtige Ergebnisse der Unterrichtsforschung. Dabei wird sowohl auf kognitive als auch auf affektiv-motivationale Merkmale von Schulerfolg Bezug genommen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Unter formativem Assessment werden in der Regel Strategien der Lehrperson (standardisierte Tests, informelle Tests, Gespräche, Beobachtungen) zur fortgesetzten, lernprozessbezogenen Diagnostik verstanden, die dazu dienen, Lernstände und Verstehensprozesse der Lernenden offen zu legen und hieraus Impulse (z. B. in Form entsprechender Feedbackmaßnahmen der Lehrperson) zur Förderung der weiteren Entwicklung der Lernenden abzuleiten (Maier, 2010). Der Forschungsstand zum formativem Assessment ist insgesamt noch dünn und fällt uneinheitlich aus (Bennett, 2011; Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009; Maier, 2010; Rakoczy, 2011). Nach einer aktuellen Metaanalyse hat formatives Assessment – im Unterschied zu früheren optimistischeren Einschätzungen (Black & Wiliam, 1998) – nur schwache positive Effekte auf das Lernen von Schülern (Kingston & Nash, 2011).

Literatur

  • Aebli, H. (1976). Grundformen des Lehrens. Eine Allgemeine Didaktik auf kognitionspsychologischer Grundlage. Stuttgart: Klett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aebli, H. (1983). Zwölf Grundformen des Lehrens. Eine Allgemeine Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage. Stuttgart: Klett‐Cotta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfieri, L., Brooks, P., Aldrich, N., & Tenenbaum, H. (2011). Does discovery‐based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student’s learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (2001). Kognitive Psychologie. Heidelberg: Spektrum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arlin, M. (1984). Time, equality and mastery learning. Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. D., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. W. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1974). Psychologie des Unterrichts. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babu, S. & Mendro, R. (2003). Teacher accountability: HLM‐based teacher effectiveness indices in a state assessment program. Chicago: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Verfügbar unter http://www.dallasisd.org/inside_disd/depts/evalacct/research/articles.htm [Mai, 2006]

