Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics

Robertson, Amy D.; Scherr, Rachel E.; Hammer, David

doi:10.4324/9781315689302

Cited by 121 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper we argue that the literature on responsive teaching in math and science can contribute to the study of engineering design teaching and learning 54 . We view our analyses as a new kind of investigation into engineering design education, distinct from the large body of K-16 engineering education research that has focused on how to design learning tasks, tools, or environments that support students' engagement in aspects of engineering design.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As mentioned above, this representation of teaching connects to work emerging in math and science around responsive teaching 54 . Responsive teaching is a pedagogical approach in which teachers base their instructional moves on what the students are saying and doing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Responsive teaching is a pedagogical approach in which teachers base their instructional moves on what the students are saying and doing. In responsive teaching, teachers elicit students' ideas, interpret and recognize disciplinary aspects of their activities, and make pedagogical decisions based on their interpretations 54 . This approach is continuous with practices of formative assessment, such that teachers are continually noticing, interpreting, and assessing their students' learning as they decide what to do next.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Noticing, Assessing, and Responding to Students' Engineering: Exploring a Responsive Teaching Approach to Engineering Design

Wendell

Watkins

Johnson

2016 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research paper examines formative assessment in engineering design, unpacking the disciplinary substance that instructors must attend to in their teaching. Borrowing the framework of responsive teaching from the math and science education literature, we argue for the importance of closely examining the many moment-to-moment assessments and decisions that engineering teachers encounter. Responsive teaching is an instructional approach in which instructors base their pedagogical moves on what their students are saying and doing. Instead of predetermining what will happen in classrooms, teachers elicit students' ideas, interpret and assess disciplinary aspects of students' reasoning, and respond with pedagogical decisions based on their interpretations.Responsive teaching has the potential to be a particularly useful approach for teaching engineering design: As students adapt to new criteria and constraints when solving ill-defined engineering design problems, teachers need to be responsive to their changing needs. However, most of the work on responsive teaching has occurred in math and science education.In this paper, we follow in the tradition of math and science education researchers who use their own teaching episodes as the basis for scholarly research on responsive teaching. Using microanalytic analysis, we examined two video-recorded cases from our engineering teaching at both the elementary and university level to explore how different yet equally legitimate disciplinary goals can conflict with each other and produce "instructional tensions" for the teacher. We used purposeful sampling to select cases rich in opportunities to unpack student thinking in engineering. We present in-depth analyses of the tensions that emerged between different disciplinary goals in these STEM learning environments. These results point to the need for increased attention on how teachers manage the different disciplinary practices and goals in STEM activities, particularly when incorporating formative assessment strategies or adopting a responsive teaching approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Noticing, Assessing, and Responding to Students' Engineering: Exploring a Responsive Teaching Approach to Engineering Design

Wendell

Watkins

Johnson

2016 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Science education researchers have shown that instructors can promote sensemaking by asking open-ended questions, drawing out learners' initial reasoning, and encouraging learners to question or build on their peers' reasoning [70,71,73,76]. These facilitation moves could enable many learners' ideas to be used as resources for everyone, which we would expect to see when rigorous sensemaking is occurring [67].…”

Section: Pedagogical Sensemakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pedagogical sensemaking or “doing school”: In well-designed workshop sessions, facilitation makes the difference

Olmstead

Turpen

2017

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although physics education researchers often use workshops to promote instructional change in higher education, little research has been done to investigate workshop design. Initial evidence suggests that many workshop sessions focus primarily on raising faculty's awareness of research-based instructional strategies, a fairly straightforward goal that has been largely met. However, increasing faculty's awareness of existing strategies alone has somewhat limited benefits. We argue that workshop leaders should also aim to cultivate faculty's ability and motivation to engage in pedagogical sensemaking, i.e., the pursuit of robust pedagogical logic based on observations and interpretations of classroom events. This goal is likely more challenging to achieve, and thus presents a greater need for research. In this paper, we pursue in situ, qualitative analysis of two parallel workshop sessions that seem to have the potential to support ambitious outcomes. We demonstrate how faculty may engage in aspects of pedagogical sensemaking, such as using observations of student behavior to support their arguments. We also show how faculty may instead seem to engage in interactions reminiscent of students "doing school," such as evaluating instruction based on "correctness" alone. We also show how differences in workshop facilitation seemed to contribute to faculty engaging in pedagogical sensemaking in one session only. These differences include (i) strictly enforcing session rules versus gently navigating faculty's incoming expectations, (ii) highlighting the workshop leaders' expertise versus working to minimize power differentials, and (iii) emphasizing the benefits of adoption of a prescribed strategy versus encouraging faculty to reason about possible adaptations. We consider the implications of this analysis for future research and workshop design.

show abstract

“…In this paper, we focus on the embodiment and evaluation of our progress toward three teaching goals: 1) for LAs to develop deep disciplinary knowledge of the engineering design process and design thinking, 2) for LAs to recognize and value a breadth of positive outcomes beyond content learning and 3) to create space for LAs to be able to share and process problems of practice that educators encounter, for the purpose of honing their skills in noticing and attending to student ideas. 29 We describe our implementation of seminar activities that supported these goals, and then use LAs' written responses and videotapes of the seminar to analyze how these activities impacted LAs' recounted instructional practices. One limitation of this work is that we primarily draw on data from written work and Pedagogy Seminar interactions, rather than actual observations of LAs' instruction.…”

Section: Analytical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing a Course for Peer Educators in Undergraduate Engineering Design Courses

Quan

Turpen

Gupta

et al.

2017 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

designing and researching contexts for learning within higher education. In her research, Chandra draws from the perspectives of anthropology, cultural psychology, and the learning sciences. Through in-situ studies of classroom and institutional practice, Chandra focuses on the role of culture in science learning and educational change. Chandra pursues projects that have high potential for leveraging sustainable change in undergraduate STEM programs and makes these struggles for change a direct focus of her research efforts. Dr. Ayush Gupta, University of Maryland, College ParkAyush Gupta is Assistant Research Professor in Physics and Keystone Instructor in the A. J. Clark School of Engineering at the University of Maryland. Broadly speaking he is interested in modeling learning and reasoning processes. In particular, he is attracted to fine-grained analysis of video data both from a microgenetic learning analysis methodology (drawing on knowledge in pieces) as well as interaction analysis methodology. He has been working on how learners' emotions are coupled with their conceptual and epistemological reasoning. He is also interested in developing models of the dynamics of categorizations (ontologies) underlying students' reasoning in physics. Lately, he has been interested in engineering design thinking, how engineering students come to understand and practice design. Ms. Emilia Dewi Tanu, University of Maryland, College ParkEmilia Tanu is a recent graduate of the Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering program at the University of Maryland, College Park. She has collaborated with members of UMD's Physics Education and Engineering Education Research Groups, and researchers at Olin College of Engineering. While at UMD, she was the co-chair of the Women in Engineering Student Advisory Board and a student ambassador for the Clark School of Engineering. Emilia is currently working in industry, and hopes to eventually pursue graduate studies in Engineering Education. Her research interests include emotion in design and empathetic classroom practices. While LA programs were initially developed for science and math courses, many LA programs support LAs in a wide range of disciplines. This paper describes a pilot adaptation of the LA program for engineering design courses that we have developed at the University of Maryland, College Park Campus. All LAs assist in 14 separate sections of University of Maryland's engineering design course for first-year undergraduate students. Our seminar integrates topics from the discipline-general LA pedagogy seminar (cognitive science of learning, facilitation of classroom discourse, collaboration, metacognition) with topics especially relevant to engineering design (design reviews, design thinking, expert-novice practices in engineering design, engineering epistemology, teamwork and equity). While seminar goals aligned with the goals of LA programs nationally, our seminar design team also articulated several values which guided the design of our seminar: a) helping LAs reframe their ro...

show abstract

Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics

Cited by 121 publications

References 0 publications

Noticing, Assessing, and Responding to Students' Engineering: Exploring a Responsive Teaching Approach to Engineering Design

Noticing, Assessing, and Responding to Students' Engineering: Exploring a Responsive Teaching Approach to Engineering Design

Pedagogical sensemaking or “doing school”: In well-designed workshop sessions, facilitation makes the difference

Designing a Course for Peer Educators in Undergraduate Engineering Design Courses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About