Teachers' Noticing of Classroom Management Events in Whole-Group Instruction and Partner Work

• In Event: Eye-Tracking Research on Teacher Noticing: Theoretical and Empirical Advances

Abstract

Effective classroom management requires noticing skills, i.e. teachers need to attend to and identify relevant events in a classroom (van Es & Sherin 2008). When analyzing these skills by comparing novice and expert teachers, novices’ visual attention is more image- driven, while experts pay more attention to areas showing students and their activities (e.g. Wolff et al. 2020). Verbal data showed that experts are focused on students and their learning when they analyze classroom events, whereas novices are concerned with student discipline (Wolff et al. 2017). However, prior research has mostly investigated the management of behavioral problems in whole-group instruction. This study aims to extend this state of research by comparing novice and expert teachers’ noticing in two formats of instruction with events beyond behavioral management. Thereby, teachers’ visual attention and their identification of note-worthy events are analyzed. Furthermore, teachers’ agreement on note-worthy events is compared.

Twenty novices and twenty experts participated: Experts had on average 18 years of teaching experience. Novices were in their master studies. Teachers’ noticing of events in a whole-group and a partner work video was analyzed. Participants watched each video twice: First, their eye movements were recorded and participants pushed a button whenever they noticed a classroom management event. Then, each video was shown again and paused at each marked event. Participants stated what they noticed at this moment. Teachers’ proportion of gaze to the teacher or the student groups in each video were analyzed. Verbal event analysis were coded for the classroom management events noticed as well as the type of event. T-test and Mann-Whitney U-Tests were used to compare both groups.

In the whole-group format, experts spent a higher proportion of their gaze on the left student group (p=.04;d=0.67). In the partner work format, experts spend more time looking at the students at the right (p=.008;d=0.91) and left side of the classroom (p=.044;d=0.66) and less time at the teacher (p=.028;d=- 0.74). In terms of the events noticed there are no significant group differences for the whole-group format. For the partner work format, experts generally noticed more events (p=.017;d=0.79), particularly student-related events (p=.005;d=0.94) and tentatively more reactive teacher events (p= .056;d=0.63) than novices. Yet, both groups of teachers show little agreement on the note-worthy events.

Overall, experts’ paid more attention to areas were information relevant for classroom management can be found. Thus, experts’ more knowledge-driven processing was confirmed for a partner work format. Regarding teachers’ identification of events, we could not replicate earlier studies focusing on whole-group instruction and behavioral management. Only for the partner work format did experts notice more events (particularly student events). However, there is no consensus among teachers on what a relevant event is. The results suggest that noticing classroom management events is particularly challenging in partner work settings and expertise is, overall, characterized by a focus on students and their learning. Thus, teacher education and professional development could focus on characteristics of different formats and what these mean for students and their learning.

Authors

• Rebekka Stahnke, IPN Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education

• Sigrid Blömeke, University of Oslo