Exploring the Complexity of Adaptive Teaching Expertise within Knowledge Generation Environments
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Instructional Practice System (Visible layer): This initial layer encompasses observable actions directly managed by teachers. It pertains to the tangible instructional activities and actions exhibited by teachers in the classroom. This layer is the one that is traditional examined by researchers.
- (2)
- Epistemic Tool System (Semi-visible layer): Situated just beneath the surface, this layer involves the language, dialogue, and argumentation framed and utilized by teachers. These tools are pivotal for fostering effective communication, stimulating critical thinking, and facilitating meaningful interactions within the science classroom. They are essential for implementing knowledge generation approaches such as Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) that align with the NGSS [20]. The utilization of these tools is often partially visible as they are intricately intertwined with epistemic practices. These tools are generally examined in isolation from each other.
- (3)
- Orientations System (Invisible layer): This third layer operates at a deeper level, encompassing unspoken beliefs and orientations towards learning that are embedded through teachers’ actions. In our framework, it encompasses three philosophical orientations to learning: the epistemological, ontological, and axiological orientations. These orientations encompass a broad spectrum of beliefs regarding instructional approaches and serve as a lens through which we can scrutinize the principles and assumptions that underpin teachers’ pedagogical approaches and decision-making processes [21,22].
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Development of Adaptive Teaching Expertise (AdTex)
2.2. Philosophical Orientations to Learning: Epistemological, Ontological, and Axiological
2.3. Epistemic Tools for Learning Science: Language, Dialogue, and Argument
2.3.1. Language
2.3.2. Dialogue
2.3.3. Argument
2.4. Summary
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Context and Participants
3.2. Data Collection Procedure
3.2.1. Vignettes
3.2.2. Written Reflections
3.2.3. Interviews
3.2.4. Classroom Videos
3.3. Data Analysis
3.3.1. Creating Two-Dimensional Teacher Profiles
3.3.2. Creating Complexity Maps
3.3.3. Comparison of Complexity Maps across Different Teacher Profiles
3.3.4. Power and Agency Analysis
Codes | A Score of 1 (toward Formality) | A Score of 5 (toward Informality) | Justification of the Code | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Language | Trelax | Body language includes stiff posture and little movement. Absence of laughter or pronounced facial expressions. | Body language includes fluid posture and frequent movement. May laugh other emotive sounds. Facial expressions tend to be pronounced. | Non-authoritarian body language can help students feel less anxious about being corrected by authority figures [87]. |
Tvocab | Nearly all speech utterances use discipline-specific vocabulary words in the science classroom. | No use of discipline-specific vocabulary words in the science classroom, such as igneous, solute, etc. | Vocabulary choices reflect the speaker’s power expression and their perception of their listeners’ relative power [87]. | |
Tslow | Teacher speaks artificially slowly during science, relative to outside interactions. | Speech maintains normal to quick conversational tempo during science, relative to outside interactions. | Slow tempo speech indicates linguistic formality [89]. | |
Tlow | Tone of the teacher’s voice becomes artificially low during science, relative to outside interactions. | Tone of the teacher’s voice remains normal to artificially high during science, relative to outside interactions. | Low-tone speech indicates linguistic formality [89]. | |
Dialogue | Tfluid | All student speech is preceded by formal request, such as hand-raising or being called upon. | All members of the classroom speak freely via natural conversational turns, interjection, or interruption. | To promote meaningful dialogue, it is crucial that every individual in the classroom has equal access and power, enabling them to freely express their ideas [87]. |
Tsumm | Teacher does not summarize students’ speech before adding their own input to the dialog. | Teacher nearly always summarizes students’ conversational contributions before adding their own input to the dialog. | Speech summarization assists students in internalizing and contextualizing the thoughts of others [87]. | |
Tss | Teacher does not promote extended sequences of student–student talk. | Teacher consistently promotes extended sequences of student–student talk. | Conversational turns of student–student talk can provide evidence for meaningful dialogue in the classroom [90]. | |
Tfreq | Conversational turns in the classroom are rare. Most speech consists of teacher lecturing. | Conversational turns in the classroom are very common. Teacher does not lecture. Most speech is dialogical. | The frequency of dialogue interchange can serve as a measure of the quality of the dialog [87]. | |
Argument | Tquest | No use of open-ended questioning to promote student reasoning. | Teacher consistently uses open-ended questioning to promote student reasoning. | Teachers employ questioning as a primary approach to foster generative learning, as it prompts students to generate ideas through reasoning [91,92] |
Targ | Teacher does not encourage students to critique, support, and defend their ideas in an argumentation. | Teacher consistently encourages students to critique, support, and defend their ideas in an argumentation. | Engaging in argumentative discourse offers students a meaningful opportunity to assert their agency and demonstrate their power within the classroom [87]. | |
Tcomm | Teacher does not participate in learning community during negotiation (expresses “I” or “you” rather than “we”). | Teacher consistently positions themselves as a part of learning community during negotiation (expresses “we” rather than “I” or “you”). | It is crucial for teachers to shift their focus towards considering students as subjects rather than objects, thereby creating an environment where students can express their power [61]. | |
Tprior | Teacher does not integrate what students have learned previously into the concepts discussed. | Teacher consistently integrates what students have learned previously into the concepts discussed. | Learning can be defined as the process of generating knowledge that occurs when learners establish abstract and distinct connections between their prior experiences [93]. |
4. Results
4.1. Patterns in Complexity Maps among Teachers from Different Profiles
4.2. The Relationship between Complexity Maps and Visible Utilization of Epistemic Tools
4.2.1. Rose’s Case
- Teacher: What if a question is testable?
- Student: You can make an experiment.
- Teacher: That is exactly what I hope to get into today. What I gonna do, what we gonna do, if you are all in, if you want to try an experiment today. What we are going to do, today we are going to test the question we came up.
4.2.2. June’s Case
4.2.3. Alex’s Case
5. Discussion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kawasaki, J.; Sandoval, W.A. The role of teacher framing in producing coherent NGSS-aligned teaching. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2019, 30, 906–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammerness, K.M.; Darling-Hammond, L.; Bransford, J.; Grossman, P.; Rust, F.O. How teachers learn and develop. In Preparing Teachers for A Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do; Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 358–389. [Google Scholar]
- Guerriero, S. (Ed.) Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Pellegrino, J.W. Assessment of science learning: Living in interesting times. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 831–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ainley, J.; Luntley, M. The role of attention in expert classroom practice. J. Math. Teach. Educ. 2007, 10, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norris, S.P.; Phillips, L.M. How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Sci. Educ. 2003, 87, 224–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duschl, R. Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Rev. Res. Educ. 2008, 32, 268–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, G.J. Discourse practices in science learning and teaching. In Handbook of Research on Science Education; Lederman, N.G., Abell, S.K., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2014; Volume 2, pp. 321–336. [Google Scholar]
- Suh, J.K.; Hand, B.; Dursun, J.E.; Lammert, C.; Fulmer, G. Characterizing adaptive teaching expertise: Teacher profiles based on epistemic orientation and knowledge of epistemic tools. Sci. Educ. 2023, 107, 884–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berliner, D.C. Expertise: The wonders of exemplary performance. In Creating Powerful Thinking in Teachers and Students; Mangieri, J., Block, C.C., Eds.; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: Fort Worth, TX, USA, 1994; pp. 141–186. [Google Scholar]
- Schön, D.A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action; Routledge: London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Allen, M.H.; Matthews, C.E.; Parsons, S.A. A second-grade teacher’s adaptive teaching during an integrated science-literacy unit. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2013, 35, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beltramo, J.L. Developing adaptive teaching practices through participation in cogenerative dialogues. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2017, 63, 326–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fairbanks, C.M.; Duffy, G.G.; Faircloth, B.S.; He, Y.; Levin, B.; Rohr, J.; Stein, C. Beyond knowledge: Exploring why some teachers are more thoughtfully adaptive than others. J. Teach. Educ. 2010, 61, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opfer, V.D.; Pedder, D. Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 2011, 81, 376–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jörg, T.; Davis, B.; Nickmans, G. Towards a new, complexity science of learning and education. Educ. Res. Rev. 2007, 2, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cochran-Smith, M.; Ell, F.; Ludlow, L.; Grudnoff, L.; Aitken, G. The challenge and promise of complexity theory for teacher education research. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2014, 116, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jörg, T.; Davis, B.; Nickmans, G. About the outdated Newtonian paradigm in education and a complexity science of learning: How far are we from a paradigm shift. Educ. Res. Rev. 2008, 3, 77–100. [Google Scholar]
