Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 99–126 | Cite as

Promoting pre-service teachers’ integration of professional knowledge: effects of writing tasks and prompts on learning from multiple documents

  • Thomas LehmannEmail author
  • Benjamin Rott
  • Florian Schmidt-Borcherding
Article

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate the effects of writing tasks and prompts on knowledge integration across domains. One hundred pre-service teachers were asked to read and develop a global understanding of textbook excerpts from the core domains of their professional knowledge: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). In an experimental 2 × 2 design, we varied two means to support knowledge integration, namely, essay writing tasks (unspecific vs. argument) and preactional integration prompts in the form of focus questions (with vs. without). In addition to the essays, a pre-post-knowledge test and an intertextual inference verification task served as dependent variables. Students’ motivation was assessed as a covariate. In all experimental conditions, students showed significant knowledge gains within the three domains. A category-driven content analysis of students’ essays indicated main effects of both writing tasks and prompts. That is, the argument task and the prompts independently promoted knowledge integration across domains. For the intertextual inference verification task, the positive influence of prompts was restricted to students in the unspecific writing task condition and in consideration of a compensatory effect of motivation. Taken together, the study expands evidence for the efficacy of argument tasks and preactional prompts on promoting knowledge integration across pre-service teachers’ CK, PK, and PCK. The findings are discussed with regard to multiple-document comprehension and pre-service teacher education.

Keywords

Knowledge integration Teacher knowledge Multiple-document comprehension Writing-to-learn Prompts Pre-service teacher education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank our anonymous reviewers for their effort and valuable comments that helped us to improve our manuscript. Furthermore, we thank our student research assistants Maike Hemmerich, Leonie Lichte, and Kristin Scherf for their support in the collection and preparation of the data.

Funding

This research was supported in the course of the University of Bremen’s future concept by the Excellence Initiative of the German federal and state governments.

