Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.1.0063

Exploring Responsive Teaching's Effect on Students' Epistemological Framing in Small Group Argumentation  

Ha, Heesoo (Seoul National University)
Kim, Heui-Baik (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.37, no.1, 2017 , pp. 63-75 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of responsive teaching on students' productive argumentation practice. The participating students predicted the results of an activity to measure in which location on the body (the head, spine, or back of the hand) they would feel a cellphone's vibrations faster. They then engaged in the activity and built an argument to justify it. We interviewed the teacher to understand her thoughts regarding what was expected in the class. We also recorded and transcribed the class and the interview, for use in the analysis of the students' epistemological framing and the teacher's responsive practice in small group argumentation. We discovered that the teacher intervened in the groups with questions that elicited students' thoughts as starting points for her responsive practice. Her eliciting questions led the students to talk about their ideas, supporting their engagement in the argumentation. The teacher's understanding of the argumentation lesson and her behavior to understand the students' ideas reflected her productive framing, which led her to elicit students' ideas and to support their active interaction during the small-group argumentation. She presented rebuttals against students' ideas, engaging in the argumentation as another participant, not as an evaluator. This supported the equality of intellectual authority in the group and showed students how to engage in the argumentation, supporting students' productive framing. As a result of these responsive teaching practices, the students shifted their epistemological framing, resulting in productive argumentation practice. The results of this study will contribute to developing teachers' responsive teaching strategies to support students' productive framing in science classrooms.
Keywords
responsive teaching; epistemological framing; epistemological resource; scientific argumentation;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the co-construction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464.   DOI
2 Maskiewicz, A. C. (2015). Navigating the challenges of teaching responsively. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Shcerr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics, (pp. 105-125). New York, NY: Routledge.
3 National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
4 Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.   DOI
5 Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning (Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin. Austin, TX.
6 Richards, J. (2013). Exploring what stabilizes teachers' attention and responsiveness to the substance of students' scientific thinking in the classroom(Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland. Maryland, MD.
7 Richards, J., & Robertson, A. D. (2015). A review of the research on responsive teaching in science and mathematics. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. New York, NY, Routledge.
8 Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (Eds.) (2015). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. New York, NY, Routledge.
9 Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292.   DOI
10 Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2015). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10) 1571-1600.   DOI
11 Sandoval, W. A., Daniszewski, K., Spillane, J. P., & Reiser, B. J. (1999). Teachers' discourse strategies for supporting learning through inquiry. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
12 Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504.   DOI
13 Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110.   DOI
14 Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516.   DOI
15 Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16 Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Windschitl, M., & Colley, C. (2015). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(5).
17 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
18 Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students’ discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education. 100(6), 1009-1038.   DOI
19 Cornelius, L. l., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467-498.   DOI
20 diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.   DOI
21 Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. E. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22 Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students' epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, (pp. 409-434). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23 Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1982). Understanding student learning. London: Routledge.
24 Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 485-529.   DOI
25 Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
26 Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434.   DOI
27 Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.   DOI
28 Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Re-thinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529-552.   DOI
29 Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
30 Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31 Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
32 Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53-90.   DOI
33 Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, lecture 1: Case studies of children's inquiries. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 279-299). Bologna: Italian Physical Society.
34 Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-383.   DOI
35 Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfre of learning: Research and perspectives. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
36 Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics, and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.
37 Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary-school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children's understanding of science-some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24(1-2), 41-52.   DOI
38 Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports, 2, 39-51.
39 Alvarado, C., Daane, A. R., Scherr, R. E., & Zavala, G. (2013). Responsiveness among peers leads to productive disciplinary engagement. Paper presented at 2013 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, Portland, OR. doi: 10.1119/perc.2013.pr.002   DOI
40 Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.   DOI
41 Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.   DOI
42 Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.   DOI
43 Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109-1136.   DOI
44 Colestock, A. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2015). What teachers notice when they notice student thinking. In A. D. Robertson, R. E., Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics, (pp. 126-144). New York, NY: Routledge.
45 Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, (pp. 117-136). Dordrecht: Springer.
46 Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524.   DOI
47 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3), 387-312.
48 Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers' ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99(5), 863-895.   DOI
49 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.   DOI
50 Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.   DOI
51 Lee, J. (2016). Understanding of small group students' productive practice in scientific argumentation focusing on the change of epistemological resources network(Master's thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
52 Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154.   DOI
53 Levin, D., & Richards, J. (2011). Learning to attend to the substance of students' thinking in science. Science Educator, 20(2), 1-11.   DOI
54 Levin, D., Hammer, D., Elby, A., & Coffey, J. (2012). Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
55 Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 3(1), 57-60.
56 Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers' epistemological moves and students' practical epistemology. Science Education, 90(1), 148-163.   DOI
57 Lineback, J. E. (2015). The redirection: An indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 419-460.   DOI