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test‐like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., Blum, W., & Neubrand, M. (2004). Mathematikunterricht aus Sicht der PISA‐Schülerinnen und ‐Schüler und ihrer Lehrkräfte. In PISA-Konsortium Deutschland (Hrsg.), PISA 2003. Der Bildungsstand der Jugendlichen in Deutschland – Ergebnisse des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs (S. 314–354). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., Roeder, P. M., Sang, F., & Schmitz, B. (1986). Leistungsentwicklung und Ausgleich von Leistungsunterschieden in Gymnasialklassen. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 32(5), 639–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe, & A. Shimamura (Hrsg.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (S. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Hrsg.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (S. 56–64). New York: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Hrsg.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (S. 47–63). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (Hrsg.). (1974). Taxonomie von Lernzielen im kognitiven Bereich (4. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw‐Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumberg, E., Möller, K., & Hardy, I. (2004). Erreichen motivationaler und selbstbezogener Zielsetzungen in einem schülerorientierten naturwissenschaftsbezogenen Sachunterricht – Bestehen Unterschiede in Abhängigkeit von der Leistungsstärke? In W. Bos, E.-M. Lankes, N. Plaßmeier, & K. Schwippert (Hrsg.), Heterogenität. Eine Herausforderung an die empirische Bildungsforschung (S. 41–55). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borich, G. D. (2007). Effective teaching methods: research‐based practic (6. Aufl.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsch, F., Jürgen-Lohmann, J., & Giesen, H. (2002). Kooperatives Lernen in Grundschulen: Leistungssteigerung durch den Einsatz des Gruppenpuzzles im Sachunterricht. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 49, 172–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. (2000). Teaching. Educational Practices Series, Bd. 1. Brüssel: International Academy of Education (IAE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. (1980). Lernen durch Unterricht. Bochum: Kamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self‐regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, R. (1987). Task‐Involving and Ego‐Involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Assessing teacher effectiveness. Developing a differentiated model. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardelle-Elawar, M. (1995). Effects of metacognitive instruction on low‐achievers in mathematics problems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teacher College Record, 64(8), 723–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks. A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19, 1095–1102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesebro, J. L. (2003). Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning, receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education, 52(2), 135–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active‐constructive‐interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self‐explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997). The Jasper Project. Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Hrsg.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (S. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner‐centered teacher‐student relationships are effective: A meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruickshank, D. R. (1985). Applying research on teacher clarity. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta‐analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self‐determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: a permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10, 249–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. L. (1999). Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell, & A. King (Hrsg.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (S. 3–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 407–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dignath, C., Büttner, G., & Langfeldt, H.-P. (2008). How can primary school students acquire self‐regulated learning most efficiently? A meta‐analysis on interventions that aim at fostering self‐regulation. Educational Research Review, 3, 101–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., & Epstein, M. L. (2003). The role of feedback during academic testing: The delay retention effect revisited. Psychological Record, 53(4), 533–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J. T. (1982). Cognitive correspondence between question/statement and response. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 540–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem‐based learning: A meta‐analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta‐analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 795–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drollinger-Vetter, B. (2011). Verstehenselemente und strukturelle Klarheit. Fachdidaktische Qualität der Anleitung von mathematischen Verstehensprozessen im Unterricht. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drollinger-Vetter, B., & Lipowsky, F. (2006). Fachdidaktische Qualität der Theoriephasen. In E. Klieme, C. Pauli, & K. Reusser (Hrsg.), Dokumentation der Erhebungs‐ und Auswertungsinstrumente zur schweizerisch‐deutschen Videostudie „Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und mathematisches Verständnis“. Teil 3: Videoanalysen (S. 189–205). Frankfurt am Main: GFPF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence on the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(7), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eder, F. (2001). Schul‐ und Klassenklima. In D. H. Rost (Hrsg.), Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (2. Aufl. S. 578–586). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedler, W., & Hardy, I. (2010). Kognitive Strukturierung im Unterricht: Einführung und Begriffsklärungen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 38(3), 194–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedler, W., & Treinies, G. (1997). Effects of teaching methods, class effects, and patterns of cognitive teacher‐pupil interactions in an experimental study in primary school classes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(3), 327–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elawar, M. C., & Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers written feedback on student homework: Changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 162–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Students ratings of teaching quality in primary school. Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem‐solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 157–169.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fend, H. (1981). Theorie der Schule (2. Aufl.). München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Hrsg.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (S. 493–541). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie, J. A. (1987). Syntheses of educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 145–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrick, W. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1980). Learning as a function of time. Journal of educational research, 73(4), 183–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., Dutka, S., & Katzaroff, M. (1996). The relation between student ability and the quality and effectiveness of explanations. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 631–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, K. (2013). Videobasierte Erfassung von Unterrichtsqualität in der Grundschule. Eine Teilstudie des PERLE‐Projekts zur Erfassung der Klassenführung und des Unterrichtsklimas im Anfangsunterricht. Unveröffentlichte Dissertation. Kassel: Universität.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gayle, B. M., Preiss, R. W., & Allen, M. (2006). How effective are teacher‐initiated classroom questions in enhancing student learning?. In B. M. Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Hrsg.), Classroom communication and instructional processes. Advances through meta‐analysis (S. 279–293). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giaconia, R., & Hedges, L. V. (1982). Identifying features of effective open education. Review of Educational Research, 52(4), 579–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 21–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gräsel, C., & Parchmann, I. (2004). Die Entwicklung und Implementation von Konzepten situierten, selbstgesteuerten Lernens. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 7 (Beiheft 3), 171–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children‘s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890–898.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grouws, D. A., & Cebulla, K. J. (2000). Improving student achievement in mathematics. Educational Practices Series, Bd. 4. Brüssel: International Academy of Education (IAE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruehn, S. (1995). Vereinbarkeit kognitiver und nichtkognitiver Ziele im Unterricht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 41, 531–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruehn, S. (2000). Unterricht und schulisches Lernen. Schüler als Quellen der Unterrichtsbeschreibung. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, R., & Slavin, R. E. (1992). Achievement effects of the nongraded elementary school: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 62(4), 333–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hänze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Möller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist environments for elementary school students’ understanding of „Floating and Sinking“. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnischfeger, A., & Wiley, D. E. (1977). Kernkonzepte des Schullernens. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 9(3), 207–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartig, J., & Rakoczy, K. (2010). Mehrebenenanalyse. In H. Holling, & B. Schmitz (Hrsg.), Handbuch Statistik, Methoden und Evaluation (S. 538–547). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartinger, A. (2005). Interesse durch Öffnung von Unterricht – wodurch? Unterrichtswissenschaft, 34(3), 272–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasselhorn, M., & Gold, A. (2013). Pädagogische Psychologie. Erfolgreiches Lehren und Lernen (3. Aufl.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasselhorn, M., & Labuhn, A. S. (2008). Metakognition und selbstreguliertes Lernen. In W. Schneider, & M. Hasselhorn (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Pädagogischen Psychologie (S. 28–37). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing impact of learning. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning. A meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimann, P., Otto, G., & Schulz, W. (1965). Unterricht – Analyse und Planung. Hannover: Schroedel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, A. (1997). Entwicklung lern‐ und leistungsbezogener Motive und Einstellungen. Ergebnisse aus dem SCHOLASTIK‐Projekt. In F. Weinert, & A. Helmke (Hrsg.), Entwicklung im Grundschulalter (S. 59–76). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, A. (2007). Lernprozesse anregen und steuern – Was wissen wir über Klarheit und Strukturiertheit? Pädagogik, 6, 44–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, A. (2011). Forschung zur Lernwirksamkeit des Lehrerhandelns. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, & M. Rothland (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (S. 630–643). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, A. (2012). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität. Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts (4. Aufl.). Seelze: Kallmeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, A., Schneider, W., & Weinert, F. E. (1986). Quality of instruction and classroom learning outcomes: The German contribution to the IEA classroom environment study. Teaching & Teacher Education, 2(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, A., & Schrader, F.-W. (1990). Zur Kompatibilität kognitiver, affektiver und motivationaler Zielkriterien des Schulunterrichts – Clusteranalytische Studien. In M. Knopf, & W. Schneider (Hrsg.), Entwicklung. Allgemeine Verläufe – Individuelle Unterschiede – Pädagogische Konsequenzen (S. 180–200). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heubusch, J. D., & Lloyd, J. W. (1998). Corrective feedback in oral reading. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8(1), 63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, D. T., Moore, A. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 611–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Hrsg.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (S. 371–404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing/NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second‐grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., & Vedder, P. (2007). Exploring the links between students’ engagement in cooperative learning, their goal preferences and appraisals of instructional conditions in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 673–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines, C., Cruickshank, D., & Kennedy, J. (1985). Teacher clarity and its relationship to student achievement and satisfaction. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 87–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem‐based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C., & Tolmie, A. (2003). Group work in primary school science: discussions, consensus and guidance from experts. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 51–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huth, K. (2004). Entwicklung und Evaluation von fehlerspezifischem informativem tutoriellem Feedback (ITF) für die schriftliche Subtraktion. http://hsss.slub-dresden.de/deds-access/hsss.urlmapping. Zugegriffen: März, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, B. (2002). Aufgaben stellen und Feedback geben. http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2004/438/pdf/feedback.pdf. Zugegriffen: Februar, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta‐analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurkowski, S., & Hänze, M. (2010). Soziale Kompetenzen, transaktives Interaktionsverhalten und Lernerfolg. Experimenteller Vergleich zweier unterschiedlich gestalteter Gruppenunterrichtsbedingungen und Evaluation eines transaktivitätsbezogenen Kooperationsskriptes. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 24, 241–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kammermeyer, G., & Martschinke, S. (2003). Schulleistung und Fähigkeitsselbstbild im Anfangsunterricht – Ergebnisse aus dem KILIA‐Projekt. Empirische Pädagogik, 17, 486–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem‐solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 338–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative Assessment: A meta‐analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem‐based, experiential, and inquiry‐based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P. A., & Janssen, J. (2011). Differential effects of problem‐solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 587–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klafki, W. (1963). Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klafki, W. (1996). Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik (5. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klauer, K. J., & Leutner, D. (2007). Lehren und Lernen. Einführung in die Instruktionspsychologie. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleickmann, T., Vehmeyer, J., & Möller, K. (2010). Lehrervorstellungen und kognitives Strukturieren im Unterricht am Beispiel von Scaffolding‐Maßnahmen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 38(3), 210–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Ratzka, N. (2006). Qualitätsdimensionen und Wirksamkeit von Mathematikunterricht. Theoretische Grundlagen und ausgewählte Ergebnisse des Projekts „Pythagoras“. In M. Prenzel, & L. Allolio-Näcke (Hrsg.), Untersuchungen zur Bildungsqualität von Schule. Abschlussbericht des DFG‐Schwerpunktprogramms (S. 127–146). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras Study. Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T. Janik, & T. Seidel (Hrsg.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (S. 137–160). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Schümer, G., & Knoll, S. (2001). Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I: Aufgabenkultur und Unterrichtsgestaltung. In Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (Hrsg.), TIMSS – Impulse für Schule und Unterricht. Forschungsbefunde, Reforminitiativen, Praxisberichte und Video‐Dokumente (S. 43–57). München: Medienhaus Biering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., & Warwas, J. (2011). Konzepte der Individuellen Förderung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 57(6), 805–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta‐analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., & Baumert, J. (2006). Lehrerbelastung und Unterrichtsqualität aus der Perspektive von Lehrenden und Lernenden. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 20(3), 161–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19, 585–592.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krätzschmar, M. (2010). Selbstkonzepte in altersgemischten Lerngruppen. Eine Längsschnittstudie mit Kontrollgruppen in der Sekundarstufe. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krammer, K. (2009). Individuelle Lernunterstützung in Schülerarbeitsphasen. Eine videobasierte Analyse des Unterstützungsverhaltens von Lehrpersonen im Mathematikunterricht. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, U.-M., & Stark, R. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Unwanted side effects of successful instructional interventions. In P. Gerjets, P. A. Kirschner, J. Elen, & R. Joiner (Hrsg.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer‐supported learning. Tübingen: Knowledge Media Research Center. Verfügbar unter http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/workshops/sim2004/pdf_files/Krause_et_al.pdf [Januar, 2008]

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, U.-M., Stark, R., & Mandl, H. (2004). Förderung des computerbasierten Wissenserwerbs durch kooperatives Lernen und eine Feedbackmaßnahme. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 18(2), 125–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. (1992). Meta‐analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C. L., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs. A meta analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M. (2005). Multiple Ziele im Mathematikunterricht. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Linking TIMSS to research on learning and instruction: A re‐analysis of the German TIMSS and TIMSS video data. In S. J. Howie, & T. Plomp (Hrsg.), Contexts of learning mathematics and science: Lessons learned from TIMSS (S. 335–351). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (2011). Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Ergebnisse des Forschungsprogramms COACTIV. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., & Voss, T. (2011). Das Modell der Unterrichtsqualität in COACTIV: Eine multikriteriale Analyse. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Hrsg.), Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften (S. 85–113). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanahan, L., McGrath, D. J., McLaughlin, M., Burian-Fitzgerald, M., & Salganik, L. (2005). Fundamental problems in the measurement of instructional processes: Estimating reasonable effect sizes and conceptualizing what is important to measure. Washington: American Institutes. Verfügbar unter http://www.air.org/news/documents/AERA2005Fundamental%20Problems.pdf [Januar, 2008]

    Google Scholar 

  • Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project (2010). Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(1), 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipowsky, F. (2002). Zur Qualität offener Lernsituationen im Spiegel empirischer Forschung – Auf die Mikroebene kommt es an. In U. Drews, & W. Wallrabenstein (Hrsg.), Freiarbeit in der Grundschule (S. 126–159). Frankfurt/Main: Arbeitskreis Grundschule.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipowsky, F. (2006). Auf den Lehrer kommt es an. In C. Allemann‐Ghionda & E. Terhart (Hrsg.), Kompetenzen und Kompetenzentwicklung von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern: Ausbildung und Beruf (S. 47–70). Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 51, Beiheft. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2009). Quality of geometry instruction and its short‐term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 527–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within‐class grouping: A meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysakowski, R. S., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Instructional effects of cues, participation, and corrective feedback: A quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 559–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, U. (2010). Formative Assessment – Ein erfolgversprechendes Konzept zur Reform von Unterricht und Leistungsmessung? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 13(2), 293–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandl, H., & Friedrich, H. F. (Hrsg.). (2006). Handbuch Lernstrategien. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R.J., Gaddy, B.B. & Dean, C. (2000). What works in classroom instruction. Aurora: Mid‐continent Research for Education and Learning(McREL). Verfügbar unter http://www.mcrel.org/products/learning/whatworks.pdf [April, 2001].

