Using Digital Media to Assess and Promote School and Adult Education Teacher Competence

  • Thamar Voss
  • Annika Goeze
  • Christian Marx
  • Verena Hoehne
  • Viola Klotz
  • Josef Schrader
Chapter

Abstract

Classrooms are informational environments that are highly complex in nature. Teachers need to make use of many different information sources in the classroom in order to adapt to these environments, perform successfully, and develop competence. Hence, effective design research in teacher education has to take this high complexity into account too, for instance by using video technologies. In the chapter presented here, we describe a research program that uses the advantages of digital media to assess and promote teacher competence. A web-based learning and testing environment was designed and implemented in several studies with school and adult education teachers. We successfully developed a test instrument to measure the pedagogical/psychological knowledge of teachers in the two chosen educational contexts via the web-based environment. Results of several intervention studies indicated that the web-based learning and testing environment with integrated video case studies is a powerful tool to promote taking on new perspectives and applying knowledge among school and adult education teachers. Implications for research, practice, and the required web-based infrastructure are discussed.

Keywords

Teacher competence Pedagogical/psychological knowledge Video-based learning and assessment Intervention study Adult education Secondary school 

References

  1. Bastian, H. (1997). Kursleiterprofile und Angebotsqualität. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  2. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV model of teachers’ professional competence. In M. Kunter, J. R. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 49–62). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., … Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180. doi: 10.3102/0002831209345157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Sherin, M. G., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013). Five research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal for Educational Research Online, 5(1), 90–114.Google Scholar
  5. Boshuizen, H. P. A., Bromme, R., & Gruber, H. (2004). On the long way from novice to expert and how travelling changes the traveller. In H. P. A. Boshuizen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert (pp. 3–8). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte: Zur Psychologie des professionellen Wissens. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  7. Brophy, J. (2004). Using video in teacher education (Vol. 10). West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D. (1988). Expert-Novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 25–31. doi: 10.1177/002248718803900306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Action plan on adult learning. Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/adult/com558_en.pdf.
  12. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deutsches Institut für Erwachsenenbildung, Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung, & Universität Duisburg-Essen. (2016). Personal in der Weiterbildung: Beschäftigungsverhältnisse und Tätigkeiten—wb-personalmonitor. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  14. Digel, S. (2014). Bilden und Forschen mit Videofällen—Stand und Erfahrungen der Projektgruppe Videofallarbeit der Universität Tübingen. In E. Feyerer, K. Hirschenhauser & K. Soukup-Altrichter (Hrsg.), Last oder Lust? Forschung und Lehrer_innenbildung (pp. 159–166). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  15. Digel, S. & Goeze, A. (2010). Aufgaben und Qualifizierung von ModeratorInnen fallbasierter Fortbildungen. In J. Schrader, R. Hohmann, & S. Hartz (Hrsg.), Mediengestützte Fallarbeit—Konzepte, Erfahrungen und Befunde zur Kompetenzentwicklung von Erwachsenenbildnern (pp. S.147–S.166). Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  16. Digel, S., Herbrechter, D., & Schmitt, T. (2013). Förderung professioneller Kompetenz Lehrender. Studierende und erfahrene Lehrkräfte im Vergleich. In H. V. Felden, C. Hof, & S. Schmidt-Lauff (Hrsg.), Erwachsenenbildung im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Praxis (pp. S.62–S.76). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren.Google Scholar
  17. Digel, S., Goeze, A., & Schrader, J. (2012). Aus Videofällen lernen: Einführung in die Praxis für Lehrkräfte, Trainer und Berater. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  18. Digel, S., & Schrader, J. (Eds.). (2013). Diagnostizieren und Handeln von Lehrkräften: Lernen aus Videofällen in Hochschule und Schule. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  19. 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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Emmer, E. T., & Evertson, C. M. (2013). Classroom management for middle and high school teachers. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  21. Emmer, E. T., & Sabornie, E. J. (2015). Handbook of classroom management (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Fischer, F., Waibel, M., & Wecker, C. (2005). Nutzenorientierte Grundlagenforschung im Bildungsbereich: Argumente einer internationalen Diskussion. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 8(3), 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fu, X., Schaefer, J. C., Marchionini, G., & Mu, X. (2006). Video annotation in a learning environment. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, Vol. 1 (pp. 1–22).Google Scholar
