Experts revisited (monitored) more classroom areas showing student interaction, while novices revisited areas lacking classroom activity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In all four videos experts revisited more areas than novices, and the groups monitored different kinds of areas. → Charlotte E. Wolff 2016 q3 i3 Type 2 videos received more revisits than Type 1 videos regardless of expertise. → Charlotte E. Wolff 2016 (2)

Evidence¶

Charlotte E. Wolff 2016¶

Charlotte E. Wolff, Halszka Jarodzka, Niek van den Bogert, Henny P. A. Boshuizen. (2016). Teacher vision: expert and novice teachers' perception of problematic classroom management scenes. Instr Sci 44:243-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9367-z

q3 · i? · associational · r1

Confidence-interval analysis (99% or higher) of per-AOI revisits across all 64 AOIs in all four videos found experts revisited areas showing "physical and verbal interactions of or between students" while novices returned to regions with little or no student activity, e.g. an area with fluorescent green shoelaces.

"In sum, experts revisited more areas showing physical and verbal interactions of or between students, while novices revisited more regions lacking classroom interactions."

Charlotte E. Wolff 2016 (2)¶

Charlotte E. Wolff, Halszka Jarodzka, Niek van den Bogert, Henny P. A. Boshuizen. (2016). Teacher vision: expert and novice teachers' perception of problematic classroom management scenes. Instr Sci 44:243-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9367-z

q3 · i3 · associational · r1

Mixed-design repeated measures ANOVA on total AOI revisits found a significant video-type effect with printed effect size g2 = 0.20 (the article's notation for eta-squared, in the large range); blatant escalating disruptions in Type 2 videos warranted more frequent monitoring. The between-subjects expertise effect was not significant, F(1, 60) = 3.187, p = 0.079, and there was no interaction, F < 1.

"There was a significant effect for the type of video shown, F(1, 60) = 15.14, p \ 0.001, g2 = 0.20, with Type 2 videos (Video 3; Video 4) receiving more revisits than Type 1 videos(Video 1; Video 2)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Prior Knowledge — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Expert teachers' fixations are significantly more focused (less dispersed) than novices' when viewing classroom scenes, irrespective of video type — related
• Novices skipped more classroom areas than experts in all four videos, missing areas that experts continually monitored — related
• Expert teachers' classroom perception appears knowledge-driven while novices' appears image-driven, guided by salient visual features — related
• Expert teachers interpret complex classroom phenomena more accurately and fluidly than novices and postulants — related
• Both novice and expert teachers state valid behavioral cues when inferring student profiles, but novices rely more on salient cues such as hand raising and quality of answers — related