• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.471-483
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to explore how students' epistemological framing and positional framing affect the role of wonderment questions related to the activation of conceptual resources and to investigate what contexts affect students' framings during scientific model construction. Four students were selected as focus group and they participated in collaborative scientific model construction of mechanisms relating to urination. According to the results, one student whose framings were "understanding phenomena" and "facilitator" asked wonderment questions, but the others whose framings were "classroom game" and "non-respondent" were not able to activate their conceptual resources. However, they were able to activate their conceptual resources when they shared the epistemological framing of "understanding phenomena" and shifted between the positional framings of "facilitator" and "respondent." Although they were able to activate their conceptual resources, these activated resources were not able to contribute to their model when they shifted to the framings of "classroom game" and "receiver." In contrast, when students constantly shared an "understanding phenomena" framing and dynamically shifted between the framings of "facilitator" and "respondent," they were able to activate various conceptual resources and develop their group model. The students' framings were affected by the contexts. These included: when students were confronted with cognitive difficulties and were not provided proper scaffolding; when the teacher played the role of answer provider and guided the activity with correctness; when there were several possible explanatory models that students could choose from; and when the teacher played the role of thought facilitator. This study contributes to supporting teaching and learning environments for productive scientific model construction.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.6
• /
• pp.739-753
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to explore characteristics and limitations of a novice teachers's responsive teaching practice, who framed argumentation productively. One novice teacher and two eighth-grade classes participated in this study. Two of the small student groups with active teacher intervention were selected as focus groups. Students engaged in argumentation activity where they built an argument for hearing if the eardrum was torn. We recorded the class and interviews with the teacher and the students, which were transcribed for use in the analysis of the teacher's responsive teaching practices and epistemological, positional framing. We discovered that teacher thought that he should position himself as a facilitator to encourage students to present ideas clearly and to reach consensus. His framing was consistent in responsive teaching practices. Positioning himself as a facilitator, after he framed the discussion as idea sharing discussion by eliciting and probing students' idea, he framed the discussion as argumentative discussion by taking up students' idea and pointing out disagreement between them. As a result, members of small group 1 engaged in argumentative discussion and reached consensus. However, the teacher's productive framing did not guarantee students' productive argumentation practice. In small group 2, he did not elicit and probe students' ideas successfully. As a result, members of small group 2 did not engaged in argumentative discussions. He responded limitedly to the lack of students' conceptions because of lack of understanding about learners. Also, he mainly attended to students' reasoning, and not to students' framing about argumentation because he considered argumentation only as a tool for conceptual learning. The result of this study will contribute to the establishment of responsive teaching in science classrooms.