Session Information
24 SES 04, Adults' Education & Research in Mathematics Education
Paper Session
Contribution
At the Technical University of Dortmund the project dortMINT aims to enhance the pedagogical content knowledge of math, biology, chemistry, physic and IT teacher trainee. Within this project the focus lays on the didactic aspects, (1) diagnostic and (2) individual encouragement. Both aspects should be learned and adopted by the teacher trainees for their own teaching repertoire. Here we have to take into account different views on didactics by referring to the review of Boero, Dapueto, and Parenti (1996) on European didactics of math teachers. As a part of the project dortMINT the Institute of School Development Research (IFS) tests the mathematical content knowledge, the pedagogical content knowledge, the pedagogical competence, epistemological beliefs as well as self-regulatory aspects as self efficacy. Here we follow the constitutive work from Shulman (1987, 1998) and his categories of teacher knowledge. Ball and Bass (2000), Darling-Hammond (2000), Even and Tirosh (2002) - to name just a few - showed how reasonable these categories are for describing teacher knowledge. Furthermore international large-scale assessments for testing teacher competence and student teacher competence used this categorization. TEDS-M, MT21 and COACTIV used the above mentioned categorization for testing teacher knowledge additionally self-regulatory beliefs and epistemological beliefs about mathematics (Baumert & Kunter, 2006; Tatto, Schwille, Senk, Ingvarson, Peck & Rowley, 2008). Nevertheless the scientific knowledge of teachers is an important aspect of teaching which is undermined in the mentioned theoretical approaches. Teachers gather new knowledge by relying on scientific results. But do they learn how to use scientific results during their study and teacher trainee period? Considering the theoretical approach the scientific knowledge should be tested as an autarkic criterion and should take into account theoretical results and approaches of higher education. The questions we follow are: How high is the scientific competence of the tested math student who will be teachers? Are there any relations to the other tested constructs? Is a high scientific competence related to a high mathematical competence? Is the scientific competence related to the epistemological beliefs or the self efficacy? For answering these questions we need to develop a test instrument to conduct the scientific competence. Regarding the results and posits for higher education (Schneider & Wildt, in press; Bloom, 2000) we develop and exert an instrument to test how and to what extent college students learn by scientific work and autonomously exerted scientific processes.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. Westport, CT: Ablex. Baumert, J. & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9 (4). Bloom, H. (2000). Der Hochschullehrer als Coach. Neuwied/Kriftel: Luchterhand. Boero, P., Dapueto, C., & Parenti, L. (1996). Didactics of Mathematics and the Professional Knowledge of Teachers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. A Review of State Policy Evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, (1). Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (2002). Teacher knowledge and understanding of students’ mathematical learning. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum, pp. 219-240. McCutcheon, A.L. (1987) Latent Class Analysis. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications. Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user's guide (5. Aufl.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén. Schmidt, W.H., Tatto, M.T., Bankov, K., Blömeke, S., Cedillo, T., Cogan, L., Han, S.-I., Houang, R., Hsieh, F.J., Paine, L., Santillan, M.N. & Schwille, J. (2007). The Preparation Gap: Teacher Education for Middle School Mathematics in Six Countries – Mathematics Teaching in the 21st Century (MT21). East Lansing, MI: MSU. Schneider, R. & Wildt, J. (in press): Forschendes Lernen in Praxisstudien - Wechsel eines Leitmotivs. Bad Heilbrunn. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, pp. 1–22. Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, & the education of professionals. The Elementary School Journal 98, (5), pp. 511-526. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Conceptual framework. East Lansing, MI: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.