Bedingungsfaktoren des fachbezogenen Kompetenzerwerbs von Lehrkräften. Zum Einfluss von Ausbildungs-, Persönlichkeits- und Kompositionsmerkmalen in der Mathematiklehrerausbildung für die Sekundarstufe I

Zeitschrift fur Padagogik (Beiheft)

Volumn , Issue 57, 2011, Pages 77-103

  Blömeke, Sigrid ^a   Kaiser, Gabriele ^b   Döhrmann, Martina ^c  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VECHTA   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 81755187047     PISSN: 05142717     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison-Wesley.
2. Anderson, J. R., & Lebière, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual strategy and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9, 469-520.
5. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Hrsg.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations (S. 349-381). San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.
6. Blömeke, S., & Kaiser, G. (2010). Mathematics Teacher Education and Gender Effects. In H. Forgasz, K.-H. Lee, J. Rossi Becker & O. Bjorg Steinsthorsdottir (Hrsg.), International Perspectives on Gender and Mathematics Education (S. 263-283). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
7. Blömeke, S., Kaiser, G., & Lehmann, R. (Hrsg.) (2008). Professionelle Kompetenz angehender Lehrerinnen und Lehrer. Wissen, Überzeugungen und Lemgelegenheiten deutscher Mathematikstudierender und -referendare - Erste Ergebnisse zur Wirksamkeit der Lehrerausbildung. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
8. Blömeke, S., Kaiser, G., & Lehmann, R. (Hrsg.) (2010a). TEDS-M 2008 - Professionelle Kompetenz und Lemgelegenheiten angehender Primarstufenlehrkräfte im intemationalen Vergleich. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
9. Blömeke, S., Kaiser, G., & Lehmann, R. (Hrsg.) (2010b). TEDS-M 2008 - Professionelle Kompetenz und Lemgelegenheiten angehender Mathematiklehrkrafte fur die Sekundarstufe I im intemationalen Vergleich. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
10. Blömeke, S., Lehmann, R., & Suhl, U. (2010). Technischer Anhang zu TEDS-M Sekundarstufe I: Stichprobenziehung, Durchfuhrung der Erhebung, Skalierung, Gewichtung und Analyseeinheiten. In S. Blömeke, G. Kaiser & R. Lehmann (Hrsg.), TEDS-M 2008 - Professionelle Kompetenz und Lemgelegenheiten angehender Mathematiklehrkräfte fur die Sekundarstufe I im intemationalen Vergleich (S. 307-344). Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
11. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., & Kaiser, G. (2011). Teacher education effectiveness: Quality and equity of future primary teachers' mathematics and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 154-171.
12. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., Kaiser, G., Felbrich, A., & Schmotz, Ch. (2010). Lemgelegenheiten und Kompetenzerwerb angehender Mathematiklehrkrä fte im intemationalen Vergleich. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 38(1), 29-50.
13. Brandell, G. (2008). Progress and stagnation of gender equity. Contradictory trends within mathematics research and education in Sweden. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(4), 659-672.
14. Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte: Zur Psychologie des professionellen Wissens. Bern: Huber Verlag.
15. Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Krauss, S., Baumert, J., Blum, W., & Dubberke, T. (2006). Welche Zusammenhänge bestehen zwischen dem fachspezifischen Professionswissen von Mathematiklehrkräften und ihrer Ausbildung sowie beruflichen Fortbildung? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9, 521-544.
16. Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Hrsg.), Research in multilevel issues. Multilevel issues in organizational behavior and processes (Vol. 3, S. 273-303). Oxford: Elsevier. (Pubitemid 39753331)
17. Comber, L. C, & Keeves, J. P. (1973). Science education in nineteen countries. Stockholm/ Schweden: Almqvist & Wiksell.
18. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: a contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.
19. Cummins, J. (1983). Heritage language education. A literature review. Toronto: Ministry of Education.
20. Council of Chief State School Officers (1990). School success for limited English proficient students. The challenge and state response. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
21. Curdes, B., Jahnke-Klein, S., Lohfeld, W., & Pieper-Seier, I. (2003). Mathematikstudentinnen und -studenten - Studienerfahrungen und Zukunftsvorstellungen (Wissenschaftliche Reihe NFFG 5). Norderstedt: BoD Verlag.
22. de Maeyer, S., van den Bergh, H., Rymenans, R., & van Petegem, P. (2010). Effectiveness criteria in school effectiveness studies: Further research on the choice for a multivariate model. Educational Research Review, 5, 81-96.
23. Döhrmann, M., Kaiser, G., & Blömeke, S. (2010). Messung des mathematischen und mathematikdidaktischen Wissens: Theoretischer Rahmen und Teststruktur. In S. Blömeke, G. Kaiser & R. Lehmann (Hrsg.), TEDS-M 2008 - Professionelle Kompetenz und Lerngelegenheiten angehender Mathematiklehrkräfte für die Sekundarstufe I im internationalen Vergleich (S. 169-194). Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
