Abstracts - Earli

primary students. Data analysis showed significant gender differences in students’ computer andmath self-efficacy as well as in their gender-stereotyped beliefs about computers and math.Regression analysis showed that perceived parental and, to a lesser extend, peer support were thefactors more strongly associated with students’ self-efficacy for both math and computers. Also,gender-stereotyped beliefs were strongly related to math self-efficacy (positively for boys andnegatively for girls), and the relationship was stronger for boys. Our findings highlight the role ofsocialization, gender stereotypes, and out-of-school experiences in the development of students’motivation to learn math and computers.N 1231 August 2007 16:00 - 17:20Room: 0.81 OrtvayPaper SessionPre-service and novice teachersChair:Sylvia Rojas, National Autonomous University of Mexico, MexicoPlanning and teaching thought processes of teachers and student teachersPhilippe Wanlin, University of Luxembourg, LuxembourgThis paper analyses the thought processes of teachers and trainees (student teachers) of the BelgianFrench Community. The data collecting techniques were journal keeping, thinking aloud,classroom videotaped observation, interviews, and stimulated recall. A content analysis of the datawas then performed to derive the planning and interactive decisions made and the reasons putforward for these decisions. Most decisions focused on teaching technique and educationalstrategy. The decisions made during the planning were also categorized as organizational ones(material, time schedule) whereas during interaction they were also qualified as transitional(sequencing and linking of activities) for the teachers and essentially managerial for the trainees(classroom management). Even if teachers and trainees mostly don’t explain their planningdecisions, the reference for these decisions are the pupils (their performance, participation,behaviour …) or the educational context (available time, parents, external context as for exampleinspections’ or teacher trainers’ requirements). However, they differ in the first argument: teachersrefer mostly to personal needs, impressions and interiorized routines whereas trainees refer to theactivity (objectives, complexity …), its flow and the attainment of the trainers’ standards.Interactive decisions are mostly explained with factors referring to pupils and activity flow. Bothteachers and trainees make interactive decisions according to a steering group of pupils who seemto understand or to master the taught skill or content. The principal focus of the trainees is toimplement the planned lesson to reach the assessment standards of their trainers. Data also showthat the trainees don’t like the pressure of the evaluation standards. They declare that thesestandards impede free decision-making and their own professional development. Thisdemonstrates the need to improve the training and the associated assessment standards.– 747 –