Advertisement

Representations of Practice in a Video-Based In-Service Teacher Professional Development Project and in Its Evaluation

  • Sebastian KuntzeEmail author
Chapter
  • 326 Downloads
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

Abstract

A key motivation behind using classroom videos in professional development activities is the way how videos can represent classroom situations. However, video offers a variety of possibilities of representing classrooms and the framing of classroom videos in contexts of both professional development and its evaluation plays a decisive role. To find out more about the role of video representations of practice, there is a need to analyze learning opportunities in professional development and possibilities of investigating the development of the participating teachers. This need of analysis is consequently addressed on the basis of experiences and empirical findings from a video-based in-service teacher professional development project. The analysis suggests that the way teachers perceive classroom situations can play a key role for their learning, not only in the process of professional development activities, but also in their evaluation.

Keywords

Representations of practice Video-based evaluation study In-service teachers Professional development 

References

  1. Baumert, J., Lehmann, R., Lehrke, M., Schmitz, B., Clausen, M., Hosenfeld, I., et al. (1997). TIMSS – mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht im internationalen Vergleich. Deskriptive Befunde. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, R., King, A., & Marshall, S. (2002). Effect of videocase construction on preservice teachers’ observations of teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte. Zur Psychologie des professionellen Wissens. [The teacher as an expert. On the psychology of professional knowledge]. Bern: Hans Huber. Google Scholar
  5. Bromme, R. (1997). Kompetenzen, Funktionen und unterrichtliches Handeln des Lehrers. In F. Weinert (Ed.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie: Psychologie des Unterrichts und der Schule (pp. 177–212). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  6. Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualität: Eine Frage der Perspektive? [Quality of instruction—A question of perspective?]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  7. Clausen, M., Reusser, K., & Klieme, E. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität auf der Basis hoch-inferenter Unterrichtsbeurteilungen. [Using high-inference ratings to assess quality of instruction]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 31(2), 122–141.Google Scholar
  8. Doerr, H. & Lerman, S. (2009). The procedural and the conceptual in mathematics pedagogy: What teachers learn from their teaching. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.) Proceedings of 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 433–440). Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  9. Dreher, A., & Kuntze, S. (2015a). Teachers’ professional knowledge and noticing: The case of multiple representations in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(1), 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dreher, A., & Kuntze, S. (2015b). Teachers Facing the Dilemma of Multiple Representations Being Aid and Obstacle for Learning: Evaluations of Tasks and Theme-Specific Noticing. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 36(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ernest, P. (1993). Constructivism, the psychology of learning, and the nature of mathematics: Some critical issues. Science & Education, 2(2), 87–93.Google Scholar
  12. Friesen, M., Dreher, A., & Kuntze, S. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ growth in analysing classroom videos. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME9, 4-8 February 2015) (pp. 2783–2789). Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University in Prague and ERME.Google Scholar
  13. Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representation and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. Cuoco & F. Curcio (Eds.), The role of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1–23). Boston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  14. Heinze, A. (2005). Mistake-handling activities in the mathematics classroom. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. 3 pp. 105–112). Melbourne: University.Google Scholar
  15. Klieme, E. (2002). Was ist guter Unterricht? Ergebnisse der TIMSS-Videostudie im Fach Mathematik. [What is Good Instruction? Results of the TIMSS Video Study in Mathematics]. In: W. Bergsdorf et al. (Eds.), Herausforderungen der Bildungsgesellschaft (pp. 89–113). Weimar: Rhino.Google Scholar
  16. Krammer, K., Schnetzler, C. L., Reusser, K., Pauli, C., Lipowsky, F. & Klieme, E. (2008). Lernen mit Unterrichtsvideos: Konzeption und Ergebnisse eines netzgestützten Weiterbildungsprojekts mit Mathematiklehrpersonen aus Deutschland und der Schweiz. [Learning with classroom videos: Conceptualization and results from an online-based professional development project with mathematics teachers from Germany and Switzerland]. Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 26(2), 178–197.Google Scholar
  17. Kuntze, S. (2006). Video technology in the assessment of an in-service teacher learning program—Differences in mathematics teachers’ judgements on instructional quality. ZDM Mathematics Education, 38(5), 413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuntze, S. (2008). Zusammenhänge zwischen allgemeinen und situiert erhobenen unterrichtsbezogenen Kognitionen und Überzeugungen von Mathematiklehrkräften. [Interdependencies between general and situated cognitions and convictions of mathematics teachers]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 36(2), 167–192.Google Scholar
