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

IF 5.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-05-24 DOI:10.1177/20965311241256364
Y. Soysal
{"title":"Distinguishing Intuitive and Deliberative Reasoning Regarding Different Aspects of Science Classroom Discourse","authors":"Y. Soysal","doi":"10.1177/20965311241256364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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. 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. 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. 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.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"11 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241256364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
就科学课堂话语的不同方面区分直觉推理和慎思推理
本研究旨在确定科学教师的直觉推理与研究人员对科学课堂话语各方面的系统分析之间的距离。一位化名为 Jake 的科学专家教师对课堂讨论的不同方面进行了自我反思,以评估教师的直觉估计与研究人员基于数据的推理之间的异同。数据收集包括深度访谈和录像。研究人员考虑了科学课堂讨论的六个方面,以阐明两者之间的距离:结构、互动模式、语言顺序、类型、认知需求和交际方法。杰克对科学课堂话语六个方面的估计与系统观察之间的量化距离在所观察的科学课的不同方面有所不同。虽然没有观察到一致的距离模式,但科学课堂话语的不同方面之间的差距有增有减。考虑到当代关于人类认知和科学教师专业发展的争论,我们探讨了造成这些差异的潜在原因。研究还提出了一些教育建议,特别是关于支持科学教师成为反思探究者或研究型教师的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊介绍: ACS Applied Bio Materials is an interdisciplinary journal publishing original research covering all aspects of biomaterials and biointerfaces including and beyond the traditional biosensing, biomedical and therapeutic applications. The journal is devoted to reports of new and original experimental and theoretical research of an applied nature that integrates knowledge in the areas of materials, engineering, physics, bioscience, and chemistry into important bio applications. The journal is specifically interested in work that addresses the relationship between structure and function and assesses the stability and degradation of materials under relevant environmental and biological conditions.
期刊最新文献
Multiresponsive β-Cyclodextrin-Modified Hyaluronic Acid Hydrogel Loaded with Cu-Zn Nanozymes for Accelerated Diabetic Wound Healing. Resveratrol-Engineered Modified Chitosan-PVP-AgNP Composite Hydrogel Patch: A Potential Antibacterial and Antioxidant Biomaterial for Infected Wound Healing. Heterogeneous "Battery-Bulb" Coupling: Energy Transfer Mechanism from ZnGa2O4:Mn2+ → La2MgTiO6:Er3+ and NIR-IIb Afterglow Imaging. Leuckart Reaction-Assisted Amine-Functionalized Reduced Graphene Oxide as an Electrochemical Immunosensing Platform for Cancer Biomarker Detection. Nanocomplex-Integrated Multifunctional Hydrogel for Fast-Tracked Wound Repair Application: A Preclinical Evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1