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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform
Shulman, L. (1987) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 · Cited by 16,787
Ericsson, K. A. (2006) · The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816796.038 · Cited by 1,629 · cited 3×
“Experts’ classroom management representations can be developed, for example, into points of deliberate practice for novices (Ericsson, 2006a).”
BackgroundGrounded Theory: An Exploration of Process and Procedure
Walker, D., & Myrick, F. (2006) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305285972 · Cited by 1,146 · cited 1×
“This method generates theory in the absence of preconceived hypotheses, instead allowing concepts and theories to emerge from the data, treating participants’ statements and concerns as the central point of discovery (Charmaz, 2006; B. Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Walker & Myrick, 2006).”
MethodTeacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching
Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/s0883-0355(02)00003-4 · Cited by 601
Cited by
Weber, K. E., Gold, B., Prilop, C. N., & Kleinknecht, M. (2018) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.008 · Cited by 165
The distributions of teacher qualification: A cross-national study
Qin, L., & Bowen, D. H. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Development · doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.102084 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Wolff, C. E., van den Bogert, N., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Teacher Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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.