Development and Changes in Student Teachers´ Knowledge Concerning Diagnostic in Chemistry Teaching - A Longitudinal Case Study
More details
Hide details
University of Bremen, Bremen, GERMANY
Padagogische Hochschule Ludwigsburg, Ludwigsburg, GERMANY
Publish date: 2018-08-12
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(12):em1613
A knowledge about pedagogical diagnosis is important for professional teachers for teaching heterogeneous chemistry classes. For chemistry teachers, the knowledge about their students` perceptions, attitudes, knowledge, previous experience or their interest is crucial for planning lessons. Therefore, the diagnosis is a key component of teachers` knowledge. However, research in this area is still underrepresented. It is clear, that the development of teachers` knowledge about diagnosis in chemistry teaching and learning should be started during the university teacher education program. But, how does this knowledge develop or change during the teacher training program in chemistry education? This paper attempts to investigate this development with a longitudinal interview case study. Two chemistry student teachers participated the study and were interviewed at seven different time points during their teacher education program. The interview and the analysis are based on the definition by Jäger with a focus on the four dimensions of the diagnostic competence: i. Competence Knowledge, ii. Conditional Knowledge, iii. Technological Knowledge and iv. Knowledge of Change. The analysis of the interviews follows documentary method. The results show a different development of student teachers, which allowed a contrasting view of the students. From this, implications for the teacher training will be presented.
1. Asbrand, B. (2011). The meaning of peer culture for learning at school: the example of a student company. EDT – Educacao Tematica Digital, 12(2), 53-76.
2. Barke, H.-D., Hazaari, A., & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Misconceptions in chemistry: Addressing perceptions in chemical education. Berlin: Springer.
3. Bates, C., & Nettelbeck, T. (2001). Primary school teachers` judgments of reading achievement. Educational Psychology, 21, 177-187.
4. Begeny, J. C., Eckert, T. L., Montarello, S. A., & Storie, M. S. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ reading abilities: An examination of the relationship between teachers’ judgments and students’ performance across a continuum of rating methods. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 43-55.
5. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25.
6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31.
7. Bohnsack, R. (2010). Documentary Method and Group Discussions. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research (pp. 99-124). Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
8. Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3-12.
9. Busch, H., & Ralle, B. (2012). Fachsprachliche Kompetenzen prüfen und fördern [Diagnosing and promoting scientific language competences]. In S. Bernholt (Ed.), Konzepte fachdidaktischer Strukturierung für den Unterricht (pp. 578-580). Berlin: LIT.
10. Capizzi, A. M., & Fuchs, L. (2005). Effects of curriculum-based measurement with and without diagnostic feedback on teacher planning. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 159-174.
11. 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.
12. Coladarci, T. (1986). Accuracy of teacher judgment of students’ responses to standardized test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 141-146.
13. Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey Questions. Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences (Series/Number 07-063). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14. Feinberg, A. B., & Shapiro, E. S. (2003). Accuracy of teacher judgments in predicting oral reading fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(1), 52-65.
15. 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.
16. Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828.
17. Füchter A. (2011). Pädagogische und didaktische Diagnostik: Eine schulische Entwicklungsaufgabe mit hohem Professionalitätsanspruch [Pedagogical and didactical diagnostic: a developmental task of schools with demand on professionalisation]. In A. Füchter & K. Moegling (Eds.), Diagnostik und Förderung Teil I: Didaktische Grundlagen (Vol. 14)( pp. 45-83). Kassel: PROLOG.
18. Gilbert, J. K., Justi, R., van Driel, J. H., de Jong, O., & Treagust, D. F. (2004). Securing a Future for Chemical Education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(1), 5-14.
19. Grossenbacher, S. (2010). Kompetenz und Professionalität entwickeln [Developing competendes and professionalism]. In A. Buholzer & A. Kummer Wyss (Eds.), Alle gleich - alle unterschiedlich! Zum Umgang mit Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht (pp. 162-168). Seelze: Kallmeyer.
20. Hashweh, M. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: a reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching, 11(3), 273-292.
21. Heidemeier, H. (2005). Self and supervisor ratings of job-performance: Meta-analyses and a process model of rater convergence (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
22. Helmke, A., & Schrader, F. W. (1987). Interactional effects of instructional quality and teacher judgement accuracy on achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 91-98.
23. Heward, W. L. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the effectiveness of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 36(4), 186-205.
24. Hoge, R. D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature. Review of Educational Psychology, 59(3), 297-313.