- Keys, C.W.; Hand, B.; Prain, V.; Collins, S. Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999, 36, 1065–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahin, E.; Suh, J.K.; Hand, B.; Fulmer, G. Unpacking teachers’ orientations toward a knowledge generation approach: Do we need to go beyond epistemology? Teach. Teach. Educ. 2023, 132, 104264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biesta, G.J. Why ‘what works’ still won’t work: From evidence-based education to value-based education. Stud. Philos. Educ. 2010, 29, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strom, K.J.; Martin, A.D. Becoming-Teacher: A Rhizomatic Look at First-Year Teaching; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, D. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction; Routledge: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Cilliers, P. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems; Routledge: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Mulvey, B.K.; Chiu, J.L.; Ghosh, R.; Bell, R.L. Special education teachers’ nature of science instructional experiences. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2016, 53, 554–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lampert, M.; Franke, M.L.; Kazemi, E.; Ghousseini, H.; Turrou, A.C.; Beasley, H.; Cunard, A.; Crowe, K. Keeping it Complex: Using Rehearsals to Support Novice Teacher Learning of Ambitious Teaching. J. Teach. Educ. 2013, 64, 226–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osborne, J.; Dillon, J. Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections; Nuffield Foundation: London, UK, 2008; Volume 13. [Google Scholar]
- National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
- Windschitl, M.; Thompson, J.; Braaten, M. Ambitious Science Teaching; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Osborne, R.J.; Wittrock, M.C. Learning science: A generative process. Sci. Educ. 1983, 67, 489–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berland, L.K.; Hammer, D. Framing for scientific argumentation. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 68–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatano, G.; Inagaki, K. Two courses of expertise. In Child Development and Education in Japan; Stevenson, H.A.H., Hakuta, K., Eds.; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 262–272. [Google Scholar]
- Lampert, M. Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? J. Teach. Educ. 2010, 61, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carbonell, K.B.; Stalmeijer, R.E.; Könings, K.D.; Segers, M.; van Merriënboer, J.J. How experts deal with novel situations: A review of adaptive expertise. Educ. Res. Rev. 2014, 12, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timperley, H. Learning to Practice: A Paper for Discussion; The University of Auckland: Auckland, New Zealand, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Century, J.; Cassata, A. Implementation research: Finding common ground on what, how, why, where, and who. Rev. Res. Educ. 2016, 40, 169–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feucht, F.C.; Brownlee, J.; Schraw, G. Moving beyond reflection: Reflexivity and pre-service teachers’ development of professional identity. Camb. J. Educ. 2017, 47, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, N.H.; Wallace, C.S. Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Sci. Educ. 2005, 89, 140–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pajares, F. Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory Pract. 2002, 41, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, C.C. Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2002, 24, 771–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yore, L.D. What is meant by constructivist science teaching and will the science education community stay the course for meaningful reform. Electron. J. Sci. Educ. 2001, 5, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Eigenbrode, S.D.; O’rourke, M.; Wulfhorst, J.D.; Althoff, D.M.; Goldberg, C.S.; Merrill, K.; Morse, W.; Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Stephens, J.; Winowiecki, L.; et al. Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience 2007, 57, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryder, J.; Leach, J.; Driver, R. Undergraduate science students’ images of science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999, 36, 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olafson, L.; Schraw, G.; Vander Veldt, M. Consistency and development of teachers’ epistemological and ontological world views. Learn. Environ. Res. 2010, 13, 243–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarz, J.A. Digital signals and technical being. In Digital Existence: Ontology, Ethics, and Transcendence in Digital Culture; Lagerkvist, A., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 61–80. [Google Scholar]
