The role of student characteristics in studying micro teaching-learning environments

Learning Environments Research

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 253-271

  Seidel, Tina ^a  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION   (Germany)

Author keywords

Latent class analysis; Learning; Perception of learning environments; Student characteristics; Teaching; Video based research

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846962103     PISSN: 13871579     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10984-006-9012-x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Beaton, A. E., & Johnson, E. G. (1992). Overview of the scaling methodology used in the national assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 163-175.
2. Bransford, J. D., & Donovan, M. S. (2005). Scientific inquiry and how people learn. In M. S. Donovan, & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 397-420). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5-32.
4. Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365-374.
5. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
6. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
7. Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices. Why high school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 51-68.
8. Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2000). Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4-12. Klassen, Revision [Cognitive ability test for grades 4-12, revised.]. Göttingen, Germany: Beltz Test GmbH.
9. Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls' interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12, 447-465.
10. Hoffmann, L., Häußler, P., & Lehrke, M. (1998). Die IPN-Interessenstudie Physik [IPN interest study in physics]. Kiel, Germany: IPN.
11. Jacobs, J. K., Kawanaka, T., & Stigler, J. W. (1999). Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to the analysis of video data on classroom teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 717-724.
12. Krapp, A., & Lewalter, D. (2001). Development of interests and interest-based motivational orientations: A longitudinal study in vocational school, work settings. In S. Volet & S. Järvela (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical and methodological implications (pp. 209-232). London: Elsevier.
13. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
14. Levy, J., den Brok, P., Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2003). Students' perceptions of interpersonal aspects of the learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 6, 5-36.
15. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzales, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). Findings from IEA's trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
16. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.
17. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079.
18. Prenzel, M., Kramer, K., & Drechsel, B. (2002). Self-determined and interested learning in vocational education. In K. Beck (Ed.), Teaching-learning processes in vocational education (pp. 43-68). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
19. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2001). HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling (version 5). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
20. Rimmele, R., Seidel, T., Knierim, B., Kobarg, M., Dalehefte, I. M., Schwindt, K., et al. (2005). Scale documentation-student questionnaire. In T. Seidel, M. Prenzel, & M. Kobarg (Eds.), How to run a video study: Technical report of the IPN video study (pp. 224-281). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
21. Rost, J. (2004). Testtheorie und Testkonstruktion [Test theory and test construction]. Bern, Switzerland: Hans Huber.
22. Schiefele, U. (1996). Motivation und Lernen mit Texten [Motivation and learning with texts]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
23. Seidel, T. (2003). Lehr-Lernskripts im Unterricht [Teaching and learning scripts]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
24. Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Duit, R., Euler, M., Geiser, H., Hoffmann, L., et al. (2002). "Can everybody look to the front of the classroom please?"-patterns of instruction in elementary physics classrooms and its implications for students' learning. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 30(1), 52-77.
25. Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., & Kobarg, M. (Eds.). (2005). How to run a video study: Technical report of the IPN video study. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
26. Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243-310). New York: MacMillan.
27. Snow, R. E., & Swanson, J. (1992). Instructional psychology: Aptitude, adaptation, and assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 583-626.
28. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Mooney, J. (1989). Trace lines for testlets: A use of multiple-categorical response models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 247-260.
29. von Davier, M. (1999). WINMIRA-a program system for analyses with the Rasch-model, with the latent class analysis and with the mixed-Rasch model. Kiel, Germany: IPN.
30. Wu, M., & Adams, R. (2004). Plausible values: Why they are important. Unpublished manuscript.