27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Effects of Out-Of-School Learning Locations on the STEM Biography of Primary School Students
Jan Roland Schulze, Annkathrin Wenzel, Ricardo Puppe, Eva Blumberg
Paderborn University, Germany
Presenting Author: Schulze, Jan Roland;
Puppe, Ricardo
Environmental change is an inescapable challenge for our society. Consequently, early, inclusive and equitable education is needed to contribute to sustainable development. This is one of the demands of the United Nations' 2030 Agenda. The goal is to provide primary and secondary school students with a quality education and a sound STEM knowledge. This is to ensure that they are actively engaged in a society facing ongoing and complex sustainability challenges, and to give them the opportunity to act as active and reflective participants. The alarming results of the most recent Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, 2019) on the scientific literacy of primary and secondary school students provide an urgent reason to improve STEM education (Schwippert et al., 2020). Students' basic STEM literacy is becoming increasingly poor, and nearly 50% of primary school students have inadequate science literacy as they transition to secondary school (Schwippert et al., 2020). Overall, there is a general decline not only in interest, but also in self-centered cognitions among students (Möller, 2014). Given the proven importance of self-centered cognitions for interest (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011), the sustainable promotion of self-concepts in STEM is necessary.
Students tend to be more likely to be interested in subject areas in which they register stronger ability-related self-concepts. There is a general negative trend in the development of science interest (e.g., Gebhard et al., 2017), which can be attributed to increasing academic demands and stricter grading in secondary schools. The main reason students cite for finding the content difficult is a lack of relevance to everyday life (Winkelmann et al., 2021). Recent research indicates declining interest in science learning and a gender gap in student interest in STEM (Oppermann et al., 2020).
Out-of-school learning offers an opportunity to promote learning and interest in science and technology that has not been considered in prestigious studies (e.g., TIMSS) (Derda, 2020; Wenzel, 2022). The importance of out-of-school learning places of learning for education in Germany has been clearly emphasized since the first PISA results in 2001. Out-of-school learning is known for its outstanding ability to motivate and cognitively stimulate students, which ultimately leads to the promotion of interest (Henriksson, 2018; Füz, 2018; Schiefer et al., 2020).
Optimizing the transition of science and technology learning from primary to secondary school is not only a research desideratum but also a practical problem with regard to the possibilities of integrating out-of-school learning sites. There is a lack of empirically grounded and practice-oriented examples of the integration of science and technology learning at the transition from primary to secondary school.
This is where our quasi-experimental study comes in. Fourth graders aging between ten and eleven years old who are on the verge of transitioning to secondary school take part in a short teaching and learning unit (two 90-minute lessons) in science class on the topic of "wind and wind energy." The intervention is then supplemented by an accompanying visit by an expert to the didactically prepared out-of-school learning location of a regional school laboratory. We use pre- and post-questionnaires to record the multiple learning effects of the fourth-graders.
This project aims to optimize science and technology learning in inclusive primary school and raise interest in STEM through the symbiosis of teaching inside and outside the classroom.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedUsing a quasi-experimental comparison group design, we investigate primary school students' differences in STEM literacy development and learning effects between out-of-school learning vs. classroom learning on the renewable energy topic “wind and wind energy." The learning units are planned and taught by pre-service teacher tandems who are registered in a didactics seminar at university for prospective teachers. These Bachelor's and Master's students in teacher education attend our weekly university didactics seminar, which focuses on the professional implementation of key academic concepts of renewable energy in science class of inclusive primary schools. In the course of the seminar, pre-service teacher tandems are introduced to the learning objectives of the particular learning unit in inclusive primary schools. With the help of the lecturer, all pre-service teacher tandems plan and prepare identical content for their teaching units.
After completing the double lessons in the classroom, the treatments for the fourth graders differ in two different ways: pupils in the experimental group attend a didactically prepared out-of-school learning location of a regional school laboratory which is accompanied by experts. They receive the second part of the teaching unit at this particular out-of-school learning site. Fourth-graders in the control group do not attend an out-of-school learning site and instead remain in the classroom for the second part of the teaching unit. The content of the teaching units is identical for both groups.