  19. Kuntze, S. (2012). Pedagogical content beliefs: Global, content domain-related and situation-specific components. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuntze, S., Dreher, A., & Friesen, M. (2015). Teachers’ resources in analysing mathematical content and classroom situations–The case of using multiple representations. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME9, 4-8 February 2015) (pp. 3213–3219). Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University in Prague and ERME.Google Scholar
  21. Kuntze, S., Buchbinder, O., Webel, C., Dreher, A., & Friesen, M. (in press). Using representations of practice for teacher education and research—opportunities and challenges. In G. Kaiser et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of ICME 2016.Google Scholar
  22. Kuntze, S., & Friesen, M. (2016a). Using situated formats for research into aspects of mathematics teacher expertise—Prospects and challenges. Paper presented at the International Congress of Mathematics Education, Hamburg, Germany, on 26th July 2016.Google Scholar
  23. Kuntze, S., & Friesen, M. (2016b). Quality of critical analysis as predictor of teachers’ views on cognitive activation in videotaped classroom situations. In Csíkos, C., Rausch, A., & Szitányi, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–146). Szeged, Hungary: PME.Google Scholar
  24. Kuntze, S., Rechner, M., & Reiss, K. (2004). Inhaltliche Elemente und Anforderungsniveau des Unterrichtsgesprächs beim geometrischen Beweisen - Eine Analyse videografierter Unterrichts-stunden. mathematica didactica, 27(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  25. Kuntze, S., & Reiss, K. (2004). Unterschiede zwischen Klassen hinsichtlich inh. Elemente und Anforderungsniveaus im Unterrichtsgespräch beim Erarbeiten von Beweisen – Ergebnisse einer Videoanalyse. [Differences in Argumentation and Proof in German Classrooms—Results of a Video-Based Study]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 32(4), 357–379.Google Scholar
  26. Lipowsky, F. (2004). Was macht Fortbildungen für Lehrkräfte erfolgreich? Befunde der Forschung und mögliche Konsequenzen für die Praxis. [What makes in-service teacher training programs successful? Research findings and possible consequences for practice]. Die Deutsche. Schule, 96(4), 462–479.Google Scholar
  27. Lipowsky, F. (2010). Lernen im Beruf – Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von Lehrerfortbildung. In F. Müller, A. Eichenberger, M. Lüders, & J. Mayr (Eds.), Lehrerinnen und Lehrer lernen – Konzepte und Befunde zur Lehrerfortbildung (pp. 51–70). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  28. Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lerman, S. (1990). Alternative perspectives of the nature of mathematics and their influence on the teaching of mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 16(1), 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.Google Scholar
  31. Petko, D., Waldis, M., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2003). Methodologische Überlegungen zur videogestützten Forschung in der Mathematikdidaktik – Ansätze der TIMSS 1999 Videostudie und ihrer schweizerischen Erweiterung. ZDM Mathematics Education, 35(6), 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reiss, K. (2002). Beweisen, Begründen, Argumentieren. Wege zu einem diskursiven Mathematikunterricht. In W. Peschek (Ed.), Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht 2002 (pp. 39–46). Hildesheim: Franzbecker.Google Scholar
  33. Reiss, K., Klieme, E., & Heinze, A. (2001). Prerequisites for the understanding of proofs in the geometry classroom. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 97–104). Utrecht: PME.Google Scholar
  34. Seago, N. (2004). Using videos as an object of inquiry for mathematics teaching and learning. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 259–286). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  35. Sherin, M. G. (2003). Using video clubs to support conversations among teachers and researchers. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sherin, M., Jacobs, V., & Philipp, R. (2011). Mathematics Teacher Noticing. Seeing Through Teachers’ Eyes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Shulman, L. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 3–36). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Shulman, L. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and Findings from an Exploratory Research Project in Eighth-Grade Mathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. NCES 1999–074. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  41. Tillema, H. (2000). Belief change towards selfdirected learning in student teachers: Immersion in practice or reflection on action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 575–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Törner, G. (2002). Mathematical beliefs—A search for a common ground: Some theoretical considerations on structuring beliefs, some research questions, and some phenomenological observations. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A Hidden Variable in Mathematics Education? (pp. 73–94). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. van Es, E., & Sherin, M. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ludwigsburg University of EducationLudwigsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations