Rigor and Responsiveness in Classroom Activity

• In Event: Productive Talk and Participation in Disciplinary Practices: Perspectives From Science and Mathematics Education

Abstract

Purpose
Maintaining rigorous classroom discourse in equitable ways is a worthy goal for teachers, but the concept of rigorous and responsive classroom discourse is rarely unpacked. Educators and researchers tend to operate under the notion that “we know it when we see it,” but there is no clear consensus of what rigorous and responsive discourses sound like, especially together. This mixed-method study examines differences in discourse within and across classroom episodes (warm-ups, small group conversations, whole group conversation, etc.) that elevated, or failed to elevate, students’ explanatory rigor in equitable ways.

Theoretical framework
By rigorous we mean selecting scientifically important big ideas and models (Windschitl & Thompson, 2006) and pressing students to develop rich evidence-based scientific explanations (Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). By responsive we include more than just adapting instruction to students’ ideas to account for other interdependent dimensions of responsiveness; building on students’ scientific ideas (Banks, 1995; Engle & Conant, 2002; Pierson, 2008), encouraging participation and building classroom community (Delpit, 1995; Nieto,1999; Wenger, 1998), and building cultural competence (Calabrese-Barton, 2000; Gutiérrez, et al.,1999; Ladson-Billings, 2001).

Methods
Using classroom observations we developed a 4R framework that articulates incremental differences in explanatory rigor (R1) and three dimensions of responsiveness: building on students’ science ideas (R2), attending to the learning community (R3), and developing students’ lived experiences (R4). The upper ends of our rubric consider ways in which members of the classroom community (students and teachers) are responsive to one another. For classroom data we examined the prevalence of rigor and responsiveness across different kinds of classroom episodes such as warm-ups, giving instructions, small group interactions, whole class discussions, injecting content, and closings. We also ran hierarchical linear regressions; this analysis helped identify more/less strong predictors that accounted for variance in students’ explanatory rigor.

Data sources
Data include 222 secondary science lessons, encompassing 1077 episodes, from 37 novice science teachers.

Findings
Examining these four forms of discourse within and across classroom episodes we describe how 1) focusing students’ ideas differs from funneling right ideas in small and whole group conversations, 2) repurposing warm-ups lifts the rigor throughout a lesson, 3) assessing students’ explanation development and publically reflecting on these ideas between episodes elevates rigorous discourse, and 4) being intentional about building on students’ lived experiences differs from approximating relevant examples that connect science to students’ experiences. We argue that the most sophisticated forms of rigorous discourse are only possible when students and a teacher are co-responsive to one another as valuable members in a classroom learning community. Moreover, the degree to which science ideas are treated as progressive (versus static) supports the types of opportunities students have to engage in rigorous classroom discourse.

Significance
If we are committed to a broadening vision of who can participate in science then we need to take seriously the preparation of teachers to be responsive on multiple dimensions and be accountable to multiple stakeholders. The findings challenge us to think beyond the oversimplified nurturing notions of responsiveness.

Authors

• Jessica J. Thompson, University of Washington

• Sara Hagenah, University of Washington