- Suh, J.K.; Hwang, J.; Park, S.; Hand, B. Epistemic orientation toward teaching science for knowledge generation: Conceptualization and validation of the construct. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2022, 59, 1651–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofer, B.K.; Pintrich, P.R. Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing; Routledge: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Schraw, G. Conceptual integration and measurement of epistemological and ontological beliefs in educational research. ISRN Educ. 2013, 2013, 327680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, C.C.; Liang, J.C. The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instruct. Sci. 2009, 37, 293–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, M. Epistemology, epistemic belief, personal epistemology, and epistemics: A review of concepts as they impact information behavior research. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2021, 72, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lidar, M.; Lundqvist, E.; Östman, L. Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers’ epistemological moves and students’ practical epistemology. Sci. Educ. 2006, 90, 148–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sengul, O.; Enderle, P.J.; Schwartz, R.S. Science teachers’ use of argumentation instructional model: Linking PCK of argumentation, epistemological beliefs, and practice. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2020, 42, 1068–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, L.; Boscolo, P.; Tornatora, M.C.; Ronconi, L. Besides knowledge: A cross-sectional study on the relations between epistemic beliefs, achievement goals, self-beliefs, and achievement in science. Instr. Sci. 2013, 41, 49–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schommer-Aikins, M. Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educ. Psychol. 2004, 39, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansour, N. Science teachers’ views and stereotypes of religion, scientists and scientific research: A call for scientist–science teacher partnerships to promote inquiry-based learning. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 37, 1767–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schraw, G.; Olafson, L. Assessing teachers’ beliefs: Challenges and solutions. In International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs; Fives, H., Gill, M.G., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 87–105. [Google Scholar]
- Vygotsky, L.S.; Cole, M. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Wenger, E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Wenger-Trayner, E.; Fenton-O’Creevy, M.; Hutchinson, S.; Kubiak, C.; Wenger-Trayner, B. Learning in Landscapes of Practice: Boundaries, Identity, and Knowledgeability in Practice-Based Learning; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Biesta, G. On the two cultures of educational research, and how we might move ahead: Reconsidering the ontology, axiology and praxeology of education. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 2015, 14, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darling-Hammond, L.; Hyler, M.E.; Gardner, M. Effective Teacher Professional Development; Learning Policy Institute: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Yoon, H.G.; Kim, M.; Lee, E.A. Visual representation construction for collective reasoning in elementary science classrooms. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furtak, E.M.; Seidel, T.; Iverson, H.; Briggs, D.C. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2012, 82, 300–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulholland, J.; Wallace, J. Teacher Induction and Elementary Science Teaching: Enhancing Self-Efficacy. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2001, 17, 243–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toulmin, S.E. The Uses of Argument; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Yore, L.D.; Treagust, D.F. Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—Empowering research and informing instruction. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2006, 28, 291–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNeill, K.L.; Katsh-Singer, R.; González-Howard, M.; Loper, S. Factors impacting teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2016, 38, 2026–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hand, B.; Cavagnetto, A.; Norton-Meier, L. Immersive approaches to science argumentation and literacy: What does it mean to “Live” the languages of science? In Theorizing the Future Of Science Education Research; Prain, V., Hand, B., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 99–113. [Google Scholar]
- Mercer, N. The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 79, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aleixandre, M.P.J.; Crujeiras, B. Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In Science Education. New Directions in Mathematics and Science Education; Taber, K.S., Akpan, B., Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 69–80. [Google Scholar]
