Distinguishing Intuitive and Deliberative Reasoning Regarding Different Aspects of Science Classroom Discourse

被引:0
作者
Soysal, Yilmaz [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Istanbul Aydin Univ, Istanbul, Turkiye
[2] Istanbul Aydin Univ, Fac Educ, Dept Elementary Educ, Besyol Mah Inonu Cad 38, Istanbul, Turkiye
关键词
Deliberate reasoning; intuitive thinking; reflection; science classroom discourse; systematic observations; PROFESSIONAL VISION; TEACHERS; TALK; PRESERVICE; STUDENTS; ELEMENT; MOVES;
D O I
10.1177/20965311241256364
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Purpose The current study aimed to identify the distances between a science teacher's intuitive reasoning and researchers' systematic analysis of various aspects of science classroom discourse. An expert science teacher, given the pseudonym Jake, engaged in self-reflective processes regarding different aspects of classroom discussions to assess the variations and similarities between the teacher's intuitive estimations and the researchers' data-based reasoning.Design/Approach/Methods Data collection involved in-depth interviews and video recording. Six aspects of science classroom discourse were considered to elucidate the distances: structure, interactional pattern, verbal sequence, typology, cognitive demand, and communicative approaches.Findings The quantitative distances between Jake's estimations and systematic observations of the six aspects of science classroom discourse varied across different aspects of the observed science lesson. While no consistent pattern was observed in the distances, there were increasing and decreasing gaps between the different aspects of science classroom discourse.Originality/Value Considering the contemporary arguments on human cognition and the professional development of science teachers, potential reasons for the differences were explored. Educational recommendations were provided, particularly regarding supporting science teachers' journey toward becoming reflective inquirers or researcher-teachers.
引用
收藏
页数:37
相关论文
共 71 条
  • [21] Harteis C., 2008, US CHINA ED REV, V5, P68
  • [22] Professional Competence and Intuitive Decision Making: A Simulation Study in the Domain of Emergency Medicine
    Harteis, Christian
    Morgenthaler, Barbara
    Kugler, Christine
    Ittner, Karl-Peter
    Roth, Gabriel
    Graf, Bernhard
    [J]. VOCATIONS AND LEARNING, 2012, 5 (02) : 119 - 136
  • [23] Coding classroom dialogue: Methodological considerations for researchers
    Hennessy, Sara
    Howe, Christine
    Mercer, Neil
    Vrikki, Maria
    [J]. LEARNING CULTURE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION, 2020, 25
  • [24] Multiple initiatives, multiple challenges: The promise and pitfalls of implementing data
    Hubbard, Lea
    Datnow, Amanda
    Pruyn, Laura
    [J]. STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION, 2014, 42 : 54 - 62
  • [25] Kahneman D., 2011, Thinking, fast and slow, DOI [10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.003, DOI 10.1016/J.STUEDUC.2013.10.003]
  • [26] How Do Chemistry Teachers Deal with Students' Incorrect/Undesired Responses to Oral Classroom Questions? Exploring Effective Feedback Practices
    Kayima, Festo
    Mkimbili, Selina Thomas
    [J]. RESEARCH IN SCIENCE EDUCATION, 2021, 51 (SUPPL 2) : 647 - 668
  • [27] Exploring the Situational Adequacy of Teacher Questions in Science Classrooms
    Kayima, Festo
    Jakobsen, Arne
    [J]. RESEARCH IN SCIENCE EDUCATION, 2020, 50 (02) : 437 - 467
  • [28] Key issues in productive classroom talk and interventions
    Khong, Thi Diem Hang
    Saito, Eisuke
    Gillies, Robyn M.
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 2019, 71 (03) : 334 - 349
  • [29] What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk
    Kim, Min-Young
    Wilkinson, Ian A. G.
    [J]. LEARNING CULTURE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION, 2019, 21 : 70 - 86
  • [30] Teacher noticing: A systematic literature review of conceptualizations, research designs, and findings on learning to notice
    Koenig, Johannes
    Santagata, Rossella
    Scheiner, Thorsten
    Adleff, Ann-Kristin
    Yang, Xinrong
    Kaiser, Gabriele
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REVIEW, 2022, 36