Towards a framework for effective instructional explanations in science teaching

IF 4.7 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Studies in Science Education Pub Date : 2018-07-03 DOI:10.1080/03057267.2018.1598054
Christoph Kulgemeyer
{"title":"Towards a framework for effective instructional explanations in science teaching","authors":"Christoph Kulgemeyer","doi":"10.1080/03057267.2018.1598054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Instructional explanations have sometimes been described as an ineffective way to teach science, representing a transmissive view of learning. However, science teachers frequently provide instructional explanations, and students also offer them in cooperative learning. Contrary to the transmissive view regarding explanation, studies suggest that instructional explanations might be successful if they are based on an interaction between explainers and explainees, including the diagnosis of understanding and adaptation to the explainee’s needs. The present article has three goals: (1) It will propose a framework for potentially effective instructional explanations, presenting five core ideas of what constitutes effective instructional explanations and two concerning how they should be implemented into science teaching. (2) To justify the framework, the article will review studies on the effectiveness of instructional explanations. It will identify factors that have been researched for their impact on the effectiveness of instructional explanations and discuss them for their applicability to science teaching. (3) This article will connect the research on instructional explanations with the idea of basic dimensions of instructional quality in science. It will discuss the core ideas as particular expressions of the basic dimensions of instructional quality, specifically ‘cognitive activation’ and ‘constructive support’.","PeriodicalId":49262,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03057267.2018.1598054","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2018.1598054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

ABSTRACT Instructional explanations have sometimes been described as an ineffective way to teach science, representing a transmissive view of learning. However, science teachers frequently provide instructional explanations, and students also offer them in cooperative learning. Contrary to the transmissive view regarding explanation, studies suggest that instructional explanations might be successful if they are based on an interaction between explainers and explainees, including the diagnosis of understanding and adaptation to the explainee’s needs. The present article has three goals: (1) It will propose a framework for potentially effective instructional explanations, presenting five core ideas of what constitutes effective instructional explanations and two concerning how they should be implemented into science teaching. (2) To justify the framework, the article will review studies on the effectiveness of instructional explanations. It will identify factors that have been researched for their impact on the effectiveness of instructional explanations and discuss them for their applicability to science teaching. (3) This article will connect the research on instructional explanations with the idea of basic dimensions of instructional quality in science. It will discuss the core ideas as particular expressions of the basic dimensions of instructional quality, specifically ‘cognitive activation’ and ‘constructive support’.
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
构建科学教学中有效的教学解释框架
教学解释有时被描述为一种无效的科学教学方式,代表了一种传递性的学习观。然而,科学教师经常提供教学解释,学生也在合作学习中提供。与关于解释的传递观点相反,研究表明,如果教学解释基于解释者和被解释者之间的互动,包括对理解和适应被解释者需求的诊断,那么教学解释可能是成功的。本文有三个目标:(1)提出了一个潜在有效教学解释的框架,提出了有效教学解释构成的五个核心思想,以及如何将其应用于科学教学的两个核心思想。(2) 为了证明该框架的合理性,本文将回顾关于教学解释有效性的研究。它将确定已经研究过的影响教学解释有效性的因素,并讨论它们在科学教学中的适用性。(3) 本文将把教学解释的研究与科学教学质量的基本维度联系起来。它将讨论核心思想作为教学质量基本维度的特定表达,特别是“认知激活”和“建设性支持”。
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
Studies in Science Education
Studies in Science Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
15.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The central aim of Studies in Science Education is to publish review articles of the highest quality which provide analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education. In addressing this aim, the Editor and Editorial Advisory Board, are guided by a commitment to: maintaining and developing the highest standards of scholarship associated with the journal; publishing articles from as wide a range of authors as possible, in relation both to professional background and country of origin; publishing articles which serve both to consolidate and reflect upon existing fields of study and to promote new areas for research activity. Studies in Science Education will be of interest to all those involved in science education including: science education researchers, doctoral and masters students; science teachers at elementary, high school and university levels; science education policy makers; science education curriculum developers and text book writers. Articles featured in Studies in Science Education have been made available either following invitation from the Editor or through potential contributors offering pieces. Given the substantial nature of the review articles, the Editor is willing to give informal feedback on the suitability of proposals though all contributions, whether invited or not, are subject to full peer review. A limited number of books of special interest and concern to those involved in science education are normally reviewed in each volume.
期刊最新文献
Students’ ideas about the scientific underpinnings of climate change: a systematic review of the literature Science capital as a lens for studying science aspirations – a systematic review Critical scientific and environmental literacies: a systematic and critical review Queer individuals’ experiences in STEM learning and working environments Inquiry-based chemistry education: a systematic review
×
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学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
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