Learning to Teach Responsively: Assessing Progress in Practice-Based Middle-Level Science and Mathematics Teacher Education

• In Event: 54.044 - Exploring Varied Approaches to Supporting Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics

Abstract

Our line of research focuses on math and science middle school teacher candidates’ progress in learning to teach responsively. We describe our practice-based program, and present our analytical approach to explore how candidates develop an orientation to responsive teaching and basic proficiency in high-leverage practices (HLP’s) of eliciting and responding to students’ thinking.

Responsive teaching is grounded in a teacher’s framing of classroom interactions (Goffman, 1974) in a way that draws their attention to students’ thinking (Lau, 2010). It encompasses HLP’s of eliciting and responding to the substance of students’ ideas and reasoning (Authors, 2016a; Ball & Forzani, 2011). Our course sequence is practice-based in two ways: we focus on practices that represent habitual ways of acting in teaching, and we focus on practice as the means by which such practices can be developed and improved (Lampert, 2009).

We studied a group of 23 teacher candidates in our program who were all enrolled in three classes taught throughout the year. Our general approach in the courses employed practice-based pedagogies summarized by Authors (2013c). These included: modeling eliciting and responding to students’ thinking through in-class discussions about science and mathematics, watching video-recordings of similar discussions among middle school students, having candidates lead discussion among a group of computer-based “avatars” (Chini, Straub, & Thomas, 2016), and having candidates enact similar discussions in their field placements.

We take an embedded case study approach (Yin, 2011) that focuses on identifying general themes representative of the cohort, and zooming in on individual candidates to represent diversity within the group. We video-recorded all classes and logged the content of the videos to mark segments for further analysis. Recordings captured candidates’ development as they engaged in various practice-based pedagogies. We also collected and analyzed video and field notes from candidates’ internships. We developed coding schemes, based on previous research (Authors, 2008a, 2011c) and identified general themes to elucidate the candidates’ development of responsive teaching and its associated HLPs.

To highlight some of our findings, we briefly present two contrasting cases: Charles and Marcie. Both were active participants in classes. During science and mathematics discussions, Charles readily engaged other students in trying to construct understanding, while Marcie tended to think about ideas independently, and then take control of the discussion. Their interactions with the avatars, in which they practiced leading discussion, paralleled their participation in earlier discussions. Where Charles’ discussion showed evidence of his responsive teaching, Marcie took a more authoritative approach, often shifting into a traditional “triadic dialogue” (Lemke, 1990) with the avatars. Preliminary evidence of classroom teaching suggests these candidates’ practice with the avatars was consistent with their classroom teaching.

Although these cases show clear contrast, we include other cases in which candidates’ performance in the various settings was less consistent, and some cases in which candidates’ responsive practices developed progressively. We discuss emerging theories of how responsive practices develop differently for different candidates, and address disciplinary differences in responsive teaching in science and mathematics.

Authors

• Daniel M. Levin, University of Maryland - College Park

• Alexander Kammerer, University of Maryland - College Park

• Hannah Elizabeth Jardine, University of Maryland - College Park

• Janet Dawn Kim Walkoe, University of Maryland