  24. Gaudin, C., & Chaliés, S. (2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16, 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goeze, A. (2016). Professionalitätsentwicklung von Lehrkräften durch videofallbasiertes Lernen—Voraussetzungen, Prozesse, Wirkungen. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  26. Goeze, A., Hetfleisch, P., & Schrader, J. (2013). Wirkungen des Lernens mit Videofällen bei Lehrkräften: Welche Rolle spielen instruktionale Unterstützung, Personen- und Prozessmerkmale? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 16(1), 79–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goeze, A., Zottmann, J., Vogel, F., Fischer, F., & Schrader, J. (2014). Getting immersed in teacher and student perspectives? Facilitating analytical competence using video cases in teacher education. Instructional Science, 42(1), 91–114. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9304-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldman, R., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (Eds.). (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Burchinal, M., Field, S., LoCasale-Crouch, J., Downer, J. T., … Scott-Little, C. (2012). A course on effective teacher-child interactions: Effects on teacher beliefs, knowledge, and observed practice. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1), 88–123. doi: 10.3102/0002831211434596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hartig, C. (2008). Berufskulturelle Selbstreflexion. Selbstbeschreibungslogiken von ErwachsenenbildnerInnen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  32. Hetfleisch, P., Goeze, A., & Schrader, J. (2014). Implementation eines wissenschaftlich erprobten, didaktischen Konzepts: Der Einfluss pädagogischer Autonomie auf die Wirksamkeit in der Praxis. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(2), 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hof, C. (2001). Konzepte des Wissens. Eine empirische Studie zu den wissenstheoretischen Grundlagen des Unterrichtens. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Hogan, T. M., Rabinowitz, M., & Craven, J. A. (2003). Representation in teaching: Inferences from research of expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jahn, G., Prenzel, M., Stürmer, K., & Seidel, T. (2011). Varianten einer computergestützten Erhebung von Lehrerkompetenzen: Untersuchungen zu Anwendungen des Tools Observer. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 39(2), 136–153.Google Scholar
  36. Janík, T., & Seidel, T. (Eds.). (2009). The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  37. Janík, T., Janíková, M., Knecht, P., Kubiatko, M., Najvar, P., Najvarová, V., & Šebestová, S. (2009). Exploring different ways in using video in teacher education: Examples from CPV Video Web. In T. Janík & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 207–224). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  38. Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience of work-related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 178–187. doi: 10.1108/ 02683940510579803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jurecka, A. (2008). Introduction to the computer-based assessment of competencies. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (pp. 193–213). Toronto: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  40. Kersting, N. B. (2008). Using video clips of mathematics classroom instruction as item prompts to measure teachers’ knowledge of teaching mathematics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(5), 845–861. doi: 10.1177/0013164407313369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K., Sotelo, F., & Stigler, J. W. (2010). Teacher’s analysis of classroom video predicts student learning of mathematics: Further explorations of a novel measure of teacher knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1), 172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Thompson, B. J., Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2012). Measuring usable knowledge: Teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 568–589. doi: 10.3102/0002831212437853 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klieme, E., Hartig, J., & Rauch, D. (2008). The concept of competence in educational contexts. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of comptencies in educational contexts (pp. 3–22). Cambridge: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  45. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 645–660.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Teachers’ perspective on innovations: Implications for educational design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 985–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Könings, K., Seidel, T., & van Merriënboer, J. (2014). Participatory design of learning environments: Integrating perspectives of students, teachers, and designers. Instructional Science, 42(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  49. Kramer, K., & Reusser, K. (2005). Unterrichtsvideos als Medium der Aus- und Weiterbildung von Lehrpersonen. Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 23(1), 35–50.Google Scholar
  50. Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., & Jordan, A. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716–725. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Results from the COACTIV project. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lattke, S. & Jütte, W. (Hrsg.) (2014). Professionalisation of adult educators: International and comparative perspectives. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  53. Luzius, K. (2016). Klassenführungskompetenz bei Lehrkräften der Sekundarstufe: Erfassung und Zusammenhang zu Beanspruchungserleben. Unveröffentlichte Zulassungsarbeit, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  54. Marx, C., Goeze, A., & Schrader, J. (2014a). Adult education teachers’ pedagogical- psychological knowledge. Potential elements and test development. In S. Lattke & W. Jütte (Eds.), Professionalisation of adult educators. International and comparative perspectives (pp. 165–182). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  55. Marx, C., Goeze, A., & Schrader, J. (2014b). Pädagogisch-psychologisches Wissen zur Gestaltung von Lehr-Lernsituationen: (Wie) Unterscheidet es sich in Erwachsenenbildung/ Weiterbildung und Schule? Hessische Blätter für Volksbildung Erwachsenenbildung, 3, 238–251.Google Scholar
