ZDM

, Volume 48, Issue 1–2, pp 139–151 | Cite as

Teacher professional knowledge and classroom management: on the relation of general pedagogical knowledge (GPK) and classroom management expertise (CME)

Original Article

Abstract

Due to the need for measurement instruments that allow an investigation of teachers’ situational cognition and thus go beyond the limited scope of classical paper-and-pencil-tests, we ask how a specific video-based measurement of teachers’ classroom management expertise can provide additional information when compared with an established paper-and-pencil-test that broadly covers mathematics teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge. For this, we apply the general pedagogical knowledge test previously developed in the Teacher Education and Development StudyMathematics (TEDS-M) comprising knowledge of structuring lessons (‘structure’); motivating students and managing the classroom (‘motivation/classroom management’); dealing with heterogeneous learning groups (‘adaptivity’); and assessing students (‘assessment’). Using test data of 188 novice teachers, advanced beginners, and expert teachers, we raise questions regarding the two tests’ (1) structural relations, (2) expert-novice differences, and (3) predictive validity. Findings: (1a) classroom management expertise can be empirically separated from general pedagogical knowledge, although the two constructs are positively inter-correlated (medium effect size), (1b) classroom management expertise is more highly correlated with pedagogical knowledge of classroom management than with pedagogical knowledge of ‘adaptivity’, ‘structure’, and ‘assessment’, (1c) classroom management expertise is more highly correlated with procedural pedagogical knowledge (cognitive demand ‘generate’) than with declarative pedagogical knowledge (cognitive demands ‘recall’ and ‘understand/analyze’), (2) novice teachers as well as advanced beginners are outperformed by expert teachers, and (3) classroom management expertise, compared with general pedagogical knowledge, is a stronger predictor for instructional quality aspects of classroom management as rated by students.

Keywords

Classroom management General pedagogical knowledge Teacher expertise Video clips Test Assessment Instructional quality 

Supplementary material

11858_2015_705_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (134 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 133 kb)

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. 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 (Eds.), PISA 2003. Der Bildungsstand der Jugendlichen in DeutschlandErgebnisse des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs (pp. 314–354). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  3. Berliner, D.C. (1992). The nature of expertise in teaching. In F.K. Oser, A. Dick, J.-L. Patry (Eds.), Effective and Responsible Teaching (Chap. 15, pp. 227–248). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blömeke, S., & Delaney, S. (2012). Assessment of teacher knowledge across countries: a review of the state of research. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(3), 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte: zur Psychologie des professionellen Wissens. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  9. Bromme, R. (2001). Teacher expertise. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 15459–15465). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Döhrmann, M., Kaiser, G., & Blömeke, S. (2012). The conceptualisation of mathematics competencies in the international teacher education study TEDS-M. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44, 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doyle, W. (1985). Recent Research on Classroom Management: implications for Teacher Preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 31–35.Google Scholar
  13. Doyle, W. (2006). Ecological Approaches to Classroom Management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 97–125). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, practice, and contemporary Research. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The Equivalence of weighted Kappa and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as Measures of Reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 613–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilberts, G. H., & Lignugaris-Kraft, B. (1997). Classroom management and instruction competencies for preparing elementary and special education teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gold, B., Förster, St., & Holodynski, M. (2013). Evaluation eines videobasierten Trainingsseminars zur Förderung der professionallen Wahrnehmung von Klassenführung im Grundschulunterricht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 27, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2007). Looking in Classrooms (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  19. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hawk, P. P., & Schmidt, M. W. (1989). Teacher Preparation. A Comparison of Traditional and Alternative Programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill, H. C., Blunk, M., Charalambous, C., Lewis, J., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching and the Mathematical Quality of Instruction: an Exploratory Study. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 430–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Julian, M. W. (2001). The consequences of ignoring multilevel data structures in nonhierarchical covariance modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 325–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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, 1–19.Google Scholar
  24. Kersting, N. (2008). Using Video Clips of Mathematics Classroom Instruction as Item Prompts to Measure Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching Mathematics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 845–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. König, J. (2013). First comes the theory, then the practice? On the acquisition of general pedagogical knowledge during initial teacher education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 999–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. König, J. (2014). Designing an International Instrument to Assess Teachers’ General Pedagogical Knowledge (GPK): Review of Studies, Considerations, and Recommendations. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  27. König, J. (2015a). Kontextualisierte Erfassung von Lehrerkompetenzen—Einführung in den Thementeil. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 61(3), 305–309.Google Scholar
  28. König, J. (2015b). Measuring Classroom Management Expertise (CME) of Teachers: A video-based assessment approach and statistical results. Cogent Education, 2(1).Google Scholar
  29. König, J. & Blömeke, S. (2010). Pädagogisches Unterrichtswissen (PUW). Dokumentation der Kurzfassung des TEDS-M-Testinstruments zur Kompetenzmessung in der ersten Phase der Lehrerausbildung. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität.Google Scholar
  30. König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2013). Preparing teachers of mathematics in Germany. In J. Schwille, L. Ingvarson, & R. Holdgreve-Resendez (Eds.), TEDS-M Encyclopaedia (pp. 100–115). Amsterdam: IEA.Google Scholar
  31. König, J., Blömeke, S., Klein, P., Suhl, U., Busse, A., & Kaiser, G. (2014). Is teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge a premise for noticing and interpreting classroom situations? A video-based assessment approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. König, J., Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Schmidt, B., & Hsieh, F.-J. (2011). General Pedagogical Knowledge of Future Middle School Teachers. On the Complex Ecology of Teacher Education in the United States, Germany, and Taiwan. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 188–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. König, J., & Lebens, M. (2012). Classroom Management Expertise (CME) von Lehrkräften messen: Überlegungen zur Testung mithilfe von Videovignetten und erste empirische Befunde. Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand, 5(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
  34. Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Oxford: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  35. Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (1998–2006). Mplus (Version 4.2) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  37. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What Makes a School Successful (Volume IV): Resources, Policies and Practices. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 29, 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ramm, G., et al. (2006). PISA 2003: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  40. Sabers, D. S., Cushing, K. S., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Differences Among Teachers in a Task Characterized by Simultaneity, Multidimensionality, and Immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 63–88.Google Scholar
  41. Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Stürmer, K. (2010). „Observer“—Validierung eines videobasierten Instruments zur Erfassung der professionellen Wahrnehmung von Unterricht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 56, Beiheft, 296–306.Google Scholar
  42. Shavelson, R. J. (2010). On the measurement of competency. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 2(1), 43–65.Google Scholar
  43. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Research, 57, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slavin, R. E. (1994). Quality, appropiateness, incentive, and time: a model of instructional effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Swartz, C. W., White, K. P., Stuck, G. B., & Patterson, T. (1990). The factorial structure of the North Carolina teaching performance appraisal instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50(1), 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., Bankov, K., Rodriguez, M., & Reckase, M. (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).Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of Competence: A Conceptual Clarification. In D. S. Rychenj & L.H. Salganik (ed.), Defining and Selecting Key Competencies (pp. 45–66). Göttingen.Google Scholar
  49. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: an examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–210.Google Scholar
  50. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1997). ConQuest: Multi-Aspect Test Software [computer program]. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Empirical School ResearchUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations