Development of an Instrument and Evaluation Pattern for the Analysis of Chemistry Student Teachers’ Diagnostic Competence
Abstract views: 355
/ 
PDF downloads: 211
Keywords:
Diagnostic competence, evaluation pattern development, competence developmentAbstract
Diagnostics have become one of the central tools for planning teaching which accommodates learners' needs. Changes occurring in the chemistry classroom caused by rising levels of student heterogeneity play a crucial role. Thus, diagnostic processes are seen to be part of the cure. For this reason, chemistry (student) teachers need to understand the possibilities and potential for diagnostics in their classrooms. The present study employs a definition of diagnostic competence by Jäger. He emphasizes three domains: conditional knowledge, technological knowledge and knowledge of change. To achieve such competences, student teachers need to start learning about it during their university training. Since there are only few and mainly quantitative instruments in this field, the present paper describes the development of an instrument and an evaluation pattern for analyzing student teachers` diagnostic competence in chemistry. The instrument is a qualitative approach. It is based upon a written essay and open-ended questions. The evaluation pattern will be in focus. Initial results from the present study will also be discussed.
References
Barke, H.-D., Hazaari, A. & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Misconceptions in chemistry: addressing perceptions in chemical education. Berlin: Springer.
Bates, C. & Nettelbeck, T. (2001). Primary school teachers` judgments of reading achievement. Educational Psychology, 21(2), 177–187, doi:10.1080/01443410020043878.
Brookhart, S.M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3–12, doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x.
Chandrasegaran, A.L., Treagust, D.F. & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293–307, doi:10.1039/B7RP90006F.
Coladarci, T. (1986). Accuracy of teacher judgment of students’ responses to standardized test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 141–146, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.2.141.
Demaray, M.K. & Elliott, S.N. (1998). Teachers’ judgments of students’ academic functioning: A comparison of actual and predicted performances. School Psychology Quarterly, 13(1), 8–24, doi:10.1037/h0088969.
Diversity Leadership Council of the John Hopkins University (Eds.)(without year). Diversity wheel. Retrieved August 24, 2017 from http://web.jhu.edu/dlc/resources/diversity_wheel .
Feinberg, A.B. & Shapiro, E.S. (2003). Accuracy of teacher judgments in predicting oral reading fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(1), 52–65, doi:10.1521/scpq.18.1.52.20876.
Feinberg, A.B. & Shapiro, E.S. (2009). Teacher accuracy: an examination of teacher-based judgments of students’ reading with differing achievement levels. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 453–462, doi:10.3200/JOER.102.6.
Fischer, A., Hößle, C., Jahnke-Klein, S., Kiper, H., Komorek, M., Michaelis, J., Niesel, V. & Sjuts, J. (2014). Diagnostik für lernwirksamen Unterricht [Diagnostic for successfull learning]. Hohengehren: Baltmannsweiler.
Florian, L. & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828, doi:10.1080/01411926.2010.501096.
Füchter, A. (2011). Pädagogische und didaktische Diagnostik: Eine schulische Entwicklungsaufgabe mit hohem Professionalitätsanspruch [Pedagogical and educational diagnostic: a task of school development with a professionalism]. In A. Füchter & K. Moegling (Eds.), Diagnostik und Förderung [Diagnostic and support] (pp. 45–83). Kassel: PROLOG.
Gillespie, R. (1991). String teachers’ diagnostics skills and their students’ performance competencies. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(4), 282–289, doi:10.2307/3345747.
Grossenbacher, S. (2010). Kompetenz und Professionalität entwickeln [Development of competence and professionalism]. In A. Buholzer & A. Kummer Wyss (Eds.), Alle gleich – alle unterschiedlich! Zum Umgang mit Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht [all the same – all different! Dealing with heterogeneity in school and lesson] (pp. 162–168). Seelze: Kallmeyer.
Hashweh, M. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: a reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching, 11(3), 273–292, doi:10.1080/13450600500105502.
Heidemeier, H. (2005). Self and supervisor ratings of job-performance: Meta-analyses and a process model of rater convergence. Dissertation Thesis, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
Hoge, R.D. & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature. Review of Educational Psychology, 59(3), 297–313, doi:10.3102/00346543059003297.
Ingenkamp, K. & Lissmann, U. (2008). Lehrbuch der Pädagogischen Diagnostik [Textbook of pedagogical diagnostic], 6th Edition. Weinheim: Beltz.
Jäger, R.S. (2006). Diagnostischer Prozess [Diagnostic process]. In F. Petermann & M. Eid (Eds.), Handbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik [Handbook of psychological diagnostik] (pp. 89–96). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Kahveci, A. (2013). Diagnostic assessment of student understanding of the particulate nature of matter: decades of research. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of Matter in Science Education: Innovations in Science Education and Technology (pp. 249–278). Dordrecht: Springer.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Klug, J. (2011). Modelling and training a new concept of teachers' diagnostic competence. Dissertation Thesis, Technische Universität Darmstadt.
Klug, J., Bruder, S., Kelava, A., Spiel, C. & Schmitz, B. (2013). Diagnostic competence of teachers: A process model that accounts for diagnosing learning behavior tested by means of a case scenario. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 38–46, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.004.
Krauss, S., Kunter, M., Brunner, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W. & Neubrand, M. (2004). COACTIV: Professionswissen von Lehrkräften, kognitiv aktivierender Mathematikunterricht und die Entwicklung von mathematischer Kompetenz [COACTIC: professional knowledge of teachers, cognitively activating mathematics teaching and the development of mathematical competence]. In J. Doll & M. Prenzel (Eds.), Die Bildungsqualität von Schule: Lehrerprofessionalisierung, Unterrichtsentwicklung und Schülerförderung als Strategien der Qualitätsverbesserung [Educational quality of schools: teacher professionalisation, teaching development and student support as strategies of quality improvement] (pp. 31–53). Münster: Waxmann.
Loughran, J., Berry, A. & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding und developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.
Markic, S., Broggy, J. & Childs, P. (2012). How do deal with linguistic issues in chemistry classes. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook (pp. 131–156). Rotterdam: Sense.
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. Theoretical foundation, basis procedures and software solutions. Klagenfurt: Beltz.
Moore, F. M. (2007). Language in science education as a gatekeeper to learning, teaching and professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 319-343.
Nitko, A.J. & Brookhart, S.M. (2007). Educational assessment of students, 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Olszewski, J. (2010). The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge on teacher action and student outcomes. Berlin: Logos.
Park, S. & Oliver, J.S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284, doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6.
Partenio, I. & Taylor, R.L. (1985). The relationship of teacher ratings and IQ: A question of bias?. School Psychology Review, 14(1), 79–83.
Perry, N.E., Hutchinson, L. & Thauberger, C. (2008). Talking about teaching self-regulated learning: Scaffolding student teachers` development and use of practices that promote self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 97–108, doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2007.11.010.
Peterson, R.F., Treagust, D.F. & Garnett, P.J. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade 11 and 12 students' concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(4), 301–314, doi:10.1002/tea.3660260404.
Schrader, F.-W. (2013). Diagnostische Kompetenz von Lehrpersonen [Diagnostic competence of teachers]. Beitrag zur Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung, 31(2), 154–165.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Education Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22, doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411.
Swanborn, P.G. (1996). A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Quality and Quantity, 30(1), 19–35, doi:10.1007/BF00139833.
Taber, K.S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions – prevention, diagnosis and cure: Volume I: Theoretical background. London: RSC.
Tolsdorf, Y. & Markic, S. (2016a). Dealing language in science classroom – Diagnosing student` linguistic skills. In S. Markic & S. Abels (Eds.), Science Education towards Inclusion (pp. 23–42). New York: Nova.
Tolsdorf, Y. & Markic, S. (2016b). Exploring student teachers` knowledge concerning diagnostics in science lessons. In J. Lavonen, K. Juuti, J, Lampiselkä, A, Uitto & K. Hahl (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science education research: Engaging learners for a sustainable future (pp. 2002–2009). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Tolsdorf, Y. & Markic, S., (2017). Exploring chemistry student teachers´ diagnostic competence - a qualitative cross-level study. Education Sciences, 7(4), 86-100. doi:10.3390/educsci7040086
Tolsdorf Y. & Markic, S. (in preparation). Exploring student teachers´ competence concerning diagnostic in chemistry teaching – a longitudinal interview study.
Vogt, F. & Rogalla, M. (2009). Developing adaptive teaching compentency through coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1051–1060, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.04.002.
Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Helmke, A., Trautwein, U. & Lüdtke, O. (2013). Construct validity of student perceptions of instructional quality is high, but not perfect: dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent assessment. Learning and Instruction, 28, 1–11, doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.003.
Weisberg, H.E. (2005). The total survey error approach: A guide to the new science of survey research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Williams, A. (2013). A teacher’s perspective of dyscalculia: Who counts? An interdisciplinary overview. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18(1), 1–16, doi:10.1080/19404158.2012.727840.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright © Authors
