@article{LuthardtBormannHildebrandt, author = {Luthardt, Jasmin and Bormann, Inka and Hildebrandt, Frauke}, title = {Einstellungen p{\"a}dagogischer Fachkr{\"a}fte zu anregenden Interaktionen in Kindertagesst{\"a}tten}, series = {Fr{\"u}he Bildung : interdisziplin{\"a}re Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Forschung, Ausbildung und Praxis}, volume = {10}, journal = {Fr{\"u}he Bildung : interdisziplin{\"a}re Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Forschung, Ausbildung und Praxis}, number = {3}, publisher = {Hogrefe Verlag}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {2191-9194}, doi = {10.1026/2191-9186/a000531}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:525-25462}, pages = {151 -- 160}, abstract = {Wie eine p{\"a}dagogische Fachkraft mit den Kindern interagiert und sie damit in ihrer Entwicklung unterst{\"u}tzt, h{\"a}ngt maßgeblich davon ab, wie sie lernanregenden Interaktionen gegen{\"u}ber eingestellt ist. Diese Einstellungen werden im Beitrag mit sogenannten cognitive-affective maps (CAMs) erfasst. Zur Erstellung der CAMs wurden leitfadengest{\"u}tzte Interviews mit p{\"a}dagogischen Fachkr{\"a}ften (N = 18) aus sechs verschiedenen Einrichtungen analysiert. Die CAMs zeigen, dass die befragten Fachkr{\"a}fte haupts{\"a}chlich auf sozial-emotionale Aspekte von Interaktionen rekurrieren und ihre t{\"a}glichen Interaktionen mit den Kindern selbst positiv bewerten. Konkretes Wissen zu lernanregenden Interaktionsformaten benennen sie hingegen kaum. Ein Vergleich der Einstellungen der Fachkr{\"a}fte deutet auf teamspezifische Besonderheiten hin. In einigen Einrichtungen sind die Einstellungen der Fachkr{\"a}fte deutlich homogener als in anderen. Die Ergebnisse werden in ihrer Bedeutung f{\"u}r Fortbildungsangebote diskutiert und CAMs als gewinnbringende Methode zur Eruierung teamspezifischer Fortbildungsbedarfe und als Fortbildungsmethode selbst vorgeschlagen.}, subject = {Kindertagesst{\"a}tte}, language = {de} } @article{LuthardtSchroederHildebrandtetal., author = {Luthardt, Jasmin and Schr{\"o}der, Tobias and Hildebrandt, Frauke and Bormann, Inka}, title = {"And then we'll just check if it suits us" : cognitive-affective maps of social innovation in early childhood education}, series = {Frontiers in Education}, volume = {5}, journal = {Frontiers in Education}, publisher = {Frontiers Media}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {2504-284X}, doi = {10.3389/feduc.2020.00033}, pages = {19}, abstract = {The idea that a simple execution of an innovation invented by actors other than those who are expected to apply it is not likely to take place is a truism. We assume, however, in this paper the idea of a discursive production of knowledge on the application of an innovation across different levels of the education system. We aim to shed light on an innovation's 'journey' from educational policy over training providers to teams of professionals in early childhood education and care (ECEC). By investigating knowledge and emotions associated with the introduction of an intended innovation using the example of "stimulation interactions" in day care-centers, the paper contributes to research on the transfer of innovations in education. To better understand challenges occurring during the transfer of innovations, we triangulate methods from discourse theory (coding techniques based on GTM) and cognitive science, namely cognitive-affective mapping (according to the scholarly conventions). The data corpus includes educational plans (N = 2), in-service training programs (N = 123) and group discussions of pedagogical teams (N = 6) who participated in an in-service training on the subject, stimulating interaction. Findings underline that similar messages from the inventors on the educational policy level are received and processed heterogeneously by the teams of pedagogues as a result of their preexisting views, routine practices and experiences with intended innovations through in-service trainings. Besides, a diffuse mixture of competing and contradictory information is communicated to the professionals and, hence, collides with the in-service training providers' and educational policy actors' expectations on the processing of the intended innovation. Specific knowledge elements and their valences are diametrically opposed to each other. Dissonances like these are considered as obstacles to social innovation. The obstacles are caused by the lack of a 'common language' beyond all levels. Hence, policy-makers and in-service-training providers should anticipate the supportive as well as competing knowledge-emotional complexes of professionals and take these into account when communicating an intended innovation.}, subject = {Sozialinnovation}, language = {en} } @article{LuthardtMorganBormannetal., author = {Luthardt, Jasmin and Morgan, Jonathan Howard and Bormann, Inka and Schr{\"o}der, Tobias}, title = {Quantifying emotionally grounded discursive knowledge with cognitive-affective maps}, series = {Quality \& Quantity - International Journal of Methodology}, volume = {56}, journal = {Quality \& Quantity - International Journal of Methodology}, number = {3}, publisher = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {1573-7845}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01195-7}, pages = {1557 -- 1595}, abstract = {Belief systems matter for all kinds of human social interaction. People have individual cognitions and feelings concerning processes in their environment, which is why they may evaluate them differently. Belief systems can be visualized with cognitive-affective maps (CAMs; as reported by Thagard (in: McGregor (ed) EMPATHICA: A computer support system with visual representations for cognitive-affective mapping, AAAI Press, CA, 2010)). However, it is unclear whether CAMs can be constructed in an intersubjective way by different researchers attempting to map the beliefs of a third party based on qualitative text data. To scrutinize this question, we combined qualitative strategies and quantitative methods of text and network analysis in a case study examining belief networks about participation. Our data set consists of 10 sets of two empirical CAMs: the first CAM was created based on participants' freely associating concepts related to participation in education (N = 10), the second one was created based on given text data which the participants represented as a CAM following a standardized instruction manual (N = 10). Both CAM-types were compared along three dimensions of similarity (network similarity, concept association similarity, affective similarity). On all dimensions of similarity, there was substantially higher intersubjective agreement in the text-based CAMs than in the free CAMs, supporting the viability of cognitive affective mapping as an intersubjective research method for studying the emotional coherence of belief systems and discursive knowledge. In addition, this study highlights the potential for identifying group-level differences based on how participants associate concepts.}, language = {en} }