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three‐strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Hrsg.), Constructivist instruction: success or failure? (S. 184–200). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menke, D. T., & Pressley, M. (1994). Elaborative interrogation. Using „why“ questions to enhance the learning from text. Journal of Reading, 37(8), 642–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messner, R., & Reusser, K. (2006). Aeblis Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage im Kontext der zeitgenössischen Didaktik. In M. Baer, M. Fuchs, P. Füglister, K. Reusser, & H. Wyss (Hrsg.), Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage. Von Hans Aeblis kognitionspsychologischer Didaktik zur modernen Lehr‐ und Lernforschung (S. 52–73). Bern: h.e.p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Ahrens, I., & Wilde, M. (2013). Der Einfluss von Schülerwahl und der Interessantheit des Unterrichtsgegenstands auf die Lernmotivation im Biologieunterricht. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 41(1), 57–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. R., Rice, C. T., Berliner, D. C., & Rousseau, E. W. (1980). Correspondence between teacher questions and student answers in classroom discourse. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 194–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery‐based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller, F., Light, R., & Sachs, J. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 797–828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Hrsg.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (S. 745–783). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S. (2002). The impact of informative tutoring feedback on achievement and motivation in computer‐based instruction. http://studierplatz2000.tu-dresden.de/lehrlern/pdf/artikel/ImpactFeedback_sn.pdf (Erstellt: Januar, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S. (2004). The impact of informative tutoring feedback and self‐efficacy on motivation and achievement in concept learning. Experimental Psychology, 51(3), 214–228.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, J. D. (1996). The effects of cooperative learning on student achievement and motivation in a high school geometry class. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 467–476.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Niegemann, H. M. (2001). Neue Lernmedien. Konzipieren, entwickeln, einsetzen. Göttingen: Hans Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niegemann, H. M. (2004). Lernen und Fragen: Bilanz und Perspektiven der Forschung. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 32, 345–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niegemann, H. M., & Stadler, S. (2001). Hat noch jemand eine Frage? Systematische Unterrichtsbeobachtung zu Häufigkeit und kognitivem Niveau von Fragen im Unterricht. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 29, 171–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdenakker, M.-C., Maulana, R., & Den Brok, P. (2012). Teacher–student interpersonal relationships and academic motivation within one school year: developmental changes and linkage. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(1), 95–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem‐solving skills: A cognitive‐load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, C. (2010). Fostering understanding and thinking in discursive cultures of learning.Unpublished paper presented at the meeting of EARLI SIG 10 and SIG 21, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2000). Zur Rolle der Lehrperson beim kooperativen Lernen. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 22(3), 421–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, C. & Reusser, K. (2011). Discursive cultures of learning in (everyday) mathematics teaching: Promises and challenges. Paper presented at the AERA research conference “Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue”, University of Pittsburgh, September 22–25, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Praetorius, A.-K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. One lesson is all you need? Stability of instructional quality across lessons. Learning and Instruction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preiss, R. W., & Gayle, B. M. (2006). A meta‐analysis of the educational benefits of employing advanced organizers. In B. M. Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Hrsg.), Classroom communication and instructional processes. Advances through meta‐analysis (S. 329–344). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puzio, K. & Colby, G.T. (2010). The effects of within class grouping on reading achievement: A meta‐analytic synthesis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE), Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K. (2007). Motivationsunterstützung im Mathematikunterricht. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K. (2011). Formatives Assessment – theoretische Erkenntnisse und praktische Umsetzung im Mathematikunterricht. In C. Fischer (Hrsg.), Diagnose und Förderung statt Notengebung? Problemfelder schulischer Leistungsbeurteilung (S. 73–91). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Lipowsky, F., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2007). Structure as a quality feature in mathematics instruction. In M. Prenzel (Hrsg.), Studies on the educational quality of schools. The final report on the DFG Priority Programme (S. 101–120). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (2002). Self‐determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Hrsg.), Handbook of self‐determination research (S. 183–203). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinmann-Rothmeier, G., & Mandl, H. (2001). Unterrichten und Lernumgebungen gestalten. In B. Weidenmann, A. Krapp, G. L. Huber, M. Hofer, & H. Mandl (Hrsg.), Pädagogische Psychologie (S. 603–648). Weinheim: PVU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. M., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2011). Aktives Lernen = gutes Lernen? Reflektion zu einer (zu) einfachen Gleichung. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 39(3), 194–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 293–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1996). Kooperatives problemorientiertes Lernen in der Hochschule. In J. Lompscher, & H. Mandl (Hrsg.), Lehr‐ und Lernprobleme im Studium: Bedingungen und Veränderungsmöglichkeiten (S. 131–147). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., Helmke, A., & Schrader, F. W. (1997). Schulleistung und Fähigkeitsselbstbild – Universelle Beziehungen oder kontextspezifische Zusammenhänge? Ergebnisse aus dem SCHOLASTIK‐Projekt. In F. E. Weinert, & A. Helmke (Hrsg.), Entwicklung im Grundschulalter (S. 374–383). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked‐out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self‐explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90–108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reusser, K. (2006). Konstruktivismus – vom epistemologischen Leitbegriff zur Erneuerung der didaktischen Kultur. In M. Baer, M. Fuchs, P. Füglister, K. Reusser, & H. Wyss (Hrsg.), Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage. Von Hans Aeblis kognitionspsychologischer Didaktik zur modernen Lehr‐ und Lernforschung (S. 151–168). Bern: h.e.p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reusser, K., Pauli, C., & Elmer, A. (2011). Berufsbezogene Überzeugungen von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, & M. Rothland (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (S. 478–495). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, T., Borromeo-Ferri, R., Ebersbach, M., Hänze, M., Lipowsky, F., Mayer, J., Mitte, K., & Reinhard, M.-A. (2013). Wünschenswerte Erschwernisse beim Lernen: Kognitive Mechanismen, Entwicklungsvoraussetzungen und effektive Umsetzung im Unterricht. Vollantrag zur Einrichtung eines LOEWE‐Schwerpunkts. Kassel: Universität.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindermann, H. (2007). Die Bedeutung der mittleren Klassenfähigkeit für das Unterrichtsgeschehen und die Entwicklung individueller Fähigkeiten. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 35(1), 68–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes. Identifying what works and why. Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). Wellington: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodger, S., Murray, H. G., & Cummings, A. L. (2007). Effects of teacher clarity and student anxiety on student outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 91–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). Test‐enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long‐term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., Putnam, A. L., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In J. Mestre, & B. Ross (Hrsg.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (S. 1–36). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer assisted learning Interventions with elementary school students: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 240–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D. (2009). Avoidance of overlearning characterises the spacing effect. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(7), 1001–1012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 355–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practice on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1209–1224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics practice problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenholtz, S. J., & Rosenholtz, S. H. (1981). Classroom organization and the perception of ability. Sociology of Education, 54(2), 132–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984a). Classroom organization and the stratification of students. Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984b). The formation of ability conceptions: Developmental trend or social construction? Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 31–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Hrsg.), Handbook of research on teaching (S. 376–391). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic and fate control: Part one – Wait time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, K. J., & Rowe, K. S. (1999). Investigating the relationship between students’ attentive‐in‐attentive behaviors in the classroom and their literacy progress. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 1–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self‐esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samson, G. E., Strykowski, B., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). The effects of teacher questioning level on student achievement: a quantitative synthesis. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 290–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacter, J., & Thum, Y. M. (2003). Paying for high‐ and low‐quality teaching. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 411–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem‐based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, W. H., & Maier, A. (2009). Opportunity to learn. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Hrsg.), Handbook of education policy research (S. 541–559). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Weigand, F., Hänze, M., & Wodzinski, R. (2009). Complex problem solving and worked examples: The role of prompting strategic behavior and fading‐in solution steps. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Weigand, F., Franke-Braun, G., & Hänze, M. (2008). Erhöhen gestufte Lernhilfen die Effektivität von Lösungsbeispielen? Eine Studie zur kooperativen Bearbeitung von Aufgaben in den Naturwissenschaften. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 36, 365–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Weigand, F., Hänze, M., & Wodzinski, R. (2012). How can self‐regulated problem solving be implemented in the school curriculum? Results from a research project on incremental worked examples. In M. Edwards, & S. O. Adams (Hrsg.), Learning strategies, expectations and challenges (S. 45–69). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. (2006). Pädagogische Psychologie. Weinheim: PVU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrader, F.-W., Helmke, A., & Dotzler, H. (1997). Zielkonflikte in der Grundschule. Ergebnisse. In F. E. Weinert, & A. Helmke (Hrsg.), Entwicklung im Grundschulalter (S. 299–316). Weinheim: PVU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, W. (1980). Ein Hamburger Modell der Unterrichtsplanung – Seine Funktionen in der Alltagspraxis. In B. Adl-Amini, & R. Künzli (Hrsg.), Didaktische Modelle und Unterrichtsplanung (S. 49–87). München: Juventa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwerdt, G., & Wuppermann, A. (2011). Is traditional teaching really all that bad? A within‐student between‐subject approach. Economics of Education Review, 30, 365–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seabrook, R., Brown, G. D. A., & Solity, J. E. (2005). Distributed and massed practice: From laboratory to classroom. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., Rimmele, R., & Prenzel, M. (2005). Clarity and coherence of lesson goals as a scaffold for student learning. Learning and Instruction, 15(6), 539–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta‐analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shayer, M., & Adhami, M. (2007). Fostering cognitive development through the context of mathematics. Results of the CAME Project. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(3), 265–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • She, H. C., & Fisher, D. (2002). Teacher communication behavior and its association with students’ cognitive and attitudinal outcomes in science in Taiwan. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best‐evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J., & Kapler, I. V. (2011). Spacing effects in real‐world classroom vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 763–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souvignier, E., & Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders’ jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 755–771.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small‐group learning on undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, R. (1999). Lernen mit Lösungsbeispielen. Einfluss unvollständiger Lösungsbeispiele auf Beispielelaboration, Lernerfolg und Motivation. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading growth in high‐poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (Hrsg.). (2001). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terhart, E. (1994). Unterricht. In D. Lenzen (Hrsg.), Erziehungswissenschaft. Ein Grundkurs (S. 133–158). Reinbek: Rowohlt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta‐analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24(4), 252–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiedemann, J., & Billmann-Mahecha, E. (2004). Kontextfaktoren der Schulleistung im Grundschulalter. Ergebnisse aus der Hannoverschen Grundschulstudie. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 18(2), 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 69–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Cox, K. E., DiCintio, M., Meyer, D. K., Logan, C., & Thomas, C. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 730–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self‐regulated learning and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 532–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher‐student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Landeghem, G., Van Damme, J., Opdenakker, M.-C., De Fraine, B., & Onghena, P. (2002). The effect of schools and classes on noncognitive outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(4), 429–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voerman, L., Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A., & Simons, R. S. (2012). Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in classroom interaction in secondary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1107–1115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2005). A surprising effect of feedback on learning. Learning and Instruction, 15(6), 589–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walberg, H. J., & Paik, S. J. (2000). Effective educational practices. Educational practices series, 3, 1–24. Verfügbar unter http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/EducationalPracticesSeriesPdf/prac03e.pdf [April, 2005]

