• English
    • Norsk
  • English 
    • English
    • Norsk
  • Administration
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Øvrige samlinger
  • Høstingsarkiver
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Øvrige samlinger
  • Høstingsarkiver
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Profiles of teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge: Nature, causes and effects on beliefs and instructional quality

Nehls, Caroline; König, Johannes; Kaiser, Gabriele; Blömeke, Sigrid
Journal article; AcceptedVersion; Peer reviewed
View/Open
Nehls+Profiles+ ... -V_fulltekst+archiving.pdf (880.8Kb)
Year
2020
Permanent link
http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-78333

CRIStin
1747768

Metadata
Show metadata
Appears in the following Collection
  • CEMO Centre for Educational Measurement [154]
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv [16955]
Original version
ZDM: Mathematics Education. 2020, 52 (2), 343-357, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01102-3
Abstract
The aim of the research described in this paper was to identify qualitatively different profiles of teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge (GPK) as a central component of their competence. We applied a mixed Rasch model to a sample of 462 mathematics and non-mathematics teachers who were tested using a short version of the TEDS-M test for GPK. The analysis revealed two profiles that were characterized by (quantitative) differences in their overall GPK level as well as (qualitative) differences in how well these groups did on specific items. The profiles differed mainly on items dealing with adaptivity, notably on a set related to Bruner’s modes of representation. A person-focused comparison of the profiles showed that teachers who had undergone training for teaching mathematics had a higher chance of belonging to the profile with strength on these and other adaptivity items. The profiles were validated against teachers’ beliefs and their instructional quality. The results showed that the two groups differed significantly in their epistemological as well as teaching and learning beliefs. Moreover, they differed significantly in the cognitive activation level of their instruction.
 
Responsible for this website 
University of Oslo Library


Contact Us 
duo-hjelp@ub.uio.no


Privacy policy
 

 

For students / employeesSubmit master thesisAccess to restricted material

Browse

All of DUOCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitles

For library staff

Login
RSS Feeds
 
Responsible for this website 
University of Oslo Library


Contact Us 
duo-hjelp@ub.uio.no


Privacy policy