Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Beneath the surface of compliant pupil behaviour: On how individuals in heterogeneous classes position themselves towards lessons’ content-based requirements Cover

Beneath the surface of compliant pupil behaviour: On how individuals in heterogeneous classes position themselves towards lessons’ content-based requirements

Open Access
|Dec 2023

References

  1. Ableitinger, C., Anger, A., & Dorner, C. (2022). Using students’ selection of significant events in mathematics lessons to deduce their underlying predispositions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(4), 787–806. Adorno, T. W. (1993). Theory of pseudo-culture (1959) (D. Cook, Trans.). Telos, 95, 15–38.
  2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwol, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s. Harlow: Pearson.
  3. Atlay, C., Tieben, N., Hillmert, S., & Fauth, B. (2019). Instructional quality and achievement inequality: How effective is teaching in closing the social achievement gap? Learning and Instruction, 63, 101211.
  4. Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and empirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1081–1124.
  5. Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75–87.
  6. Biesta, G. (2020). Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited. Educational Theory, 70(1), 89–104.
  7. Biesta, G. (2023). Outline of a theory of teaching: What teaching is, what it is for, how it works, and why it requires artistry. In A.-K. Praetorius & C. Y. Charalambous (Eds.), Theorizing Teaching: Current Status and Open Issues (pp. 253–280). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  8. Breidenstein, G. (2006). Teilnahme am Unterricht: Ethnographische Studien zum Schülerjob. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
  9. Breidenstein, G. (2007). The meaning of boredom in school lessons. Participant observation in the seventh and eighth form. Ethnography and Education, 2(1), 93–108.
  10. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284-290.
  11. Colognesi, S., & Gouin, J.-A. (2022). A typology of learner profiles to anticipate and guide differentiation in primary classes. Research Papers in Education, 37(4), 479–495.
  12. Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. (2009). Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: A step-by-step approach. New Jersey: Wiley.
  13. Cramer, P. (2006). Protecting the self. Defense mechanisms in action. New York: The Guilford Press.
  14. Crouzevialle, M., & Darnon, C. (2019). On the academic disadvantage of low social class individuals: Pursuing performance goals fosters the emergence of the achievement gap. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(7), 1261–1272.
  15. Davis, P., & Florian, L. (2004). Teaching strategies and approaches for pupils with special educational needs: A Scoping Study (Department for Education and Skills, Ed.). Norwich: Queen’s Printer. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6059/1/RR516.pdf
  16. de Boer, A., & Kuijper, S. (2021). Students’ voices about the extra educational support they receive in regular education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(4), 625–641.
  17. Deunk, M. I., Smale-Jacobse, A. E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., & Bosker, R. J. (2018). Effective differentiation Practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education. Educational Research Review, 24, 31–54.
  18. Di Giuseppe, M., & Perry, J. C. (2021). The hierarchy of defense mechanisms: Assessing defensive functioning with the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales Q-Sort. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 4728.
  19. Ebenbeck, N., Rieser, J., Jungjohann, J., & Gebhardt, M. (2022). How the existence of special schools affects the placement of students with special needs in inclusive primary schools. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22(3), 274–287.
  20. Eubanks, C. F., Lubitz, J., Muran, J. C., & Safran, J. D. (2019). Rupture Resolution Rating System (3RS): Development and validation. Psychotherapy Research, 29(3), 306–319.
  21. Evans, J., Morgan, C., & Tsatsaroni, A. (2006). Discursive positioning and emotion in school mathematics practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 209–226. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25472123
  22. Everitt, J. G. (2017). Lesson plans. The institutional demands of becoming teacher. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. https://lccn.loc.gov/2017016359
  23. Faircloth, B. S. (2012). “Wearing a mask” vs. Connecting identity with learning. Identity Formation in Educational Settings, 37(3), 186–194.
  24. Fend, H. (1980). Theorie der Schule. München: Urban und Schwarzenberg.
  25. Fields, B. A. (1999). The impact of class heterogeneity on students with learning disabilities. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4(2), 11–16.
  26. Fleischmann, M., Hübner, N., Nagengast, B., & Trautwein, U. (2023). The dark side of detracking: Mixed-ability classrooms negatively affect the academic self-concept of students with low academic achievement. Learning and Instruction, 86, 101753.
  27. Fletcher-Campbell, F. (2005). Moderate learning difficulties. In A. Lewis, & N. Brahm (Eds.), Special Teaching For Special Children? Pedagogies for Inclusion (pp. 180–191). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  28. Garner, R., & Hancock, B. H. (2021). Changing Theories: New Directions in Sociology. University of Toronto Press.
  29. Goldan, J., Nusser, L., & Gebel, M. (2022). School-related subjective well-being of children with and without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms. Child Indicators Research.
  30. Green, J. L., Brock, C., Baker, W. D., & Harris, P. (2020). Positioning theory and discourse analysis. In N. S. Nasir, C. D. Lee, R. Pea, & M. M. de Royston (Eds.), Handbook of the Cultural Foundations of Learning (pp. 119–140). New York: Routledge.
  31. Gruschka, A. (2019). A new way of understanding teaching: A German perspective. Oxford Review of Education, 45(5), 673–689.
  32. Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in Classrooms (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Kaplan, A., & Flum, H. (2012). Identity formation in educational settings: A critical focus for education in the 21st century. Identity Formation in Educational Settings, 37(3), 171–175.
  33. Kayi-Aydar, H., & Miller, E. R. (2018). Positioning in classroom discourse studies: A state-of-the-art review. Classroom Discourse, 9(2), 79–94.
  34. Klafki, W. (1995). Didactic analysis as the core of preparation of instruction (Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung). Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 13–30.
  35. Kocaj, A., Kuhl, P., Jansen, M., Pant, H. A., & Stanat, P. (2018). Educational placement and achievement motivation of students with special educational needs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 63–83.
  36. Köller, O. (2000). Goal orientations: Their impact on academic learning and their development during early adolescence. Motivational Psychology of Human Development: Developing Motivation and Motivating Development., 129–142.
  37. Kölm, J., Mahler, N., & Gresch, C. (2020). Die Bedeutung der Klassenzusammensetzung für das Vorliegen einer Diagnose eines sonderpädagogischen Förderbedarfs Lernen bei Schüler*innen mit Zuwanderungshintergrund. In C. Gresch, P. Kuhl, M. Grosche, C. Sälzer, & P. Stanat (Eds.), Schüler*innen mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf in Schulleistungserhebungen: Einblicke und Entwicklungen (pp. 263–291). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
  38. Koßmann, R. (2019). Schule und ‘Lernbehinderung’: Wechselseitige Erschließungen. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
  39. Koßmann, R. (2020). Der sonderpädagogische Förderbedarf im Bereich des Lernens im Spiegel einer deutschlandweiten Ländervergleichsstudie. Behindertenpädagogik, 59(1), 47–72.
  40. Koßmann, R. (2022a). Edutainment – als Muster für Binnendifferenzierung? Rekonstruktion einer Doppelstunde inklusiven Geschichtsunterrichts [Edutainment – as a way of differentiated instruction? Reconstruction of an inclusive history lesson]. Zeitschrift Für Interpretative Schul- Und Unterrichtsforschung, 11, 35–48.
  41. Koßmann, R. (2022b). Pupils’ self-report on positioning towards lessons’ content-based requirements (1.0). Zenodo.
  42. Koßmann, R. (in preparation). Vom Zweisatz zum Dreisatz? Rekonstruktion einer Stunde inklusiven Mathematikunterrichts. In G. Wilm, R. Koßmann, S. Böse, M. Fabel-Lamla, & C. Meyer-Jain (Eds.), Videographische Forschung zu inklusivem Unterricht: Erziehungswissenschaftliche und fachdidaktische Perspektiven. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
  43. Krämer, S., Möller, J., & Zimmermann, F. (2021). Inclusive education of students with general learning difficulties: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(3), 432–478.
  44. Kultusministerkonferenz (2022). Sonderpädagogische Förderung in allgemeinen Schulen (ohne Förderschulen) 2021/2022. https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/Statistik/Dokumentationen/Aus_SoPae_Int_2021.pdf
  45. Labhart, D., Pool Maag, S., & Moser Opitz, E. (2018). Differenzieren im selektiven Schulsystem. Der Widerspruch zwischen den gesellschaftlichen Funktionen der Schule und der Forderung nach individueller Förderung. Sonderpädagogische Förderung Heute, 63(1), 71–87.
  46. Letzel-Alt, V., & Pozas, M. (Eds.). (2023). Differentiated Instruction Around the World. A Global Inclusive Insight. Münster & New York: Waxmann.
  47. Lindner, K.-T., Alnahdi, G. H., Wahl, S., & Schwab, S. (2019). Perceived differentiation and personalization teaching approaches in inclusive classrooms: Perspectives of students and teachers. Frontiers in Education, 4, 58.
  48. Mähler, C., & Grube, D. (2018). Lernschwierigkeiten. In D. H. Rost, J. R. Sparfeldt, & S. Buch (Eds.), Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (5th ed., pp. 456–466). Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie.
  49. Maiwald, K.-O., & Suerig, I. (2020). Microsociology: A tool kit for interaction analysis. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
  50. Martens, M., & Asbrand, B. (2021). „Schülerjob“ revisited: Zur Passung von Lehrund Lernhabitus im Unterricht [’Student’s job’ revisited: Complementary relations of teaching and learning habitus in the classroom]. Zeitschrift Für Bildungsforschung, 11(1), 55–73.
  51. Maulana, R., Smale-Jacobse, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., Chun, S., & Lee, O. (2020). Measuring differentiated instruction in The Netherlands and South Korea: Factor structure equivalence, correlates, and complexity level. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(4), 881–909.
  52. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:-de:0168-ssoar-395173
  53. Mugon, J., Danckert, J., & Eastwood, J. D. (2019). The costs and benefits of boredom in the classroom. In K. A. Renninger & S. E. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Motivation and Learning (pp. 490–514). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  54. Norwich, B., & Lewis, A. (2007). How specialized is teaching children with disabilities and difficulties? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), 127–150.
  55. Norwich, B., Ylonen, A., & Gwernan-Jones, R. (2014). Moderate learning difficulties: Searching for clarity and understanding. Research Papers in Education, 29(1), 1–19.
  56. Oevermann, U., Allert, W. T., Konau, E., & Krambeck, J. (1987). Structures of meaning and objective hermeneutics. In V. Meja, D. Misgeld, & N. Stehr (Eds.), Modern German Sociology (pp. 436–448). New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press.
  57. Paulhus, D. L. (2017). Socially desirable responding on self-reports. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. 1–5). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  58. Pollmanns, M. (2019). Unterrichten und Aneignen: Eine pädagogische Rekonstruktion von Unterricht. Opladen: Budrich.
  59. Pozas, M., Letzel, V., Lindner, K.-T., & Schwab, S. (2021). DI (Differentiated Instruction) does matter! The effects of DI on secondary school students’ well-Being, social inclusion and academic self-concept. Frontiers in Education, 6.
  60. Pozas, M., Letzel, V., & Schneider, C. (2020). Teachers and differentiated instruction: Exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(3), 217–230.
  61. Pozas, M., Palacios Tovar, J. A., Pozas Guerra, L., Rivera Armendariz, L. R., & Lomelí Zubiría, A. S. (2023). ‘From my perspective’. Differentiated instruction in mathematics according to lower secondary Mexican students. In V. Letzel-Alt & M. Pozas (Eds.), Differentiated Instruction Around the World. A Global Inclusive Insight (pp. 209–224). Münster: Waxmann.
  62. Pozas, M., & Schneider, C. (2019). Shedding light on the convoluted terrain of differentiated instruction (DI): Proposal of a DI taxonomy for the heterogeneous classroom. Open Education Studies, 1, 73–90.
  63. Rieser, S., & Decristan, J. (2023). Kognitive Aktivierung in Befragungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern [Cognitive activation in student questionnaires – Distinguishing between the potential for cognitive activation and individual cognitive activation]. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie.
  64. Roy, A., Guay, F., & Valois, P. (2015). The big-fish–little-pond effect on academic self-concept: The moderating role of differentiated instruction and individual achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 110–116.
  65. Scharenberg, K. (2012). Leistungsheterogenität und Kompetenzentwicklung: Zur Relevanz klassenbezogener Kompositionsmerkmale im Rahmen der KESS-Studie. Münster: Waxmann.
  66. Schmitz, L., & Simon, T. (2021). Awareness of heterogeneity. Empirical findings on how prospective schoolteachers perceive heterogeneity in the classroom. Interculture Journal: Online-Zeitschrift Für Interkulturelle Studien, 20(34), 35–49.
  67. Schwab, S., & Hessels, M. G. P. (2015). Achievement goals, school achievement, self-estimations of school achievement, and calibration in students with and without special education needs in inclusive education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(4), 461–477.
  68. Sedlmeier, P., & Renkewitz, F. (2018). Forschungsmethoden und Statistik für Psycho-logen und Sozialwissenschaftler (3rd ed.). München: Pearson.
  69. Senko, C., & Tropiano, K. L. (2016). Comparing three models of achievement goals: Goal orientations, goal standards, and goal complexes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1178–1192.
  70. Silvermann, J., & Aafjes-van Doorn, K. (2023). Coping and defense mechanisms: A scoping review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, (Advance online publication), 1–12.
  71. Simonsmeier, B. A., Flaig, M., Deiglmayr, A., Schalk, L., & Schneider, M. (2022). Domain-specific prior knowledge and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 57(1), 31–54.
  72. Sjöström, J., Frerichs, N., Zuin, V. G., & Eilks, I. (2017). Use of the concept of Bil-dung in the international science education literature, its potential, and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 53(2), 165–192.
  73. Skinner, E. A., Pitzer, J., & Steele, J. (2013). Coping as part of motivational resilience in school: A multidimensional measure of families, allocations, and profiles of academic coping. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(5), 803–835.
  74. Skinner, E. A., & Saxton, E. A. (2020). The development of academic coping across late elementary and early middle school: Do patterns differ for students with differing motivational resources? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(4), 339–353.
  75. Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2366.
  76. Sohn-Rethel, A. (2019). The formal characteristics of second nature (1974) (D. Spaulding, Trans.). Selva: A Journal of the History of Art. http://3yq9op84wc1hzwsk2mokc215-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/Sohn_Rethel_Formal_Characteristics.pdf
  77. Stäbler, F., Dumont, H., Becker, M., & Baumert, J. (2017). What happens to the fish’s achievement in a little pond? A simultaneous analysis of class-average achievement effects on achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 191–207.
  78. Steinmetz, S., Wrase, M., Helbig, M., & Döttinger, I. (2021). Die Umsetzung schulischer Inklusion nach der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention in den deutschen Bundesländern. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
  79. Straehler-Pohl, H., & Pais, A. (2014). Learning to fail and learning from failure – ideology at work in a mathematics classroom. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 22(1), 79–96. Sullivan, J. R. (2010). Preliminary psychometric data for the Academic Coping Strategies Scale. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(2), 114–127.
  80. Urdan, T., & Kaplan, A. (2020). The origins, evolution, and future directions of achievement goal theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61.
  81. Wernet, A. (2013). Hermeneutics and objective hermeneutics. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 234–246). Los Angeles: SAGE.
  82. Wirthwein, L., Sparfeldt, J. R., Pinquart, M., Wegerer, J., & Steinmayr, R. (2013). Achievement goals and academic achievement: A closer look at moderating factors. Educational Research Review, 10, 66–89.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2023-0012 | Journal eISSN: 1338-2144 | Journal ISSN: 1338-1563
Language: English
Page range: 69 - 96
Published on: Dec 29, 2023
Published by: University of Trnava, Faculty of Education
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2023 Raphael Koßmann, published by University of Trnava, Faculty of Education
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.