With the help of pre- and post-questionnaires we monitor multiple learn effects (e.g., motivation, self-efficacy, etc.) of the different interventions (out-of-school learning vs. classroom learning) conducted by pre-service teacher dyads. For this submission we focus on two different domains of academic self-concept: (1) domain-specific self-concept in science class ("In this science class, I am one of the best students"; alpha = .84/.85) and (2) the ability self-concept in relation to the topic "wind and wind energy" ("I know a lot about this topic"; alpha = .68/.71). In addition, we administer a pre- and post-knowledge-test to examine the efficacy of students’ teaching unit and their learning targets.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe have a sample size of over N = 300 fourth graders who participated in our study. Based on theoretical evidence in literature and similar study design we assume gender discrepancy for (1) domain-specific self-concept in science class and (2) ability self-concept in relation to the topic "wind and wind energy” for initial values at the beginning of the intervention but also for the development from pre- to post-measurement (regardless of group belonging). Based on existing findings (Jansen et al., 2014), we expect that girls participating in our study will have a lower self-concept in STEM education than boys, which will ultimately negatively affect their interest in STEM subjects (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011). However, we expect girls of the experimental group to develop higher self-concepts than girls in the control group (Weßnigk, 2013). Regarding existing research findings (cf. Füz, 2018; Henriksson, 2018) we assume primary school students of the experimental group participating in out-of-school learning to develop greater technical competence particularly in the transfer of knowledge and skills, more interest and more positive self-centered assessments than primary school students of the control group who do not participate in out-of-school learning. Regardless of gender, we assume a bigger increase in the different area-specific self-concepts for fourth-graders in the experimental group than fourth-graders in the control group since out-of-school learning locations vouch potential to flourish students’ self-centred cognitions (Karpa et al., 2015). At the time of the submission deadline, data acquisition for our study has just finished. Evaluation of the results will be finalized for the presentation.
ReferencesDerda, M. (2020). Untersuchung der Wirksamkeit der Schülerlabore an der Technischen Universität Berlin. Eine quantitative und qualitative Studie zur Formulierung von Handlungsempfehlungen. Dissertation. Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames, Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp.139-186). San Diego: Academic Press.
Füz, N. (2018). Extracurricular learning in Hungarian primary education: Practice and barriers. Journal of Experiential Education, 41(3) 277-294.
Gebhard, U., Höttecke, D. & Rehm, M. (2017). Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften. Ein Studienbuch (Lehrbuch). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Henriksson, A.-C. (2018). Primary school teachers' perceptions of out of school learning within science education. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 6(2), 9-26.
Jansen, M., Schroeders, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2014). Academic self-concept in science: Multidimensionality, relations to achievement measures, and gender differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 11-21.
Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International journal of science education, 33(1), 27-50.
Möller, K. (2014). From science subject teaching to subject teaching - The transition from elementary school to secondary school. ZfDN, 20, 33-43.
Oppermann, E., Keller, L., & Anders, Y. (2020). Gender differences in children's STEM learning motivation: Research findings on existing differences and influencing factors. Discourse Childhood and Adolescence Research/Discourse. Journal of Childhood and Adolescence Research, 15(1), 38-51.
Schiefer, J., Golle, J., Tibus, M., Herbein, E., Gindele, V., Trautwein, U., & Oschatz, K. (2020). Effects of an out-of-school science intervention on the epistemic beliefs of primary school children: A randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 382-402.
Schwippert, K., Kasper, D., Köller, O., McElvany, N., Selter, C., Steffensky, M. et al. (Eds.). (2020). TIMSS 2019: Mathematical and Scientific Competencies of Primary School Children in Germany in International Comparison [Mathematical and Scientific Competencies of Primary School Children in Germany in International Comparison]. Waxmann.
Wenzel, A. (2022). Entwicklung und Evaluation von fächerübergreifenden Bildungsangeboten im Schüler*innenlabor teutolab-biotechnologie. Dissertation. Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld.
Winkelmann, J., Freese, M. & Strömmer, T. (2021). Schwierigkeitserzeugende Merkmale im Physikunterricht. Progress in Science Education, 5(2), 6–23.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Model 5E Method for Developing Reasoning in High School Students in Biology Lessons
Kuralay Mukasheva, Malika Duzbayeva
NIS Oskemen, Kazakhstan
Presenting Author: Mukasheva, Kuralay;
Duzbayeva, Malika
Communication skills are very much needed in the 21st century. Written and oral communication skills are important skills that the students must have in the future because both of these abilities are critical abilities needed in various professions (Chan, 2011). Kivunja, Larson and Miller state that the communication ability is one of the missions of science education that is useful so that the students can define phenomena/problems around humans (Kızılaslan, 2017).
The ability that is included in the category of communication is the ability to argue [5]. Arguments can be delivered both in the written and spoken form (Eemeren, Henkemans, 2016). Argumentation is a form of communication that can be stated through media to provide views to convince others [9]. Meanwhile, the definition of scientific argumentation is a statement given by someone which contains truth because it contains data and theories that are related and can support the statement. The argument is an attempt to build the truth because the claims given are supported by data, warrants (in the form of a relation between claims and data provided), backings that can be in the form of an appropriate theory, or qualifier (a special conditions where the claim applies) [10]. Argumentation is a verbal, social, and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critique of the acceptance of certain opinions by proposing one or more propositions designed to justify that point of view [6].
The study was conducted among 11th grade students in order to identify the problem of a low level of argumentation and evidence in written and oral answers. The results of the summative assessment showed that the average percentage of completion of tasks requiring reasoned answers was only 34%. Oral speech was also characterized by a lack of logic and supporting evidence.
After analyzing the situation, the following problems were identified:
Integration and interpretation in English is difficult due to lack of understanding of the questions and the inability to use data from the context.
Lack of reflection and assessment skills, which manifests itself in the inability to work on one’s own mistakes and make recommendations for improving work.
Inability to formulate reasoned answers to CLIL problems due to lack of academic language and inability to structure sentences.
These problems led to a decrease in the level of knowledge in biology in the first and second quarters, where traditional teaching methods were used. In the first quarter the average result was 60.5%, and in the second quarter – 76%. However, despite the increase in average results, the majority of students (54%) had difficulty solving higher-order problems.
To solve this problem, the 5E method was chosen, which includes 5 stages aimed at effectively involving students in the learning process. A study conducted by V. Yossyana et al. using N-Gain analytical criteria showed that students' ability to make scientific arguments in writing increased after applying the 5E learning cycle at the intermediate level [11].
Liu et al. (Citation2009) found, in their research, that a student group exposed to the 5E model recorded improvements in their scientific knowledge and perceptions. At the same time, Bilgin et al. (Citation2013) found that, at the end of an instructional period using this model, students inquired into the knowledge they had already brought into the learning environment. That is, when they were exposed to real-life situations, the students used their observations and data to offer scientific explanations and that with regard to scientific concepts, they passed through an accurate interpretation process.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedHow does student-centered teaching with the 5E learning model affect the ability to argue and prove ideas in a new situation?
Sub questions:
1) How does the use of the 5E learning model affect students' ability to apply scientific knowledge in new situations?
2)What impact does the 5E learning model have on the development of the level of argumentation?
3) How will a learner-centered approach using the 5E learning model enable students to develop leadership skills?
Thus, the introduction of the 5E method into the biology educational process seems promising for overcoming the problem of the low level of argumentation and evidence of 11th grade students. This method not only increases interest in the subject, but also develops the research skills necessary for success in high school and the application of knowledge in new situations.
When conducting this AR, a focus group was selected from 11th grade students - 19 people, these students who chose “Biology” as a core subject.
A pre-/post-questionnaire was conducted:
to measure changes in students' knowledge, opinions and interests before and after applying the 5E model. Answers to the questionnaire were aimed at identifying the level of educational interest, mastery of material and student involvement in the educational process.
The Tally method is effective in visualizing the frequency of students actively participating in each step of the 5E model. This method is necessary for the teacher to quickly determine at which stages students require more attention, as well as to identify where the greatest difficulties or problems arise.
Analysis of summative assessment data
Once the 5E model cycle was completed, it provided an overview of student achievement levels. This allowed the teacher to evaluate the quality of answers based on the level of argumentation.
Pedagogical observation is important for the effective implementation of the 5E model, as it allows the teacher to evaluate student interaction at each stage. Observing the learning process helps to identify not only how communication takes place within teams, but also to identify new qualities (soft skills) that were formed during the application of the 5E model.
The argumentation ability plays an important role in the support of 21st century skills, but it has been recently found that this ability among students remains at a low level. This situation required intervention to imporve the necessary skills. The learning materials used during the study were syllabus, lesson plans, handouts, worksheets, exercises.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThus, this study aims to examine students’ written and oral argumentation skills by implementing the 5E Learning cycle in a classroom setting and to analyze the effects of the implementation on improving the skills. The design of this study was pre-experimental research using one group pretest-posttest method. Meanwhile, the ability of scientific argumentation skills was evaluated and assessed using pretest-posttest given and interviews in the form of descriptive questions and the corresponding guidelines. The results of the study are here reported as three separate findings. Firstly, the application of the 5E Learning Cycle in science learning allowed the students to practice their scientific argumentation skills. Secondly, direct observations found that most activities were well performed during classroom learning. Thirdly, group discussions in the 5E Learning Cycle have a good contribution to the students' scientific argumentation skills.
Thanks to the organized teamwork, about 79% of students were able to apply the acquired knowledge in a new situation. Model 5E has a positive impact on :
Level 1 of argumentation is demonstrated by 100% of students;
there is progress in level 2 argumentation in 21% of students;
level 3 argumentation in 16% of students
It is more difficult for students to argue orally, which is explained by their lack of public speaking and the language barrier.
For only 3 students, engagement ranged from 35-47%, which indicates that less than half of the tasks were completed during the lesson.
Comparing the results, the quality of performance of SAU (Muscle contraction /GMO) is observed to increase by 10% thanks to reasoned answers and ideas that were discussed in class.
Students rate their level of engagement from 3 to 5 points, with the majority of students rating it at 4 points.
Teamwork and simulation allowed students to demonstrate leadership qualities, as noted by 21% of students.
References1.Chan V.(2011) Teaching oral communication in undergraduate science: Are we doing enough and doing it right? Journal of Learning Design, 71-79.
2.Kivunja, C. (2014). Innovative pedagogies in higher education to become effective teachers of 21st century skills: Unpacking the learning and innovations skills domain of the new learning paradigm. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(4), 37. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n4p37
3.Larson, L., & Miller, T. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47, 121–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2011.10516575
4.Kızılaslan, A. (2019). The development of science process skills in visually impaired students: Analysis of the activities. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 8(1), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v8i1.17427
5.Kurniasari, I. S. (2017). Penerapan model pembelajaran argument driven inquiry (ADI) untuk melatihkan kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah siswa pada materi usaha dan energi. Inovasi Pendidikan Fisika, 6(3). https://jurnalmahasiswa.unesa.ac.id/index.php/inovasi-pendidikanfisika/article/view/20276
6.Eemeren, F. H. van, & Henkemans, A. F. S. (2016). Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation. Taylor & Francis.
7.Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2017). Argue with Me: Argument as a path to developing students’ thinking and writing. New York: Routledge.
8.Tama, N.B. (2015). Penerapan project based learning untuk meningkatkan kemampuan argumentasi tertulis siswa kelas X MIPA 2 SMA Negeri 5 Surakarta pada materi ekosistem. Jurnal Inovasi dan Pembelajaran Fisika, 2(2), 170–176.
9.Fauziya, D. S. (2016). Pembelajaran kooperatif melalui teknik duti-duta dalam meningkatkan kemampuan menulis argumentasi. Riksa Bahasa: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pembelajarannya, 2(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.17509/rb.v2i2.9556
10.Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses Of Argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.Yossyana V., Suprapto N., Prastowo T. (2020) 5E Learning Cycle in Practicing Written and Oral Argumentation Skills. IJORER : International Journal of Recent Educational Education, 218-232
12.Liu, T. C., Peng, H., Wu, W. H., & Lin, M. S. (2009). The effects of mobile natural-science learning based on the 5E learning cycle: A case study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 344–358.
13.Bilgin, I., Coşkun, H., & Aktaş, I. (2013). The effect of 5E learning cycle on mental ability of elementary students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(5), 592. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/13.12.592
14.Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
15.Chen, Y.-C., Mineweaser, L., Accetta, D., & Noonan, D. (2018). Connecting argumentation to 5E inquiry for preservice teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47, 22–28.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Effectively Teaching Students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) by Mainstream and Special Education Teachers: A Template Analysis
Jolien Delafontaine1, Koen Aesaert2, Sara Nijs1
1Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Parenting and Special Education Research Unit, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 2Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Centre for Educational Effectiveness and Evaluation, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Presenting Author: Delafontaine, Jolien
Presently, numerous teachers face significant challenges teaching students with special educational needs (SEN). They often feel ill-prepared to adequately support the academic progress of students with SEN in particular. This unpreparedness may stem from a lack of guidance in translating general effective teaching principles, formulated in teacher effectiveness frameworks and evidence-based practices, into context-specific effective teaching behaviors, considering the specific students in the classroom as well as characteristics of the classroom setting. This study addresses this prevailing problem by (1) outlining teachers’ translations of general effective teaching principles into specific context-bound teaching behaviors and by (2) comparing these translations across teachers from two classroom settings, i.e., mainstream education teachers (MET) and special education teachers (SET).
To accomplish this twofold research goal, the Great Teaching Toolkit (GTT; Coe et al., 2020) was used. The GTT is a widely-supported evidence-based model for effective teaching, in which many general effective teaching principles are outlined. The model outlines general principles on three levels, following a detailed hierarchical structure. The first level includes four overarching dimensions: (1) understanding the content; (2) creating a supportive environment: (3) maximizing opportunities to learn; and (4) activating hard thinking. At a second level, 17 more detailed teaching elements are specified nested within these dimensions and the third level consists of several indicators associated with each element (Coe et al., 2020). Several meta-analyses underscore the effectiveness of the GTT dimensions and elements in fostering students’ learning and development (e.g., Hattie, 2009; Scheerens, 2016). It is important to notice that the GTT is a general framework, it describes effective teaching for all students and is, therefore, not SEN-specific. Considering the multitude of teaching behaviors teachers implement daily when teaching students with SEN, this study focuses only on the pedagogical-didactical dimension of the GTT: ‘Activating Hard Thinking’ (AHT). This dimension is of particular interest as it is the only one that is essentially focused on the actual learning of students (Coe et al., 2020), which is the focus of this study. AHT is the largest dimension in the model, encompassing six elements: structuring, explaining, questioning, interacting, embedding, and activating (Coe et al., 2020). These six effective teaching elements from the AHT dimension were used as general effective teaching principles for teachers to translate in this study.
As it would be unfeasible to examine all elements of AHT in depth in one study, two elements were selected for in-dept analysis of the translations: structuring and explaining. Research consistently shows that these elements, and the associated indicators, are effective, especially for students with high-incidence disabilities (Ennis & Losinski, 2019; Muijs & Reynolds, 2018; Nelson et al., 2022). Structuring consists of four indicators: (1) choice, selection and sequencing of learning goals and tasks; (2) signaling importance; (3) differentiating; and (4) scaffolding and supporting. The explaining element consists of five indicators: (1) clear, concise, appropriate and engaging explanations; (2) connecting with prior knowledge; (3) using (non-)examples; (4) modelling and demonstrating and (5) using (partly) worked-out examples (Coe et al., 2020).
In summary, two research questions guided the analysis:
- RQ 1: Into which specific teaching behaviors, effective for students with SEN, do teachers translate the general effective teaching indicators of the structuring and explaining element of the Great Teaching Toolkit (Coe et al., 2020)?
- RQ 2: How do teachers across classroom settings, i.e., mainstream education teachers (MET) and special education teachers (SET), differ in their translations of general effective teaching indicators of the structuring and explaining element of the Great Teaching Toolkit into specific teaching behaviors effective for students with SEN?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 mainstream education teachers (MET) and 12 special education teachers (SET) from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium (Flanders). Teachers were selected by maximum variation sampling, allowing to select teachers who differ in (1) teaching experience and (2) SEN type(s) of students they teach. This study targets primary school teachers of students with formally identified educational needs (established in a report), within special education types ‘Basisaanbod’ (Type BA, which can be translated as ‘basic offer’) and 9 in Flanders. Students with a report type 9 encompasses students with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and an IQ above 70. A type BA report pertains to students with significant educational needs, leading to difficulties in meeting the general curriculum within mainstream education, even with reasonable accommodations (Flemish Department of Education, 2014).
A self-developed interview guide was used during each interview. Although this paper focuses on structuring and explaining, the questions covered all six AHT elements. As a main advantage, this broad focus allowed teachers to target the elements and indicators they found most effective for students with SEN. Generally, the guide consisted of two parts: (1) open-ended questions concerning effective teaching for students with SEN and (2) questions to rank nine statements on effective teaching directly tied to the general effective teaching elements and indicators of the AHT dimension (Coe et al., 2020).
All interviews were transcribed verbatim and a template analysis (TA) approach using the six AHT elements was performed to outline and compare the specific teaching behaviors mentioned by teachers as effective for students with SEN. TA is a structured yet flexible thematic analysis approach which can be placed in a midpoint between top-down and bottom-up analysis styles. Central to this codebook approach is the iterative construction of a hierarchical coding template (King, 2012). Given the hierarchical structure of the GTT, which serves as the core framework for the analysis, TA is a well-suited approach to categorize specific teaching behaviors within every element and indicator of the AHT dimension (Coe et al., 2020). Therefore, the initial template included a priori codes organized across three levels: (1) the six AHT elements (2) numerous indicators within these elements; and (3) descriptions for each indicator. After several rounds of coding, a final template was developed for the structuring and explaining element, displayed through two data visualizations which summarized and compared the translations provided by the two teacher groups.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsRegarding RQ1, the template analysis revealed that teachers made many translations of the general effective teaching principles into concrete teaching behaviors considering their specific students and the possibilities and limitations of their own classroom environment. For example, as part of within-classroom differentiation, teachers specified individualized instruction for students with SEN across four main areas: learning goals, learning tasks, instruction and assessment. In addition, teachers mentioned specific teaching behaviors within each of the four areas. For instance, learning goals could be tailored, dispensed or extended based on the individual needs of the student and constraints within the classroom setting. To enrich the specificity and applicability of the GTT framework to students with SEN, two additional levels were added: the level of sub-indicators (e.g., the four main individualization areas) and the level of specific teaching behaviors (e.g., tailoring, dispensing or extending learning goals). Although the original GTT-framework largely remained unchanged, teachers highlighted two crucial adaptations for the indicators: ‘within-classroom differentiation’ and ‘using non- or (partly) worked-out examples’.
Regarding RQ2, no differences were identified between MET and SET at the higher levels of the framework (element and indicator level). On the sub-indicator level, only one notable difference emerged considering the sub-indicators of the ‘activating/reviewing background- and prior knowledge’ indicator. Notably, the primary distinctions between the two teacher groups were at the teaching behavior level, encompassing the specific teaching behaviors teachers use in their actual classroom practice to facilitate the learning and development of students with SEN.
The context-specific examples of effective teaching behaviors for students with SEN provided by this study can inspire and guide teachers to translate general effective teaching principles into the nuances of the unique classroom environment, which ultimately contributes to effectively teaching students with SEN across all classroom contexts.
ReferencesCoe, R., Rauch, C. J., Kime, S., & Singleton, D. (2020). Great teaching toolkit: evidence review. Cambridge Assessment International Education. https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/support-and-training-for-schools/teaching-cambridge-at-your-school/great-teaching-toolkit/
Ennis, R. P., & Losinski, M. (2019). Interventions to improve fraction skills for students with disabilities: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 367-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918817504
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332
King, N. (2012). Doing template analysis. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative organization research: Core methods and current challenges (pp. 426–450). Sage Publications. https:// doi.org/10.4135/9781526435620
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2018). Effective teaching: evidence and practice (4th ed.).
Nelson, G., Cook, S. C., Zarate, K., Powell, S. R., Maggin, D. M., Drake, K. R., Kiss, A. J., Ford, J. W., Sun, L., & Espinas, D. R. (2022). A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses in Special Education: Exploring the Evidence Base for High-Leverage Practices. Remedial and Special Education, 43(5), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211063491
Scheerens. (2016). Educational Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness: A Critical Review of the Knowledge Base. Dordrecht: Springer.
Vlaams Departement voor Onderwijs en Vorming [Flemish Department of Education] (2014).
M-Decreet [Measures for Children with Special Educational Needs]. https://onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/nl/grote-lijnen-van-het-m decreet#Gewoon_of_buitengewoon
|
