Guidance in Providing Evidence: An In-Depth Analysis of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Instructional Designs

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Science Teacher Education Pub Date : 2022-02-28 DOI:10.1080/1046560X.2021.2018535
Deniz Sarıbaş
{"title":"Guidance in Providing Evidence: An In-Depth Analysis of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Instructional Designs","authors":"Deniz Sarıbaş","doi":"10.1080/1046560X.2021.2018535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It is necessary to foster teachers’ ability to design and implement instructions that encourage students to construct evidence and engage in argumentative discourse. The argument of this paper is that the continuous reflection and discussion as well as regular practice on instructional designs will promote pre-service science teachers’ (PSSTs’) competence to guide students in providing evidence. An in-depth analysis on PSSTs’ instructional designs provided evidence for this argument. For this purpose, this study implemented an action research (AR) in which PSSTs’ instructional designs were analyzed before and after the three-week reflection and discussion on instructions that they conducted in groups of three or four in a science education course. The author of this paper, who is also the instructor of the course, analyzed these instructional designs to identify PSSTs’ level of guidance by using the rubric that she created with expert judgment. Two other researchers and the author coded each category in the rubric independently. She scored the PSSTs’ level in each category from 1 to 3 and then calculated their total score for the design. She also made paired samples t-test on the scores of each category and in total scores to identify how the PSSTs’ instructional design guides students to use evidence before and after the continuous reflection and discussion of their instructional designs. The results suggested that integrating continuous reflection and discussion into her teaching improved PSSTs’ guidance in providing evidence. Concluding remarks will be made for the further implications of this study.","PeriodicalId":47326,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Teacher Education","volume":"34 1","pages":"24 - 43"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Science Teacher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.2018535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT It is necessary to foster teachers’ ability to design and implement instructions that encourage students to construct evidence and engage in argumentative discourse. The argument of this paper is that the continuous reflection and discussion as well as regular practice on instructional designs will promote pre-service science teachers’ (PSSTs’) competence to guide students in providing evidence. An in-depth analysis on PSSTs’ instructional designs provided evidence for this argument. For this purpose, this study implemented an action research (AR) in which PSSTs’ instructional designs were analyzed before and after the three-week reflection and discussion on instructions that they conducted in groups of three or four in a science education course. The author of this paper, who is also the instructor of the course, analyzed these instructional designs to identify PSSTs’ level of guidance by using the rubric that she created with expert judgment. Two other researchers and the author coded each category in the rubric independently. She scored the PSSTs’ level in each category from 1 to 3 and then calculated their total score for the design. She also made paired samples t-test on the scores of each category and in total scores to identify how the PSSTs’ instructional design guides students to use evidence before and after the continuous reflection and discussion of their instructional designs. The results suggested that integrating continuous reflection and discussion into her teaching improved PSSTs’ guidance in providing evidence. Concluding remarks will be made for the further implications of this study.
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
证据引导:职前科学教师教学设计的深入分析
摘要:有必要培养教师设计和实施鼓励学生构建证据和参与议论文的指令的能力。本文的论点是,对教学设计的持续反思和讨论以及定期实践将提高职前科学教师(PSSTs)指导学生提供证据的能力。对PSST教学设计的深入分析为这一论点提供了证据。为此,本研究实施了一项行动研究(AR),在该研究中,PSST的教学设计在科学教育课程中以三人或四人一组的方式进行为期三周的反思和讨论之前和之后进行了分析。本文作者也是该课程的讲师,她分析了这些教学设计,通过使用她根据专家判断创建的准则来确定PSST的指导水平。另外两名研究人员和作者分别对标题中的每个类别进行了编码。她为PSST在每个类别中的水平打分,从1到3,然后计算他们的设计总分。她还对每个类别的分数和总分进行了配对样本t检验,以确定PSST的教学设计如何指导学生在持续反思和讨论其教学设计前后使用证据。研究结果表明,将持续的反思和讨论融入她的教学中,改善了PSST在提供证据方面的指导。关于这项研究的进一步影响,我们将作结论性发言。
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
Journal of Science Teacher Education
Journal of Science Teacher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
10.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Journal of Science Teacher Education (JSTE) is the flagship journal of the Association for Science Teacher Education. It serves as a forum for disseminating high quality research and theoretical position papers concerning preservice and inservice education of science teachers. The Journal features pragmatic articles that offer ways to improve classroom teaching and learning, professional development, and teacher recruitment and retention at pre K-16 levels.
期刊最新文献
Where’s the Peanut Butter? Journaling about Science Practices in Everyday Life Integrating Text Structure Instruction in Science Education: A Design-Based Study What Makes this Lesson Engineering? What Makes it Science? Examining the Thought Processes of Pre-Service Elementary Teachers Science Teacher Action Research in Top Tier Science Education Journals: A Review of the Literature Integrated Language and Science & Technology Instruction: A Cognitive Task Analysis of the Required Teacher Expertise
×
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