@article{SchubarthSpeck2021, author = {Schubarth, Wilfried and Speck, Karsten}, title = {Ergebnisse zur Einsch{\"a}tzung des Referendariatsaus Sicht aller Akteure}, publisher = {Waxmann}, address = {M{\"u}nster}, isbn = {978-3-8309-4332-7}, pages = {254}, year = {2021}, language = {de} } @article{WengerLuedtkeBrunner2018, author = {Wenger, Marina and L{\"u}dtke, Oliver and Brunner, Martin}, title = {{\"U}bereinstimmung, Variabilit{\"a}t und Reliabilit{\"a}t von Sch{\"u}lerurteilen zur Unterrichtsqualit{\"a}t auf Schulebene}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Erziehungswissenschaft}, volume = {21}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Erziehungswissenschaft}, number = {5}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, issn = {1434-663X}, doi = {10.1007/s11618-018-0813-3}, pages = {929 -- 950}, year = {2018}, abstract = {F{\"u}r die Analyse der Unterrichtsqualit{\"a}t von Schulen durch Sch{\"u}lerurteile sollten drei Voraussetzungen erf{\"u}llt sein: (1) eine angemessene {\"U}bereinstimmung der Sch{\"u}lerurteile innerhalb der Schulen, (2) systematische Variabilit{\"a}t der Sch{\"u}lerurteile zwischen Schulen, (3) ein ausreichendes Maß an Reliabilit{\"a}t der aggregierten Urteile. Diese Studie untersucht mit internationalen PISA-Daten (Zyklen 2000-2012; 81 L{\"a}nder, {\"u}ber 55.300 Schulen, {\"u}ber 1,3 Millionen 15-J{\"a}hrige), inwiefern dies f{\"u}r Indikatoren der Qualit{\"a}tsdimensionen des Unterrichts (Klassenf{\"u}hrung, Kognitive Aktivierung, Konstruktive Unterst{\"u}tzung) zutrifft. Daf{\"u}r bestimmten wir das {\"U}bereinstimmungsmaß rWG(J) sowie die Intraklassenkorrelationen ICC(1) und ICC(2). Es zeigte sich, dass (1) die Mehrzahl der Unterrichtsmerkmale eine moderate oder starke {\"U}bereinstimmung in Schulen aufwies, (2) sich Unterrichtsmerkmale aus Sicht der Sch{\"u}lerschaft systematisch zwischen Schulen unterschieden, jedoch (3) die Reliabilit{\"a}t der aggregierten Sch{\"u}lerurteile in vielen L{\"a}ndern nicht ausreichte. Die Ergebnisse diskutieren wir vor dem Hintergrund von Konventionen zur Beurteilung der {\"U}bereinstimmung, Variabilit{\"a}t und Reliabilit{\"a}t auf Schulebene.}, language = {de} } @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} } @book{ApelojgHolzendorfMeieretal.2021, author = {Apelojg, Benjamin and Holzendorf, Ulf and Meier, Bernd and Mette, Dieter}, title = {Startklar! - Wirtschaft, Arbeit, Technik}, edition = {1. Aufl., 4.Druck.}, publisher = {Oldenbourg Schulbuchverlag}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-637-01960-7}, pages = {255}, year = {2021}, language = {de} } @article{EhlPaulBrunsetal.2018, author = {Ehl, Birgit and Paul, Michele and Bruns, Gunnar and Fleischhauer, Elisabeth and Vock, Miriam and Gronostaj, Anna and Grosche, Michael}, title = {Testg{\"u}tekriterien der „Profilanalyse nach Grießhaber". Evaluation eines Verfahrens zur Erfassung grammatischer F{\"a}higkeiten von ein- und mehrsprachigen Grundschulkindern}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Erziehungswissenschaft}, volume = {21}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Erziehungswissenschaft}, number = {6}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, issn = {1434-663X}, doi = {10.1007/s11618-018-0835-x}, pages = {1261 -- 1281}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Ein diagnostisches Ziel der „Profilanalyse nach Grießhaber" ist die Testung der grammatischen F{\"a}higkeit zur Verbstellung im Deutschen. Zur erstmaligen Evaluation der Testg{\"u}te wurden 403 ein- und mehrsprachige Grundschulkinder randomisiert drei verschiedenen Testmaterialien zugewiesen: Testmaterial, das die Zielkompetenz spezifisch stimulierte, f{\"u}hrte zu den besten Testergebnissen. Dies spricht f{\"u}r eine geringe Durchf{\"u}hrungsobjektivit{\"a}t. Zudem wurden Deckeneffekte f{\"u}r Grundschulkinder nachgewiesen, weshalb die Profilanalyse nur wenig zwischen den Grammatikf{\"a}higkeiten der Kinder differenzieren kann. Auch die Retest-Reliabilit{\"a}t und Auswertungsobjektivit{\"a}t sind noch zu gering. Zusammenfassend wird die Testg{\"u}te hinsichtlich aller betrachteten Testg{\"u}tekriterien als verbesserungsw{\"u}rdig bewertet. Daraus werden die Empfehlungen abgeleitet, die Profilanalyse st{\"a}rker zu standardisieren und um sensitivere diagnostische Kriterien f{\"u}r das Grundschulalter zu erg{\"a}nzen. Weitere Ziele der Profilanalyse, z. B. die Verbesserung diagnostischer Kompetenzen von Lehrkr{\"a}ften, sind in Folgeprojekten zu evaluieren.}, language = {de} } @article{ScholkmannSiemonBoometal.2017, author = {Scholkmann, Antonia and Siemon, Jens and Boom, Kay-Dennis and Knigge, Michel}, title = {Lernzeitnutzung im Planspielunterricht}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Erziehungswissenschaft}, volume = {20}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Erziehungswissenschaft}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, issn = {1434-663X}, doi = {10.1007/s11618-017-0736-4}, pages = {651 -- 669}, year = {2017}, abstract = {The effective use of learning time is considered one of the most important predictors of successful and good teaching. In the present study we investigated how cognitive skills and goal orientation influenced the effective use of learning time during the open phases of game-based learning We used a newly developed method for video- and audio analysis (German: MuVA), which allowed for reliable documentation of students' interactions during those phases. The two-step multiple regression model demonstrated that both the learner's and the learning partner's goal orientation explain significant parts of the variance: A high performance goal orientation impairs a student's effective use of learning time, while a high performance avoidance orientation has a positive impact on his or her effective use of learning time. Working with a partner who has a high learning goal orientation or a high work avoidance orientation increases a student's effective use of his or her learning time, while a high work avoidance orientation on the partner's side has the opposite effect. Cognitive skills did not influence the effective use of learning time.}, language = {de} } @article{LevyBrunnerKelleretal.2019, author = {Levy, Jessica and Brunner, Martin and Keller, Ulrich and Fischbach, Antoine}, title = {Methodological issues in value-added modeling: an international review from 26 countries}, series = {Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability}, volume = {31}, journal = {Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability}, number = {3}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Heidelberg}, issn = {1874-8597}, doi = {10.1007/s11092-019-09303-w}, pages = {257 -- 287}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Value-added (VA) modeling can be used to quantify teacher and school effectiveness by estimating the effect of pedagogical actions on students' achievement. It is gaining increasing importance in educational evaluation, teacher accountability, and high-stakes decisions. We analyzed 370 empirical studies on VA modeling, focusing on modeling and methodological issues to identify key factors for improvement. The studies stemmed from 26 countries (68\% from the USA). Most studies applied linear regression or multilevel models. Most studies (i.e., 85\%) included prior achievement as a covariate, but only 2\% included noncognitive predictors of achievement (e.g., personality or affective student variables). Fifty-five percent of the studies did not apply statistical adjustments (e.g., shrinkage) to increase precision in effectiveness estimates, and 88\% included no model diagnostics. We conclude that research on VA modeling can be significantly enhanced regarding the inclusion of covariates, model adjustment and diagnostics, and the clarity and transparency of reporting. What is the added value from attending a certain school or being taught by a certain teacher? To answer this question, the value-added (VA) model was developed. In this model, the actual achievement attained by students attending a certain school or being taught by a certain teacher is juxtaposed with the achievement that is expected for students with the same background characteristics (e.g., pretest scores). To this end, the VA model can be used to compute a VA score for each school or teacher, respectively. If actual achievement is better than expected achievement, there is a positive effect (i.e., a positive VA score) of attending a certain school or being taught by a certain teacher. In other words, VA models have been developed to "make fair comparisons of the academic progress of pupils in different settings" (Tymms 1999, p. 27). Their aim is to operationalize teacher or school effectiveness objectively. Specifically, VA models are often used for accountability purposes and high-stakes decisions (e.g., to allocate financial or personal resources to schools or even to decide which teachers should be promoted or discharged). Consequently, VA modeling is a highly political topic, especially in the USA, where many states have implemented VA or VA-based models for teacher evaluation (Amrein-Beardsley and Holloway 2017; Kurtz 2018). However, this use for high-stakes decisions is highly controversial and researchers seem to disagree concerning the question if VA scores should be used for decision-making (Goldhaber 2015). For a more exhaustive discussion of the use of VA models for accountability reasons, see, for example, Scherrer (2011). Given the far-reaching impact of VA scores, it is surprising that there is scarcity of systematic reviews of how VA scores are computed, evaluated, and how this research is reported. To this end, we review 370 empirical studies from 26 countries to rigorously examine several key issues in VA modeling, involving (a) the statistical model (e.g., linear regression, multilevel model) that is used, (b) model diagnostics and reported statistical parameters that are used to evaluate the quality of the VA model, (c) the statistical adjustments that are made to overcome methodological challenges (e.g., measurement error of the outcome variables), and (d) the covariates (e.g., pretest scores, students' sociodemographic background) that are used when estimating expected achievement. All this information is critical for meeting the transparency standards defined by the American Educational Research Association (AERA 2006). Transparency is vital for educational research in general and especially for highly consequential research, such as VA modeling. First, transparency is highly relevant for researchers. The clearer the description of the model, the easier it is to build upon the knowledge of previous research and to safeguard the potential for replicating previous results. Second, because decisions that are based on VA scores affect teachers' lives and schools' futures, not only educational agents but also the general public should be able to comprehend how these scores are calculated to allow for public scrutiny. Specifically, given that VA scores can have devastating consequences on teachers' lives and on the students they teach, transparency is particularly important to evaluate the chosen methodology to compute VA models for a certain purpose. Such evaluations are essential to answer the question to what extent the quality of VA scores allows to base far-reaching decisions on these scores for accountability purposes.}, language = {en} } @article{PrengelFriebertshaeuserLanger2013, author = {Prengel, Annedore and Friebertsh{\"a}user, Barbara and Langer, Antje}, title = {Perspektiven qualitativer Forschung in der Erziehungswissenschaft - eine Einfuhrung}, series = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, journal = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, edition = {4., durchges. Aufl.}, publisher = {Beltz Juventa}, address = {Weinheim}, isbn = {978-3-7799-0799-2}, pages = {17 -- 42}, year = {2013}, language = {de} } @article{UhlendotffPrengel2013, author = {Uhlendotff, Harald and Prengel, Annedore}, title = {Forschungsperspektiven quantitativer Methoden im Verh{\"a}ltnis zu qualitativen Methoden}, series = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, journal = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, edition = {4., durchges. Aufl.}, publisher = {Beltz Juventa}, address = {Weinheim}, isbn = {978-3-7799-0799-2}, pages = {137 -- 149}, year = {2013}, language = {de} } @article{Prengel2013, author = {Prengel, Annedore}, title = {Praxisforschung in professioneller P{\"a}dagogik}, series = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, journal = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, edition = {4., durchgesehene Auflage}, publisher = {Beltz Juventa}, address = {Weinheim}, isbn = {978-3-7799-0799-2}, pages = {785 -- 802}, year = {2013}, language = {de} } @article{Grell2013, author = {Grell, Petra}, title = {Forschende Lernwerkstatt}, series = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, journal = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, edition = {4., durchgesehene Auflage}, publisher = {Beltz Juventa}, address = {Weinheim}, isbn = {978-3-7799-0799-2}, pages = {887 -- 896}, year = {2013}, language = {de} } @article{Oswald2013, author = {Oswald, Hans}, title = {Was heißt qualitativ forschen? Warnungen, Fehlerquellen, M{\"o}glichkeiten}, series = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, journal = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, edition = {4., durchgesehene Auflage}, publisher = {Beltz Juventa}, address = {Weinheim}, isbn = {978-3-7799-0799-2}, pages = {183 -- 204}, year = {2013}, language = {de} } @article{SchruenderLenzen2013, author = {Schr{\"u}nder-Lenzen, Agi}, title = {Triangulation - ein Konzept zur Qualit{\"a}tssicherung von Forschung}, series = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, journal = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, edition = {4., durchgesehene Auflage}, publisher = {Beltz Juventa}, address = {Weinheim}, isbn = {978-3-7799-0799-2}, pages = {149 -- 158}, year = {2013}, language = {de} } @book{OPUS4-48342, title = {Handbuch qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft}, editor = {Friebertsh{\"a}user, Barbara and Langer, Antje and Prengel, Annedore}, edition = {4., durchgesehene Auflage}, publisher = {Beltz Juventa}, address = {Weinheim}, isbn = {978-3-7799-0799-2}, pages = {1000}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Qualitative Forschung leistet mit einem differenzierten Methodenrepertoire einen zentralen Beitrag zur Empirie in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Das Handbuch f{\"u}hrt umfassend in das breite Spektrum qualitativer Forschungszug{\"a}nge ein. Der erste Teil bietet eine grundlegende Einf{\"u}hrung in qualitative Forschung, reflektiert ihre Bedeutung und Erkenntnispotentiale, zeichnet historische Entwicklungen nach und legt theoretische Grundlagen dar. Der zweite Teil stellt die wichtigsten methodischen Forschungskonzeptionen qualitativer erziehungswissenschaftlicher Forschung vor. Der dritte Teil f{\"u}hrt in Strategien f{\"u}r Erhebungen und Auswertungen ein. Die Aufs{\"a}tze des vierten Teils widmen sich dem forschenden Umgang mit visuellen Quellen und Medien. Der f{\"u}nfte Teil stellt eine Auswahl gegenstandsbezogener qualitativer Forschungsans{\"a}tze vor. Abschließend folgen Ans{\"a}tze der Praxis-, Aktions- und Handlungsforschung und n{\"u}tzliche Informationen und Hinweise f{\"u}r die Planung und Durchf{\"u}hrung von Forschungsvorhaben. Das Handbuch richtet sich an Promovierende, Forschende, Lehrende und Studierende in den Erziehungs- und Sozialwissenschaften. Es bietet P{\"a}dagoginnen und P{\"a}dagogen Informationen {\"u}ber Methoden systematischer Praxisforschung und tr{\"a}gt damit zur St{\"a}rkung und Innovation qualitativer Forschungszug{\"a}nge und zur Weiterentwicklung der methodischen Standards bei.}, language = {de} } @article{Seyfried2019, author = {Seyfried, Markus}, title = {Undisclosed desires}, series = {Assessment \& Evaluation in Higher Education}, volume = {44}, journal = {Assessment \& Evaluation in Higher Education}, number = {7}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0260-2938}, doi = {10.1080/02602938.2019.1573970}, pages = {1106 -- 1119}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Following decades of quality management featuring in higher education settings, questions regarding its implementation, impact and outcomes remain. Indeed, leaving aside anecdotal case studies and value-laden documentaries of best practice, current research still knows very little about the implementation of quality management in teaching and learning within higher education institutions. Referring to data collected from German higher education institutions in which a quality management department or functional equivalent was present, this article theorises and provides evidence for the supposition that the implementation of quality management follows two implicit logics. Specifically, it tends either towards the logic of appropriateness or, contrastingly, towards the logic of consequentialism. This study's results also suggest that quality managers' socialisation is related to these logics and that it influences their views on quality management in teaching and learning.}, language = {en} } @article{HaferSchumann2012, author = {Hafer, J{\"o}rg and Schumann, Marlen}, title = {Studeineingangsphase und die strukturelle Verankerung von E-Learning in Studium und Lehre: E-Teaching als Element zur Gestaltung des Studenten-Life-Cycle}, isbn = {978-3- 937026-77-0}, year = {2012}, language = {de} } @misc{Schubarth2021, author = {Schubarth, Wilfried}, title = {Rezension zu: May, Michael; Heinrich, Gudrun: Rechtsextremismus p{\"a}dagogisch begegnen: Handlungswissen f{\"u}r die Schule. - Bonn: Bundeszentrale f{\"u}r Politische Bildung, 2021. - ISBN 978-3-7425-0705-1 / Gansewig, Antje; Walsh, Maria: Biografiebasierte Maßnahmen in der schulischen Pr{\"a}ventions und Bildungsarbeit. Eine empirische Betrachtung des Einsatzes von Aussteigern aus extremistischen Szenen unter besonderer Ber{\"u}cksichtigung ehemaliger Rechtsextremer. - Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2020. - ISBN 978-3-8487-6317-7}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r P{\"a}dagogik}, volume = {67}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r P{\"a}dagogik}, number = {2}, publisher = {Beltz}, address = {Weinheim}, issn = {0044-3247}, pages = {307 -- 310}, year = {2021}, language = {de} } @article{GaertnerBrunner2018, author = {G{\"a}rtner, Holger and Brunner, Martin}, title = {Once good teaching, always good teaching?}, series = {Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability}, volume = {30}, journal = {Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability}, number = {2}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Heidelberg}, issn = {1874-8597}, doi = {10.1007/s11092-018-9277-5}, pages = {159 -- 182}, year = {2018}, abstract = {In many countries, students are asked about their perceptions of teaching in order to make decisions about the further development of teaching practices on the basis of this feedback. The stability of this measurement of teaching quality is a prerequisite for the ability to generalize the results to other teaching situations. The present study aims to expand the extant empirical body of knowledge on the effects of situational factors on the stability of students' perceptions of teaching quality. Therefore, we investigate whether the degree of stability is moderated by three situational factors: time between assessments, subjects taught by teachers, and students' grade levels. To this end, we analyzed data from a web-based student feedback system. The study involved 497 teachers, each of whom conducted two student surveys. We examined the differential stability of student perceptions of 16 teaching constructs that were operationalized as latent correlations between aggregated student perceptions of the same teacher's teaching. Testing metric invariance indicated that student ratings provided measures of teaching constructs that were invariant across time, subjects, and grade levels. Stability was moderated to some extent by grade level but not by subjects taught nor time spacing between surveys. The results provide evidence of the extent to which situational factors may affect the stability of student perceptions of teaching constructs. The generalizability of the students' feedback results to other teaching situations is discussed.}, language = {en} } @article{Rheinberg2017, author = {Rheinberg, Falko}, title = {Von Bochum {\"u}ber Heidelberg bis Potsdam}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r p{\"a}dagogische Psychologie}, volume = {31}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r p{\"a}dagogische Psychologie}, number = {3-4}, publisher = {Hogrefe}, address = {Bern}, issn = {1010-0652}, doi = {10.1024/1010-0652/a000206}, pages = {175 -- 189}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Dem Text liegt ein Vortrag zugrunde, der auf dem 31. Motivationspsychologischen Kolloquium (MPK) in Heidelberg 2015 gehalten wurde. Im ersten Teil bietet er einen {\"U}berblick {\"u}ber die Motivationsforschung am Bochumer Heckhausen-Lehrstuhl in den 70er-Jahren („Bochumer Schule"). Dabei werden neben Heinz Heckhausen einzelne Mitarbeiter und ihre Schwerpunkte vorgestellt sowie das stimulierende Arbeitsklima an diesem Lehrstuhl beschrieben. Entsprechend der Vortragseinladung wird im Anschluss die Entwicklung der eigenen Forschungsschwerpunkte skizziert. Noch unter Heckhausens Leitung waren dies zun{\"a}chst die Forschung zur Bezugsnormorientierung und die Einzelfallanalysen zur Lernmotivation mit dem Erweiterten Kognitiven Motivationsmodell. Danach geht der Vortrag auf Forschungsthemen ein, die dann in Heidelberg und Potsdam dazukamen. Hier geht es um die Erforschung von T{\"a}tigkeitsanreizen und um das Flow-Erleben. Abschließend wird der Potsdamer Versuch skizziert, herauszufinden, auf welche Weise unterschiedliche Motivationsqualit{\"a}ten den Lernprozess und seine Resultate beeinflussen.}, language = {de} } @article{Vock2021, author = {Vock, Miriam}, title = {Akzeleration - schneller durch die Schule?}, series = {Handbuch Begabung}, journal = {Handbuch Begabung}, publisher = {Beltz}, address = {Weinheim}, isbn = {978-3-40725-886-1}, pages = {319 -- 332}, year = {2021}, language = {de} }