Multidisciplinary Research on Teaching and Learning

This page intentionally left blank

Multidisciplinary Research on Teaching and Learning

Edited by

Wolfgang Schnotz University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany

Alexander Kauertz University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany

Heidrun Ludwig University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany

Andreas Müller University of Geneva, Switzerland

and

Johanna Pretsch University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany

Selection and editorial matter © Wolfgang Schnotz, Alexander Kauertz, Heidrun Ludwig, Andreas Müller, and Johanna Pretsch 2015 Individual chapters © Respective authors 2015

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission.

No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.

Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published 2015 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN

Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.

Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.

Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world.

Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.

This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2015 978-1-137-46773-7

ISBN 978-1-349-50007-9 ISBN 978-1-137-46774-4 (eBook)DOI 10.1057/9781137467744

v

Contents

List of Figures vii

List of Tables ix

Preface xi

Notes on Contributors xix

Part I Self-Regulation and Instruction

1 Educational Processes in Early Childhood Education: Activities of Target Children in Preschools 3

Wilfried Smidt

2 The Stability and Variability of Goals in Learning Contexts: A Systematic Literature Review and a Quantitative Investigation 19

Kathrin Bürger

3 Self-Regulation in Computer-Based Learning Environments: Effects of Learner Characteristics and Instructional Support 44

Loredana Mihalca, Wolfgang Schnotz, and Christoph Mengelkamp

4 Does the Quality of the Application of Learning Strategies Foster Text Comprehension? A Reanalysis of Video Data 68

Christoph Schneider, Christian Weber, and Peter H. Ludwig

5 Supporting Students’ Self-Regulated Learning with Teachers’ Feedback: Professional Experience as a Moderator of Teachers’ Attitude–Behavior Contingency 86

Eva Christophel and Christiane Baadte

Part II Language Learning and Language Comprehension

6 A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Teaching English Prepositions 109

Xin Song, Wolfgang Schnotz, and Constanze Juchem-Grundmann

7 The Individual Theories of Teachers about Vocabulary Work with Mono- and Plurilingual Students in the German Language Classroom 129

Olena Bien, Stephan Merten, and Wolfgang Schnotz

vi Contents

8 Child Respondents – Do They Really Answer What Scientific Questionnaires Ask For? 146

Gerlinde Lenske and Andreas Helmke

9 Video-Based Analyses of Reading Instruction in the Fourth Grade Based on the Observation System LUPE 167

Nora Heyne

Part III Mathematics and Science Education

10 Which Heuristic Operations Do Primary School Students Use When Solving Complex Story Problems? 187

Johannes Groß, Natalie Gouasé, Renate Rasch, and Wolfgang Schnotz

11 Forms of Representation for Solving Mathematical Word Problems – Development of an Intervention Study 201

Nina Sturm and Renate Rasch

12 Understanding Basic Concepts in Ray Optics: A Representational Approach 224

Rosa Hettmannsperger, Wolfgang Schnotz, Andreas Müller, and Jochen Scheid

13 Scientific Experiments, Multiple Representations, and Their Coherence: A Task-Based Elaboration Strategy for Ray Optics 239

Jochen Scheid, Andreas Müller, Rosa Hettmannsperger, and Wolfgang Schnotz

14 Smartphones & Co. in Physics Education: Effects of Learning with New Media Experimental Tools in Acoustics 253

Jochen Kuhn and Patrik Vogt

15 Video Analysis Exercises in Regular Introductory Physics Courses: Effects of Conventional Methods and Possibilities of Mobile Devices 270

Pascal Klein, Jochen Kuhn, Andreas Müller, and Sebastian Gröber

Index 289

vii

List of Figures

4.1 Conceptual diagram of Model 1 and Model 2 77 4.2 Standardized solution of the “fusion model”

(Model 3) integrating direct and indirect effects 80 5.1 Learning phases and feedback types 91 5.2 Example of a video-vignette showing a fifth-grade student 93 5.3 Interaction effect between professional experience

and attitude toward self-regulated correction (self-regulation subscale) on the appropriate outcome feedback of more-experienced and less-experienced teachers 97

5.4 Interaction effect between professional experience and attitude toward self-regulated correction (self-regulation subscale) on the inappropriate feedback of more-experienced and less-experienced teachers 99

6.1 Graphical representation deviations of the total standardized total scores in the pretest and the posttest for the experimental and the control group 119

6.2 Graphical representation of the mean standardized scores of the items in the three domains in the pretest and the posttest for the experimental and the control group 121

9.1 Percentage of classroom teaching time spent on different reading-specific subjects across all classes 173

9.2 Percentage of classroom teaching time spent working with different types of texts across all classes 174

9.3 Percentage of reading instruction spent on reading exercises across all classes 174

9.4 Percentage of classroom teaching time spent on methods to activate the cognitive processing of texts across all classes 175

9.5 Percentage of classroom teaching time dedicated to presenting information through different modalities across all classes 176

9.6 Percentage of classroom teaching time dedicated to different text-related topics across all classes 176

9.7 Percentage of classroom teaching time spent on reading and learning strategies across all classes 177

9.8 Percentage of classroom teaching time devoted to different instructions across all classes 178

9.9 Percentage of classroom teaching time devoted to forms of reinforcement across all classes 178

11.1 2×2 survey design taking into account the group assignment 213

viii List of Illustrations

11.2 Diagram of the test procedure 21611.3 Solutions by three students for the Yu-Gi-Oh card

comparison task 217 12.1 Schematic representation of a real image formed by using a

concave mirror in the treatment group 229 12.2 Schematic representation of a real image formed by

using a concave mirror in the control group 229 12.3 Photo of an experimental setup producing a real

image by a concave mirror 230 12.4 Schematic representation illustrating what happens to a real

image if the lens in covered 231 12.5 Graphical representation of the interaction between group

and time for conceptual understanding 234 13.1 Example of a RAT, mapping/modifying two representations 242 13.2 Example of a traditional task that focuses on only one type

of representation 242 13.3 Example of an assessment task from the RCA test 245 13.4 Overview of students’ RCA mean score at three different

times of measurement 247 13.5 Overview of students’ conceptual understanding mean

score at three different times of measurement 248 14.1 Quantitative analysis of an acoustic beat using smartphones 255 14.2 Study and teaching procedure 257 14.3 Carousal workshop files in treatment group (a) and control

group (b) (instructions and task chapters (c) were identical in the two groups) 258

14.4 Temporal development of achievement in the CG and TC 264

14.5 Temporal development of motivation subscale SC in the CG and TG 265

15.1 Video analysis of projectile motion: screenshot of the measure dynamics software interface showing the video with data points (upper-right corner), the data sheet (bottom), and the vertical velocity-time graph (upper-left corner) 273

15.2 Different representations of the example above: (a) graphical representation, (b) formula and curve fitting, (c) strobe picture, and (d) dynamic vector arcs of acceleration 274

15.3 Mobile video analysis of projectile: (a) mobile recording with a tablet PC (iPad), (b) manual video analysis (point-tracking) of motion, (c) position-time graph, and (d) vertical velocity-time graph 276

15.4 Traditional exercise concerning drag forces in a fluid and correspondent video analysis exercise 281

ix

List of Tables

1.1 Study overview 6 1.2 Description of activity categories 9 1.3 Activities of target children in their first, second, and

third preschool years 11 2.1 Different stability coefficients under review 26 2.2 Characteristics of the studies under review 28 2.3 Descriptive statistics 33 2.4 Test–retest correlations of scale means and trait-adjusted

scale means 35 2.5 Model comparisons of M 0 and M 1 and estimation of ICCs 36 2.6 Percentage of individuals with reliable change between

two measurement points 36 4.1 Predictors of performance on a text comprehension task:

results of the multiple regression analysis of manifest variables 78 4.2 Model fit 79 5.1 Cronbach’s α, means, and standard deviations for the

variables from the questionnaire assessing the attitudes toward self-regulation 95

5.2 Means and standard deviations for the different feedback types 95 6.1 English prepositions in, on, and at across the three domains 112 6.2 Image schemas of prepositions in, on, and at, and

their application 113 6.3 A cognitive linguistic approach for meaningful teaching

in the present study: sample preposition in 115 6.4 The traditional approach for rote teaching in the present

study: sample preposition in 116 6.5a Means and standard deviations of the total scores in the

pretest and the posttest for the experimental and the control group 118

6.5b Means and standard deviations of the total standardized scores in the pretest and the posttest for the experimental and the control group 119

6.6a Means and standard deviations of the scores of the items in the three domains in the pretest and the posttest for the experimental and the control group 120

6.6b Means and standard deviations of the standardized scores of the items in the three domains in the pretest and the posttest for the experimental and the control group 120

x List of Tables

6.7 The significance of achievement and improvement of experimental group in the posttest 122

8.1 Summary of developmental boundaries, possible disruptive factors, and suggestions for the development of age-appropriate items and questionnaires 159

9.1 Overview of features of reading instruction with the expected impact on the reading competencies of pupils, assigned to facets of reading classrooms 169

9.2 Descriptive statistics on the occurrence of the observed features of reading instruction across all classes as percentages of lesson duration 172

9.3 Overview of the results and preliminary consequences on reading instruction with respect to the observed classrooms 180

10.1 Interrater reliability of the coded video files from the third and fourth grades 192

10.2 Percentage of heuristic operations in the third and fourth grades 193

12.1 Descriptive results: M and SD 233 12.2 Overview of results: improvement from pre- to posttests 233 13.1 Schedule of RAT intervention study 244 13.2 Overview of students’ RCA mean score at three different

times of measurement 247 14.1 Examples of items on the motivation and achievement

instruments 259 14.2 Descriptive data of dependent variables and covariates 261 14.3 Time course (repeated measures) comparisons and

interactions of motivation and achievement between group, gender, and covariates: F-values (ANCOVA) and effect sizes (ω²) for between- and within-subjects effects 262

15.1 Time course of the pilot study 279 15.2 Descriptive data of the dependent variables and covariates 282 15.3 Time course (repeated-measures) comparisons and

interactions of motivation and achievement between groups, gender, and covariates: F-values (ANCOVA) and effect sizes (ω²) for between- and within-subject effects 283

15.4 Descriptive data of the cognitive load for CG and TG and time on task, respectively 284

15.5 Time course (repeated-measures) comparisons and interactions of cognitive load between groups: F-values (ANOVA) and effect sizes (ω²) for between- and within-subject effects 284

xi

Preface

Research in education is associated with various challenges. It involves multiple scientific disciplines, such as educational science and psychology, and various disciplines of domain-specific education according to the different school subjects. All these disciplines have their own scientific culture, their own concepts, their own terminology, and ultimately their own language. They also have their own methodological preferences, ranging from studies that investigate the effects of new teaching concepts and materials on learning results, to field studies that cover a broad range of facets of teaching and learning in school environments and derive corre-lational analyses between multiple features via quasi-experiments in a natural context that allow a moderate degree of control of learning-relevant conditions, up to laboratory experiments that allow clear-cut analysis of interrelations under well-defined conditions but possibly at the expense of ecological validity. The domains investigated range from general laws of teaching and learning to specific developmental sections (from early child-hood to primary and secondary school up to adult learning) to group-spe-cific characteristics associated with gender or specific cultural backgrounds. Metaphorically speaking, the continent of educational research is populated by people from different cultures with different tools, practices, views, and languages, who face various communication obstacles and frequently do not communicate at all. To further develop research in education success-fully requires – again, metaphorically speaking – knowledge about different cultures, multilingual skills, and the willingness to use these skills in multicultural communication. Against this backdrop, the research projects presented in this volume are characterized by three essentials: first, they have an interdisciplinary orientation; second, they aim at process- and product-oriented research rather than dealing with product orientation only; third, they promote analyses from multiple perspectives.

Interdisciplinary orientation. Scientists from psychology, empirical peda-gogy, and various domain-specific instructional sciences from preschool pedagogy to mathematics, physics, and language education collaborate in joint projects and contribute to an interdisciplinary approach to research on teaching and learning. The research also involves cooperation between experienced school teachers, on the one hand, and university graduates of psychology and empirical pedagogy, on the other hand.

Process and product orientation. The projects deal with process-oriented and outcome-oriented research on teaching and learning. Most research in education up to now has been product oriented, dealing primarily with the

xii Preface

outcome of pedagogical processes. This kind of research does not have much to say about the processes that resulted in these outcomes; for example, which comprehension difficulties are faced by students and which possibili-ties exist to enhance learning processes. Answering these kinds of questions requires process-oriented research on teaching and learning. Relevant processes in teaching and learning comprise processes of cognitive activa-tion and affective and emotional support, as well as instructional manage-ment. Accordingly, quality of schooling is not only assessed by the increase of knowledge and competency through learning-stimulating and cogni-tively activating pedagogical interaction. It is also defined in terms of devel-opment of interests and motivational and emotional characteristics, as well as self-concepts of learners. The corresponding developmental results are assumed to influence further teaching and learning processes when students gradually become cocreaters of their own learning.

Multiple perspectives. Similar to real bridges, which provide opportuni-ties to look at the surroundings from different perspectives, mental bridges between different disciplines in educational research allow analysis of educational processes from different conceptual perspectives and compar-ison of the results. Multiperspective analyses of teaching and learning processes are enhanced both in terms of methodology and in terms of theory. The research adopts different approaches to control for relevant variables, ranging from field research and quasi-experiments to laboratory experi-ments, and applies multiple instruments for data collection. Furthermore, the research searches for conceptual links between the disciplines across different projects.

This book is subdivided into three parts. Part I consists of five chapters (Chapters 1 to 5) dealing with issues regarding the tension between self-regu-lation and instruction in education. Part II includes four chapters (Chapters 6 to 9) that refer to various facets of language learning and language compre-hension. Finally, Part III consists of six chapters (Chapters 10 to 15) referring to issues of mathematics and science education.

Part I Self-Regulation and Instruction

Chapter 1, “Educational Processes in Early Childhood Education: Activities of Target Children in Preschools,” by Wilfried Smidt analyzes educational quality in the first, second, and third years of preschooling based on obser-vational techniques with an inferential time-sampling approach. Given the predictive importance of preschool quality for the cognitive and socio-emo-tional development of children, he argues, as a tentative result, that a consid-erable portion of children’s everyday experience in preschools consists of waiting periods, transitions, being unoccupied, and routines of caretaking. One can conclude from these results that a good number of possibilities for educational stimulation of children in preschools are not adequately used.

Preface xiii

The author suggests critically reflecting on the appropriateness of children’s everyday experiences in preschools.

Chapter 2, “The Stability and Variability of Goals in Learning Contexts: A Systematic Literature Review and a Quantitative Investigation,” by Kathrin Bürger, deals with the question as to whether and to what extent different learning goals are relatively stable (and thus have trait quality) or relatively variable (and thus have state quality). The chapter provides a systematic review of the literature about goal stability, including the goals of mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach, and performance avoidance, as well as work avoidance. Whereas performance approach and performance avoidance goals seem to be relatively stable, mastery approach goals and work avoidance goals vary considerably . The chapter presents the results of a longitudinal study about the relative stability of state goals. At the intraindividual level, state goals vary in a meaningful way according to the situation (i.e., the preceding school lesson) at hand. At the interindi-vidual level, however, state goals are relatively stable.

The contribution in Chapter 3, “Self-Regulation in Computer-Based Learning Environments: Effects of Learner Characteristics and Instructional Support,” by Loredana Mihalca, Wolfgang Schnotz, and Christoph Mengelkamp, provides a summary of the state of the art in research about self-regulation in computer-based learning environments based on contem-porary theoretical models of self-regulation, focusing on cognition and meta-cognition as well as monitoring and control. Although computer-based learning environments provide many opportunities to improve learning, students frequently do not benefit from these opportunities because they lack specific self-regulatory competencies or because they cannot use these competencies adequately when confronted with challenging tasks. Various facets of learners’ characteristics and environmental characteris-tics are described as relevant factors influencing self-regulated learning. Self-regulated learning seems to be a mediator between opportunities for learning support and students’ actual learning.

Whereas most studies on the application of learning strategies have focused on the quantitative aspects (in terms of frequency) of strategy appli-cation and its relation to learning outcomes, Christoph Schneider, Christian Weber, and Peter H. Ludwig – authors of Chapter 4, “Does the Quality of the Application of Learning Strategies Foster Text Comprehension? A Reanalysis of Video Data” – argue that the quality of strategy application might be a better predictor of learning success. Based on videotaped self-regulatory learning of secondary-level students of English as a foreign language, quality of strategy application is characterized in terms of successful appli-cation of a strategy to overcome some comprehension problems rather than to register only the application of the strategy itself. This microanalytical approach of assessing the quality of specific strategy applications enables better predictions of learning outcomes than the traditional approach. The

xiv Preface

effect of language proficiency on text comprehension seems to be mediated by the quality of learning strategy applications.

In “Supporting Students’ Self-Regulated Learning with Teachers’ Feedback: Professional Experience as a Moderator of Teachers’ Attitude-Behavior Contingency” in Chapter 5, Eva Christophel and Christiane Baadte deal with the frequently requested individualization and differentiation of teaching and the question as to when and how each kind of feedback should be given to learners. The feedback behavior of teachers is influenced by their commitment to the concept of self-regulated learning. However, feed-back should not be given to learners at any time. Solving a learning task entails different phases and a teacher’s feedback has to be geared to these phases. The authors demonstrate that experienced teachers show less phase-inappropriate feedback when they have a high commitment to self-regulated learning. Teachers with less experience, on the contrary, show less phase-appropriate outcome feedback when they have a high commitment to self-regulated learning.

Part II Language Learning and Language Comprehension

The use of prepositions is generally a challenge in foreign language learning because different languages frequently conceptualize the same subject matter in different ways. In Chapter 6, “A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Teaching English Prepositions,” Xin Song, Wolfgang Schnotz, and Constanze Juchem-Grundmann investigate whether the teaching and learning of the use of prepositions in English as a foreign language can be enhanced by making students aware of the conceptual basis of prepo-sition usage according to the perspectives of cognitive linguistics. A core assumption is that the semantics of prepositions can be explained through image schemas summarizing everyday experiences. These schemas can be activated in the learner’s mind with the help of visual images, which are more or less schematic according to different levels of abstraction. Activated image schemas allow metaphorical mappings of structures from one domain (the source domain) to another domain (the target domain). In this way, semantic interrelations between domains become obvious to the learner. In contrast the conventional method of teaching prepositions implies learning the multiple senses of prepositions by rote, which fails to draw links between the different meanings in usage. In a field experiment, the new method proved to be more effective than the traditional way of teaching. Furthermore, the perspectives of cognitive linguistics also provide interesting connections to seemingly different domains, such as teaching physics, where multiple representations, including various levels of sche-matic visual images, are also used.

Chapter 7 is devoted to “The Individual Theories of Teachers about Vocabulary Work with Mono- and Plurilingual Students in the German

Preface xv

Language Classroom,” a contribution by Olena Bien, Stephan Merten, and Wolfgang Schnotz that deals with teachers’ subjective theories about vocabulary work in multilingual German language classes. In a study based on structured interviews combined with a semantic structure analysis of verbal protocols, the authors analyzed teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs concerning vocabulary work with monolingual and plurilin-gual students in German classes. The teachers participating in the study showed considerable interest in multilingualism but did not systemati-cally incorporate the plurilingual students’ languages of origin into their teaching practices. Teachers reported various techniques for using vocabu-laries from plurilingual students’ languages for language reflection and comparison. However, this usage is primarily based on teachers’ attitudes, values, and interests rather than pedagogical reflection and expertise. It would be helpful for teachers to receive special training about pedagogical approaches which take both the special needs and the special opportuni-ties of teaching plurilingual students into account.

Chapter 8, Gerlinde Lenske and Andreas Helmke’s “Child Respondents – Do They Really Answer What Scientific Questionnaires Ask For?,” inves-tigates whether questionnaires, which are nowadays widely used in secondary schools as a method for estimating instructional quality, can also be used for elementary school students. Secondary school students are generally considered experts in judging instructional quality. Their ratings have good reliability and predictive validity. With elementary students, however, the same kind of expertise seems to be questionable from the perspective of developmental psychology because young respondents still face some elementary difficulties. The authors offer an analysis and summary of possible obstacles and difficulties and derive rules for how to avoid or reduce them. Generally speaking, young children are able to give valid answers to questionnaire items on instructional quality, provided that the items are age-appropriate. Traditional methods of validation such as assessment of content validity and factorial validity are not sufficient to ensure age-appropriateness. Additional methods are required, such as cognitive pretesting, which directly focus on the judgment process of children.

In Chapter 9, “Video-Based Analyses of Reading Instruction in the Fourth Grade Based on the Observation System LUPE,” Nora Heyne analyzes primary school lessons about learning to read. Concepts regarding how to foster learning to read are clustered into multiple facets. The frequency of these facets is determined in ordinary primary school lessons on learning to read without any specific interventions based on videography of these lessons. Based on the assumption that all facets should play a role in teaching learning to read, the author makes recommendations for teaching. She suggests placing more emphasis on specific, hitherto infrequent, facets in order to enhance students’ competencies for reading.

xvi Preface

Part III Mathematics and Science Education

Chapter 10, “Which Heuristic Operations Do Primary School Students Use When Solving Complex Story Problems?,” by Johannes Groß, Natalie Gouasé, Renate Rasch, and Wolfgang Schnotz analyzes the spontaneous use of heuristics by third and fourth grade students in primary schools when solving complex story problems. These problems are of special interest for mathematics education because they require an interplay between heuristic and algorithmic operations to be solved successfully. Students were allowed to use various kinds of auxiliary materials while they tried to solve the prob-lems. Their verbal and nonverbal behavior was videotaped and analyzed in terms of a system of categories tailored to these kinds of problems. Similar to other studies on children’s problem solving, participants preferred forward-working strategies. Surprisingly, however, no significant differences were found between the two grades, which suggests that problem solving does not play an essential role in primary school mathematics education.

In Chapter 11, “Forms of Representation for Solving Mathematical Word Problems – Development of an Intervention Study,” Nina Sturm and Renate Rasch identify the essential properties of a teaching concept aimed at fostering problem-solving competencies in children learning mathematics. This approach is in contrast to traditional mathematics education in primary schools, which focuses on learning mathematical facts and algorithms. The authors develop a conceptual framework and a research program for inves-tigating the role of multiple external representations in solving word prob-lems and suggest encouraging students’ reflection about the usefulness of their self-generated representations. Although no results are available yet, the authors offer a valuable conceptual background for the synthesis of these issues.

Rosa Hettmannsperger, Wolfgang Schnotz, Andreas Müller, and Jochen Scheid, in Chapter 12, “Understanding Basic Concepts in Ray Optics: A Representational Approach,” deal with the fact that students frequently have naïve concepts about physics based on their everyday experience which deviate from the scientific concepts taught in school. These so-called misconceptions are obstacles on the way to an adequate understanding of physics. The authors consider fostering students’ competence in creating coherent representations as a possible way to overcome these difficulties. Accordingly, a test of competence in creating coherent representations and a test of conceptual understanding were developed for the domain of ray optics in the seventh and eighth grades and used in a quasi-experiment. In this study, a set of specifically developed tasks that addressed some widespread naïve concepts was used to foster students’ understanding of representations in ray optics. Although the intervention was relatively short, it led to a significant improvement of conceptual understanding in ray optics.

Preface xvii

In a related study performed by Jochen Scheid, Andreas Müller, Rosa Hettmannsperger, and Wolfgang Schnotz, and described in Chapter 13, “Scientific Experiments, Multiple Representations, and Their Coherence: A Task-Based Elaboration Strategy for Ray Optics,” the starting point is the well-known fact that students understand and remember very little when running or watching experiments. In addition, it has been shown that appropriate cognitive activation is needed to make such experiments beneficial for students. With reference to the work described in the previous chapter, the authors argue that understanding scientific experiments requires the use of multiple representations as well as the students’ ability to connect different representations to one another, which is referred to as representa-tional competence. A set of cognitively activating tasks called “representa-tional analysis tasks” were developed, aimed at fostering students’ ability to create coherent links between different interrelated representations. A field experiment in the domain of ray optics revealed that such representational analysis tasks increased students’ representational coherence competence more than traditional tasks.

In Jochen Kuhn and Patrik Vogt’s “Smartphones & Co. in Physics Education: Effects of Learning with New Media Experimental Tools in Acoustics” (Chapter 14), the main topic is the use of new media technology such as smartphones or tablet PCs according to the New Media Experimental Tools (NET) project for teaching physics. These devices have inbuilt sensors that can be used as physical measurement instruments in close-to-everyday- life situations, which due to their authenticity are assumed to stimulate students’ interest and motivation. The chapter gives an overview of the theoretical framework of the project and describes a quasi-experimental study. The experiment revealed that students who learned according to this theoretical framework showed significantly better learning results compared with conventional teaching. Whereas there was no influence on motivation in general, students showed a higher perceived self-concept after learning.

Chapter 15, “Video Analysis Exercises in Regular Introductory Mechanics Physics Courses: Effects of Conventional Methods and Possibilities of Mobile Devices” by Pascal Klein, Jochen Kuhn, Andreas Müller, and Sebastian Gröber, considers possibilities of active learning in introductory university physics courses, including the use of multiple representations to enhance students’ understanding of physics. In one instructional variant, prerecorded videos of motion processes had to be analyzed. In another instructional variant, students had to record videos of motion processes with mobile devices themselves and then analyze these videos in terms of fundamental mechanics principles. Students were expected to benefit from the experimental activities and from analyzing multiple representations. In a field experiment, contrary to these expectations, the experimental group did not perform better cognitively and was not better motivated than the

xviii Preface

control group, whose students did traditional paper and pencil exercises. However, the study reveals promising possibilities for further design-based research.

Overcoming obstacles in interdisciplinary communication is not always a trivial task. It requires a readiness to listen, to understand other perspec-tives, and to engage in rigorous discussions about conceptual consistency. Simultaneously, it necessitates showing full respect for other disciplinary views even when, for the time being, some issues cannot be satisfactorily clarified, and it requires willingness to engage in common activities of sense making, of “constructing meaning” from the different perspectives introduced. Such an endeavor requires high motivation and flexibility from all participants but simultaneously is also highly rewarding in terms of getting new views on this research field and in terms of promoting young researchers. We would be pleased to learn that the fundamental concepts of these interdisciplinary projects could stimulate other projects dealing with research in education and fostering a new generation of scientists.

xix

Notes on Contributors

Christiane Baadte is a research and teaching assistant in the Department of General and Educational Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Previously, she was a research and teaching assistant in the Department of Psychology, University of Muenster, Germany, and at the Technical University of Kaiserslautern. Her research interests include working memory and learning, working memory and social cognition, perception and regulation of attention, and text comprehension.

Olena Bien is a doctoral student at the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany.

Kathrin Bürger is a research assistant at RWTH Aachen University, Germany, in the Department of Educational Science. She is responsible for the devel-opment and evaluation of online self-assessments in several fields of study. Previously, she was a PhD student at the DFG Graduate School UPGrade, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. After obtaining her Master’s in Educational Science she taught at a boarding school for highly gifted pupils from 2006 to 2009. Her special interests are motivation, self-regulation, dif-ferent learning contexts, and methodological questions.

Eva Christophel is a research assistant in the Department of General and Educational Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Previously, she was an associate member of the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Her research interests are self-regulated learning, feedback, and blended learning.

Natalie Gouasé is a research assistant at the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Previously, she was an associate member of the UPGrade Project “Representation and language while solving problems in primary school math class.” Her current interests in research are self-regulation, personal-ity, and injustice sensitivity.

Sebastian Gröber is a research associate in the Physics Education Group, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany. His current research interests focus on the use of digital tools in learning environments at the high school level and especially on the development of tasks for complex themes to foster students’ conceptual understanding.

xx Notes on Contributors

Johannes Groß is a primary school teacher in Trier, Germany. Previously, he was a PhD student at the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. His research interests are representations, word problems, and geometry.

Andreas Helmke is Professor of Developmental and Educational Psychology at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Previously he was a researcher at the Max-Planck-Institute for Psychology in Munich (1983–1993). His research focuses on instructional quality, teacher diagnostic com-petence, and cross-cultural education. He is also a consultant to governments in Germany, Switzerland, and Vietnam.

Rosa Hettmannsperger is a lecturer at the University of Education Ludwigsburg, Germany and (part time) in the Department of School Education, Institute of Educational Science, University of Heidelberg. She obtained her PhD in Psychology at the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany.

Nora Heyne was previously an assistant professor at the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany, after she taught and conducted research projects in the Departments of Educational Psychology and Developmental Psychology. She obtained her diploma in Psychology at the Dresden University of Technology, Germany.

Constanze Juchem-Grundmann is Junior Professor of Linguistics and Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. In 2011, she rejoined the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), where she investigated the impact of integrating cognitive linguistics (CL) findings into English language teach-ing. After completing her PhD on CL-metaphor teaching in Business English, she returned to the graduate school to supervise doctoral candi-dates in her main research field, applied cognitive linguistics. In research and teaching, she focuses on TEFL methodology, especially multimedia applications in the foreign language classroom and content language inte-grated learning.

Alexander Kauertz is Professor of Physics Education at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany, where he is head of both the Institute for Science Education and the Centre of Teacher Education. He received his PhD from the University of Duisburg-Essen. His research interest is in analyzing the relations between students’ abilities and their learning processes in physics teaching and learning situations. Additionally he is engaged in modeling and measurement of physics abilities and higher order thinking skills.

Notes on Contributors xxi

Pascal Klein is a lecturer and doctoral candidate in the Department of Physics, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany. He obtained a fellowship from the Wilfried and Ingrid Kuhn Foundation in cooperation with the Faculty of Sciences at the University of Geneva, Switzerland.

Jochen Kuhn is Professor of Physics Education at the University of Kaiserslautern, Germany. After completing his PhD in Physics and Physics Education, he worked as an assistant professor and then as Associate Professor of Physics Education at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. He has co-supervised research projects at the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), University of Koblenz-Landau.

Gerlinde Lenske is a research associate and postdoctoral candidate in the Department of Instructional Psychology at the University of Duisburg-Essen, the Department of Research on Learning and Instruction at Ruhr University Bochum, and the DFG Graduate School at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Previously, she taught as a teacher trainer at the Studienseminar Rohrbach.

Heidrun Ludwig is manager of the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. After her degree in Educational Science at the University of Augsburg, she earned a doctorate in Educational Science at the University of Jena. Previously she worked as a research assistant at the University of Connecticut, US and as a teacher in Augsburg, Germany.

Peter H. Ludwig is Professor of Educational Science in the Department of Childhood and Adolescent Education at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Previously, he taught and conducted research projects at the Universities of Augsburg and Kassel and was a visiting professor at the Universities of Connecticut, US and Cracow, Poland. He worked in institu-tions of adult education and advanced training programs for teachers and executives.

Christoph Mengelkamp is Lecturer in Instructional Media at the University of Würzburg Institute of Human-Computer-Media, Germany. He previously worked as a researcher at the Center for Educational Research, University of Koblenz-Landau, developing diagnostic instruments and evaluating learn-ing environments. He then worked in the Department of General and Educational Psychology, mainly in the field of text–picture comprehension. He received his PhD in Psychology for studies on metacognitive judgments and learning.

xxii Notes on Contributors

Stephan Merten has taught and conducted research at the universities of Wuppertal, Koblenz, Bielefeld, and Leipzig, Germany, and was a research assistant for the Chair of Linguistics and Language Teaching at the University of Wuppertal. He conducted his doctoral research on studies of German language and literature, geography, and philosophy also at the University of Wuppertal, receiving his PhD in 1988 and habilitation in 1994. Since 2001, he has been Professor of Didactics of Teaching German at the University of Koblenz-Landau.

Loredana Mihalca is a postdoctoral fellow at the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Her main research interests include studying the effec-tiveness of different types of instructional control, and making use of eye-tracking methodology and thinking aloud. Previously, she was a PhD student in the Psychology Department at Babeş-Bolyai University, Romania. There she was involved in research projects which focused on fostering stu-dents’ performance and motivation while learning in computer-based envi-ronments.

Andreas Müller is Professor of Science Education at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, on a joint appointment of the Teacher Education Institute (Institute de Formation des Enseignants, IUFE) and the Faculty of Science/Physics. His current interests in research are the science of everyday phenomena, empirical investigations, and research-based developments in science education, in particular the role of tasks and exercises for fostering learning and motivation.

Johanna Pretsch studied Psychology at the University of Mainz, Germany. After graduating in 2009, she joined the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade) at the University of Koblenz-Landau, and started her PhD project. She finished her PhD in 2012 and since then has been working as a research assistant and postdoctoral researcher in the Personality, Psychological Assessment, and Psychological Methods section of the Department of Psychology at the University of Koblenz-Landau. Her research interests are teacher personality, teacher health, and justice in edu-cational contexts.

Renate Rasch is Professor of Didactics of Mathematics for Primary School at the Institute of Mathematics in the Department of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Previously, she was an academic assistant in Didactics of Mathematics for Primary School at the Institute for Elementary School Education, University of Erfurt. Her research projects are word problems, open tasks, and primary school geometry.

Notes on Contributors xxiii

Jochen Scheid is Assistant Professor of Physics in the Department of Physics at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. From 2009 to 2013, he was a PhD student at the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade). Previously, he worked as a middle school teacher within the subjects of physics and biology.

Christoph Schneider is an assistant professor in the Department of Childhood and Adolescent Education at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. He holds a PhD in Psychology. His research interests include the competence development of student teachers in university teacher educa-tion and the effects of different forms of ability grouping in schools on students’ academic self-concept and learning outcomes.

Wolfgang Schnotz is Professor of General and Educational Psychology at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. He received his PhD from the Technical University Berlin. He is now head of the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), head of the Department of General and Educational Psychology, and head of the Multimedia Research Centre at the University of Koblenz-Landau. His focus in teaching is on cognitive psychology and instructional psychology. He also teaches lan-guage and cognition as well as visualization, with a focus on new media.

Wilfried Smidt is an assistant professor in the Department of Early Childhood and Youth Education, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. After degrees in Social Work and Educational Science, he earned a PhD in Educational Science at the University of Bamberg, Germany.

Xin Song received a Master’s in Foreign Language Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China, and worked as an English teacher at Fujian Normal University and Dalian Translation and Interpretation College. She is now a doctoral student in the Department of General and Educational Psychology and an associate member of the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany.

Nina Sturm is a student at the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade), University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Previously, she taught as a secondary school teacher in Böhl-Iggelheim for six years.

Patrik Vogt is a lecturer at the University of Education Freiburg, Germany. After graduating from the DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes” (UPGrade) in 2010, he was a junior professor at the University of Education, Schwäbisch Gmünd, and a research assistant at the University of Koblenz-Landau and the University of Kaiserslautern.

xxiv Notes on Contributors

Christian Weber holds an MA in Educational Science and is a member of the research staff in the Department of Childhood and Adolescent Education, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Previously, he worked as a youth education adviser within a German youth organization, as well as a free-lance lecturer and a research assistant in the Department of Educational Science. He also worked in various educational institutions and conducted training programs for children and their parents.