References

  1. Anmarkrud, Ø., & Bråten, I. (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 252–256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.002.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices. Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003013.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching. What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554.Google Scholar
  4. Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 139–145.  https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.139.Google Scholar
  5. Barzel, B., Eichler, A., Holzäpfel, L., Leuders, T., Maaß, K., & Wittmann, G. (2016). Vernetzte Kompetenzen statt trägen Wissens—Ein Studienmodell zur konsequenten Vernetzung von Fachwissenschaft, Fachdidaktik und Schulpraxis. In A. Hoppenbrock, R. Biehler, R. Hochmuth, & H.-G. Rück (Eds.), Lehren und Lernen von Mathematik in der Studieneingangsphase (pp. 33–50). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-006-0165-2.Google Scholar
  7. Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6.Google Scholar
  8. Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(3), 200–212.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467604265535.Google Scholar
  9. Bigot, L. L., & Rouet, J.-F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students’ comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 445–470.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960701675317.Google Scholar
  10. Björnsson, C. H. (1983). Readability of newspapers in 11 languages. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(4), 480–497.  https://doi.org/10.2307/747382.Google Scholar
  11. Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(3), 321–348.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x.Google Scholar
  12. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2009). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47(1), 1–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959646.Google Scholar
  13. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). When law students read multiple documents about global warming: Examining the role of topic-specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing. Instructional Science, 38(6), 635–657.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9091-4.Google Scholar
  14. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2012). Knowledge acquisition: Constructing meaning from multiple information sources. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1677–1680). New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_807.Google Scholar
  15. Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro structure-focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25(4), 313–339.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710490522658.Google Scholar
  16. Brunner, E. (2014). Mathematisches Argumentieren, Begründen und Beweisen. Grundlagen, Befunde und Konzepte. Berlin: Springer Spektrum.Google Scholar
  17. Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Krauss, S., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Dubberke, T., et al. (2006). Welche Zusammenhänge bestehen zwischen dem fachspezifischen Professionswissen von Mathematiklehrkräften und ihrer Ausbildung sowie beruflichen Fortbildung? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 521–544.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-006-0166-1.Google Scholar
  18. Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 209–222.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-Century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962.Google Scholar
  21. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (n.d.). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI). Retrieved from http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/
  22. German Research Foundation. (2017). Replicability of research results. A Statement by the German Research Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden_stellungnahmen/2017/170425_stellungnahme_replizierbarkeit_forschungsergebnisse_en.pdf
  23. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010a). Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31(1), 30–68.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710902733600.Google Scholar
  24. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010b). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 157–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002.Google Scholar
  25. Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317–351). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  26. Grieser, D. (2015). Analysis I. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Harr, N., Eichler, A., & Renkl, A. (2014). Integrating pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical/psychological knowledge in mathematics. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00924.Google Scholar
  28. Hudson, B. (Ed.). (2017). Overcoming fragmentation in teacher education policy and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hudson, B., & Zgaga, P. (2017). History, context and overview: Implications for teacher education policy, practice and future research. In B. Hudson (Ed.), Overcoming fragmentation in teacher education policy and practice (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in problem-solving scenarios. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 38–52.Google Scholar
  31. Ifenthaler, D., & Lehmann, T. (2012). Preactional self-regulation as a tool for successful problem solving and learning. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9(1–2), 97–110.Google Scholar
  32. Janssen, N., & Lazonder, A. W. (2016). Supporting pre-service teachers in designing technology-infused lesson plans. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(5), 456–467.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12146.Google Scholar
  33. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Forth Worth: Harcourt College Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, J., et al. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716–725.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.716.Google Scholar
  35. Lehmann, T., Hähnlein, I., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 313–323.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.051.Google Scholar
  36. List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 182–199.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329014.Google Scholar
  37. Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1990). High school mathematics review lessons: Expert-novice distinctions. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 21(5), 372–387.  https://doi.org/10.2307/749395.Google Scholar
  38. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615–629.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.615.Google Scholar
  39. Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2014). Fostering multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition & Learning, 9(1), 51–74.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9111-x.Google Scholar
  40. McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7.Google Scholar
  41. McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2010). The effects of relevance instructions and verbal ability on text processing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 96–117.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903224529.Google Scholar
  42. Merk, S., Rosman, T., Rueß, J., Syring, M., & Schneider, J. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ perceived value of general pedagogical knowledge for practice: Relations with epistemic beliefs and source beliefs. PLoS ONE, 12(9), 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184971.Google Scholar
  43. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.Google Scholar
  44. Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281–1299.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802186993.Google Scholar
  45. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660271003.Google Scholar
  46. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  47. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.Google Scholar
  48. Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 335–382). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21(1), 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2101_1.Google Scholar
  50. Renkl, A. (2015). Wissenserwerb. In E. Wild & J. Möller (Eds.), Pädagogische psychologie (pp. 3–24). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 115–121.Google Scholar
  52. Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple documents comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015.Google Scholar
  54. Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 85–106.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1501_3.Google Scholar
  55. Royer, J. M., Carlo, M. S., Dufresne, R., & Mestre, J. (1996). The assessment of levels of domain expertise while reading. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 373–408.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1403_4.Google Scholar
  56. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 142–175)., Reading, writing and language learning Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Literate expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise. Prospects and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257–279.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_4.Google Scholar
  59. Schneider, M. (2012). Knowledge integration. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1684–1686). New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_807.Google Scholar
  60. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004.Google Scholar
  61. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive compute-tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 716–737.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023.Google Scholar
  62. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 176–203.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769994.Google Scholar
  63. Tynjälä, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (2001). Writing as a learning tool: An introduction. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 7–22). Dodrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0740-5_2.Google Scholar
  64. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  65. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2018). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441–461.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00003-4.Google Scholar
  67. Voss, T., Kunina-Habenicht, O., Hoehne, V., & Kunter, M. (2015). Stichwort Pädagogisches Wissen von Lehrkräften: Empirische Zugänge und Befunde. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 18(2), 187–223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-015-0626-6.Google Scholar
  68. Voss, T., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2011). Assessing teacher candidates’ general pedagogical/psychological knowledge: Test construction and validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 952–969.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025125.Google Scholar
  69. Wäschle, K., Lehmann, T., Brauch, N., & Nückles, M. (2015). Prompted journal writing supports preservice history teachers in drawing on multiple knowledge domains for designing learning tasks. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(4), 546–559.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1068084.Google Scholar
  70. Weinert, F. E., Schrader, F.-W., & Helmke, A. (1990). Educational expertise: Closing the gap between educational research and classroom practice. School Psychology International, 11(3), 163–180.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034390113002.Google Scholar
  71. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of ‘playing historian’ on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 63–72.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199611)10:7%3c63:AID-ACP438%3e3.0.CO;2-5.Google Scholar
  72. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301.Google Scholar
  73. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Unit: Learning, Instruction, and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Pedagogy and Educational SciencesUniversity of BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics and Natural SciencesUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations