Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

How does teachers' noticing of students' fixed mindsets relate to

teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and experience? An exploratory study
Helene Zeeb a, *, Anna Ibach b, Thamar Voss b, Alexander Renkl b
a
University of Erfurt, Germany
b
University of Freiburg, Germany

h i g h l i g h t s

Teachers’ declarative knowledge supported attending and interpreting.

Teachers’ growth mindset was unrelated to attending and interpreting.

Teachers’ experience was related to less knowledge, less attending, and interpreting.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Students' belief that abilities are unchangeable (fixed mindset) can hamper learning. Teachers should
Received 3 November 2021 thus be able to recognize such problematic beliefs. We explored whether teachers' skills to notice stu-
Received in revised form dents' fixed mindset were related to teachers' knowledge about learners' beliefs, teachers' mindset, and
12 April 2023
their experience. Our sample included pre-service and in-service mathematics teachers (N ¼ 112).
Accepted 24 April 2023
Available online 4 May 2023
Noticing (i.e., attending and interpreting) was measured with text scenarios. Results indicate that
knowledge supported noticing, especially interpreting, whereas teachers’ growth mindset was unrelated
to noticing. Experience was associated with less declarative knowledge and, in turn, with less noticing.
Keywords:
Noticing
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Professional vision (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Beliefs
Growth mindset
Fixed mindset
Mathematics education
Teacher education

Teachers' competences e for example, their knowledge, beliefs,
or noticing skills e have long been a major research interest (e.g.,
Borko & Putnam, 1996; Pajares, 1992; van Es & Sherin, 2002).
Despite the increasing number of studies, however, there are still
unanswered questions regarding the interplay between and the
development of these different facets of teacher competence. For
example, knowledge seems to be an important precondition for
€ meke, Jentsch, Ross, Kaiser, & Ko
noticing (e.g., Blo € nig, 2022) e but
findings about what kind of knowledge affects what facet of
noticing are inconsistent. Teachers’ beliefs about abilities seem to
support their perception of classroom situations (e.g., Rattan, Good,
& Dweck, 2012) e but not always. Practical experience exerted a
* Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, University of Erfurt,
Nordh€
auser Straße 63, 99089 Erfurt, Germany.
E-mail address: helene.zeeb@uni-erfurt.de (H. Zeeb).
positive influence on knowledge and noticing (e.g., Ko €nig et al.,
2022; Voss, Wagner, Klusmann, Trautwein, & Kunter, 2017) e but
other studies produced different findings (e.g., Ko€ nig, Blo
€ meke, &
Kaiser, 2015; Muhonen, Pakarinen, & Lerkkanen, 2021). Hence,
more research is needed that advances our understanding of how
different facets of teacher competence develop and relate to each
other.
The present study addresses this need by exploring mathe-
matics teachers' noticing, knowledge, and their beliefs with respect
to situations in which students reveal signs of a fixed mindset.
Following Dweck (2000), peoples' mindset comprises their beliefs
about the nature of abilities: People with a fixed mindset believe
that abilities are largely stable and innate, whereas those with a
growth mindset believe that abilities can change with practice and
effort. Fixed mindsets are widespread, perhaps especially in
mathematics (e.g., Boaler, 2015), and are associated with dysfunc-
tional responses to challenges and failure (Yeager & Dweck, 2020).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104170
0742-051X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al.
In contrast to short-term, content-related problems that are often
in the focus of noticing research (e.g., Dreher & Kuntze, 2014;
Pankow et al., 2016), a student's fixed mindset entails the risk of
hampering learning with regard to all different mathematical
topics, in all learning situations, and for a long time. From a prac-
tical point of view, it thus seems important that teachers possess
knowledge and skills to address students' fixed mindsets when
they encounter them. The present study might help identify
starting points for improving such knowledge and skills. From a
theoretical perspective, the study can contribute to a better un-
derstanding of the interrelations between different facets of
teacher competence. In particular, we investigate whether findings
from previous studies with different, mostly content-related foci
generalize to the important aspect of students' fixed mindsets.
Thus, the central aim of the study was to explore the interplay
between teachers' noticing of students' fixed mindsets, their
knowledge about learners' beliefs, their own fixed or growth
mindset, and their experience. We focused on two questions: First,
how does noticing relate to teachers' knowledge and teachers’
growth mindsets? Second, does knowledge mediate the relation-
ship between experience and noticing?
1. Teachers’ noticing skills
Teachers' skills to notice and deal with classroom situations are
important aspects of teacher competence, as they can shape
teachers' instructional practices as well as students' learning (e.g.,
Kersting, Givvin, Thompson, Santagata, & Stigler, 2012; Wiens,
LoCasale-Crouch, Cash, & Romo Escudero, 2021). For example,
Blo€ meke et al. (2022) demonstrated that noticing (here: perception,
interpreting, and decision-making) had strong effects on instruc-
tional quality in terms of cognitive activation, structuring, student
support, and classroom management. Noticing was also associated
with learners' progress. Hence, a closer look on teachers’ noticing
skills seems promising for improving instruction and learning in
the classroom.
Conceptualizations of noticing and its sub-components are
inconsistent (for a review, see Ko € nig et al., 2022). In our study, we
follow the conceptualization of van Es and Sherin (2021), who use
the overall term noticing, and distinguish between the sub-
processes attending, interpreting, and shaping. Attending means
perceiving critical classroom aspects and identifying them as
important (see also Star & Strickland, 2008). Interpreting means
making sense of the observed event. In particular, interpreting
entails drawing from one's professional knowledge to connect the
event to broader pedagogical principles (see Ko € nig et al., 2014; van
Es & Sherin, 2002, 2021). A key feature of high-level interpreting is
the reliance on learning and teaching principles (e.g., Stürmer &
Seidel, 2015; van Es & Sherin, 2002). Employing a technical lan-
guage is favorable in this regard, as it facilitates discussion and
analysis of practical experiences (e.g., Grossman, 1991). In this
study, we defined a technical language as using accurate terms
surrounding concepts and theories of learners' beliefs, such as
mindset, attribution, or self-concept. Furthermore, strong inter-
preting skills are characterized by being well connected and clear
(e.g., Barnhart & van Es, 2015; Krupa, Huey, Lesseig, Casey, &
Monson, 2017; McDuffie et al., 2014). Besides attending and inter-
preting, van Es and Sherin (2021) added shaping as a third sub-
process of noticing to their model. Shaping means creating in-
teractions (e.g., by asking questions) that provide further access to
relevant information. In this study, however, we focus on attending
and interpreting.
While many researchers have taken an open approach to what
teachers notice (e.g., Copur-Gencturk & Rodrigues, 2021; Huang &
Li, 2012; Roller, 2015), others have addressed noticing of specific
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170
aspects. For example, one branch of research investigated whether
teachers noticed students' status and class participation (Kalinec-
Craig, 2017), or how teachers evaluated students' self-concepts,
motivation, or values (Praetorius, Berner, Zeinz, Scheunpflug, &
Dresel, 2013; ten Hagen, Benden, Lauermann, & Eccles, 2022). In
line with those investigations, the present study focuses on
learners’ beliefs e more specifically, the (problematic) belief that
innate talents determine whether someone performs well in
mathematics. In the following, we explain why such beliefs can be
considered relevant aspects in the classroom.
1.1. Noticing learners’ beliefs about abilities
Following (Dweck 2000; Yeager & Dweck, 2020), beliefs about
abilities can be regarded as a continuum that ranges from believing
that abilities are malleable (growth mindset) to believing that
abilities are largely stable (fixed mindset). There has been contro-
versy about the impact of these beliefs on motivation and learning
outcomes. Several researchers observed that a fixed mindset pre-
dicted lower motivation, negative emotions, and lower achieve-
ment (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Haimovitz,
Wormington, & Corpus, 2011; King, 2016; Park, Gunderson,
Tsukayama, Levine, & Beilock, 2016), whereas others found mind-
sets to be only weakly related or unrelated to achievement (e.g.,
Burgoyne, Hambrick, & Macnamara, 2020; Sisk, Burgoyne, Sun,
Butler, & Macnamara, 2018). Nevertheless, there seems to be
consensus that mindsets, despite not being a key achievement
predictor, can influence people's reactions when they fail or face
challenges. A fixed mindset is associated with helpless behavior
and feeling discouraged, and takes effect especially among learners
who are struggling (Yeager & Dweck, 2020). Furthermore, fixed
mindsets tend to become reinforced gradually (e.g., Dickha €user,
Janke, Praetorius, & Dresel, 2017; Stipek & Iver, 1989) and may
therefore pose long-term obstacles to learning.
In the present study, we thus regarded students' fixed mindsets
as a relevant factor in the classroom requiring teachers' attention. A
professional reaction to fixed mindsets is particularly important
because teachers can influence considerably how students' beliefs
develop. On the one hand, they might (unintentionally) encourage
fixed mindsets, for example, by directing feedback towards abilities
or emphasizing performance demonstrations in the classroom (e.g.,
Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Park et al., 2016; Rattan et al., 2012; Sun,
2018). On the other hand, teachers can deliberately encourage
students’ growth mindsets via specific interventions or by creating
a growth mindset culture in their classroom (e.g., Yeager & Dweck,
2020; Yeager et al., 2019; Zeeb, Ostertag, & Renkl, 2020). As initial
steps towards reacting adequately when students make utterances
indicating a fixed mindset, teachers should attend to the signs of
such a mindset and be able to interpret its causes and
consequences.
2. Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs
Next to noticing skills, other important facets of teachers'
competences are their knowledge and beliefs. In particular, we refer
to teachers' knowledge about learners' ability-related beliefs and
teachers’ own ability-related beliefs e that is, their growth or fixed
mindset.
2.1. Knowledge about learners’ beliefs
Knowledge is an essential aspect of teacher competence that
strongly affects teachers' thinking and acting (e.g., Borko & Putnam,
1996; Voss, Kunter, & Baumert, 2011). The kind of knowledge we
are interested in here is knowledge about learners' ability-related
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al.
beliefs e for example, knowledge about mindset theory (Dweck,
2000; Dweck & Yeager, 2019) and about related pedagogical con-
cepts such as causal attributions (e.g., Weiner, 2014), self-concept
(e.g., Marsh, Xu, & Martin, 2012), and self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura,
2006). All these concepts address learners' beliefs about abilities,
and are often interconnected. For example, students with a fixed
mindset about mathematical abilities are likely to regard their low
abilities as their reason for failure (i.e., unfavorable attribution),
perceive themselves as generally bad at mathematics (i.e., negative
self-concept), and they may lack confidence in their ability to solve
mathematics tasks (i.e., low self-efficacy; see Dweck & Yeager,
2019; Wood & Bandura, 1989; Yeager & Dweck, 2020). In addition
to knowledge about these concepts, teachers should also know
about the causes of dysfunctional beliefs (e.g., teacher feedback;
Rattan et al., 2012), possible consequences (e.g., demotivation;
Haimovitz et al., 2011), and interventional means (e.g., Yeager et al.,
2019). In this study, we address this knowledge as “knowledge
about learners’ ability-related beliefs”.
Researchers have identified different categories of teacher
knowledge. For example, Shulman (1987) described e inter alia e
content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical
content knowledge, and knowledge of learners and their charac-
teristics as key factors in teacher knowledge. Following this cate-
gorization, knowledge about learners' ability-related beliefs would
be part of the latter category, that is, knowledge of learners and
their characteristics. Other scholars considered knowledge about
learners to be a part of general pedagogical knowledge or, when
addressing content-specific aspects, as part of pedagogical content
knowledge (e.g., Borko & Putnam, 1996). Similarly, Voss et al. (2011)
regarded knowledge about learning processes and learners' indi-
vidual characteristics as part of teachers' general pedagogical and
psychological knowledge. Thus, in a narrow sense, knowledge
about learners' beliefs pertains to Shulman's category “knowledge
of learners”, and in a broader sense, we consider it as a part of
teachers' general pedagogical knowledge or, when focusing on
knowledge about mathematics-specific beliefs, an aspect of peda-
gogical content knowledge.
Besides content-related classifications, teacher knowledge can
also be categorized according to its structure. Researchers often
distinguish between declarative knowledge (knowing that) and
procedural knowledge (knowing how; e. g, Bromme, 2001). The
latter category relates closer to actual behavior but is also harder to
access because it is often subconscious (see implicit or tacit
knowledge; e.g., Berry, 1987; Kane, Sandretto, & Heath, 2002). Thus,
many studies focus on declarative knowledge, and employ written
tests to assess such knowledge (e.g., Evens, Elen, Larmuseau, &
Depaepe, 2018; Lehmann, Rott, & Schmidt-Borcherding, 2019;
€bst, Kleickmann, Depaepe, Heinze, & Kunter, 2019). In this study,
Tro
we focus on declarative knowledge about learners’ beliefs.
2.2. Teachers’ beliefs about abilities
Teacher beliefs are defined as evaluations or judgments sub-
jectively held to be true (e.g., Borko & Putnam, 1996; Pajares, 1992).
Beliefs can act as a filter for processing new information (e.g.,
Pajares, 1992) and can thus affect how teachers respond to specific
situations (e.g., Kennedy, 2004; Schoenfeld, 2011; Stahnke,
Schueler, & Roesken-Winter, 2016). However, it is impossible to
attribute teachers' practices clearly to their beliefs. Inconsistencies
between beliefs and actual behavior can be related, for example, to
the context at hand (e.g., Basturkmen, 2012; Fang, 1996; Kane et al.,
2002). In the present investigation, we focus on teachers’ beliefs
about abilities (i.e., their own growth or fixed mindsets) because
these are likely to be activated when students reveal a fixed
mindset.
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170
3. The interplay between teachers’ noticing, knowledge,
beliefs, and experience
To investigate how teacher competence shapes instruction and
learning, we first need to understand the interplay between the
different facets of teacher competence e here, their noticing skills,
knowledge, beliefs, and experience. In this chapter, we describe
relations between (1) knowledge and noticing, (2) beliefs (growth
mindset) and noticing, (3) experience, knowledge, and noticing.
(1) The literature describes strong theoretical connections be-
tween teachers' knowledge and their noticing skills. For
example, van Es and Sherin (2021) consider knowledge to be
the basis for reasoning about classroom events. Similarly, in
the Blo €meke et al. model of teacher competence (2015),
knowledge is considered an important predisposition that
contributes to teachers' noticing skills. These claims receive
empirical support from studies reporting positive associa-
tions between knowledge and noticing (see Blo €meke et al.,
2022; Grub, Biermann, Lewalter, & Brünken, 2022; Ko €nig
et al., 2022; Stahnke et al., 2016). However, results are
somewhat mixed: While (declarative) general pedagogical
knowledge e including knowledge about students' hetero-
geneity and motivation e helped teachers attend to relevant
aspects of teaching and learning (Blo €meke, Hoth, et al., 2015),
such knowledge failed to correlate with perceiving critical
aspects in other investigations (Gippert, Ho €rter, Junker, &
Holodynski, 2022; Ko € nig et al., 2014; Yang, Kaiser, Ko€nig, &
Blo€meke, 2021). In those studies, however, pedagogical
knowledge was associated with teachers' capacity to inter-
pret classroom situations. Overall, it seems that pedagogical
knowledge is more closely related to interpreting than to
attending (see Ko €nig et al., 2014), and that measures of
knowledge and measures of noticing need to be well aligned
to detect substantial correlations (see Thomas, Jong, Fisher, &
Schack, 2017). In this study, we thus connected a specific
aspect of teacher knowledge (i.e., knowledge about learners'
ability-related beliefs) with noticing of specific situations
(i.e., situations in which students reveal problematic ability-
related beliefs).
(2) Several studies have revealed positive associations between
teachers' growth mindset and their perception of instruc-
tional situations (e.g., Blo €meke, Hoth, et al., 2015; Griful-
Freixenet, Vantieghem, Gheyssens, & Struyven, 2020;
Kuntze, 2012). For example, a study of ours found that
teachers holding a growth mindset were more likely to
notice students' fixed mindsets (Rieche, Leuders, & Renkl,
2019). Teachers' mindsets can also affect their in-
terpretations of the reasons behind students' performance:
While teachers with a fixed mindset considered low abilities
as the main reason for poor performance, those with a
growth mindset tended to attribute bad performance to
inadequate learning strategies or inadequate effort (Rattan
et al., 2012; Stipek, Givvin, Salmon, & MacGyvers, 2001).
Teachers' growth mindset was also found to be associated
with supportive instructional practices such as motivating
feedback or a mastery-oriented teaching style (e.g., De
Kraker-Pauw, Van Wesel, Krabbendam, & Van Atteveldt,
2017; Park et al., 2016; Rattan et al., 2012). At the same time,
however, we should not overestimate the influence of
teachers' mindset on their skills and reactions. As mentioned
above, beliefs and actions are often inconsistent (e.g., Fang,
1996) and especially with respect to growth mindsets, re-
searchers have reported problems such as people misun-
derstanding or oversimplifying the concept of a growth
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170

mindset, or of people having a “mixed mindset” e a mix of a does teachers’ knowledge mediate the relationship between
growth or fixed mindset (Dweck & Yeager, 2019; Patrick & experience and interpreting?
Joshi, 2019; Spatz & Goldhorn, 2021). These issues make it
difficult to draw straight lines from teachers' growth mindset
5. Method
to their noticing.
(3) Regarding the interplay between experience, knowledge,
5.1. Participants
and noticing, research evidence is also mixed. On the one
hand, practical experience exerted a largely positive influ-
A total of 112 mathematics teachers participated in this
ence on knowledge and noticing. Regarding knowledge,
computer-based online study, 53 pre-service teachers (83% female;
teachers developed more pedagogical knowledge during the
age M ¼ 23.23, SD ¼ 2.15) and 59 in-service teachers (75% female;
first years of teaching after having finished their initial uni-
age M ¼ 42.03, SD ¼ 11.31). Among the pre-service teachers, 53%
€ meke, Hoth, et al., 2015; Voss et al.,
versity education (e.g., Blo
were studying at a university and 47% at a university of education1
2011, 2017). With regard to noticing, teachers with more
in Germany. Their average time enrolled in a mathematics teacher
experience noticed critical classroom events better (e.g.,
education program was 6.49 semesters (SD ¼ 3.11), and their
Dreher & Kuntze, 2014; Jacobs, Lamb, & Philipp, 2010) and
average practical experience 0.84 years (SD ¼ 1.86). Our sample
generated deeper and more knowledge-driven in-
included future teachers on the primary level (9%), secondary level
terpretations of an observed event than less experienced
(77%), and special needs education (11%). Among the in-service
teachers (e.g., Gegenfurtner, Lewalter, Lehtinen, Schmidt, &
teachers, 69% had completed their studies at a university and 31%
Gruber, 2020; Jacobs et al., 2010; see also Stahnke et al.,
at a university of education. Their average practical experience was
2016). On the other hand, several studies found experience
12.82 years (SD ¼ 9.58). Our sample included teachers on the pri-
to be unrelated or even negatively related to knowledge (e.g.,
mary level (2%), secondary level (70%), at a vocational school (25%),
Ko€ nig et al., 2015), attending (e.g., Beattie, Ren, Smith, &
and in special needs education (2%). As the subsamples differed
Heaton, 2017; Bruckmaier, Krauss, Blum, & Leiss, 2016), and
slightly in university type and school type, we investigated whether
interpreting (e.g., Muhonen et al., 2021). In this regard, it is
those variables had any effect on the study variables. However,
important to differentiate between experience and expertise:
there were no differences in noticing, knowledge, or growth
Teaching expertise is based on experience but is further
mindset depending on university or school type.
indicated, for example, by successful teaching performance
We recruited pre-service teachers via the mailing lists of student
(Palmer, Stough, Burdenski, Thomas, & Gonzales, 2005). Ex-
associations, bulletin boards, and social media, and in-service
perts are characterized by profound, well-organized knowl-
teachers via the schools' mailing lists. Participants were invited to
edge, which facilitates the retrieval of relevant information
an investigation of difficult situations during mathematics lessons.
and its practical use (e.g., Jong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996;
They were told that the study was investigating how they perceived
Renkl, Mandl, & Gruber, 1996). For this reason, expert
and assessed difficulties in the classroom; the invitation did not
teachers are usually better at applying their knowledge while
refer to students’ beliefs or thoughts in any way. All participants
attending to and reasoning about classroom events (Berliner,
took part voluntarily; the sample thus was a non-representative
2001; Carter, Cushing, Sabers, Stein, & Berliner, 1988).
convenience sample. The data were collected and analyzed anon-
However, the current state of research indicates that teachers
ymously. This study was registered and approved by the Ministry of
do not automatically become experts as they gain more
Education Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
practical experience (see also Ko € nig et al., 2015). More
research is needed that investigates teachers at different
stages of their career and with varying experience levels. In 5.2. Procedure
the present study, we thus included both pre-service and in-
service teachers, and investigated whether their amount of Participants first read a document about the procedure and data
practical experience fostered deeper and more readily protection, and provided informed consent. They then provided
applicable knowledge that would in turn improve their demographic information including practical experience.2 After-
noticing. wards, they read the four scenarios and indicated which aspects
they had noted and found problematic. One scenario was presented
again, along with the task to interpret the student's belief and
describe possible consequences. Finally, participants responded to
4. The present study
the growth mindset scale and knowledge test. After having finished
the study, we offered all participants a document with information
The aim of this study was to explore how teachers' perception of
about learners' beliefs as an incentive. This document had been
students' fixed mindsets relates to teachers' knowledge, teachers'
announced as “useful information about typical difficult situations
growth mindset, and their experience. We assessed whether pre-
during mathematics lessons” in the study invitation to not unravel
service and in-service mathematics teachers noticed fixed mind-
our focus on beliefs. Furthermore, interested participants could
sets among students and identified them as important (attending),
provide their e-mail address on an external page and were
and how they interpreted these mindsets (interpreting). As factors
informed about the study results. Pre-service teachers further
potentially associated with attending and interpreting, we
considered teachers' knowledge (i.e., their declarative knowledge
about learners' ability-related beliefs), teachers' growth mindset
1
(i.e., their beliefs about the nature of mathematical abilities), and In Germany, a university of education has the same official status as a regular
university, but has a particular focus on an educational curriculum, such as teacher
the amount of practical experience. We addressed three research
training. Teacher education at a university of education focuses more on peda-
questions: First, is teachers' noticing (attending and interpreting) of gogical (content) knowledge and less on content knowledge than does teacher
students' fixed mindsets related to teachers' knowledge and education at a regular university.
2
teachers' growth mindsets? Second, does teachers' knowledge Initially, we had also assessed student-oriented beliefs with three items. These
mediate the relationship between experience and attending? Third, items were excluded from our analyses because of methodological problems and
their limited informative value.

4
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al.
received a V 7 voucher for participating. The entire procedure was
online and took about 45 min.
5.3. Materials
5.3.1. Scenarios
Our measurement of noticing (attending and interpreting) was
based on text scenarios that described situations in the mathe-
matics classroom. In each scenario, students made utterances that
indicated a fixed mindset about mathematics abilities. Other task-
and class-related problems were also mentioned. For example, one
scenario described how students solved linear equations (see
Appendix A). One student was upset about her wrong answers and
said, “I've always been bad at math, so what can I do?” The teacher
discovered that she had mistaken division for subtraction. The
rationale behind these scenarios was to describe situations in
which students' fixed mindsets (but also other factors) are prob-
lematic. In the aforementioned situation, for example, the teachers
could notice the student's dysfunctional belief but the teacher
could also focus on other critical aspects such as the student's
confusion, lack of concentration, or negative emotions. We devel-
oped these scenarios with the help of experts in mathematics ed-
ucation, and have used them successfully in earlier studies (e.g.,
Rieche et al., 2019; Zeeb, Biwer, Brunner, Leuders, & Renkl, 2019).
Note that we had used control scenarios in these previous studies
which did not address students' mindsets and served as distractors.
However, as the level of attending was rather low across all sce-
narios and there were no signs that providing several scenarios
with utterances related to mindset have an effect, we refrained
from using control scenarios in the present study.
We decided to use text scenarios because they fit our intention
to measure the noticing of beliefs. Such beliefs are invisible, often
subconscious, and they come rarely to light through students'
verbalizations. We therefore assumed that beliefs would be easily
overlooked when presented, for example, in a video, which is a
medium presenting transient information that is easily missed (e.g.,
Leahy & Sweller, 2011). Furthermore, text-based measures have
been used successfully in studies on teacher noticing (see Dreher &
Kuntze, 2014; Jacobs, 2017), and recent studies demonstrated that
text and video are equally suitable for measuring teachers’ analytic
skills (e.g., Friesen & Kuntze, 2018).
5.4. Measures
5.4.1. Attending
We used four scenarios to measure attending. There were two
open-ended questions beneath each scenario: “what do you notice
in this situation?” and “which of the aspects you noticed do you
find problematic?” Sample answers are found in the Appendix
(Appendix B). By asking two separate questions, we considered that
researchers conceive of attending differently: It may mean
attending to events that seem to be important in a positive of
negative sense (e.g., Carter et al., 1988; Star & Strickland, 2008) but
also attending to events appearing critical and, thus, requiring the
teacher's action (e.g., van Es & Sherin, 2002). As in previous studies
(e.g., Huang & Li, 2012; Roller, 2015; Walkoe, Sherin, & Elby, 2019),
we measured both facets. We coded the answers using three cat-
egories (see Table C1). Note that the two questions were coded
separately but with the same coding scheme, so that we obtained
two separate ratings for each scenario. These ratings correlated
closely in the first, second, and fourth scenarios (rs > 0.42,
ps < .001), but weakly in the third (r ¼ 0.24, p ¼ .010). The third
scenario also stood out because the mean attending-score was
much lower (M ¼ 0.46, SD ¼ 0.90) than in the other three scenarios
(Ms > 1.33, SDs > 1.36). In scenario 3, a student believed that “only
5
Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170
scientists really understand mathematics.” Obviously, the partici-
pants had trouble identifying the student's problematic belief that
abilities are fixed and that his abilities are inadequate for under-
standing mathematics. We thus excluded that scenario from our
analyses.
Points for attending were aggregated across the two ratings per
scenario, and across the first, second, and fourth scenario, into a
sum score. The maximum score for attending was thus 12 points. A
second independent rater coded 40% of the data. We determined
interrater reliability by intraclass coefficients (ICC two-way
random, not adjusted). Agreement between raters was high
(ICC ¼ 0.95). Internal consistency for attending across the scenarios
was acceptable (Cronbach's a ¼ 0.72).
5.4.2. Interpreting
To assess interpreting, we presented the participants with a
scenario they had analyzed before. The scenario was the same for
all participants (see Appendix A). This time, the problematic belief
was printed in bold type, and the task was: “The student states, ‘I've
always been bad at math, so what can I do?’ How do you interpret
this statement? What are its potential consequences? Please use
technical terms if possible.” The coding scheme and sample an-
swers are presented in the appendix (Table C2). We coded the
answers in two steps. In the first step, we differentiated between (a)
explanations and (b) predictions. This differentiation relied on the
literature: (a) interpreting refers to the actual situation, that is,
explaining the noticed event (e.g., Barnhart & van Es, 2015), and (b)
interpreting is future-bound by also entailing predictions of
possible consequences (e.g., Seidel & Stürmer, 2014).
In the second step, we rated the answers' quality in terms of
knowledge relatedness and clarity. Knowledge relatedness means
that interpretations were related to pedagogical knowledge, a basic
feature of interpreting (see van Es & Sherin, 2002) often used as a
criterion for measuring high-quality interpretations (e.g., Jacobs
et al., 2010; Lee & Choy, 2017; Sherin & van Es, 2009). In the pre-
sent study, appropriate concepts would consist of mindset theory,
causal attributions, or self-efficacy. Clarity means that in-
terpretations were detailed, well connected to the situation, logical,
and consistent. Similar criteria have been used to measure inter-
preting in previous studies (e.g., Barnhart & van Es, 2015; Krupa
et al., 2017; McDuffie et al., 2014). Our focus on knowledge relat-
edness and clarity is consistent with the call for a shared language
among teachers and teacher educators (e.g., Grossman, 1991;
McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013): Use of the right technical
vocabulary facilitates professional analysis and discussion, and
teachers should be capable of employing accurate terminology
when describing their experiences. We therefore considered
statements as high-quality interpretations if they contained
appropriate technical terms and were written clearly. The level of
knowledge relatedness and clarity was coded on scales with three
categories each. Knowledge relatedness and clarity correlated
significantly within (a) explanations (r ¼ .31, p ¼ .001) and (b)
predictions (r ¼ 0.51, p < .001). We also noted correlations between
knowledge-related explanations and knowledge-related pre-
dictions (r ¼ 0.30, p ¼ .002) and between explanation clarity and
prediction clarity (r ¼ 0.31, p ¼ .001). We thus aggregated all
separate scores into a total sum score for interpreting. The
maximum score was eight points. A second independent rater
coded 40% of the data. Interrater reliability was good (ICC ¼ 0.85);
and internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's a ¼ 0.62).
5.4.3. Knowledge
We measured declarative knowledge about learners' ability-
related beliefs via six open-ended questions that addressed
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al.
pedagogical concepts such as mindset theory, causal attributions,
self-concept, and self-efficacy (see Table D1). We created model
answers based on the literature (e.g., Bandura, 2006; Dweck &
Yeager, 2019; Weiner, 2014) and coded how closely the partici-
pants' responses resembled these model answers. A maximum of
ten points was possible. A second independent rater coded 40% of
the data. Agreement between the two raters was high (ICC ¼ 0.99).
Internal consistency of the knowledge test was acceptable (Cron-
bach's a ¼ 0.72). As a confirmatory factor analysis indicated that
one item (question 3) did not load substantially on the latent factor
knowledge, we excluded this item from the analyses (see next
chapter). Internal consistency was higher without this item
(Cronbach's a ¼ 0.75).
5.4.4. Validity of the measures
As we had developed new instruments to measure noticing and
knowledge, we took additional steps to estimate the validity of
these measures (following recommendations by, e.g., DeVon et al.,
2007; O’Leary-Kelly & Vokurka, 1998). First, content validity was
supported by a preceding literature research and by experts in
educational psychology and mathematics education who approved
of the scenarios and tasks. Second, we checked reliabilities by
computing Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency) and intraclass
coefficients (interrater reliability). Internal consistency was above
the recommended value of 0.6 for attending, interpreting and
knowledge, which is considered acceptable for early stages of
research and, in particular, for group analyses. Interrater reliability
was good in all cases. Third, we conducted confirmatory factor
analyses (CFA) with the software R (package lavaan) to validate the
structure of the constructs (attending, interpreting, and knowl-
edge). Three models were built to analyze whether these constructs
were better modeled separately or combined: a one-factor model
with one latent factor for noticing, interpreting, and knowledge
(model 1), a two-factor model with one factor for noticing
(attending and interpreting), and a second factor for knowledge
(model 2), and a three-factor model with separate factors for
attending, interpreting, and knowledge (model 3). An excellent
model fit is represented by CFI >0.95, RMSEA <0.06, and SRMR
<0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). To account for the ordinal data (two or
three categories per item), we used the weighted least squares
means and variance adjusted estimator (WLSMV; see Beauducel &
Herzberg, 2006). Table 1 presents the fit indices for the models.
Modelling the three constructs as separate latent factors fit the
data best (model 3), thus indicating (divergent) construct validity of
the measures. In this model, all items loaded significantly on the
respective latent construct (ps < .01), except one item within the
knowledge test (question 3; p ¼ .322). We excluded this item from
further analyses. The latent bivariate correlations between
attending, interpreting, and knowledge were positive and signifi-
cant. Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.33 to 0.60, which met
our expectations. Non-significant correlations would indicate
completely distinct constructs; high correlations would indicate
that the instruments measured the same construct; both cases
would have contradicted theoretical considerations. In sum, the
model comparisons, factor loadings, and correlations provide
support for the validity of these measures.
Table 1
Fit statistics for the alternative models.
Model Х2 df p CFI RMSEA
Model 1 (one factor) 159.28 104 .000 0.89 0.07
Model 2 (two factors) 109.23 103 .319 0.99 0.02
Model 3 (three factors) 72.34 101 .986 1.00 0.00
Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170
5.4.5. Growth mindset
We measured teachers' growth mindset with nine items
(Spinath & Scho €ne, 2003) and changed “intelligence” to “mathe-
matical abilities.” These items addressed beliefs about the mallea-
bility of abilities, beliefs about the importance of abilities for good
performance, and beliefs about how to compensate for low abilities
with effort. Example items are “Mathematical ability is something
that can/cannot be changed,” and “A strong performance in
mathematics requires exceptional/no exceptional mathematical
abilities.” Participants agreed with the statements on a seven-point
scale. The three items on beliefs about the importance of abilities
for good performance were reverse-coded so that high scores
represented a growth mindset. Reliability was acceptable (Cron-
bach's a ¼ 0.70).
5.4.6. Experience
Experience was assessed with one item: “How much practical
experience do you have (e.g., also from internships)?” Participants
indicated their experience in years and months.
5.5. Data analyses
We analyzed the data separately for both subgroups, pre-service
and in-service teachers. The first research question, which
addressed relations between attending, interpreting, knowledge,
and teachers' growth mindset, was investigated with correlation
analyses. As there were signs of floor effects within attending (13%
of the participants at score zero) and interpreting (17% at score
zero), we computed Spearman's correlations in addition to Pear-
son's correlations. Spearman's r is more robust and powerful when
data are skewed (see Bishara & Hittner, 2012; de Winter, Gosling, &
Potter, 2016). The pattern of results we observed was similar with
either correlation coefficient. The second and third research ques-
tions, which addressed experience's direct and indirect effects on
attending and interpreting, were tested via mediation analyses
(Hayes, 2013). We ran separate analyses for the two dependent
variables (attending and interpreting). In these analyses, we
included experience as an independent variable and knowledge as
the mediating variable. To determine indirect effects, we report
95%-confidence intervals derived from 5000 bootstrap samples.
Significant indirect effects are characterized by intervals that
exclude zero. IBM SPSS Statistics (version 28) was used for the
statistical analyses.
6. Results
6.1. Preliminary analyses
Descriptive values are found in Table 2. Mean scores were low
for knowledge but relatively high for teachers’ growth mindsets.
The descriptive values reveal a generally low level of attending and
interpreting. Pre-service teachers exhibited a higher level of
interpreting than in-service teachers, although this difference was
not statistically significant, F(1,110) ¼ 2.78, p ¼ .098. Pre-service and
in-service teachers did not differ significantly in knowledge,
F(1,110) ¼ 2.75, p ¼ .100, growth mindsets, F(1,110) ¼ 0.88, p ¼ .349,
or attending, F(1,110) ¼ 0.50, p ¼ .482.
6.2. Is noticing related to knowledge and growth mindset?
Table 3 provides the correlations between the relevant variables.
SRMR
Among the pre-service teachers, attending was related neither to
0.11 knowledge, r ¼ 0.09, p ¼ .540 (Spearman's r ¼ 0.14, p ¼ .335) nor to
0.09 their growth mindset, r ¼ 0.13, p ¼ .363 (Spearman's r ¼ 0.11,
0.07
p ¼ .416). Among the in-service teachers, attending was positively
6
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170

Table 2
Descriptive values of the independent and dependent variables.

Variable Pre-service teachers M (SD) In-service teachers M (SD) Min Max

Knowledge 2.05 (2.07) 1.44 (1.80) 0.00 7.00

Growth mindset 5.22 (0.53) 5.12 (0.62) 3.78 6.67
Experience 0.84 (1.86) 12.82 (9.58) 0.00 40.00
Attending 4.25 (3.49) 3.81 (2.99) 0.00 12.00
Interpreting 2.34 (1.69) 1.80 (1.75) 0.00 7.00

Table 3 Table 5
Correlations between independent and dependent variables (Pearson's r). Direct and indirect influences of experience on interpreting.

Variable 1 2 3 4 Path b (SE) b p

Pre-service teachers Pre-service teachers

1. Knowledge e Experience on Knowledge 0.18 (0.15) .17 .237
2. Growth mindset .17 e Knowledge on Interpreting 0.27 (0.11) .33 .018
3. Experience .17 .35* e Experience on Interpreting (total effect) 0.05 (0.13) .06 .685
4. Attending .09 .13 .13 e Experience on Interpreting (direct effect) 0.00 (0.12) .00 .986
5. Interpreting .33* .22 .06 .39* In-service teachers
In-service teachers Experience on Knowledge 0.07 (0.02) .36 .005
1. Knowledge e Knowledge on Interpreting 0.43 (0.12) .44 .001
2. Growth mindset .01 e Experience on Interpreting (total effect) 0.06 (0.02) .35 .006
3. Experience .36* .04 e Experience on Interpreting (direct effect) 0.04 (0.02) .19 .115
4. Attending .40* .24 .04 e
5. Interpreting .51*** .06 .35* .28*

Note. ***p < .001; *p < .050.
correlated with knowledge, r ¼ 0.40, p ¼ .002 (Spearman's r ¼ 0.41,
p ¼ .001) but not substantially correlated with growth mindset,
r ¼ 0.24, p ¼ .068 (Spearman's r ¼ 0.15, p ¼ 256). Hence, in-
service teachers with greater declarative knowledge about
learners' ability-related beliefs were more likely to detect students'
dysfunctional fixed beliefs.
Next, we analyzed correlations with interpreting. Among the
pre-service teachers, interpreting was positively correlated with
knowledge, r ¼ 0.33, p ¼ .016 (Spearman's r ¼ 0.39, p ¼ .004) but
not with their growth mindset, r ¼ 0.22, p ¼ .108 (Spearman's
r ¼ 0.20, p ¼ .153). Similarly, interpreting was positively correlated
with knowledge among the in-service teachers, r ¼ 0.51, p < .001
(Spearman's r ¼ 0.44, p < .001) but not with growth mindset,
r ¼ 0.06, p ¼ .629 (Spearman's r ¼ 0.19, p ¼ .153). Thus, pre-
service and in-service teachers with greater declarative knowl-
edge about learners' ability-related beliefs were more likely to
provide knowledge-based and clear interpretations of students'
fixed beliefs.
6.3. Does knowledge mediate the relation between experience and
attending?
For pre-service teachers, we detected no total effect of experi-
ence on attending (see Table 4). Experience also failed to predict
knowledge, and knowledge did not predict attending. The indirect
Table 4
Direct and indirect influences of experience on attending.
Path b (SE)
Pre-service teachers
Experience on Knowledge 0.18 (0.15)
Knowledge on Attending 0.19 (0.24)
Experience on Attending (total effect) 0.25 (0.26)
Experience on Attending (direct effect) 0.28 (0.26)
In-service teachers
Experience on Knowledge 0.07 (0.02)
Knowledge on Attending 0.79 (0.21)
Experience on Attending (total effect) 0.01 (0.04)
Experience on Attending (direct effect) 0.07 (0.04)
effect was not significant with b ¼ 0.03, 95% CI [0.33, 0.08]. Thus,
pre-service teachers' experience failed to support attending, and
knowledge failed to mediate the relation between experience and
attending. For in-service teachers, there was also no total effect of
experience on attending. However, experience was a negative
knowledge predictor, and knowledge a positive attending predic-
tor. The indirect effect was negative and significant with b ¼ 0.05,
95% CI [0.11, 0.02]. The effect of experience on attending
remained non-significant also when considering the indirect effect
via knowledge (direct effect). Thus, there was an indirect effect of
experience on attending via knowledge e but that effect was
negative. In-service teachers with more practical experience
possessed less declarative knowledge about learners' ability-
related beliefs, which was, in turn, related to less attending to
students’ fixed mindsets. The fact that we observed that experience
had an indirect negative effect, but no total effect on attending
indicates that experience also exerted positive influences that
partly compensated for the negative influence via knowledge.
6.4. Does knowledge mediate the relation between experience and
interpreting?
Regarding the pre-service teachers, we identified no total effect
of experience on interpreting (see Table 5). Experience did not
predict knowledge, but knowledge was a positive interpreting
predictor. The indirect effect was negative and significant with
b ¼ 0.05, 95% CI [0.34, 0.01].3 The effect of experience on
interpreting remained non-significant also when considering the
indirect effect via knowledge (direct effect). There was thus a weak
indirect, negative effect of experience on interpreting via knowl-
b p
edge. Regarding the in-service teachers, we found a total negative
effect of experience on interpreting. Experience was a negative
knowledge predictor, and knowledge a positive interpreting pre-
.17 .237
.11 .467 dictor. The indirect effect was negative and significant with
.13 .345 b ¼ 0.03, 95% CI [0.06, 0.01]. Experience's effect on
.15 .291
.36 .005 3
That the indirect effect (a*b) can be statistically significant even when the
.48 .001
single paths a or b are not is rare, but possible. In contrast to traditional approaches,
.04 .760
significance of single paths is not regarded a requirement for mediation analyses
.21 .101
nowadays (e.g., Hayes, 2013).

7
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al.
interpreting became non-significant when considering the indirect
effect via knowledge (direct effect). Thus, knowledge mediated the
effect of experience on interpreting, but this mediation effect was
negative. Experience's overall negative influence on interpreting
was attributable to knowledge: Practical experience was associated
with less declarative knowledge about learners' ability-related
beliefs, which in turn corresponded with poorer interpretations
of students' fixed mindsets.
7. Discussion
The present study explored how teachers' noticing of students'
fixed mindsets related to teachers' declarative knowledge about
learners' ability-related beliefs, to teachers' growth mindsets, and
their years of experience. Attending to students' fixed mindsets did
not correlate with knowledge or beliefs among the pre-service
teachers, but it did correlate with higher knowledge among in-
service teachers. Hence, in-service teachers possessing more
declarative knowledge about ability-related beliefs were more
likely to attend to students' fixed mindsets. Interpreting correlated
with knowledge among pre-service and in-service teachers.
Teachers with greater declarative knowledge about beliefs were
more likely to make strong interpretations of students' fixed beliefs.
Experience did not correlate with attending among pre-service
teachers, but we did find experience's indirect negative effect on
attending via knowledge among in-service teachers: Years of
experience were associated with less declarative knowledge, and
this knowledge shortcoming was associated with less attending to
students' fixed mindsets. Similarly, interpreting revealed indirect
knowledge effects among pre-service and in-service teachers.
Experience was associated with less declarative knowledge, which,
in turn, corresponded with poorer interpretations of students' fixed
mindsets.
We draw three major conclusions from these findings: First,
declarative knowledge about beliefs supported teachers' noticing,
in particular their interpreting of students' fixed mindsets. Second,
teachers’ growth mindsets proved to be unrelated to noticing.
Third, years of experience were associated with less declarative
knowledge about ability-related beliefs and, in turn, with less
noticing. We discuss these conclusions in more detail below.
7.1. Conclusion 1: knowledge supported noticing
Knowledge played a crucial role in this study: In-service
teachers with more declarative knowledge about learners' beliefs
were more likely to attend to students' fixed mindsets than those
with less knowledge. Such knowledge also supported the teachers
in generating good interpretations. These results are in line with
theoretical assumptions about the connection between knowledge
and noticing (see, e.g., the model of teacher competence by
€ meke, Gustafsson, & Shavelson, 2015), and correspond with
Blo
studies in which pedagogical knowledge promoted noticing (e.g.,
€ meke, Hoth, et al., 2015; Ko
Blo € nig et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2021).
However, the level of knowledge about beliefs was quite low.
Teachers obviously knew little about concepts that explain
dysfunctional beliefs, such as mindset theory, causal attributions, or
self-concept. A reason might be that in German teacher education,
there are often few pedagogical courses (e.g., Bauer, Diercks,
Roesler, Mo€ller, & Prenzel, 2012), and topics such as mindset the-
ory are relatively new. In previous studies, we found that pre-
service teachers' skills improved enormously after working on a
half-hour lecture about learners’ beliefs (e.g., Zeeb et al., 2019).
After the lecture, the teachers were better able to notice dysfunc-
tional beliefs, interpret them thoroughly, and make appropriate
8
Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170
suggestions on how to respond when students indicated dysfunc-
tional beliefs. We assume that such deliberate learning is necessary
to raise the level of belief-related knowledge and, in turn, improve
noticing.
7.2. Conclusion 2: teachers’ growth mindset was not related to
noticing
Our finding that teachers' mindset did not correlate with
noticing contradicts previous research (e.g., Butler, 2000; Rattan
et al., 2012; Rieche et al., 2019) but contributes to evidence
describing inconsistencies between teachers' beliefs and their
practices (e.g., Basturkmen, 2012; Fang, 1996; Kane et al., 2002).
Different explanations are possible: First, measuring someone's
mindset is difficult. Self-report measures are standard in educa-
tional research, but inconsistent with the nature of beliefs. As be-
liefs are largely subconscious, qualitative or implicit measures
might be more suitable (see Erkmen, 2012; Kane et al., 2002;
Lüftenegger & Chen, 2017). Furthermore, people sometimes
misunderstand or oversimplify the growth-mindset concept. Some
teachers claim to possess a growth mindset but do not actually
grasp what it is (see false growth mindset; Dweck & Yeager, 2019); or
they believe, for example, that a growth mindset simply means
always having a positive attitude about learning (Patrick & Joshi,
2019). Hence, we do not know whether the teachers in our study
who scored high on the growth mindset scale actually had a growth
mindset. Second, situation-specific motives may have taken prior-
ity over teachers' general beliefs (see Skott, 2001). Sherin and Russ
(2014) use the term interpretive frames to explain this phenome-
non: depending on the context, teachers notice and interpret
through specific frames. The present study was framed as an
investigation on how mathematics teachers handle difficult situa-
tions. We can thus assume that the participants were motivated to
handle mathematics-related problems from the teacher's
perspective. This motive might have influenced how they perceived
the scenarios regardless of their mindset (see limitations). Third,
the lack of any relationship between growth mindset and noticing
might reflect the general limits of mindset theory: Just as students'
mindsets cannot explain a large share of student achievement (see
Yeager & Dweck, 2020), teachers' mindsets might not be a major
predictor of their skills. In their review, Haimovitz and Dweck
(2017) argue that adults' responses to children's success or failure
are not so much driven by their own growth mindset, but rather by
their beliefs about how to motivate children. Similarly, the situa-
tions we described in our study may have activated other teaching-
related beliefs e not those about abilities e which then influenced
what teachers noticed. Methods such as stimulated recall in-
terviews might help to discover what kind of beliefs the scenarios
activated (see Erkmen, 2012), and how these beliefs relate to
noticing.
7.3. Conclusion 3: experience was associated with less declarative
knowledge and noticing
Experience played a somewhat negative role in our study.
Teachers with more years of experience possessed less declarative
knowledge about learners’ beliefs, and this lack of knowledge
corresponded negatively with noticing, especially with interpret-
ing. This evidence contradicts previous research in which noticing
improved with experience (e.g., Dreher & Kuntze, 2014;
Gegenfurtner et al., 2020; Jacobs et al., 2010). Yet there is also ev-
idence that practical experience is unassociated or even negatively
associated with pedagogical knowledge (e.g., Ko €nig et al., 2014),
and noticing (e.g., Beattie et al., 2017; Bruckmaier et al., 2016;
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al.
Muhonen et al., 2021). In line with these studies, our findings
indicate that there might be no simple linear connection between
years of experience, knowledge, and noticing.
One explanation may be that whether and how teachers learn
from their experiences matters more than their mere years of
teaching. In a study with early-career mathematics teachers,
noticing was not predicted by working time per se but by time
spent on teaching relative to overall working time (Ko €nig et al.,
2015). The authors describe this finding as deliberate practice:
Teachers who assigned priority to teaching activities such as pre-
paring, conducting, and reflecting on the lessons, compared to
other responsibilities, developed stronger noticing skills. It thus
appears that teachers need time and opportunities to learn in order
to benefit from their years of experience (see experiential learning;
Kolb, 2014). With regard to this study, we assume that simply
experiencing situations in which students reveal problematic be-
liefs is insufficient for improving skills to notice and interpret these
beliefs; teachers rather need the opportunity to reflect on and learn
from such situations. It is important to note that such opportunities
to learn are spread unevenly over teachers' education and work life.
Teachers’ initial training usually includes practical phases in which
the students reflect on their practical experiences under the guid-
ance of educators or mentors. However, such regular and guided
learning is missing in later work life. In-service teachers can
participate in professional development courses, but these are
often disconnected from daily experiences (e.g., Liu & Phelps,
2020). Thus, experience is associated with opportunities to learn
among pre-service teachers, but not in all cases among in-service
teachers, which explains why we found stronger negative re-
lations between experience and noticing among in-service
teachers.
Another explanation for the negative association between
experience, knowledge, and noticing refers to recent reforms in
teacher training (for a similar argument, see Muhonen et al., 2021).
Teacher education in Germany has changed substantially in the
past decades. The overall proportion of pedagogical courses has
been increased (e.g., Bauer et al., 2012), and contents of pedagogical
courses have been altered. Recent courses tend to rely more on
empirical evidence (see Bromme, Prenzel, & Ja €ger, 2014), and as
beliefs about teaching and learning are attracting more attention
among German teacher educators (e.g., Blo € meke, Hoth, et al., 2015;
Kuntze, 2012; Stahnke et al., 2016), curricula nowadays are more
likely to convey knowledge about learners' beliefs. Furthermore,
the concept of professional noticing has made its way into German
teacher education (e.g., Gold, Pfirrmann, & Holodynski, 2021;
Kramer, Ko € nig, Strauß, & Kaspar, 2020). Hence, our sample's pre-
service teachers were probably given more opportunities to
deepen their declarative knowledge about learners' beliefs and
develop their noticing skills, compared to the in-service teachers,
most of whom were trained before these reforms.
We also assume that our assessment methods favored the pre-
service teachers. Text scenarios are recommended as a tool to
approach practice for novices because they reduce complexity
(Grossman et al., 2009), but experienced teachers might find such
scenarios less authentic. Moreover, university students can access
their theoretical knowledge more easily, and are more familiar with
knowledge tests than experienced teachers who have left univer-
sity a while ago (see also Muhonen et al., 2021).
In this regard, we need to take a closer look at the relation be-
tween experience and knowledge. Experience might be particularly
beneficial for developing procedural knowledge, whereas our
measures focused strongly on declarative knowledge. Voss et al.
(2011, 2017) observed, for example, that knowledge about class-
room management (entailing mainly procedural knowledge)
increased substantially with experience. Similarly, experienced
9
Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170
teachers in the present study might have possessed broad proce-
dural belief-related knowledge, such as a repertoire of strategies to
encourage students believing that they have low abilities. However,
such implicit knowledge is difficult to access (e.g., Berry, 1987; Kane
et al., 2002). To shed light on how different facets of knowledge and
noticing develop, further studies should thus distinguish between
declarative and procedural knowledge, and apply more practice-
related measures of noticing. It might also be worthwhile to mea-
sure shaping as a further, action-related subcomponent of noticing
(see van Es & Sherin, 2021), which probably relates to teachers’
procedural knowledge.
7.4. Limitations
Our study has several limitations. First, the broad noticing
questions were somewhat inconsistent with the focused analysis.
For example, the questions we posed to assess attending (e.g., what
did you notice?) encouraged a broad range of answers. Yet instead
of analyzing all answers, we focused only on answers related to a
very specific aspect, namely, students' beliefs. In further studies,
one could give more specific instructions, for example, by shifting
the focus to the student or by providing categories (including be-
liefs) and asking the participants whether they find these note-
worthy. Similarly, one could argue that the cover story we used to
invite participants did not match our data analysis. We invited
mathematics teachers, and told them we were interested in how
they perceived difficult situations during mathematics lessons.
Thus, the participants might have focused especially on
mathematics-related issues or on issues that they found problem-
atic from their own, teacher-specific perspective. It is unclear
whether we would have obtained similar results had we employed
a different framework, for example, by emphasizing less the subject
(mathematics) aspects in the cover study, or by prompting the
teachers to take the student's perspective. The latter instruction
may activate a different interpretive frame (see Sherin & Russ,
2014), which might lead to more belief-related answers.
Second, the way we measured noticing was closely related to
vocabulary use, which raises the question whether use of language
is a good indicator of their noticing skills. This focus on (technical)
language might also be a reason why the participants scored quite
low on the noticing scales. Our study shares this limitation with
other studies analyzing teachers' written statements when trying
to assess their abilities (see Amador, Bragelman, & Superfine, 2021).
With respect to attending, it would help to develop instruments
that capture teachers' in-the-moment reactions better. Such an
instrument could be based on video instead of text, and could
measure attending via eye-tracking or keystroke (see, e.g., Martin
et al., 2023), combined with retrospective cued recall. With
respect to interpreting, our focus on technical vocabulary and clear
expressions probably led to low scores, but gets support from the
debate about a shared language among teachers (e.g., Grossman,
1991; McDonald et al., 2013). However, this shared language
could also be defined from the practitioners' perspective rather
than the researchers’e and could thus form the basis for developing
new, more teacher-oriented instruments (see Practical
Implications).
Third, the use of new instruments to assess noticing and
knowledge might have created problems. We developed these in-
struments because there were no existing instruments that
matched our specific focus on students’ beliefs. On the basis of the
CFA, reliability analyses, expert judgments, literature research, and
experiences from previous studies (Rieche et al., 2019; Zeeb et al.,
2019), we consider the psychometric quality of the instruments
as sufficient. Yet there are numerous starting points for improve-
ment, which we have discussed before, including a revision of the
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al.
knowledge test so that it measures practical/procedural knowledge,
a revision of the scenarios so that they better suit experienced
teachers, a revision of the attending task so that it matches our
focused analyses and measures in-the-moment reactions, and a
revision of the interpreting task so that it is less language-
dependent. These improvements should be accompanied by sys-
tematic analyses to estimate the quality of the instruments.
Fourth, our results' generalizability needs to be discussed. As we
drew our data from mathematics teachers in Germany, it is unclear
whether our findings apply equally to other subject areas and
cultures. Domains and cultures differ in how they value innate
talent or effort (e.g., Asbury, Klassen, Bowyer-Crane, Kyriacou, &
Nash, 2016) e and these differences might affect teachers' per-
ceptions of students’ ability-related beliefs. Furthermore, most of
our sample were secondary teachers. More research is needed to
investigate whether findings apply to teachers on different levels.
Finally, it is important to emphasize that we worked with a (small)
non-representative convenience sample. Self-selection bias may
have played a role, as the teachers participated voluntarily in this
study. Participants may thus differ from non-participants in their
motivation to support research, as well as in their interest in
dealing with difficult teaching situations as mentioned in the study
invitation. However, we can rule out the possibility that only those
with a special interest in student beliefs participated, because be-
liefs were mentioned neither in the invitation nor in the instruction
at the start of the study.
7.5. Theoretical and Practical Implications
In this study, we explored how teachers' perception of students'
fixed mindsets relates to their knowledge, their growth mindset,
and experience. From a theoretical perspective, our findings help us
understand the interplay between different facets of teacher
competence. Our main finding is that declarative knowledge about
learners' beliefs supported noticing, especially teachers' in-
terpretations of students' fixed mindsets. However, teachers
revealed less such knowledge the more experienced they were.
Particularly among in-service teachers, years of teaching were
associated with less declarative knowledge, and therefore also with
lower levels of noticing. With respect to teacher beliefs, we found
that teachers' growth mindset was unrelated to noticing. Future
research may deepen our understanding of how beliefs shape
teacher reactions to students' fixed mindsets by identifying beliefs
that are more important in such situations than teachers’ mindset.
From a practical perspective, our findings have implications for
teachers and teacher educators. First, pedagogical courses at uni-
versity should impart more declarative knowledge about learners’
beliefs e for example, knowledge about mindset theory, attribution
theory, or self-concept e in such a way that pre-service teachers
understand these concepts and can use technical terms accurately
(see Grossman, 1991). Furthermore, teacher students need training
to apply this knowledge to practical situations. The text scenarios
we used in our study could be a basis for such training as they
provide fairly easy access to practice (see Grossman et al., 2009).
Second, teachers should also be provided with opportunities to
deepen their knowledge and enhance their skills in recognizing
learners' beliefs once they have entered their profession. For
example, professional development courses could focus on con-
necting theoretical knowledge about beliefs with teachers' daily
experiences. However, text scenarios seem inappropriate here
because they do not depict teaching's complex reality. Video would
be better suited, but it could be hard to capture beliefs in a video.
We thus suggest that in-service teachers be instructed to remember
and analyze situations from their experience. Such an analysis of
one's own teaching can improve noticing (see Gold et al., 2021). In a
10
Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170
more informal manner, teachers could collaborate with colleagues
and discuss ways of dealing with problematic beliefs among stu-
dents e perhaps in the context of professional learning commu-
nities (see Owen, 2014).
Finally, we consider it important to establish a shared knowl-
edge base and a shared language regarding learners' beliefs among
teachers, teacher educators, and researchers. In our study, we
approached such knowledge from the researchers' stance: We
defined well-established concepts such as mindset or self-concept,
and investigated whether teachers referred to these concepts.
However, particularly the in-service teachers used such terms
rarely. Another option would be to take the teachers' perspective,
investigate their knowledge and the terms they use when referring
to learners' beliefs. Such “craft knowledge” has the advantages that
it is practice-based and integrated. Yet we lack the infrastructure to
verify, store, and share such knowledge (Hiebert, Gallimore, &
Stigler, 2002). Following McDonald et al. (2013), we suggest that
teacher education be organized around core practices. Such a core
practice could be, for example, to deal with learners’ problematic
beliefs. For each core practice, practitioners and scholars need to
work side-by-side to establish a common knowledge base and a
shared language. This knowledge could then be used to rehearse
the activity with the future teachers, and finally transfer it to the
classroom.
Author note
Helene Zeeb, Department of Psychology, University of Erfurt;
Anna Ibach, Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg;
Thamar Voss, Department of Educational Science, University of
Freiburg; Alexander Renkl, Department of Psychology, University of
Freiburg.
Funding
This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (BMBF; grant number 01JA1518A) and by
Open Access funds of the University of Erfurt.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A
Sample scenario
Imagine you are teaching eighth-grade mathematics. Your stu-
dents are busy solving linear equations. From the corner of your
eye, you see Jana folding up her exercise book and putting her head
on the table. She looks frustrated. When you ask her what's
happened, she points at a page in her book where everything is
crossed out and says, ‘I just can't do it! It's wrong again! Whenever I
put the number I've calculated into the first equation, I get different
results! But it doesn't matter, I've always been bad at math, so what
can I do?’ You look at her solution and detect the mistake straight
away: Jana subtracted instead of dividing. Such a mix-up often
occurs in your class.
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170

Appendix B
Sample answers: Attending
What do you notice in this situation?
A) Jana knows how she can check her results and realizes that
she has not solved the problem correctly. She is frustrated,
closes her book, and gives up. Instead of asking for help, she
has crossed out the page. She doesn't think there's any way
she'll ever be able to improve her math abilities because she's
always been bad at math. The teacher, however, notices her
mistake straight away. Other students have made the same
mistake.
B) The student Jana is trying hard to arrive at the correct solu-
tion, working independently and using new formulas again
and again. She checks her solution, realizes that she's again
done something wrong, and tries again with another
formula.
C) Several students seem to have made the same mistake. Jana's
frustration tolerance is quite low.
D) Jana stops calculating because she is frustrated. Upon
request, she shows her exercise book in which her work is
completely crossed out. She doesn't think she can do it
because her results are always wrong. She thinks that the
reason for her failure is that she has always been bad at math
and, in her opinion, nothing can be done about it. The teacher
notices her mistake quickly e and it's a typical mistake that
happens often.
Which of the aspects you noticed do you find problematic?
A) Jana does not ask me (the teacher) for help and gives up. She
is entirely convinced that her ability in mathematics is low.
Apparently, I have not yet talked with the class about this
mistake, despite having observed it often among my
students.
B) Jana only checks her solution, but not the individual steps
that led to it. She has not yet learned how to check each step
she takes critically. Her focus is only on the correct solution.
C) If many students made this mistake, perhaps something
went wrong in the previous lessons. The teacher should
consider this mistake more explicitly. Dealing with mistakes
and frustration is complicated. Perhaps the teacher should
explain this to the class.
D) Jana is so frustrated that she stops working. She crosses out
all her calculations without looking for individual mistakes.
She believes she's incapable in math anyway, and that there
is no way to change that. The teacher had noticed the mistake
before, but did not address it earlier.

Appendix C

Coding schemes

Table C1
Coding scheme for attending

Category Sample answer Points

No reference to problematic beliefs or thoughts Jana does not understand linear equations well. 0
Reference to problematic thoughts that hinder learning but no reference to mathematical Jana has a bad attitude towards mathematics and exaggerates her 1
abilities failure.
Reference to problematic thoughts/beliefs about mathematical abilities Jana thinks that she has poor mathematical abilities and will never 2
improve.

Table C2
Coding scheme for interpreting

Category Explanations (sample answers) Predictions (sample answers) Points

Knowledge relatedness
Low: no relation to
pedagogical concepts
Medium: appropriate
pedagogical concepts
mentioned without further
elaboration
High: appropriate
pedagogical concepts
embedded in a meaningful
way
Clarity
Low: vague, loosely
connected thoughts
without internal logic
Medium: moderately detailed
and connected thoughts,
partly logical
High: detailed, well-
connected, and coherent
thoughts, clearly logical
Jana has totally given up. She seems to have no affinity for It is going to be hard to help her. She is very frustrated, and that 0
mathematical concepts. That is why she cannot be bothered will lead to bad math grades and perhaps even final grades when
with mathematics. she graduates from school.
She thinks it is her fault that she does not understand the task e Jana regards her abilities as unchangeable, with potentially 1
false causal attribution. negative consequences for her success in mathematics. She will
study less and this could prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Jana attributes her poor performance to her low ability (internal, Jana's self-concept is a barrier to future learning because she 2
stable attribution). Because she holds this fixed attitude, she believes that she will always be bad at mathematics no matter
feels unmotivated, and doesn't think her situation will ever how hard she tries. As a consequence, she may reject the
change. teacher's support.
The student has tried, but failed. It is important that she filled a Motivation plays an important role in the future. Return perhaps 0
whole page before giving up. The situation is therefore not as to easier tasks.
problematic as it could be.
Jana is unmotivated, has a poor self-image, or she may have She was always bad at it, so she'll always be bad at it. Fixed 1
personal problems. Many factors can lead to low motivation. image about mathematics in her head. She'll make no effort to
understand math.
Jana is convinced that her mathematical inability is inborn and Jana will continue to see herself as a helpless victim with low 2
will never change. She believes there is nothing she can do to abilities, which will further lower her motivation to participate
improve. This might be why she fails to even try to understand in math lessons. This attitude may also keep her from analyzing
the mistake she has made. her mistake, which would be an effective learning approach.

11
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170

Appendix D

Knowledge test

Table D1
Knowledge test

Question Model answer Max.

Points

1. A friend tells you she has heard of pedagogical theories that explain why Attribution theory, implicit theories about intelligence, mindset theory, self- 2
some people doubt their abilities after failing, whereas others do not. Do concept, self-efficacy, self-fulfilling prophecy … (max. 2 points for two correct
you know such theories e and if yes, which theories? theories/concepts)
2. Some students talk about their bad results in a mathematics exam. Student A: Causal attributions (1 point) [1] control, localization (0.5 points) [1a/b] internal/ 3
“I'm not smart enough to get good grades, no matter how much I prepare.” external (0.5 points) [2] stability (0.5 points) [2a/b] stable/variable (0.5 points)
Student B: “The exam was too difficult. In the parallel class, exams are much
easier, I would also get a better grade there.” Student C: I should have
prepared better. I did not always do my homework.”
Which pedagogical construct underlies these statements?
The table shows a schema of this construct. Please label the empty fields!

3. In educational contexts, we speak of ‘implicit theories’ or ‘mindsets.’ What Implicit theories describe beliefs about the malleability of abilities; incremental 2
implicit theories about abilities can you describe? How do implicit theories theory/growth mindset (believing that abilities are changeable) vs. entity theory/
about abilities affect motivation? fixed mindset (believing that abilities are fixed) (1 point).
A growth mindset fosters motivation and learning, a fixed mindset can hamper
motivation and learning (1 point).
4. ‘Self-efficacy’ is a pedagogical concept. What does it mean? People's expectancy beliefs about being able to engage in a specific activity 1
successfully (1 point)
5. ‘Self-concept’ is a pedagogical concept. What does it mean? People's beliefs about their own characteristics and abilities (1 point) 1
6. ‘Attribution’ is a pedagogical concept. What does it mean? People's subjective explanations for the reasons that underlie a specific situation 1
(1 point)

Notes. Question 3 was excluded from the analyses due to non-substantial factor loading.

References Bishara, A. J., & Hittner, J. B. (2012). Testing the significance of a correlation with
nonnormal data: Comparison of Pearson, Spearman, transformation, and
resampling approaches. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 399e417. https://doi.org/
Amador, J. M., Bragelman, J., & Superfine, A. C. (2021). Prospective teachers'
10.1037/a0028087
noticing: A literature review of methodological approaches to support and
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of in-
analyze noticing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 99, Article 103256. https://
telligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103256
study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246e263. https://doi.org/
Asbury, K., Klassen, R., Bowyer-Crane, C., Kyriacou, C., & Nash, P. (2016). National
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
differences in mindset among students who plan to be teachers. International
€ meke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies. Zeits-
Blo
Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 4(3), 158e164. https://doi.org/
chrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 3e13. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000194
10.1080/21683603.2015.1075164
€ meke, S., Hoth, J., Do
Blo € hrmann, M., Busse, A., Kaiser, G., & Ko €nig, J. (2015). Teacher
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares, &
change during induction: Development of beginning primary teachers'
T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307e337). Information
knowledge, beliefs and performance. International Journal of Science and
Age Publishing.
Mathematics Education, 13(2), 287e308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-
Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. A. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the
9619-4
relationship among pre-service science teachers' ability to attend, analyze and
€ meke, S., Jentsch, A., Ross, N., Kaiser, G., & Ko
Blo €nig, J. (2022). Opening up the black
respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83e93. https://
box: Teacher competence, instructional quality, and students' learning progress.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.005
Learning and Instruction, 79, Article 101600. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between lan-
j.learninstruc.2022.101600
guage teachers' stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282e295. https://
Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students' potential through cre-
doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.05.001
€ller, J., & Prenzel, M. (2012). Lehramtsstudium in ative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. Wiley.
Bauer, J., Diercks, U., Roesler, L., Mo
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee
Deutschland: Wie groß ist die strukturelle Vielfalt? Unterrichtswissenschaft,
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673e708). Macmillan Library
2(40), 101e120.
Reference.
Beattie, H. L., Ren, L., Smith, W. M., & Heaton, R. M. (2017). Measuring elementary
Bromme, R. (2001). Teacher expertise. In N. J. Smelser, & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Inter-
mathematics teachers' noticing: Using child study as a vehicle. In E. O. Schack,
national encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 15459e15465).
M. H. Fisher, & J. A. Wilhelm (Eds.), Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening
Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02447-5.
perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 321e338). Springer. https://doi.org/
Bromme, R., Prenzel, M., & J€ ager, M. (2014). Empirische Bildungsforschung und
10.1007/978-3-319-46753-5_19.
evidenzbasierte Bildungspolitik. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(4),
Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood
3e54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0514-5
versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA.
Bruckmaier, G., Krauss, S., Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2016). Measuring mathematics
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2). https://doi.org/
teachers' professional competence by using video clips (COACTIV video). ZDM,
10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2. Article 2.
48(1e2), 111e124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0772-1
Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. Interna-
Burgoyne, A. P., Hambrick, D. Z., & Macnamara, B. N. (2020). How firm are the
tional Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463e482. https://doi.org/10.1016/
foundations of mind-set theory? The claims appear stronger than the evidence.
S0883-0355(02)00004-6
Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619897588
Berry, D. C. (1987). The problem of implicit knowledge. Expert Systems, 4(3),
Butler, R. (2000). Making judgments about ability: The role of implicit theories of
144e151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0394.1987.tb00138.x
ability in moderating inferences from temporal and social comparison

12
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al.
information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 965e978.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.965
Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D. (1988). Expert-novice dif-
ferences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of
Teacher Education, 39(3), 25e31. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718803900306
Copur-Gencturk, Y., & Rodrigues, J. (2021). Content-specific noticing: A large-scale
survey of mathematics teachers' noticing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 101,
Article 103320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103320
De Kraker-Pauw, E., Van Wesel, F., Krabbendam, L., & Van Atteveldt, N. (2017).
Teacher mindsets concerning the malleability of intelligence and the appraisal
of achievement in the context of feedback. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01594
DeVon, H. A., Block, M. E., Moyle-Wright, P., Ernst, D. M., Hayden, S. J., Lazzara, D. J.,
et al. (2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal
of Nursing Scholarship, 39(2), 155e164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-
5069.2007.00161.x
de Winter, J. C. F., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2016). Comparing the Pearson and
spearman correlation coefficients across distributions and sample sizes: A
tutorial using simulations and empirical data. Psychological Methods, 21(3),
273e290. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000079
Dickha€user, O., Janke, S., Praetorius, A.-K., & Dresel, M. (2017). The effects of
teachers' reference norm orientations on students' implicit theories and aca-
demic self-concepts. Zeitschrift für Padagogische Psychologie, 31(3e4), 205e219.
https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000208
Dreher, A., & Kuntze, S. (2014). Teachers' professional knowledge and noticing: The
case of multiple representations in the mathematics classroom. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 88(1), 89e114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-
9577-8
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and develop-
ment. Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 14(3), 481e496. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1745691618804166
Erkmen, B. (2012). Ways to uncover teachers' beliefs. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 47, 141e146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.628
Evens, M., Elen, J., Larmuseau, C., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Promoting the development
of teacher professional knowledge: Integrating content and pedagogy in
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 244e258. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.001
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational
Research, 38(1), 47e65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188960380104
Friesen, M., & Kuntze, S. (2018). Competence assessment with representations of
practice in text, comic and video format. In O. Buchbinder, & S. Kuntze (Eds.),
Mathematics teachers engaging with representations of practice: A dynamically
evolving field (pp. 113e130). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
70594-1_7.
Gegenfurtner, A., Lewalter, D., Lehtinen, E., Schmidt, M., & Gruber, H. (2020).
Teacher expertise and professional vision: Examining knowledge-based
reasoning of pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, and school principals.
Frontiers in Education, 5.
Gippert, C., Ho€rter, P., Junker, R., & Holodynski, M. (2022). Professional vision of
teaching as a focus-specific or focus-integrated skill e conceptual consider-
ations and video-based assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, Article
103797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103797
Gold, B., Pfirrmann, C., & Holodynski, M. (2021). Promoting professional vision of
classroom management through different analytic perspectives in video-based
learning environments. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(4). https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022487120963681. Article 4.
Griful-Freixenet, J., Vantieghem, W., Gheyssens, E., & Struyven, K. (2020). Con-
necting beliefs, noticing and differentiated teaching practices: A study among
pre-service teachers and teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
0(0), 1e18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1862404
Grossman, P. (1991). Overcoming the apprenticeship of observation in teacher ed-
ucation coursework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(4), 345e357. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(91)90004-9
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009).
Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record,
111(9), 2055e2100.
Grub, A.-S., Biermann, A., Lewalter, D., & Brünken, R. (2022). Professional knowledge
and task instruction specificity as influencing factors of prospective teachers'
professional vision. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, Article 103517. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103517
ten Hagen, I., Benden, D. K., Lauermann, F., & Eccles, J. S. (2022). Teachers' and
students' perceptions of students' ability and importance value in math and
reading: A latent difference score analysis of intra-individual cross-domain
differences. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 25(2), 329e351. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11618-022-01083-2
Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). The origins of children's growth and fixed
mindsets: New research and a new proposal. Child Development, 88(6),
1849e1859. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12955
Haimovitz, K., Wormington, S. V., & Corpus, J. H. (2011). Dangerous mindsets: How
beliefs about intelligence predict motivational change. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21(6), 747e752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.09.002
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
13
Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching
profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational
Researcher, 31(5), 3e15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031005003
Huang, R., & Li, Y. (2012). What matters most: A comparison of expert and novice
teachers' noticing of mathematics classroom events. School Science & Mathe-
matics, 112(7), 420e432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00161.x
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1e55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
Jacobs, V. R. (2017). Complexities in measuring teacher noticing: Commentary. In
E. O. Schack, M. H. Fisher, & J. A. Wilhelm (Eds.), Teacher noticing: Bridging and
broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 273e279). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46753-5_16.
Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children's
mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2),
169e202.
Jong, T. de, & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge.
Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105e113. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep3102_2
Kalinec-Craig, C. (2017). Everything matters”: Mexican-American prospective
elementary teachers noticing issues of status and participation while learning
to teach mathematics. In Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives,
contexts, and frameworks (pp. 215e229). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-46753-5_13.
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of
research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of
Educational Research, 72(2), 177e228. https://doi.org/10.3102/
00346543072002177
Kennedy, M. M. (2004). Reform ideals and teachers' practical intentions. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 12. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v12n13.2004, 13e13.
Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Thompson, B. J., Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2012).
Measuring useable knowledge: Teachers' analyses of mathematics classroom
videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational
Research Journal, 49(3). https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212437853. Article 3.
King, R. B. (2016). A fixed mindset leads to negative affect. Zeitschrift für Psychologie,
225(2). https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000290. Article 2.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development (2nd ed.). Pearson.
Ko€ nig, J., Blo
€meke, S., & Kaiser, G. (2015). Early career mathematics teachers' general
pedagogical knowledge and skills: Do teacher education, teaching experience,
and working conditions make a difference? International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 13(2), 331e350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-
9618-5
Ko€ nig, J., Blo€meke, S., Klein, P., Suhl, U., Busse, A., & Kaiser, G. (2014). Is teachers'
general pedagogical knowledge a premise for noticing and interpreting class-
room situations? A video-based assessment approach. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 38, 76e88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.004
Ko€ nig, J., Santagata, R., Scheiner, T., Adleff, A.-K., Yang, X., & Kaiser, G. (2022).
Teacher noticing: A systematic literature review of conceptualizations, research
designs, and findings on learning to notice. Educational Research Review, 36,
Article 100453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100453
Kramer, C., Ko €nig, J., Strauß, S., & Kaspar, K. (2020). Classroom videos or transcripts?
A quasi-experimental study to assess the effects of media-based learning on
pre-service teachers' situation-specific skills of classroom management. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Research, 103, Article 101624. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101624
Krupa, E. E., Huey, M., Lesseig, K., Casey, S., & Monson, D. (2017). Investigating
secondary preservice teacher noticing of students' mathematical thinking. In
E. O. Schack, M. H. Fisher, & J. A. Wilhelm (Eds.), Teacher noticing: Bridging and
broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 49e72). Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46753-5_4.
Kuntze, S. (2012). Pedagogical content beliefs: Global, content domain-related and
situation-specific components. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2),
273e292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9347-9
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and
the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 943e951.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1787
Lee, M. Y., & Choy, B. H. (2017). Mathematical teacher noticing: The key to learning
from lesson study. In E. O. Schack, M. H. Fisher, & J. A. Wilhelm (Eds.), Teacher
noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp.
121e140). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46753-5_8.
Lehmann, T., Rott, B., & Schmidt-Borcherding, F. (2019). Promoting pre-service
teachers' integration of professional knowledge: Effects of writing tasks and
prompts on learning from multiple documents. Instructional Science, 47(1),
99e126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9472-2
Liu, S., & Phelps, G. (2020). Does teacher learning last? Understanding how much
teachers retain their knowledge after professional development. Journal of
Teacher Education, 71(5), 537e550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119886290
Lüftenegger, M., & Chen, J. A. (2017). Conceptual issues and assessment of implicit
theories. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225(2), 99e106. https://doi.org/10.1027/
2151-2604/a000286
Marsh, H. W., Xu, M., & Martin, A. J. (2012). Self-concept: A synergy of theory,
method, and application. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick,
G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1:
H. Zeeb, A. Ibach, T. Voss et al.
Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 427e458). American Psychological
Association.
Martin, M., Farrell, M., Seidel, T., Rieß, W., Ko €nings, K. D., van Merrie €nboer, J. J. G.,
et al. (2023). Knowing what matters: Short introductory texts support pre-
service teachers‘ professional vision of tutoring interactions. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 124, Article 104014. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2023.104014
McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of
teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal
of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378e386. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022487113493807
McDuffie, A. R., Foote, M. Q., Bolson, C., Turner, E. E., Aguirre, J. M., Bartell, T. G., et al.
(2014). Using video analysis to support prospective K-8 teachers’ noticing of
students' multiple mathematical knowledge bases. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 17(3), 245e270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9257-0
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine chil-
dren's motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75(1), 33e52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33
Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2021). Do teachers' professional
vision and teaching experience always go hand in hand? Examining
knowledge-based reasoning of Finnish grade 1 teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 106, Article 103458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103458
O'Leary-Kelly, S. W., & Vokurka, J. R. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct
validity. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 387e405. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00020-5
Owen, S. (2014). Teacher professional learning communities: Going beyond
contrived collegiality toward challenging debate and collegial learning and
professional growth. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54(2), 54e77. https://
doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.203503
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307e332. https://
doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
Palmer, D. J., Stough, L. M., Burdenski, , Jr., Thomas, K., & Gonzales, M. (2005).
Identifying teacher expertise: An examination of researchers' decision making.
Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 13e25. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep4001_2
Pankow, L., Kaiser, G., Busse, A., Ko €nig, J., Blo
€ meke, S., Hoth, J., et al. (2016). Early
career teachers' ability to focus on typical students errors in relation to the
complexity of a mathematical topic. ZDM, 48(1e2). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11858-016-0763-2. Article 1e2.
Park, D., Gunderson, E. A., Tsukayama, E., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). Young
children's motivational frameworks and math achievement: Relation to
teacher-reported instructional practices, but not teacher theory of intelligence.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 300e313. https://doi.org/10.1037/
edu0000064
Patrick, S. K., & Joshi, E. (2019). Set in stone” or “willing to grow”? Teacher sense-
making during a growth mindset initiative. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83,
156e167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.009
Praetorius, A.-K., Berner, V.-D., Zeinz, H., Scheunpflug, A., & Dresel, M. (2013).
Judgment confidence and judgment accuracy of teachers in judging self-
concepts of students. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(1), 64e76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667010
Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). It's ok d not everyone can be good at
math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 731e737. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012
Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies.
Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 115e121. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep3102_3
Rieche, H., Leuders, T., & Renkl, A. (2019). If a student thinks, “I'm not a math
person”. Do Preservice Teachers Notice? European Journal of Science and Mathe-
matics Education, 7(1), 32e49. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9532
Roller, S. A. (2015). What they notice in video: A study of prospective secondary
mathematics teachers learning to teach. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Edu-
cation, 19(5), 477e498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9307-x
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). Toward professional development for teachers grounded
in a theory of decision making. ZDM, 43(4), 457e469. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11858-011-0307-8
Seidel, T., & Stürmer, K. (2014). Modeling and measuring the structure of profes-
sional vision in preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal,
51(4), 739e771. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214531321
Sherin, M. G., & Russ, R. S. (2014). Teacher noticing via video: The role of interpretive
frames. Digital Video for Teacher Education: Research and Practice, 3e20.
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers'
professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20e37. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022487108328155
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1). https://doi.org/10.17763/
haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411. Article 1.
Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what
extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to
academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29(4),
14
Teaching and Teacher Education 130 (2023) 104170
549e571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704
Skott, J. (2001). The emerging practices of a novice teacher: The roles of his school
mathematics images. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(1), 3e28.
Spatz, V., & Goldhorn, L. (2021). When it's more difficult, i just cram more! An
exploratory interview study on students' mindsets in physics. European Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 92e109. https://doi.org/10.30935/
scimath/10948
Spinath, B., & Scho €ne. (2003). Subjektive Überzeugungen zu Bedingungen von
Erfolg in Lern- und Leistungskontexten und deren Erfassung. In J. Stiensmeier-
Pelster, & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept (pp.
15e27). Hogrefe.
Stahnke, R., Schueler, S., & Roesken-Winter, B. (2016). Teachers' perception, inter-
pretation, and decision-making: A systematic review of empirical mathematics
education research. ZDM, 48(1e2), 1e27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-
0775-y
Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve
preservice mathematics teachers' ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 11(2), 107e125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9063-7
Stipek, D., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs
and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 17(2), 213e226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00052-4
Stipek, D., & Iver, D. M. (1989). Developmental change in children's assessment of
intellectual competence. Child Development, 60(3), 521e538. https://doi.org/
10.2307/1130719
Stürmer, K., & Seidel, T. (2015). Assessing professional vision in teacher candidates:
Approaches to validating the observer extended research tool. Zeitschrift für
Psychologie, 223(1), 54e63. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000200
Sun, K. L. (2018). Brief report: The role of mathematics teaching in fostering student
growth mindset. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(3), 330e335.
https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.3.0330
Thomas, J., Jong, C., Fisher, M. H., & Schack, E. O. (2017). Noticing and knowledge:
Exploring theoretical connections between professional noticing and mathe-
matical knowledge for teaching. Mathematics Educator, 26(2), 3e25.
€ bst, S., Kleickmann, T., Depaepe, F., Heinze, A., & Kunter, M. (2019). Effects of
Tro
instruction on pedagogical content knowledge about fractions in sixth-grade
mathematics on content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Unterrichts-
wissenschaft, 47(1), 79e97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-019-00041-y
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers'
interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 10(4), 571e596.
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2021). Expanding on prior conceptualizations of
teacher noticing. ZDM e Mathematics Education, 53(1), 17e27. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11858-020-01211-4
Voss, T., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2011). Assessing teacher candidates' general
pedagogical/psychological knowledge: Test construction and validation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 952e969. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025125
Voss, T., Wagner, W., Klusmann, U., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2017). Changes in
beginning teachers' classroom management knowledge and emotional
exhaustion during the induction phase. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
51, 170e184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.08.002
Walkoe, J., Sherin, M. G., & Elby, A. (2019). Video tagging as a window into teacher
noticing. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23, 385e405. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10857-019-09429-0
Weiner, B. (2014). The attribution approach to emotion and motivation: History,
hypotheses, home runs, headaches/heartaches. Emotion Review, 6(4), 353e361.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914534502
Wiens, P. D., LoCasale-Crouch, J., Cash, A. H., & Romo Escudero, F. (2021). Preservice
teachers' skills to identify effective teaching interactions: Does it relate to their
ability to implement them? Journal of Teacher Education, 72(2), 180e194.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120910692
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56(3), 407e415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.407
Yang, X., Kaiser, G., Ko €nig, J., & Blo
€ meke, S. (2021). Relationship between Chinese
mathematics teachers' knowledge and their professional noticing. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(4), 815e837. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10763-020-10089-3
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset
controversies? American Psychologist, 75(9), 1269e1284. https://doi.org/
10.1037/amp0000794
Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., et al.
(2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves
achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364e369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-
1466-y
Zeeb, H., Biwer, F., Brunner, G., Leuders, T., & Renkl, A. (2019). Make it relevant! How
prior instructions foster the integration of teacher knowledge. Instructional
Science, 47(6), 711e739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09497-y
Zeeb, H., Ostertag, J., & Renkl, A. (2020). Towards a growth mindset culture in the
classroom: Implementation of a lesson-integrated mindset training. Educational
Research International, 2020, Article e8067619. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/
8067619