Using authentic representations of practice in teacher education: Do direct instructional and problem-based approaches really produce different effects?

This paper investigates the effects of different instructional approaches (problem-based vs. direct instructional) on student teachers' analysis of practice when using authentic representations of practice in teacher education. We assigned 638 student teachers from 21 equivalent teacher education courses to one of the two conditions. Students' analyses of practice were evaluated on selective attention, reflective thought, and theory-practice integrations in a pre-post-design. In line with inconsistent findings from prior research, we were able to produce evidence for equivalent effects of the instructional approaches on all dependent variables using Bayesian data analyses. As called for in a review on the topic, we additionally explored the role of the instructors administering the field study interventions. Findings revealed that a positive attitude toward the instructional approach the instructors administered was related to more theory-practice integrations in the students' analyses.

Correction: Pre-service teachers' perceived value of general pedagogical knowledge for practice: Relations with epistemic beliefs and source beliefs.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184971.].

Pre-service teachers' perceived value of general pedagogical knowledge for practice: Relations with epistemic beliefs and source beliefs.

Pre-service teachers tend to devalue general pedagogical knowledge (GPK) as a valid source for deriving successful teaching practices. The present study investigated beliefs about knowledge sources and epistemic beliefs as predictors for students' perceived value of GPK. Three pre-registered hypotheses were tested. We expected beliefs that GPK originates from scientific sources to entail a devaluation of GPK (Hypothesis 1). Concerning epistemic beliefs, we expected absolute beliefs to positively, and multiplistic beliefs to negatively predict pre-service teachers' perceived practical value of GPK (Hypothesis 2). Finally, we expected relationships between epistemic beliefs and pre-service teachers' perceived practical value of GPK to be confounded by epistemic trustworthiness, perceived topic-specific consistency and topic-specific familiarity (Hypothesis 3). In a study using a split plot design, 365 pre-service teachers were presented with four texts on different educational research topics. For each topic, three text versions were constructed. Even though they were invariant in content, these versions varied in a way that the results were allegedly generated by a practitioner, an expert or by means of a scientific study. Unexpectedly, results showed that research findings allegedly generated by means of a scientific study were associated with a higher perceived value of (topic-specific) GPK for practice (Hypothesis 1). As expected, the perceived value of GPK for practice was predicted by topic-specific multiplism and domain-specific absolutism (Hypothesis 2). These predictive effects were confounded by expertise evaluations of the source and the consistency of prior beliefs with the presented research results (Hypothesis 3). In summary, our results suggest that source beliefs might not be responsible for the devaluation of GPK, but that beliefs on the nature and structure of GPK (i.e., epistemic beliefs) might play an even more important role in this respect. Implications for research and practice are discussed.