- Mercer, N.; Littleton, K. Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach; Routledge: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Barnes, K.; Marateo, R.C.; Ferris, S.P. Teaching and learning with the net generation. Innov. J. Online Educ. 2007, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Hand, B.; Chen, Y.C.; Suh, J.K. Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on science writing heuristic approach. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 33, 535–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazarou, D.; Sutherland, R.; Erduran, S. Argumentation in science education as a systemic activity: An activity-theoretical perspective. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2016, 79, 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sampson, V.; Grooms, J.; Walker, J.P. Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Sci. Educ. 2011, 95, 217–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walton, D. Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Log. 2001, 21, 141–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawson, A.E. What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2005, 42, 716–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rapanta, C. Teaching as abductive reasoning: The role of argumentation. Informal Log. 2018, 38, 293–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nussbaum, E.M. Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 46, 84–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michaels, S.; O’Connor, C.; Resnick, L.B. Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Stud. Philos. Educ. 2008, 27, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, J.P.; Sampson, V. Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2013, 50, 561–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinnott-Armstrong, W.; Fogelin, R.J. Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. In Cengage Advantage Books; Cengage Learning, Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.-C.; Park, S.; Hand, B. Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cogn. Instruc. 2016, 34, 100–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Karpov, A.O. Generative Learning in Research Education for the Knowledge Society. Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 2016, 11, 1621–1633. [Google Scholar]
- Schoerning, E.; Hand, B.; Shelley, M.; Therrien, W. Language, access, and power in the elementary science classroom. Sci. Educ. 2015, 99, 238–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McHugh, M.L. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. 2012, 22, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorham, J. The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Commun. Educ. 1988, 37, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyd, M.; Rubin, D. How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: A function of display questions. J. Lit. Res. 2006, 38, 141–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, C. Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2007, 44, 815–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- France, A. Teachers using dialogue to support science learning in the primary classroom. Res. Sci. Educ. 2021, 51, 845–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wittrock, M.C. Learning as a generative process. Educ. Psychol. 2010, 45, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, B.; Sumara, D. Fitting teacher education in/to/for an increasingly complex world. Complicity Int. J. Complex. Educ. 2012, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strom, K.J.; Viesca, K.M. Towards a complex framework of teacher learning-practice. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2021, 47, 209–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.S.; Baik, J.; Charlesworth, R. Differential effects of kindergarten teacher’s beliefs about developmentally appropriate practice on their use of scaffolding following inservice training. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2006, 22, 935–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stipek, D.J.; Byler, P. Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach? Early Child. Res. Q. 1997, 12, 305–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahin, C.; Bullock, K.; Stables, A. Teachers’ beliefs and practices in relation to their beliefs about questioning at Key Stage 2. Educ. Stud. 2002, 28, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilcox-Herzog, A. Is there a link between teachers’ beliefs and behaviors? Early Educ. Dev. 2002, 13, 81–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fives, H.; Buehl, M.M. Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Individual Differences and Cultural and Contextual Factors; Harris, K.R., Graham, S., Urdan, T., Graham, S., Royer, J.M., Zeidner, M., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; Volume 2, pp. 471–499. [Google Scholar]
- Anthony, G.; Hunter, J.; Hunter, R. Prospective teachers’ development of adaptive expertise. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2015, 49, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.; Chen, Y.C. Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 922–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Teacher | Region | Community | Years of Teaching Experience | Grade Level | Gender (F: Female, M: Male) | District Enrollment by Grade | Economically Disadvantaged Rate (All Grades) | Curriculum (N: No Restrictions, D: District Prompted) | Commitment to PD (S: School Driven, P: Personal) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lusia | Midwest | Suburban | 13 | 3 | F | 214 | 38% | N | P |
June | Southeast | Rural | 12 | 5 | F | 186 | 80% | N | P |
Teresa | Southeast | Urban | 2 | 5 | F | 835 | 45% | N | P |
Rose | Southeast | Urban | 9 | 5 | F | 835 | 45% | N | P |
Amber | Southeast | Suburban | 15 | 5 | F | 2782 | 63% | D | P |
Julie | Midwest | Rural | 13 | 4 | F | 47 | 39% | N | P |
Jordan | Midwest | Suburban | 19 | 4 | F | 57 | 45% | N | P |
Alex | Midwest | Urban | 2 | 4 | M | 79 | 44% | N | P |
Khloe | Midwest | Suburban | 1 | 4 | F | 57 | 45% | N | P |
Kennedy | Midwest | Rural | 8 | 5 | M | 35 | 41% | N | P |
Sophia | Southeast | Urban | 26 | 4 | F | 797 | 45% | D | P |
Connections | Example Statements |
---|---|
OL-LAN | “Summary writing is a great tool to use when trying to see a student’s understanding of a concept. It allows students a chance to really share what they have learned and not just what they can memorize for a test” (Amber, Reflection Data) |
OL-DIA | “Then, ask students to pose questions. These student questions will guide the unit of study. You will also have a chance to support classroom climate by ensuring every student has a voice” (Rose, Vignette Data) |
OL-ARG | “Try to stay out of the negotiation process as much as possible to allow for student engagement” (Teresa, Vignette Data) |
LAN-DIA | “Dialogical interaction is the dialog between student–teacher or student–student. It can include written or spoken language” (Lusia, Reflection Data) |
LAN-ARG | “I can see where it is best to allow students to negotiate their own interpretation of language based on their own resources” (June, Reflection Data) |
DIA-ARG | “Everyone should be able to have a chance to speak without being interrupted. Kevin may have to work on how students should interact in small-groups during conversations. Students may not know how to carry on a discussion so he may have to explicitly explain or practice this. Perhaps Kevin could call on a group to role play different situations, like two students agree on something and one disagrees. How could the conversation happen to respect each other and still get to share their viewpoints. And lastly, Kevin should make sure to explain what argument means and let the students know we argue ideas and not people” (Jordan, Vignette Data) |
Epistemology (EPS) | An Example Connection |
---|---|
| An example connection between argument and epistemology: ”Step out of the way and let kids share their thinking. Work to not give answers, but to continue to probe with questions. After students negotiate as a whole class, allow them more individual time to connect what they just learned to what they started out knowing” (Lusia, Vignette Data) |
Axiology (AXI) | An Example Connection |
| An example connection between dialogue and axiology: “Dialogs should be a part of the entire day because it is an integral part of student learning. Dialogue means for learning and so it is not limited to science class only or Fun Fridays” (Rose, Vignette Data) |
Ontology (ONT) | An Example Connection |
| An example connection between language and ontology: “She needs to make this use of language as fluent as possible. She needs to create the classroom environment that fosters the free exchange of language in its many forms. She also needs to give control of the language to the students. How and the steps to get there are something that I am working on” (June, Vignette Data) |
Complexity Map | Calculations |
---|---|
Total number of episodes: 25 EPS-LAN: (6/25)*100 = 24% EPS-DIA: (3/25)*100 = 12% EPS-ARG: (1/25)*100 = 4% ONT-LAN: (4/25)*100 = 16% ONT-DIA: (6/25)*100 = 24% ONT-ARG: (2/25)*100 = 8% AXI-LAN: (3/25)*100 = 12% AXI-DIA: (2/25)*100 = 8% AXI-ARG: No connections LAN-DIA: (2/25)*100 = 8% LAN-ARG: (2/25)*100 = 8% DIA-ARG: (3/25)*100 = 12% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Suh, J.K.; Hand, B.; Ercan-Dursun, J.; Sahin, E.; Fulmer, G. Exploring the Complexity of Adaptive Teaching Expertise within Knowledge Generation Environments. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 415. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040415
Suh JK, Hand B, Ercan-Dursun J, Sahin E, Fulmer G. Exploring the Complexity of Adaptive Teaching Expertise within Knowledge Generation Environments. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(4):415. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040415
Chicago/Turabian StyleSuh, Jee Kyung, Brian Hand, Jale Ercan-Dursun, Ercin Sahin, and Gavin Fulmer. 2024. "Exploring the Complexity of Adaptive Teaching Expertise within Knowledge Generation Environments" Education Sciences 14, no. 4: 415. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040415