Investigating the impact of eliciting and being responsive to students' initial ideas on productive disciplinary engagement across a unit

Abstract

In this study, we examined the ways in which two middle school science teachers elicited and were responsive to students' initial science ideas for explaining an anchoring phenomenon while teaching the same model‐based learning unit focused on plate tectonics. Data sources included student models, classroom video, and classroom artifacts. Our analysis revealed a connection between the elicitation of initial ideas, teacher responsiveness to those ideas, and the continued use of those ideas by the students across the unit as evidenced in their individually constructed models. In both classrooms, variation in initial ideas seen on the first day narrowed as students engaged in activities designed to challenge their ideas and present the scientifically accepted explanation of the phenomenon. In one classroom, however, far more ideas were surfaced early, and those ideas were utilized by students as they made sense of the phenomenon. In the other classroom, far fewer ideas were surfaced early and those that were all but disappeared once the unit activities began suggesting student ideas were less likely to be utilized as a sense‐making resource. This study contributes to a growing understanding of the importance of eliciting and responding to students' initial ideas in students' productive disciplinary engagement across an instructional unit.

Why most definitions of modeling competence in science education fall short: Analyzing the relevance of volition for modeling

“…Concerning modeling, the motivational aspect might be connected to the diffidence some students encounter while modeling for the first time (Han & Gutierez, 2021). However, many novices engage actively in modeling (e.g., Ammoneit et al, 2023;Gray et al, 2022).…”

“…Concerning modeling, the motivational aspect might be connected to the diffidence some students encounter while modeling for the first time (Han & Gutierez, 2021). However, many novices engage actively in modeling (e.g., Ammoneit et al, 2023; Gray et al, 2022). Nonetheless, students (Pierson et al, 2017) and preservice teachers (Göhner et al, 2022; Göhner & Krell, 2022) generally do not reach high levels of modeling competence.…”

Talk moves as pedagogical tools for eliciting and working with student ideas in an undergraduate general biology laboratory

“…In order for the classroom community to draw on individual student resources, thinking has to be made visible to others (Danish & Enyedy, 2007; Gray et al, 2022; Linn & Hsi, 2000; Radinsky et al, 2010). While some of these resources can be useful in guiding student learning, some may be problematic.…”

“…While some of these resources can be useful in guiding student learning, some may be problematic. The literature suggests that if educators do not take the time to understand and be responsive to the resources students bring to the classroom, students will continue to use their resources to form science knowledge of their own (Gray et al, 2022; Windschitl et al, 2018). It seems logical then for educators to cultivate their eliciting practice to reveal students' existing ideas and their ways of reasoning about scientific phenomena.…”

“…We know when K‐12 teachers elicit student ideas using open‐ended questions that require student reasoning and explanations, students are more likely to not only participate, but also to explain and reflect on their answers (Gray et al, 2022; McNeill & Pimentel, 2010; Oliveira, 2010). When it comes to how instructors use talk moves at the postsecondary level, we find less evidence, suggesting a need for further studies within higher education contexts.…”