Options
Identifying a teacher’s pedagogical moves during assessment and refinement of students’ scientific models
Author
Tay, Su Lynn
Supervisor
Yeo, Jennifer Ai Choo
Abstract
The objective of this study is to identify the pedagogical moves that are utilized by a teacher during the assessment and refinement phases of model-based inquiry, and their functions. It addresses the challenges teachers face in supporting students’ construction of models during model-based inquiry. Model-based inquiry is an important instructional approach in the learning of science. Through engaging in model-based inquiry, students can develop in their knowledge of models, conceptual understanding, reasoning abilities as well as participate in the practices of scientists. However, students’ constructed models tend to deviate from standard scientific models and they do not engage in deep conceptual talk about models. The assessment and refinement phases of model-based inquiry are thus essential stages of instruction whereby a teacher can support students in developing their knowledge and skills of constructing models.
Through a case study approach, the lesson conducted by a junior college physics teacher who had experience in model-based inquiry was explored. Audio and video recordings of the lesson contributed to the data sources and were transcribed for further analysis. Through a grounded approach, eight pedagogical moves enacted by the teacher were identified, namely “clarification”, “evaluation”, “explanation”, “modification”, “exploration”, “referencing conventions”, “focusing” and “meta-representing".
Each of these moves serves different functions which allowed a teacher to assess and to support refinement of models. “Clarification” helped the teacher determine students’ understanding of the task requirement or understand the features of students’ models. “Evaluation” of students’ models involved four aspects of models - “adequacy”, “completeness”, “adherence to conventions”, and “coherence” of students’ models, which helped to engage students in substantial conceptual talk and deepen their knowledge of models. For “explanation”, the teacher would request students to justify and substantiate their ideas or models. This allowed the teacher to check on students’ conceptual understanding of the phenomenon. Through “modification”, the teacher facilitated students in refining their models so that their models would achieve greater clarity and become more aligned with scientific models. Enacting “exploration” allowed the teacher to address any alternative ideas that surfaced, and to explore the phenomena in greater depth. “Referencing Conventions” was used to prompt the students to recall the conventions associated with the model which might deepen students’ knowledge of models. In a model with many different features, the teacher enacted “focusing” to direct students’ attention to specific features or parts of students’ models. “Meta-representing” was enacted by the teacher to facilitate the discussion of the relationship between different features in students’ models.
This study may add to current literature on model-based inquiry as it showcases the role of the teacher and the process undertaken to facilitate assessment and refinement of students’ models. These pedagogical moves are not exhaustive as the study only looks at one teacher. However, it provides a starting point as to what a teacher can do to develop students’ competency in modelling.
Through a case study approach, the lesson conducted by a junior college physics teacher who had experience in model-based inquiry was explored. Audio and video recordings of the lesson contributed to the data sources and were transcribed for further analysis. Through a grounded approach, eight pedagogical moves enacted by the teacher were identified, namely “clarification”, “evaluation”, “explanation”, “modification”, “exploration”, “referencing conventions”, “focusing” and “meta-representing".
Each of these moves serves different functions which allowed a teacher to assess and to support refinement of models. “Clarification” helped the teacher determine students’ understanding of the task requirement or understand the features of students’ models. “Evaluation” of students’ models involved four aspects of models - “adequacy”, “completeness”, “adherence to conventions”, and “coherence” of students’ models, which helped to engage students in substantial conceptual talk and deepen their knowledge of models. For “explanation”, the teacher would request students to justify and substantiate their ideas or models. This allowed the teacher to check on students’ conceptual understanding of the phenomenon. Through “modification”, the teacher facilitated students in refining their models so that their models would achieve greater clarity and become more aligned with scientific models. Enacting “exploration” allowed the teacher to address any alternative ideas that surfaced, and to explore the phenomena in greater depth. “Referencing Conventions” was used to prompt the students to recall the conventions associated with the model which might deepen students’ knowledge of models. In a model with many different features, the teacher enacted “focusing” to direct students’ attention to specific features or parts of students’ models. “Meta-representing” was enacted by the teacher to facilitate the discussion of the relationship between different features in students’ models.
This study may add to current literature on model-based inquiry as it showcases the role of the teacher and the process undertaken to facilitate assessment and refinement of students’ models. These pedagogical moves are not exhaustive as the study only looks at one teacher. However, it provides a starting point as to what a teacher can do to develop students’ competency in modelling.
Date Issued
2014
Call Number
Q181 Tan
Date Submitted
2014