    Google Scholar 

  • Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse. A review of recent research in mathematics classroom. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 607–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high‐achieving students’ science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 943–989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinert, F. E., & Helmke, A. (1996). Der gute Lehrer: Person, Funktion oder Fiktion? In A. Leschinsky (Hrsg.), Die Institutionalisierung von Lehren und Lernen. Beiträge zu einer Theorie der Schule (S. 223–234). Weinheim: Beltz.. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 34. Beiheft

    Google Scholar 

  • Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijnia, L., Loyens, S. M. M., & Derous, E. (2011). Investigating effects of problem‐based versus lecture‐based learning environments on student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(2), 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilen, W. W. (1991). Questioning skills, for teachers (3. Aufl.). Washington, DC: National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (1979). Experiments relating teachers’ use of higher cognitive questions to student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 49, 13–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher–student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 6–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuttke, E. (2005). Unterrichtskommunikation und Wissenserwerb. Zum Einfluss von Kommunikation auf den Prozess der Wissensgenerierung. Frankfurt: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students learning and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students – Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning sciences, 12(2), 145–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta‐strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition Learning, 3(1), 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fachgebiet Empirische Schul- und Unterrichtsforschung, Universität Kassel, Nora-Platiel-Straße 1, 34109, Kassel, Deutschland

    Frank Lipowsky Prof. Dr.

Authors
  1. Frank Lipowsky Prof. Dr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fakultät für Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft, Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

    Elke Wild

  2. Institut für Psychologie, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

    Jens Möller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lipowsky, F. (2015). Unterricht. In: Wild, E., Möller, J. (eds) Pädagogische Psychologie. Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41291-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41291-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41290-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41291-2

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation