Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Teacher vision: expert and novice teachers’ perception of problematic classroom management scenes

Open access
Wolff, Charlotte E., Jarodzka, Halszka, van den Bogert, Niek, Boshuizen, Henny P. A.·2016·Instructional Science

Abstract

Visual expertise has been explored in numerous professions, but research on teachers’ vision remains limited. Teachers’ visual expertise is an important professional skill, particularly the ability to simultaneously perceive and interpret classroom situations for effective classroom management. This skill is complex and relies on an awareness of classroom events. Using eye tracking measurements and verbal think aloud, we investigated differences in how expert and novice teachers perceive problematic classroom scenes. Sixty-seven teachers participated, 35 experienced secondary school teachers (experts) and 32 teachers-in-training (novices). Participants viewed videos of authentic lessons and their eye movements were recorded as they verbalized thoughts about what they had seen in the lesson and how it was relevant to classroom management. Two different types of videos were viewed: lesson fragments showing (1) multiple events depicting disengaged students with no overt disruptions and (2) multiple events that included a prominent disruptive event affecting the class. Analysis of eye movements showed that novices’ viewing was more dispersed whereas experts’ was more focused. Irrespective of the video type, expert teachers focused their attention on areas where relevant information was available, while novice teachers’ attention was more scattered across the classroom. Experts’ perception appears to be more knowledge-driven whereas novices’ appears more image-driven. Experts monitored more areas than novices, while novices skipped more areas than experts. Word usage also differed, showing that expertise was associated with a higher frequency of words referencing cognition, perception, and events than novices.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11251-016-9367-z

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Metadata

Authors
Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., van den Bogert, N., & Boshuizen, H. P. A.
Venue
Instructional Science
Published
2016-02-08
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
243-265
ISSN
  • 0020-4277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1952
OpenAlex
W2258425634
Cited by
266
References
53
FWCI
18.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Teacher vision: expert and novice teachers’ perception of problematic classroom management scenes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11251-016-9367-z
The paper
Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., van den Bogert, N., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2016). Teacher vision: expert and novice teachers’ perception of problematic classroom management scenes. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9367-z

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.