  56. Marx, C., Goeze, A., Voss, T., Hoehne, V., Klotz, V. K., & Schrader, J. (2017). Pädagogisch-psychologisches Wissen von Lehrkräften aus Schule und Erwachsenenbildung: Entwicklung und Erprobung eines Testinstruments. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(Suppl 1), 165–200. doi: 10.1007/s11618-017-0733-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marzano, R. J. (2005). A handbook for classroom management that works. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  58. Mayer, J. (2015). Entwicklung eines Testinstruments zur Erfassung pädagogisch-psychologischen Wissens bei Lehrkräften unterschiedlicher Bildungsbereiche—Ergebnisse einer Pilotstudie, Unveröffentlichte Masterarbeit. Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  59. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2007). Immediate and delayed effects of using a classroom case exemplar in teacher education: The role of presentation format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mu, X. (2010). Towards effective video annotation: An approach to automatically link notes with video content. Computers & Education, 55, 1752–1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Olleck, R. (2010). Mediengestützte Fallarbeit in computerunterstützten Lernumgebungen: Technische Anforderungen und Funktionalitäten für Einzelarbeit, Gruppenarbeit und Blended-Learning-Szenarien. In J. Schrader, R. Hohmann, & S. Hartz (Eds.), Mediengestützte Fallarbeit: Konzepte, Erfahrungen und Befunde zur Kompetenzentwicklung von Erwachsenenbildnern (pp. 191–207). Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  62. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  63. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 Ergebnisse (Band I): Exzellenz und Chancengerechtigkeit in der Bildung. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag. doi: 10.1787/9789264267879-de Google Scholar
  64. Pea, R., Lindgren, R., & Rosen, J. (2008). Cognitive technologies for establishing, sharing and comparing perspectives on video over computer networks. Social Science Information, 47(3), 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pratt, D. D., & Associates. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar: Krieger Publishing.Google Scholar
  66. Pratt, D. D., & Nesbit, T. (2000). Discourses and cultures of teaching. In E. R. Hayes & A. L. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 117–132). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  67. 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(1), 4–15. doi: 10.3102/0013189X029001004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Richardson, V. (1994). The consideration of teachers’ beliefs. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 90–108). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  69. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Santelices, M. V., & Wilson, M. (2012). On the relationship between differential item functioning and item difficulty. An issue of methods? Item response theory approach to differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(1), 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schrader, J., Hohmann, R., & Hartz, S. (Hrsg.). (2010). Mediengestützte Fallarbeit: Konzepte, Erfahrungen und Befunde zur Kompetenzentwicklung von Erwachsenenbildnern. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  72. Seago, N. (2004). Using video as an object of inquiry mathematics teaching and learning. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 259–285). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  73. Seidel, T., & Stürmer, K. (2014). Modeling the structure of professional vision in pre-service teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 739–771. doi: 10.3102/0002831214531321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Schwindt, K., Stürmer, K., Blomberg, G., & Kobarg, M. (2009). LUV and observe: Two projects using video to diagnose teachers’ competence. In T. Janík & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 243–258). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  76. Seidel, T., & Thiel, F. (2017). Standards und Trends der videobasierten Lehr-Lernforschung. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(1). doi: 10.1007/s11618-017-0726-6
  77. Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. Shulman, J. H. (Ed.). (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  79. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015002004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  82. Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., Thota, J. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. Educational Technology, 43(5), 5–10.Google Scholar
  83. Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant—Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  84. Stürmer, K., Könings, K. D., & Seidel, T. (2013). Declarative knowledge and professional vision in teacher education: Effect of courses in teaching and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 467–483. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02075.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. van Es, E., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher, 10(4), 571–596.Google Scholar
  86. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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. doi: 10.1037/a0025125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Weinert, F. E. (2001). A concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  89. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., & Haldane, S. A. (2007). ACER ConQuest version 2.0. Generalised item response modelling software. Camberwell: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  90. Zahn, C., Krauskopf, K., Hesse, F. W., & Pea, R. (2010). Digital video tools in the classroom: How to support meaningful collaboration and critical advanced thinking of students? In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 503–523). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Zottmann, J. M., Goeze, A., Frank, C., Zentner, U., Fischer, F., & Schrader, J. (2012). Fostering the analytical competency of pre-service teachers in a computer-supported case-based learning environment: A matter of perspective? Interactive Learning Environments, 20(6), 513–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thamar Voss
    • 1
    • 2
  • Annika Goeze
    • 3
  • Christian Marx
    • 3
  • Verena Hoehne
    • 1
  • Viola Klotz
    • 4
  • Josef Schrader
    • 3
    • 5
  1. 1.Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Hector-Institut für Empirische BildungsforschungTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Universität Freiburg, Institut für ErziehungswissenschaftFreiburgGermany
  3. 3.Deutsches Institut für Erwachsenenbildung–Leibniz-Zentrum für Lebenslanges Lernen e.VBonnGermany
  4. 4.Universität Mannheim, Fakultät für BetriebswirtschaftslehreMannheimGermany
  5. 5.Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Institut für ErziehungswissenschaftTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations