Abstracts - Earli

Instructional methods and their relationship to other quality indicators of teaching: A study on theinterplay of student centered instructional methods, goal clarity and process-oriented teachingInger Marie Dalehefte, IPN - Leibniz-Institute for Science Education, GermanyTina Seidel, IPN Leibniz-Institute for Science Education, GermanyConstanze Herweg, IPN Leibniz-Institute for Science Education, GermanyRolf Rimmele, IPN Leibniz-Institute for Science Education, GermanyManfred Prenzel, IPN Leibniz-Institute for Science Education, GermanyThe study presented argues that teaching scripts might be best described by combining differentcriteria. It is argued that student orientation and goal clarity is an important element both in teacherand student centered classroom organizations. Thus, teachers have the freedom to use differentinstructional methods. However, independent of which method they use teaching has to beoriented towards the individual learning processes of the students and has to be clear with regardto teaching and learning goals. In order to describe teaching scripts using multiple criteria, threeaspects of teaching are focused: 1) student centeredness in instructional methods, 2) lesson clarityand coherence, and 3) teaching related to learners’ process/student orientation. The randomizedsample includes video taped teaching units of 50 German and 32 Swiss (German speaking) 9thgrade science classes. Over the school year 2002/2003 (Germany) and 2003/2004 (Switzerland)each class was videotaped in a curricular physics unit of two lessons. Information about individuallearning processes was gathered with tests and questionnaires subsequent to the videotapedlessons. Using the method of Latent Class Analysis three teaching patterns were described thatvary along the dimensions of student centeredness, lesson clarity and coherence, and studentorientation. The first pattern shows a somewhat undirected und unclear approach to teaching inwhich teachers use student centered instructional methods from time to time. At the same time thelessons are medium in lesson clarity and low in learner orientation. The second pattern ischaracterized by student centered instructional methods with quite high lesson clarity and highstudent orientation. The third script is characterized by a high amount of teacher centered methods.However, these lessons are also very high in student orientation, indicating that teachers were ableto orient their teaching towards the individual learning processes of the students.Coping with authority in two sixth grade mathematics classrooms: Who’s in charge?Fien Depaepe, University of Leuven, Dep. Educational Sciences, BelgiumErik De Corte, University of Leuven, Dep. Educational Sciences, BelgiumLieven Verschaffel, University of Leuven, Dep. Educational Sciences, BelgiumIt is assumed that mathematical learning is influenced by both individual and social processes, andthat both kinds of processes are interwoven with each other (Cobb & Yackel, 1996). Weconducted a seven-month-long case study in two sixth grade classrooms in order to document thisrelationship between the social and the individual dimension of mathematics learning. The firstaim of our study was to identify how the classroom norm "who’s in charge in terms of makingmathematical contributions?" develops through classroom practices. Our second aim was to linkthe emergence of this norm in classroom mathematical practices with individuals’ conceptions ofwho’s in charge in their classroom. Through classroom observations and teachers’ and students’interviews, we focused on three aspects of teacher-student interaction from an instructional pointof view: (1) who was allowed to judge the correctness or legitimacy of students’ responses, (2)students could ask for help to whom, and (3) who was allowed to answer their questions. Weobserved a different pattern with regard to these authority aspects in the two teachers’ instructionalapproaches. Besides, we obtained significant differences between the two classes in students’– 69 –