Do preservice teachers use evidence – or how might they?

Menz, C.M. (Cordelia), Spinath, B.S. (Birgit), Seifried, E.S. (Eva), Kiemer, K.K. (Katharina), Kollar, I.K. (Ingo), Lindblom, S.L. (Sari)

 

Submission type

Symposium

Scheduled

Luxembourgzaal, 25-09-2019, 15:45 - 17:15

Keywords

preservice teachers, evidence, research utilisation

Summary of Symposium

Teachers are multipliers of knowledge and should therefore use scientific evidence to inform their practice. However, research indicates that (preservice) teachers often hold misconceptions and rarely solve pedagogical problems with the help of scientific evidence. Both of these aspects are addressed in the papers of this symposium, which will be discussed by Sari Lindblom. The symposium will bring together research on preservice teachers’ misconceptions about topics from educational psychology (Paper 1) as well as preservice teachers’ cognitive scripts for tackling classroom problems and their application (Paper 2). This symposium aims to enlarge our knowledge on efforts for evidence-based teacher education.

Name Convenor

Eva Seifried, Birgit Spinath

Name Discussant

Sari Lindblom

Auteurs

Where do preservice teachers’ educational psychological misconceptions come from? The role of anecdotal evidence vs. empirical evidence

Menz, CM (Cordelia), Spinath, BS (Birgit), Seifried, ES (Eva)

 

Abstract ID

68-1

Submission type

Oral only

Keywords

anecdotal evidence vs. empirical evidence, educational psychological misconceptions, preservice teachers, sources of misconceptions

Summary

 

(Preservice) teachers’ educational psychological misconceptions can be a threat for education. Research indicates a high prevalence of some educational psychological misconceptions among (preservice) teachers. Because the number of investigated topics is limited, we analysed the prevalence of 14 educational psychological misconceptions. Additionally, knowing misconceptions’ origin might be helpful to counteract them. Because anecdotal evidence is important for (preservice) teachers and personal experiences are among the main sources of misconceptions (e.g., Hargreaves, 2000; Taylor & Kowalski, 2004), we expected anecdotal evidence to be preservice teachers’ predominant source of knowledge and misconceptions.

In an online survey with N = 836 preservice teachers, we found that educational psychological misconceptions were less prevalent than expected but that preservice teachers indeed mainly drew their knowledge and misconceptions from anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, sourcing more from anecdotal than empirical evidence was associated with unfavourable outcomes, namely, more misconceptions (t(816) = 2.894, p < .05, d = 0.21) and less reduction of misconception-endorsement through empirical refutation-style information (IE: F(1,761) = 8.682, p < .001, d = 0.30). Future research should investigate why preservice teachers concentrate on anecdotal evidence, how to make empirical evidence more tempting, and whether counteracting misconceptions through showing downfalls of anecdotal evidence is effective.

Auteurs

Preservice teachers’ evidence-informed reasoning: what does it look like, what are its benefits and how can we foster it?

Kiemer, KK (Katharina), Kollar, IK (Ingo)

 

Abstract ID

68-2

Submission type

Oral only

Keywords

preservice teachers, evidence-informed teaching, evidence-informed reasoning, theory application, cognitive scripts

Summary

 

Studies show teachers’ inaptitude to address pedagogical problems by aid of scientific evidence. One reason might be teachers’ insufficiently developed cognitive scripts for tackling classroom problems in an evidence-informed manner. We investigated: (1) preservice teachers’ evidence-informed reasoning scripts, (2) to what extent they predict preservice teachers’ application of scientific theories when conceptualising a classroom situation, and (3) if these evidence-informed reasoning scripts can be fostered by providing participants with an external script.

Participants were 336 preservice teachers, who wrote two case analyses of a written classroom situation. The first analysis was unguided, the second supported by an external script. We coded the evidence-informed reasoning script represented in the written analyses (ICC=.78-.90). Also, participants’ case analyses were assessed with respect to the extent to which they included scientific theory (ICC=.89).

Results point at fragmented evidence-informed reasoning scripts in preservice teachers. Participants who possessed more highly developed scripts applied significantly more scientific theory in their analyses. Furthermore, the external script significantly supported the reasoning process, but not the application of scientific theory.

Our study investigated evidence-informed reasoning from two perspectives: process and content. This approach extends prior research and provides valuable insights. Furthermore, we positively evaluated external scripts as possible support measures.

Auteurs

Discussion (by Sari Lindblom)

Lindblom, SL (Sari)

 

Abstract ID

68-3

Submission type

Oral only

Keywords

No keywords (--> discussion by Sari Lindblom)

Summary

No summary (--> discussion by Sari Lindblom)

Auteurs