25. Ingenkamp, K., & Lissmann, U. (2008). Lehrbuch der Pädagogischen Diagnostik (6th edition). Weinheim: Beltz.
26. Jäger, R. S. (2006). Diagnostischer Prozess [Diagnostic Process]. In F. Petermann & M. Eid (Eds.), Handbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik (pp. 89-96). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
27. Klug, J. (2011). Modelling and training a new concept of teachers´ diagnostic competence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
28. Klug, J., Bruder, S., Kelava, A., Spiel, C., & Schmitz, B. (2013). Diagnostic competence of teachers: A process model that accounts for diagnosing learning behaviour tested by means of a case scenario. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30(2), 38-46.
29. 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 [COACTIVE: Professional knowlegde of teachers, cognitive active mathematic classes and the development of mathematic competence]. In J. Doll & M. Prenzel (Eds.), Die Bildungsqualität von Schule: Lehrerprofessionalisierung, Unterrichtsentwicklung und Schülerförderung als Strategien der Qualitätsverbesserung (pp. 31–53). Münster: Waxmann.
30. Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Professional learning: understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.
31. Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis. A Methods Sourcebook (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
32. Morrison, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Science Teachers’ Diagnosis and Understanding of Students’ Preconceptions. Science Education, 87(6), 849-867.
33. Nohl, A.-M. (2010). Narrative Interview and Documentary Interpretation. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff, & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational res. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
34. Ohle, A., & McElvany, N. (2015). Teachers´ diagnostic competences and their practical relevance, Special issue editorial. Journal for Educational Research Online, 7(2), 5-10.
35. Ohle, A., McElvany, N., Horz, H., & Ullricht, M. (2015). Text-picture integration – Teachers´ attitudes, motivation and self-related cognitions in diagnostics. Journal for Educational Research Online, 7(2), 11-33.
36. Olszewski, J. (2010). The impact of physics teachers’ Pedagogical content knowledge on teacher action and student outcomes. Berlin: Logos.
37. Park, S., & Chen, J. S. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922-942.
38. 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.
39. Ruhrig, J., & Höttecke, D. (2015). Components of Science Teachers´ Professional Competence and Their Orientational Framework when Dealing with Uncertain Evidence in Science Teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 447–465.
40. Schrader, F. W. (2009). The Diagnostic Competency of Teachers. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 23(3/4), 237-245.
41. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
42. Spinath, B (2005). Akkuratheit der Einschätzung von Schülermerkmalen durch Lehrer/innen und das Konstrukt der diagnostischen Kompetenz [Accuracy of Teacher Judgements on Student Charateristics and the Construct of Competence]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 19, 85-95.
43. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743-762.
44. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2014). Teachers´ Judgement of Students´ Academic Achievement. Results from Field and Experimental Studies. In S. Krolak-Schwerdt, S. Glock & M. Bähmer (Eds.), Teachers´ Professional Development. Assessment, Training, and Learning (Volume 3).(pp. 5–25). Rotterdam: Sense.
45. Taber, K. (2002). Chemical misconception - Prevention, diagnosis and cure: Volume I: Theoretical background. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
46. Taber, K. (2005). Developing Teachers as Learning Doctors. Teacher Development, 9(2), 219-236.
47. Tolsdorf, Y., & Markic, S. (2016a). 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, Part 13 (pp. 2002-2009). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.
48. Tolsdorf, Y., & Markic, S. (2106b). Dealing language in science classrooms - Diagnosing students`lingustic skills. In: S. Markic & S. Abels (Eds.), Science Education towards Inclusion (pp. 23-42). New York: Nova Publishing.
49. Tolsdorf, Y., & Markic, S. (2017). Exploring chemistry student teachers´ diagnostic competence - a qualitative cross-level study. Education Sciences, 7(4), 86-100.
50. Trautrims, A., Grant, D. B., Cunliffe, A. L., & Wong, C. (2012). Using the “documentary method” to analyse qualitative data in logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistic Management, 42(8/9), 828-842.
51. Treagust, D. F. (1988). The development and use of diagnostic instruments to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159-169.
52. Turner, M., Van der Heide, K., Fynewever, H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2011). Motivations for and barriers to the implementation of diagnostic assessment practice – a case study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 142-157.
53. Vogt, F., & Rogalla, M. (2009). Developing adaptive teaching competency through coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1051-1060.
54. Wahl, D. (2006). Lernumgebungen erfolgreich gestalten. Vom trägen Wissen zum kompetenten Handeln (2nd Ed.) [Succesful development of learning settings. From lazy knowledge to competent action]. Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn.
55. Walter, J. (2011). Die Messung der Entwicklung der Lesekompetenz im Dienste der systematischen formative Evaluation von Lehr- und Lernprozessen [The measurement of development of reading competence in service of systematical formativ assesment of teaching and learning processes]. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 6, 204-217.
56. Weisberg, H. F. (2005). The total survey error approach. A guide to the new science of survey research. Chicago: The University of Chicago press.
57. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education, 11, 49-65.
58. Yeh, S. S. (2009). Class size reduction or rapid formative assessment?:A comparison of cost-effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 7-17.