Time: Wednesday, 28/Aug/2024: 13:45 - 15:15 Session Chair: Gal Ben-Yehudah |
Location: Room 003 in ΧΩΔ 01 (Common Teaching Facilities [CTF01]) [Ground Floor] Cap: 40 |
Paper
Training Teachers to Teach Adaptively: Empirical Findings on Teacher Education in the Field of Adaptive Teaching in Mathematics Instruction
Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Germany
Presenting Author:Theoretical Framework and Research Question
Globalization and increased transnational mobility and at the same time worldwide challenges such as economic crises, climate change, global pandemics and war have increased during the last decades and have led to heterogeneity in school population (Wernicke et al., 2021). Given the continuous increase in heterogeneity, a consideration of individual student needs has reemerged as a major issue in theoretical, empirical, and practice-oriented work (Hardy et al., 2019). As Corno (2008) states: “Our modern society expects instruction to reach all students across a broad range of special needs, talents, linguistic backgrounds, and sociocultural conditions”. Teachers are challenged to meet the individual needs of all students and adjustments to students’ individual development are considered a core element of effective teaching (Hardy et al., 2019). Adaptive teaching (Corno, 2008) as a solution has been discussed for the last decades and is today more relevant than ever. Adaptive teaching is essential in instructional interaction: the teacher guides the learning process in dialogue with students, supporting independent learning, problem-solving, and cognitive self-experience (Brägger, Haug et al., 2021). Corno (2008) states that teaching adaptively means responding to learners as they work, diagnose their needs “on the fly” (Corno, 2008, p.1). The teachers’ intervention occurs slightly above the students' level and is gradually withdrawn, transferring responsibility for the learning and problem-solving process back to the students (Vygotsky, 1980; Van de Pol et al., 2010). Despite being considered a well-founded and pedagogically promising concept (Hardy et al., 2019), adaptive teaching remains limited in practice in the German school system (Schwippert et al., 2020).
A reason for this might be that it poses a significant challenge for teachers to simultaneously address a variety of students individually – both in lesson preparation and in situational teaching-learning interactions. To meet these needs, promoting adaptive teaching competence amongst pre-service teachers appears particularly significant. We follow the idea that teachers’ competence is based on learnable dispositions linked to teaching situations (König, 2020). The lack of opportunities to learn such competencies in university teacher training may be a cause of teachers’ difficulties in teaching adaptively (Praetorius et al., 2012). For the subject of mathematics, which primarily involves task-based teaching, there is a specific need to focus on problem-solving processes that teachers must adaptively support (Leiß, 2007).
We developed a model for adaptive teaching (Lemmrich et al., in press), addressing both the level of adaptive lesson planning and adaptive decision-making during ongoing lessons. The model provides a framework for differentiating generic facets of adaptive teaching in a subject-specific manner. We also developed an innovative seminar concept to impart competence in teaching adaptively in mathematical problem-solving processes, aiming to overcome traditional theory-practice barriers (Schilling & Leiss, 2022). Therefore, it incorporates multiperspective videos and trainings and a community of practice. The seminar has been continuously evaluated and modified (Leiss et al., submitted). The following presents initial results. The guiding research question was: To what extent can the ability of pre-service teachers to give adaptive instructions be promoted through university teaching?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
Methodology
The study was conducted in an experimental pre-post-design. The experimental group (n = 26) and the control group (n = 77) completed a 90-minute online assessment at the beginning and end of the semester, with items covering (1) cognition (subject knowledge, subject-specific pedagogical knowledge) (2) beliefs (self-efficacy concerning ability of teaching adaptively) (3) situation-specific skills (stimuli followed by multiple-choice-questions on diagnosis and intervention). The sample of pre-service teachers were recruited in the summer semester of 2021 in the cohort of mathematics teacher training in their fourth semester at the Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany. The experimental group was trained in the developed innovative seminar, that promotes competence in teaching adaptively in mathematical problem-solving processes.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
Findings and conclusion
Results show that pre-service teachers’ competence in teaching mathematics adaptively could be improved through the seminar concept especially in declarative subject-specific pedagogical knowledge ((1) cognition). Also, we find a significant increase in the self-efficacy of the pre-service teachers ((2) beliefs). Regarding situation-specific skills (3) in the field of diagnosis and intervention, no measurable changes can be achieved, despite the constructive-reflexive engagement with various practical elements during the seminar. The seminar is capable of imparting adaptive teaching competence. However, this largely depends on how frequently students utilize the learning opportunities. These results illustrate the complexity of "good" adaptive teaching in subject instruction. The competence of adaptive teaching as merely one aspect of teachers’ professional competence, could not be conclusively achieved in all facets with the pre-service teachers in the seminar. To train future teachers in teaching adaptively, seems to pose challenges in university teacher education. Further investigations should explore the question of the influence of pre-service teachers’ beliefs in additional runs of the seminar, possibly using an instrument that goes beyond self-efficacy. Adaptive teaching must be tailored to the specific subject situation: An intertwining of subject didactics and educational science in teacher education is necessary to address adaptive teaching as both a general pedagogical and subject-specific concept. Research paper and attempts for European collaborations concerning adaptive teaching reveal the relevance not only for Germany, but for European teaching institutions (e.g. E-ADAPT )
References
Literatur
Brägger, G., Haug, R., Reusser, K. & Steiner, N. (2021). Adaptive Lernunterstützung und formatives Feedback in offenen Lernumgebungen. In G. Brägger & H.-G. Rolff (Hrsg.), Handbuch Lernen mit digitalen Medien (S. 700–754). Beltz.
Corno, L. Y. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational psychologist, 43(3), 161-173.
Hardy, I., Decristan, J. & Klieme, E. (2019). Adaptive teaching in research on learning and instruction. Journal for educational research online, 11(2), 169-191.
König, J. (2020). Kompetenzorientierter Ansatz in der Lehrerinnen-und Lehrerbildung. In C. Cramer, J. König, M. Rothland, & S. Blömeke (Eds.), Handbuch Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung (pp. 163-171). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.
Leiss, D. (2007). Hilf mir es selbst zu tun“ – Lehrerinterventionen beim mathematischen Modellieren. Franzbecker Verlag.
Leiss, D., Schilling, L., Lemmrich, S. & Ehmke, T. (eingereicht). Adaptive Lernunterstützung in der Lehrkräfteausbildung fördern – Ein beispielhaftes Seminarkonzept mit Evaluation an der Leuphana Universität Lüneburg
Lemmrich, S., Ehmke, T., & Reusser, K. (in press). Adaptive Lernunterstützung durch fachliche Präzision und interaktionale Qualität PraxisForschungLehrer*innenBildung. Zeitschrift für Schul- und Professionsentwicklung.
Praetorius, A.-K., Lipowsky, F., & Karst, K. (2012). Diagnostische Kompetenz von Lehrkräften: Aktueller Forschungsstand, unterrichtspraktische Umsetzbarkeit und Bedeutung für den Unterricht. In R. Lazarides & A. Ittel (Eds.), Differenzierung im mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. Implikationen für Theorie und Praxis (pp. 115-146).
Schilling, L., Poschkamp, A.-K., Leiss, D., & Besser, M. (2022). Entwicklung eines schulischen Lehr-Lernsettings zur Implementation des Problemlösens im kompetenzorientierten Mathematikunterricht mit Einsatz eines Erklärvideos als didaktisches Tool. In T. Ehmke, S. Fischer-Schöneborn, K. Reusser, D. Leiss T. Schmidt & S. Weinhold (Hrsg.), Innovation in Theorie-Praxis-Netzwerken – Beiträge zur Weiterentwicklung der Lehrkräftebildung (S. 252-276). Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa.
Schwippert, K., Kasper, D., Köller, O., McElvany, N., Selter, C., Steffensky, M. & Wendt, H. (Hrsg.). (2020). TIMSS 2019: Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich [1. Auflage, neue Ausgabe]. Waxmann. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830993193
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
Wernicke, M., Hammer, S., Hansen, A. & Schroedler, T. (Hrsg.). (2021). Preparing Teachers to Work with Multilingual Learners. Multilingual Matters.
Paper
Characterising Teacher Professional Learning through Lesson Study: Empirical Results from a Teacher Education Programme on Integrating Programming into Classroom Teaching
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R. (China)
Presenting Author:The significance of teacher professional learning has been widely acknowledged in the field of teacher education, as it is often considered pivotal in bringing about changes in educational practices (Lieberman & Mace, 2008). Confronted with the need to address practical problems and encourage scientific inquiry, teacher-led research is employed in many teacher professional learning programmes (Choy & Dindyal, 2021). As an evolving research approach in education, lesson study (LS) has been increasingly popular within academia (Ding et al., 2024).
Previous research has explicated the ontology, epistemology and methodology of LS. Several studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in developing teachers’ knowledge, instructional skills and beliefs (Lewis et al., 2006; Coenders & Verhoef, 2019; Fox & Poultney, 2020). Existed empirical studies have mostly focused on cases carried out by teachers themselves. With the increasing emphasis on the cooperation between universities and primary and secondary schools, LS programmes usually involve the participation of teacher educators from universities. However, little research has investigated LS as a pathway to facilitate teacher professional learning through teacher-researcher partnership.
The objective of this empirical research is to characterise the impact of teachers’ participation in LS on the development of their professional knowledge and inquiry mindsets relevant to teaching and student learning. Specifically, this research aims to answer the following questions: (1) How do teachers’ participation in LS contribute to their professional knowledge of teaching and student learning? (2) How do teachers’ participation in LS contribute to their inquiry mindsets towards teaching and student learning? (3) What are the impacts of teacher-researcher partnership on teachers’ development in professional knowledge and inquiry mindsets?
In order to achieve the research objective, a conceptual framework is developed based on expansive learning theory, aiming to characterise participating teachers’ experiences. Expansive learning is a term raised on the basis of Vygotsky’s cultural-historical/ sociocultural theory and Engeström’s version of cultural-history activity theory, alongside many other theoretical and philosophical opinions. According to expansive learning theory, learning is interpreted as a complex activity system in which “learners are involved in constructing and implementing a radically new, wider and more complex object and concept” (Engeström & Sannino, 1999, 2017). Learners surpass the objective of directly acquiring new knowledge and skills, striving to implement what they have acquired in practice and produce something new. Such epistemology aligns with the connotation of teacher professional learning and the process of LS.
This framework interprets LS as a pathway to facilitate teacher professional learning. Teachers’ participation in LS is framed as an activity system comprising two interrelated sub-systems. The first sub-system involves a research activity system in which teachers collaborate with teacher educators to co-design classroom activities and reflect on their teaching practices. The second sub-system is a teaching activity system, which entails the application of the designed activities in actual classroom settings. Through the two sub-systems, teachers are able to generate new understandings of concepts and theories in teaching and learning, and simultaneously develop their inquiry mindsets as researchers. This framework serves as a guiding tool for data collection and facilitates the interpretation of research findings.
This ongoing study focuses on a teacher education programme involving six mathematics teachers from a secondary school in China. The programme centres around using LS to develop programming-enhanced mathematics classroom activities. Teacher professional learning is characterised through detailed analysis of multiple data sources, including conversations within the research community, observations of classrooms activities, one-on-one video-stimulated recall interviews and relevant documents. The expected findings include descriptions of the participating teachers’ development of professional knowledge and inquiry mindsets in LS, which will provide implications regarding how to effectively facilitate teacher professional learning through LS.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
A qualitive case study approach is employed to uncover teachers’ experience when conducting LS and to investigate its impact on their professional learning. The selected case of this study is a teacher education programme conducted in Shenzhen, China. All six teachers participating in this programme are considered as research participants. It is a half-year programme where teachers form a DBR group to collaboratively design, implement, and reflect on programming-enhanced activities to innovate mathematics classroom teaching and learning.
The research data has been collected through multiple sources before, during, and after the implementation of LS. All the programme sessions, including teachers’ research meetings and classroom teaching, have been video recorded for subsequent analysis. During planning and reflection sessions, a stationary camera has been used to capture the entire process of teachers’ conversations. During teaching sessions, a stationary camera has been used to record teachers’ teaching activities, while several hand-held cameras have been employed to record students’ learning activities.
One-on-one video-stimulated recall interviews will be conducted with participating teachers at the end of this programme. Several video segments that illustrate teachers’ development in professional knowledge and inquiry mindsets will be selected as the stimulus. Teachers will be requested to watch the selected video segments and reflect on their experience of implementing LS. This is aimed at obtaining a better understanding of teachers’ perspectives regarding their participation in LS, so as further to explore the impact of LS on their professional learning. The interviews will be video recorded for analysis. Besides, relevant documents used during LS have been collected as well, including teachers’ teaching plans, student work, and other related materials.
All the collected data will be systematically organised, cleaned, coded, analysed and interpreted. The video recordings will initially be verbatim transcribed and cleaned. Afterward, the data will be coded through open, focused, axial, and theoretical coding stages. This aims to integrate separated data segments into a coherent whole, which can be used to answer the research questions and reach theoretical explanations. An interpretative approach will be employed to make sense of teachers’ experience in LS. This involves the researcher making sense of teachers’ experiences, and the researcher making sense of how teachers make sense of their own experiences.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The expected findings are as follows.
(1) Teachers’ professional knowledge regarding teaching and learning is developed through their participation in LS. Firstly, teachers integrate innovative techniques into classroom teaching, thereby facilitating students’ meaningful learning. This occurs during their collaborative design and implementation of classroom activities, where innovative techniques serve as a significant tool of student learning. Secondly, teachers’ content knowledge is reconstructed through the design and reflection of classroom activities within the research team. Thirdly, teachers’ knowledge of student thinking is developed by reflecting on students’ learning activities, with specific attention to their language expressions and embodied movements. Accordingly, teachers generate new understandings of instructional strategies to foster student learning, including effective responses and funds of knowledge for teaching.
(2) Through LS, teachers actively engage as researchers and develop their inquiry mindsets. Their creativity and innovation are enhanced throughout this process. Teachers start by designing classroom activities based on the analysis of practical evidence and research findings, aiming to trigger innovation in teaching and learning. Subsequently, teachers collect and analyse practical data on the implementation of these activities, evaluating their feasibility and effectiveness. Based on such analysis, the activities are revised to enhance their future application. Teachers also develop a reflective stance by analysing both their teaching and research processes through several iterations.
(3) LS is an iterative and two-dimensional learning process for teachers. Teachers engage in multiple cycles of design, implementation, and reflection, actively participating in two sub-systems. The first is the research activity system involving collaboration between teachers and teacher educators, and the second is the teaching activity system where teachers interact with students. Throughout this process, various influencing factors are involved, including teachers’ interaction with different stakeholders, their understanding of their roles in LS, their purposes of their involvement in LS, and their prior perceptions and experiences.
References
(1) Choy, B. H., & Dindyal, J. (2021). Developing the competencies of mathematics teacher-researchers. Singapore Math and Science Education Innovation: Beyond PISA, 287-298.
(2) Coenders, F., & Verhoef, N. (2019). Lesson Study: professional development (PD) for beginning and experienced teachers. Professional development in education, 45(2), 217-230.
(3) Ding, M., Huang, R., Pressimone Beckowski, C., Li, X., & Li, Y. (2024). A review of lesson study in mathematics education from 2015 to 2022: implementation and impact. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 56(1), 87-99.
(4) Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on Activity Theory, 19(38), 19-30.
(5) Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2017). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Introduction to Vygotsky, 5(1), 100-146.
(6) Fox, A., & Poultney, V. (2020). Teacher professional learning through lesson study: teachers' reflections. International Journal for Lesson & Learning Studies, 9(4), 397-412.
(7) Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational researcher, 35(3), 3-14.
(8) Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 226-234.
Paper
Sustainability in In-service Teacher Training - a multi-perspective Study on successful Transfer
KPH Wien/Krems, Austria
Presenting Author:This article focuses on researching the transfer of learned content from in-service teacher training to school practice. It includes the SDG goal 4c to expand the supply of qualified teachers which should be increasingly possible through modular training series.
The data in this regard is poor since evidence-based findings are largely lacking. There are some studies on the effectiveness of in-service teacher training but there are no findings in the German speaking world related to transfer (cf. Müller, Kemethofer, Andreitz, Nachbaur & Soukup-Altrichter 2019; Lipowsky & Rzejak 2021; Rzejak, Gröschner, Lipowsky, Richter & Calcagni 2023).
On the one hand in-service teacher training with a long-lasting impact demands a look at the conditions of the individual school (teaching, organizational and personnel development, see also Altrichter & Rolff 2000), whereby this project is particularly linked to the level of teaching development. On the other hand, however, it researches the conditions of the school system such as concept transfer. Furthermore the transfer of experience also plays an important role in sustainability, with teachers passing on their experiences to their colleagues. Ultimately the long-term goal should be the establishment of standards in schools for effective and sustainable in-service teacher training (cf. BMBWF 2021).
In-service teacher training primarily serves to professionalize teachers (cf. BMBWF 2019). One's own further training can be seen as a central request of every teacher. Numerous international studies show the positive effects of in-service teacher training on the teachers concerned (cf. Lipowsky 2014; Hattie 2015).
According to Zehetmeier (2017) a distinction between two types of effects can be mad: The effect immediately afterwards and the long-term effect. Fischer (2017) refers to this long-term effect as follow-up effectiveness, meaning a permanent, lasting success of measures. This concept of sustainable training is therefore included in the present study, with the sustainability of the modular training series being researched four to six months after the last input phase. The concept of sustainable in-service teacher training is understood as part of the concept of sustainable development (UNESCO 2014).
In-service teacher training measures can work on several levels. Lipowsky (2010) describes the following four levels of impact: (1) assessments and opinions of the participants, (2) knowledge of the participants, (3) concrete actions of the participants in the classroom and (4) performance of the students of the participating teachers. In the present study, the first two impact levels are recorded. In addition an attempt is made to record level three with the third measurement point.
Timperley et al. (2007) explored the impact of teacher training. Accordingly, training courses extending over a longer period of time and involving experts are particularly effective. In addition, the participants should be active during the learning process and given the opportunity to question their ideas about their own teaching.
It can be said that the following characteristics are consistently cited by several authors as conditions for the success of effective in-serve teacher training with a long lasting impact:
(1) the advanced training extends over a longer period of time, (2) experts are involved and feedback is provided, (3) a practical transfer is made possible, (4) the attitudes of the participating teachers are questioned or changed.
Based on these findings the research team developed a design that focuses precisely on these beneficial characteristics of sustainable in-service teacher training.
The aim of this project (2019-2024) is to research the effectiveness and sustainability and to develop modular in-service teacher training courses further. The following central research question is derived from this: How sustainable are the selected modular in-service teacher trainings at the University College of Teacher Education Vienna/Krems?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
This study can be described as a multi-perspective and mixed methods design, focusing on 15 modular in-service teacher trainings. At the first point of measurement (t0), the time shortly before the modular in-service teacher training starts, those responsible for the training series were asked about different areas using semi-structured, guided interviews (qualitative). At the same time an online survey of the participants was carried out in a quantitative setting. They were asked about their motivation for attending this series, their previous experiences regarding content, their expectations and the hoped-for effects on educational activities. The opinion of the in-service teacher trainers was also collected in online survey to clarify the content and aims of the in-service teacher trainings, the differences between modular training and individual events, the skills of trainers and the design options for sustainable training. At the second measurement point the end of the training series (t1), the focus is on the effectiveness of the training series on the participants (online questionnaire). At the third measurement point (t2), the focus is on sustainability. For this purpose the experiences of the participants are finally collected again, about four to six months after the modular trainings using an online questionnaire.
The survey instruments were based on empirical findings on research into the effectiveness and sustainability of teacher training (cf. Timperley et al. 2007; Nicodemus et al. 2010; Zehetmeier 2017; Lipowsky & Rzejak 2021) as well as through the expertise of the project members, who have been active in in-service teacher training for many years.
The evaluation of the quantitative data is carried out in a descriptive- and inferential-statistical manner using the statistics program SPSS. The focus is on both, the overall results of all 15 in-service teacher trainings and the results of the individual modular trainings. The qualitative data is analyzed according to Kuckartz (2018) with MAXQDA. Aligned with the research question, the material is assigned to a deductive and inductive category scheme. Finally quantitative and qualitative data are combined (Kuckartz 2014; Mertens 2023).
The responsibles (N=10) for the modular trainings have been interviewed and 31 in-service teacher trainers answered the questionnaire. The largest group of the sample are the participants (N t0 = 133, N t1 = 167, N t2 = 61) of the in-service teacher trainings.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The majority of the trainers has practical experiences. They bring this knowledge to their training courses. The participants appreciate this practical approach. At t0 they show a high level of self-motivation and great interest in attending modular formats. Results at the end of the modular trainings (t1) show that more than 80 % are very satisfied with the support provided by those responsible, with the motivation of the trainers and the opportunity for collegial exchange. Over 90 % are satisfied with the opportunity to discuss their own school experiences; almost three quarters of those surveyed are very motivated to implement the content of the training; for 70 %, a new network opened up outside the modular trainings, and there was an increase in knowledge for over 90 %. In terms of personal added value in practice 92 % state that they have gained new approaches to implementing their ideas in the classroom as a result of the training series four to six months after the training (t2). 84 % reflect on their actions and 80 % reflect more on their attitude in the classroom. 92 % state that they have extended their skills. 67 % state that they have noticed a strengthening of self-confidence and self-efficiency and more commitment and joy among their pupils.
The assumption that a modular training format influences the sustainability of what has been learned in terms of lifelong learning is confirmed by these results. In any case, the responses of the in-service teacher trainers and participants seem to confirm the added value of the content learned through longer-term formats. These conclusions will be incorporated into the future development of further in-service teacher training formats. Thus a high-quality qualification of teachers can be ensured and sustainable education (see SDG 4) in the sense of lifelong learning can be achieved.
References
Altrichter, H. & Rolff, H.-G. (2000). Theorie und Forschung in der Schulentwicklung. Journal für Schulentwicklung 4, 4–99.
BMBWF (2019). Aus-, Fort- und Weiterbildung für LehrerInnen an berufsbildenden Schulen. https://bit.ly/2UXuLWY
BMBWF (2021). Bundesqualitätsrahmen für Fort- und Weiterbildung & Schulentwicklungsberatung an den Pädagogischen Hochschulen. https://bit.ly/3sYMX4b
Farmer, J., Gerretson, H. & Lassak, M. (2003). What teachers take from professional development: cases and implications. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 331–360.
Fischer, A. (2006). Offenbar schöpfen wir Wasser mit einem Siebe. Paradigma, 1, 6–10.
Hattie, J. (2015). Lernen sichtbar machen. Schneider.
Hawley, W. D. & Valli, L. (1999). The Essentials of Effective Professional Development: A New Consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & Gary Sykes (Hrsg.), Teaching as the Learning Profession (S. 127–150). Jossey-Bass.
Kuckartz, U. (2014). Mixed Methods. Methodologie, Forschungsdesigns und Analyseverfahren. Springer VS.
Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Beltz Juventa.
Lipowsky, F. (2010). Die Wirksamkeit von Lehrer/innenfortbildung. Berufliches Lernen von Lehrerinnen/Lehrern im Rahmen von Weiterbildungsangeboten. news & science. Begabtenförderung und Begabungsforschung, 25 (2), 5–8. https://bit.ly/39eIGyV
Lipowsky, F. (2014). Theoretische Perspektiven und empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von Lehrerfort- und -weiterbildung. In E. Terhard, H. Bennewitz & M. Rothland (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (S. 511–541). Waxmann.
Lipowsky, F. & Rzejak, D. (2021). Fortbildungen für Lehrpersonen wirksam gestalten. Ein praxisorientierter und forschungsgestützter Leitfaden. Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://bit.ly/39ML6rs
Mertens, D. (2023). Mixed methods research: research methods. Bloomsbury Academic.
Müller, F. H., Kemethofer, D., Andreitz, I., Nachbaur, G. & Soukup-Altrichter, K. (2019). Lehrerfortbildung und Lehrerweiterbildung. In S. Breit, F. Eder, K. Krainer, C. Schreiner, A. Seel & C. Spiel (Hrsg.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2018. Fokussierte Analysen und Zukunftsperspektiven für das Bildungswesen (S. 99–142). Leykam-Verlag. https://goo.gl/ghPqGJ
Nicodemus, D., Jäger, R. S. & Bodensohn, R. (2010). Effekte von Fort- und Weiterbildung in Mathematik: Dem Phänomen des Autobahnkreuzes auf der Spur! Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand 3 (2), 217–233.
Rzejak, D., Gröschner, A., Lipowsky, F., Richter, D., Calcagni, E. (2023). Qualität von Lehrkräftefortbildungen einschätzen. Ein Arbeitsbuch aus dem Projekt IMPRESS. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:26502
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H.& Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development. Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). Ministry of Education. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/48727127.pdf
UNESCO (2014). UNESCO Roadmap zur Umsetzung des Weltaktionsprogramms „Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung”. https://bit.ly/2YmGGoV
Zehetmeier, S. (2017). Theoretische und empirische Grundlagen für eine innovative und nachhaltige Lehrer/innenfortbildung. In I. Kreis & D. Unterköfler-Klatzer (Hrsg.), Fortbildung Kompakt. Wissenschaftstheoretische und praktische Modelle zur wirksamen Lehrer/innen-fortbildung (S. 80–102). Studien-Verlag.