Reflection: An Opportunity to Address Different Aspects of Professional Competencies in Mathematics Education

  • Christiane BenzEmail author


One major challenge in early mathematics childhood education is to support children’s constructive learning. For this, different professional competencies are necessary. Nearly 100 years ago, Dewey already pointed out the impact of reflection on professional development in education. Reflection is still seen as an essential component or a key element of professional development, because in the reflection process, different aspects of professional competencies are interweaved like pedagogical content knowledge and action-related competencies as well as other aspects like beliefs and emotions. In this paper, an innovative in-service and pre-service education bachelor course for early mathematics education is presented. It is designed to give both professionals and students the possibility to develop various professional competencies. One major component can be identified in reflection. Therefore, selected evaluation results of the reflective modules will be presented.


Mathematics Education Student Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge Mathematical Content Preschool Teacher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The in-service project is funded by the Tschira Stiftung [Foundation of Tschira], and the implementation of the join-in-studio in the BA course is supported by the Baden-Württemberg Stiftung [Foundation of the Land Baden-Württemberg]. The author takes the responsibilities for the content of this publication.


  1. Barrett, H. (2005). White paper: Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement. Accessed 31 May 2014.
  2. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften [Keyword: Professional competence of teachers]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2011). Das Kompetenzmodell von COACTIV [The competence model of COACTIV]. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften: Ergebnisse des Forschungsprogramms COACTIV (pp. 29–53). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, R., King, A., & Marshall, S. (2002). Effect of videocase construction on preservice teachers’ observations of teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkemeyer, N., Järvinen, H., Otto, J., & Bos, W. (2011). Kooperation und Reflexion als Strategien der Professionalisierung in schulischen Netzwerken [Cooperation and reflection as strategies of professionalization in school networks]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 57(Beiheft 1), 225–247.Google Scholar
  6. Bleach, J. (2014). Developing professionalism through reflective practice and ongoing professional development. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(2), 185–197. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2014.883719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, J. Q., & McCray, J. (2014). Intentional teaching: Integrating the processes of instruction and construction to promote quality early mathematics education. In U. Kortenkamp, B. Brandt, C. Benz, G. Krummheuer, S. Ladel, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Early mathematics learning. Selected papers of the POEM 2012 Conference (pp. 257–274). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Downer, J. T., Kraft-Sayre, M., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). On-going, web-mediated professional development focused on teacher-child interactions: Feasibility of use with early childhood educators. Early Education & Development, 20(2), 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fröhlich-Gildhoff, K., Nentwig-Gesemann, I., & Pietsch, S. (2011). Kompetenzorientierung in der Qualifizierung frühpädagogischer Fachkräfte [Competence-orientation in the qualification of professionals in early childhood education]. Expertise. München: DJI.Google Scholar
  11. Fröhlich-Gildhoff, K., Weltzien, D., Kirstein, N., Pietsch, S., & Rauh, K. (2014). Expertise—Kompetenzen früh-/kindheitspädagogischer Fachkräfte im Spannungsfeld von normativen Vorgaben und Praxis [Expertise—Competences of professionals in early childhood education in the tension between normative descriptions and practical field]. Freiburg: Zentrum für Kinder- und Jugendforschung.,property=pdf,bereich=bmfsfj,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2014.Google Scholar
  12. Gasteiger, H. (2014). Professionalization of early childhood educators with a focus on natural learning situations and individual development of mathematical competencies: Results from an evaluation study. In U. Kortenkamp, B. Brandt, C. Benz, G. Krummheuer, S. Ladel, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Early mathematics learning. Selected papers of the POEM 2012 conference (pp. 275–290). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S., & Boyd, J. S. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: What it is and how to promote it. Social Policy Report, 22(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  14. Kasüschke, D., & Fröhlich-Gildhoff, K. (2008). Frühpädagogik heute. Herausforderung an Disziplin und Profession [Early childhood education today. Challenge for discipline and profession]. Köln, Kronach: Carl Link.Google Scholar
  15. Kennedy, A., & Stonehouse, A. (2012). Victorian early years learning and development framework practice principle guide, reflective practice. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Accessed 31 May 2014.Google Scholar
  16. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Marcos, M. J. J., & Tillema, H. (2006). Studying studies on teacher reflection and action: An appraisal of research contributions. Educational Research Review, 1, 112–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayring, P. (2007). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis. Basics and techniques] (9th ed., 1st ed., 1983). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien.Google Scholar
  19. Nentwig-Gesemann, I. (2007). Das Konzept des forschenden Lernens im Rahmen der hochschulischen Ausbildung von FrühpädagogInnen [The concept of exploratory learning in the context of university education of teachers in early childhood]. In K. Fröhlich-Gildhoff, I. Nentwig-Gesemann, & P. Schnadt (Eds.), Neue Wege gehen—Entwicklungsfelder der Frühpädagogik (pp. 92–101). München: Reinhardt.Google Scholar
  20. Nührenbörger, M. (2009). Lehrer-Schüler-Diskurse im Mathematikunterricht als Gegenstand kollegialer Reflexion—Fallkonstruktionen mathematischer Unterrichtsdiskurse [Discourse of students and teachers in mathematics education as object of reflection of teachers’ colleagues—Case studies of mathematical educational discourses]. In M. Neubrand (Ed.), Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht (pp. 131–134). Münster: WTM.Google Scholar
  21. Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. M. (2008). Effects of web-mediated professional development resources on teacher-child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scherer, P., & Steinbring, H. (2006). Noticing children’s learning processes—Teachers jointly reflect their own classroom interaction for improving mathematics teaching. Journal for Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(2), 157–185.Google Scholar
  23. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner, how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Schuster, A. (2008). Ich schreibe. Also lerne ich [I’m writing, therefore I’m learning]. Dissertation. Regensburg: Roderer.Google Scholar
  25. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2007). Effektive Bildungsprozesse: Lehren in der frühen Kindheit [Effective educational processes: Learning in early childhood]. In F. Becker-Stoll & M. R. Textor (Eds.), Die Erzieherin-Kind-Beziehung (pp. 97–114). Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.Google Scholar
  26. Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Sylva, K. (2004). Researching pedagogy in English preschools. British Educational Research Journal, 30(5), 713–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & Mac Gyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stokking, K. M., Leenders, F. J., Stavenga-de Jong, J. A., & van Tartwijk, J. (2003). From student to teacher: Reducing practice shock and early drop-out in the teaching profession. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(3), 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Strehmel, P. (2008). Wovon hängt “gute Bildung” tatsächlich ab? [On what does good education really depend?]. kindergarten heute, (1), 8–13.Google Scholar
  30. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) Project: Final report. A longitudinal study funded by the DfES 1997-2004. London: DfES and Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  31. Thiel, O. (2012). Investigating the structure, level and development of professional skills of preschool teachers in mathematics. In ICME-12 pre-proceedings, Seoul (pp. 1251–1259).Google Scholar
  32. van Oers, B. (2014). The roots of mathematising in young children’s play. In U. Kortenkamp, B. Brandt, C. Benz, G. Krummheuer, S. Ladel, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Early mathematics learning. Selected papers of the POEM 2012 Conference (pp. 111–123). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  34. West, L., & Staub, F. C. (2003). Content-focused coaching. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  35. Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain. Sterling, VA: Stylus.Google Scholar
  36. Zull, J. E. (2004). The art of changing the brain. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 68–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Education KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations