Abstract
The work of supporting students’ engagement in modeling is complex. Increased attention is needed for understanding the role of teachers in positioning students as epistemic agents and their ideas as resources for sensemaking within these learning environments. The focus of this chapter is on redirection, a methodological construct that teachers can use in MBL environments to support sensemaking with students’ ideas. Responsive teaching, a central priority of redirection, supports teachers as an approach for taking up and foregrounding students’ ideas so the anchoring practice of modeling in the modeling-based learning environment remains focused on the refinement of students’ ideas. In this chapter we provide a conceptual framework for thinking about modeling-based learning environments and their importance in the current context of science education, outline the theoretical perspectives of modeling competence and its connection to responsive instruction and redirection and provide an explication of the methodology used to examine redirection as a responsive methodological construct. Our findings from close examination of one high school physics classroom suggest redirection can be an important methodological construct for foregrounding ideas to help set the stage for agentic student pursuits, helping them navigate investigations and pressing them for evidence-based explanations. Different types of redirection were also found to align with different stages in the Ambitious Science Teaching framework.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ambitious Science Teaching. (2014a). Teaching practice set: Eliciting students’ ideas and adapting instruction. http://uwcoeast.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Primer-Eliciting-Students-Ideas.pdf
Ambitious Science Teaching. (2014b). Teaching practice set: Supporting on-going changes in student thinking. http://uwcoeast.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Primer-Supporting-Changes-in-Thinking.pdf
Ambitious Science Teaching. (2014c). Teaching practice set: Pressing for evidence based explanations.http://uwcoeast.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Primer-Pressing-for-Explanations.pdf
Campbell, T., & Neilson, D. (2009). Student ideas and inquiries: Investigating friction in the physics classroom. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 46(1), 13–16.
Campbell, T., & Neilson, D. (2012). Modeling electricity: Model-based inquiry with demonstrations and investigations. The Physics Teacher, 50, 347–350.
Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., & Neilson, D. (2012). Discursive modes and their pedagogical functions in model-based inquiry (MBI) classrooms. International Journal of Science Education., 34(15), 2393–2419.
Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., & Neilson, D. (2013). Reification of five types of modeling pedagogies with model-based inquiry (MBI) modules for high school science classrooms. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Approaches and strategies in next generation science learning (pp. 106–126). Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2809-0.ch006
Campbell, T., Zhang, D., & Neilson, D. (2011). Model based inquiry in the high school physics classroom: An exploratory study of implementation and outcomes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 258–269.
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, 1109–1136.
Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147–177.
Ford, M. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.
Ford, M. J. (2005). The game, the pieces, and the players: Generative resources from alternative instructional portrayals of experimentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 449–487.
Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gouvea, J., & Passmore, C. (2017). Models of’ versus ‘models for’. Science & Education, 26(1–2), 49–63.
Griesemer, D., Lo, A. S., Guy, C. R., Harris, E., & Passmore, C. (2016). Successes and challenges in promoting student sense making in modeling classrooms. In C. Passmore (Chair) related paper set Epistemic framing and agency modeling classrooms conducted at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3, 1), 1–1),25.
Khan, S. (2011). What’s missing in model-based teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 535–560.
Klieme, Hartig, & Rauch. (2008). The concept of competence in educational contexts. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (pp. 3–22). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Koeppen, K., Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (2008). Current issues in competence modelling and assessment. Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 216, 60–72.
Krajcik, J. (2015). Three-dimensional instruction: Using a new type of teaching in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 83(8), 50–52.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, 6th. ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lineback, J. E. (2015). The redirection: An Indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 419–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.930707
Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471–492.
Manz, E. (2015). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 553–590.
Manz, E., & Renga, I. P. (2017). Understanding how teachers guide evidence construction conversations. Science Education, 101, 584–615.
Melville, W., Jones, D., & Campbell, T. (2017, September). Building the science department. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM]. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities creating supportive contexts. Committee on strengthening science education and teacher advisory council, division of behavioral and social science education. National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science standards: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy of the Sciences.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Passmore, C., Gouvea, J. S., & Giere, R. (2014). Models in science and in learning science: Focusing scientific practice on sense-making. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1171–1202). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reiser, B. J. (2013). What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the next generation science standards? Paper presented at the Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment, ETS, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/reiser.pdf
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291.
Rouse, J., (2007). Practice theory. Division I Faculty Publications (Paper 43). Retrieved from http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/div1facpubs/43
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84.
Sandoval, W. A. (2015). Epistemic goals. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 393–398). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.
Schwarz, C., Calabrese Barton, A., Tzou, C. T., Colley, C., Warren, B., … Haverly, C. (2016). Science learning contexts, characteristics, and activities. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 475–491.
Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In S. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 515–565). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
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.
Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing “science practice” in learning settings. Science Education, 99(6), 1033–1040.
Stroupe, D., & Windschitl, M. (2015). Supporting ambitious instruction by beginning teachers with specialized tools and practices. In J. Luft & S. Dubois (Eds.), Newly hired teachers of science: A better beginning (pp. 181–196). Amsterdam: Sense Publisher.
Thompson, T., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Braaten, M., Colley, C., et al. (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(5), 1–58.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Campbell, T., McKenna, T.J., An, J., Rodriguez, L. (2019). A Responsive Methodological Construct for Supporting Learners’ Developing Modeling Competence in Modeling-Based Learning Environments. In: Upmeier zu Belzen, A., Krüger, D., van Driel, J. (eds) Towards a Competence-Based View on Models and Modeling in Science Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30255-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30255-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30254-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30255-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)