@article{KrauskopfForssell2018,
  author    = {Krauskopf, Karsten and Forssell, Karin},
  title     = {When knowing is believing},
  series = {Journal of Computer Assisted Learning},
  volume    = {34},
  journal   = {Journal of Computer Assisted Learning},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0266-4909},
  doi       = {10.1111/jcal.12253},
  pages     = {482 -- 491},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {In an effort to understand teachers' technology use, recent scholarship has explored the idea of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK or TPACK). Many studies have used self-reports to measure this knowledge (SR TPCK). Several studies have examined the construct validity of these assessments by analysing the internal relationships of the knowledge domains, but little attention has been paid to how SR TPCK relates to external criteria. We tackled this question of discriminant validity by reanalysing 2 data sets. We used correlation and multiple regression analyses to explore whether conceptually related constructs explain any variance in participants' SR TPCK. In Study 1, we applied this strategy to German pre-service teachers using technology use, attitudinal variables, and objective measures of teachers' knowledge of technology and pedagogy as external criteria. In Study 2, we examined measures of technology knowledge, experience, and pro-technology beliefs for in-service teachers in the United States. Across both studies, a sizeable amount of the variance in SR TPCK is explained by teachers' prior technology use and pro-technology attitudes. In contrast, fact-based tests of technology and pedagogy are distinct from SR TPCK. We discuss implications for these findings and argue that researchers should gather complementary measures in concert.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MatheisKellerKronborgetal.2019,
  author    = {Matheis, Svenja and Keller, Lena and Kronborg, Leonie and Schmitt, Manfred and Preckel, Franzis},
  title     = {Do stereotypes strike twice?},
  series = {Asia-Pacific journal of teacher education},
  volume    = {48},
  journal   = {Asia-Pacific journal of teacher education},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Routledge Journals, Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1469-2945},
  doi       = {10.1080/1359866X.2019.1576029},
  pages     = {213 -- 232},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Stereotypes influence teachers' perception of and behaviour towards students, thus shaping students' learning opportunities. The present study investigated how 315 Australian pre-service teachers' stereotypes about giftedness and gender are related to their perception of students' intellectual ability, adjustment, and social-emotional ability, using an experimental vignette approach and controlling for social desirability in pre-service teachers' responses. Repeated-measures ANOVA showed that pre-service teachers associated giftedness with higher intellectual ability, but with less adjustment compared to average-ability students. Furthermore, pre-service teachers perceived male students as less socially and emotionally competent and less adjusted than female students. Additionally, pre-service teachers seemed to perceive female average-ability students' adjustment as most favourable compared to male average-ability students and gifted students. Findings point to discrepancies between actual characteristics of gifted female and male students and stereotypes in teachers' beliefs. Consequences of stereotyping and implications for teacher education are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}