Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 220

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Keeping an Eye on Learning: Differences Between Expert and Novice Teachers’ Representations of Classroom Management Events

Wolff, Charlotte E., van den Bogert, Niek, Jarodzka, Halszka, Boshuizen, Henny P. A.·2015·Journal of Teacher Education

Abstract

Classroom management represents an important skill and knowledge set for achieving student learning gains, but poses a considerable challenge for beginning teachers. Understanding how teachers’ cognition and conceptualizations differ between experts and novices is useful for enhancing beginning teachers’ expertise development. We created a coding scheme using grounded theory to analyze expert and novice teachers’ verbalizations describing classroom events and their relevance for classroom management. Four categories of codes emerged. These referred to perceptions/interpretations, thematic focus, temporality, and cognitive processing expressed. Mixed-method analysis of teachers’ verbalizations yielded a number of significant effects related to participants’ expertise levels. Notably, teachers’ cognitive processing diverged significantly based on expertise level. Differences in focus included themes such as student learning, student discipline, and teacher interaction and influence. Experts focused on learning in the classroom and the teacher’s ability to influence learning, whereas novices were more concerned with maintaining discipline and behavioral norms.

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 · 10.1177/0022487114549810

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wolff, C. E., van den Bogert, N., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. A.
Venue
Journal of Teacher Education
Published
2014-09-16
Volume
66
Issue
1
Pages
68-85
ISSN
  • 0022-4871 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7816
OpenAlex
W2139333797
Cited by
220
References
5
FWCI
63.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.