Processes of Reflection in the Teaching and Learning Research Lab: Effects of Reflecting on Classroom Actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to reflect on teaching is crucially important for the professionalization of trainee teachers. The fostering of reflection processes – by means of the systematic analysis of one’s own and others’ teaching from subject-specific, methodological, and educational science perspectives – plays a central role in a continuing and consecutive two-semester teacher training seminar concept at the University of Mainz. This paper explores the different effects of reflection on teaching on the basis of a quasi-experimental pre-post test design. Additionally, it shows how systematic reflection on teaching affects the students’ subjective experience of competence as well as the extent the seminar enables them to identify themes relevant for reflection. For example, the results of the comparison between two student groups working with different methodological approaches reveal that there are specific effects of opportunities for reflection on teaching. It was found that the students in both groups rated the relevance of self-reflection for their own later work as very high and felt much more confident in dealing with external video material. Moreover, the students in the intervention group appear to be increasingly capable of analysing teaching and learning processes in a more nuanced and systematic way based on theory and criteria; they are also more skilled at identifying reflection-relevant situations from various perspectives. As a consequence, it becomes clear that reflection on one’s own and others’ teacher actions must be integrated more strongly and consequently into teacher training in order to advance the development of one's own professionalisation and to make the best possible use of the associated potential.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".