Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 107–120 | Cite as

Professional competences of teachers for fostering creativity and supporting high-achieving students

  • Jessica Hoth
  • Gabriele Kaiser
  • Andreas Busse
  • Martina Döhrmann
  • Johannes König
  • Sigrid Blömeke
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper addresses an important task teachers face in class: the identification and support of creative and high-achieving students. In particular, we examine whether primary teachers (1) have acquired professional knowledge during teacher education that is necessary to foster creativity and to teach high-achieving students, and whether they (2) possess the situation-specific skills necessary to do so. For this purpose, (1) the knowledge of German primary school teachers who participated in the TEDS-M study at the end of teacher education is analyzed. (2), a subset of these teachers interpreted classroom video scenes that require identifying and supporting creative and high-achieving students in the longitudinal follow-up study to TEDS-M (TEDS-FU) after 3 years of work experience. Contingency analyses between teachers’ professional knowledge and their skills in identifying and supporting mathematically creative and high-achieving students were carried out. The analyses revealed that those teachers who have difficulties in logical reasoning and understanding structural aspects of mathematics also have difficulties in identifying and supporting creative and high-achieving students. It was difficult for them to identify students’ thinking processes based on structural reflections and pattern recognition; moreover, they had difficulty in further developing mathematically rich answers by students. In line with these results, teachers with strong professional knowledge were able to identify and support mathematically creative and high-achieving students. Thus, the study reveals that a connection between teachers’ professional knowledge and their skills in identifying and supporting mathematically creative and high-achieving students exists but that many future and early career teachers seem to have deficiencies in these respects.

Keywords

Teacher competence Video-based test Creativity Giftedness 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Balka, D. S. (1974). Creative ability in mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 21, 633–636.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2011). Das Kompetenzmodell von COACTIV. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Ergebnisse des Forschungsprogramms COACTIV (pp. 29–53). Münster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
  4. Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blömeke, S., Hsieh, F.-J., Kaiser, G., & Schmidt, W. H. (Eds.). (2014). International perspectives on teacher knowledge, beliefs and opportunities to learn. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Blömeke, S., & Kaiser, G. (2014). Theoretical framework, study design and main results of TEDS-M. In S. Blömeke, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Kaiser, & W. H. Schmidt (Eds.), International perspectives on teacher knowledge, beliefs and opportunities to learn (pp. 19–47). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blömeke, S., Kaiser, G., & Lehmann, R. (Eds.). (2008). Professionelle Kompetenz angehender Lehrerinnen und Lehrer: Wissen, Überzeugungen und Lerngelegenheiten deutscher Mathematikstudierender und –refendare: Erste Ergebnisse zur Wirksamkeit der Lehrerausbildung. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  8. Blömeke, S., Kaiser, G., Döhrmann, M., Suhl, U., & Lehmann, R. (2010). Mathematisches und mathematikdidaktisches Wissen angehender Primarstufenlehrkräfte im internationalen Vergleich. In S. Blömeke, G. Kaiser, & R. Lehmann (Eds.), TEDS-M 2008: Professionelle Kompetenz und Lerngelegenheiten angehender Primarstufenlehrkräfte im internationalen Vergleich (pp. 195–251). Münster: Waxmann Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Bolden, D., Harries, A., & Newton, D. (2010). Pre-service primary teachers’ conceptions of creativity in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchholtz, N., Kaiser, G., & Blömeke, S. (2013). Die Erhebung mathematikdidaktischen Wissens: Konzeptualisierung einer komplexen Domäne. Journal für Mathematikdidaktik, 35, 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D. C. (1988). Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual information. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermanns, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematical educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2000). Catering for mathematically gifted elementary students: Learning from challenging tasks. Gifted Child Today, 23(4), 14–19, 52.Google Scholar
  14. Diezmann, C. M, & Watters, J. J. (2002). Summing up the education of mathematically gifted students. In Proceedings 25th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (pp. 219–226). Auckland.Google Scholar
  15. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in school children. Education Studies in Mathematics, 18(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hong, E., & Aqui, Y. (2004). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of adolescents gifted in mathematics: Comparisons among students with different types of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoth, J., Schwarz, B., Kaiser, G., Busse, A., König, J. & Blömeke, S. (2016). Uncovering predictors of disagreement: Ensuring the quality of expert ratings. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(1–2), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaiser, G., Busse, A., Hoth, J., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2015). About the complexities of video-based assessments: Theoretical and methodological approaches to overcoming shortcomings of research on teachers’ competence. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (Eds.). (2011). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Results from the COACTIV project. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260.Google Scholar
  23. Mann, E. L. (2009). The search for mathematical creativity: Identifying creative potential in middle school students. Creative Research Journal, 21(4), 338–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education. Examples of methodology and methods (pp. 365–380). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Nadjafikhah, M., Yaftian, N., & Bakhshalizadeh, S. (2012). Mathematical creativity: some definitions and characteristics. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peterson, P., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Introduction to identification of students for gifted and talented programs. In J. S. Renzulli & S. I. Reis (Eds.), Essential readings in gifted education: Identification of students for gifted and talented programs (pp. xxxiii–xxxiv). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Rotigel, J., & Fello, S. (2004). Mathematically gifted students: How can we meet their needs? Gifted Child Today, 27, 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shayshon, B., Gal, H., Tesler, B., & Ko, E.-S. (2014). Teaching mathematically talented students: a cross-cultural study about their teachers’ views. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87, 409–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing. Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., et al. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries: Findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam: IEA.Google Scholar
  34. Wagner, H., & Zimmermann, B. (1986). Identification and fostering of mathematically gifted children. In A. J. Cropley, K. K. Urban, H. Wagner, & W. Wieczerkowsky (Eds.), Giftedness: A continuing worldwide challenge (pp. 273–284). New York: Trillum Press.Google Scholar
  35. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: a conceptual clarification. In D. Rychen & L. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle: Hogrefe and Huber.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Hoth
    • 1
  • Gabriele Kaiser
    • 2
  • Andreas Busse
    • 2
  • Martina Döhrmann
    • 1
  • Johannes König
    • 3
  • Sigrid Blömeke
    • 4
  1. 1.Department 2University of VechtaVechtaGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  3. 3.University of CologneCologneGermany
  4. 4.Centre for Educational Measurement (CEMO) at the University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options