24. Fay, R. E. (1989). Theory and Application of Replicate Weighting for Variance Calculations. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, 212-217.
25. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Verlag.
26. Henrion, C. (1997). Women in mathematics. The addition of difference. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
27. Heyneman S. P., & Loxley, W. A. (1982). Influences on academic performance across high and low-income countries: A re-analysis of IEA data. Sociology of Education, 55, 13-21.
28. Hill, H. C, Loewenberg Ball, D., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Conceptualising and Measuring Teachers' Topic-specific Knowledge of Students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 372-400.
29. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Ilie, S., & Lietz, P. (2010). School quality and student achievement in 21 European countries. The Heyneman-Loxley effect revisited. In IEA-ETS Research Institute (Hrsg.), IERI Monograph Series. Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments (Vol. 3, S. 57-84). Hamburg, Germany/Princeton, USA: IEA-ETS Research Institute.
31. James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.
32. KMK = Secretariat der Standigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Hrsg.) (2003). Bildungsstandards im Fach Mathematik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. Bonn: KMK.
33. Kimball, M. M. (1989). Anew perspective on women's math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105(22), 198-214.
34. König, J., Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Schmidt, W. H., & 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.
35. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-882.
36. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating valueadded models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
37. McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305-322.
38. McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46. (Pubitemid 126421252)
39. Mueller, Ch. W., & Parcel, T. L. (1981). Measures of socioeconomic status: Alternatives and recommendations. Child Development, 52, 13-30.
40. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report. 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.
41. NOKUT (Nasjonalt Organ for Kvalitet i Utdanningen) (2006). Evaluering av Allmennla-rerutdanningen i Norge 2006. Hovedrapport. http://www.nokut.no/ Documents/NOKUT/Artikkelbibliotek/Norsk-utdanning/SKyalueva/ALUEVA-Hovedrapport. pdf [25.01.2010].
42. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher Learning. Implications of New Views of Cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good & I. F. Goodson (Hrsg.), International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching, 2 (S. 1223-1296). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
43. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
44. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.
45. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C, Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T., & Wiley, D. E. (1997). Many visions, many aims: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
46. Shulman, L. (1985). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Hrsg.), Handbook of research on teaching (3. Aufl., S. 3-36). New York, NY: Macmillan.
47. Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies. http://www.hub.mspnet.Org/ index.cfm/11172 [29.06.2011].
48. Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323-332.
49. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research 1990-2000. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453. (Pubitemid 41442067)
50. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis. London: Sage.
51. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher education and development study in mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Conceptual framework. East Lansing, MI: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.
52. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
53. Thomas, S., & Mortimore, P. (1996). Comparison of value-added models for secondary school effectiveness. Research Papers in Education, 11, 5-33.
54. Travers, K. J., & Westbury, I. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics I: Analysis of mathematics curricula (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
55. van Ewijk, R., & Sleegers, P. (2010). The effect of peer socioeconomic status on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 5, 134-150.
56. Vollrath, H.-J. (2001). Grundlagen des Mathematikunterrichts in der Sekundarstufe. Heidelberg: Spektrum Verlag.
57. Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: Development and validation of the FIT-Choice Scale. Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3), 167-202.
58. Weinert, F. E. (1999). Konzepte der Kompetenz. Gutachten zum OECD-Projekt "Definition and Selection of Competencies: Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations (DeSeCo)". Neuchatel: Bundesamt fur Statistik.