Classroom Practice

Research on teachers’ noticing of student mathematical thinking has typically focused on how a teacher attends to, interprets, and determines a response to an individual student contribution in isolation from the broader mathematical classroom context. This research focus is not nuanced enough, however, to fully account for the complex noticing required of a teacher engaged in responsive teaching. To support teachers in enacting responsive teaching, it is important to have a way to distinguish high-leverage student contributions from among the many contributions available to a teacher. We draw on a previously developed framework to help teachers identify such contributions, those referred to as a mathematically significant pedagogical opportunity to build on student thinking (MOST).

Research on teachers’ noticing of student mathematical thinking has typically focused on how a teacher attends to, interprets, and determines a response to an individual student contribution in isolation from the broader mathematical classroom context. This research focus is not nuanced enough, however, to fully account for the complex noticing required of a teacher engaged in responsive teaching. To support teachers in enacting responsive teaching, it is important to have a way to distinguish high-leverage student contributions from among the many contributions available to a teacher. We draw on a previously developed framework to help teachers identify such contributions, those referred to as a mathematically significant pedagogical opportunity to build on student thinking (MOST).

This study explored secondary science teachers’ attending and interpretation of three science and engineering practices (SEPs) occurring in a classroom setting. This data were further examined to see if teaching experience and disciplinary area influenced the secondary science teachers attending and interpretation of the SEPs.

Controversial topics that arise in science classrooms, especially those of social relevance (e.g., the climate crisis), provide opportunities to help students learn about and discuss contradictory ideas they may encounter in their everyday experiences. Such topics may also be challenging to teach, but scaffolding may facilitate effective instruction. We describe one type of instructional scaffolding, the Model-Evidence Link (MEL) activity, that supports students’ reasoning when evaluating connections between lines of evidence and competing explanations about phenomena.

Controversial topics that arise in science classrooms, especially those of social relevance (e.g., the climate crisis), provide opportunities to help students learn about and discuss contradictory ideas they may encounter in their everyday experiences. Such topics may also be challenging to teach, but scaffolding may facilitate effective instruction. We describe one type of instructional scaffolding, the Model-Evidence Link (MEL) activity, that supports students’ reasoning when evaluating connections between lines of evidence and competing explanations about phenomena.

Controversial topics that arise in science classrooms, especially those of social relevance (e.g., the climate crisis), provide opportunities to help students learn about and discuss contradictory ideas they may encounter in their everyday experiences. Such topics may also be challenging to teach, but scaffolding may facilitate effective instruction. We describe one type of instructional scaffolding, the Model-Evidence Link (MEL) activity, that supports students’ reasoning when evaluating connections between lines of evidence and competing explanations about phenomena.

Controversial topics that arise in science classrooms, especially those of social relevance (e.g., the climate crisis), provide opportunities to help students learn about and discuss contradictory ideas they may encounter in their everyday experiences. Such topics may also be challenging to teach, but scaffolding may facilitate effective instruction. We describe one type of instructional scaffolding, the Model-Evidence Link (MEL) activity, that supports students’ reasoning when evaluating connections between lines of evidence and competing explanations about phenomena.

Controversial topics that arise in science classrooms, especially those of social relevance (e.g., the climate crisis), provide opportunities to help students learn about and discuss contradictory ideas they may encounter in their everyday experiences. Such topics may also be challenging to teach, but scaffolding may facilitate effective instruction. We describe one type of instructional scaffolding, the Model-Evidence Link (MEL) activity, that supports students’ reasoning when evaluating connections between lines of evidence and competing explanations about phenomena.

This paper explores the transformative impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on teachers’ roles and agencies in education, presenting a comprehensive framework that addresses teachers’ perceptions, knowledge, acceptance, and practices of GenAI.

Computational modeling tools present unique opportunities and challenges for student learning. Each tool has a representational system that impacts the kinds of explorations students engage in. Inquiry aligned with a tool’s representational system can support more productive engagement toward target learning goals. However, little research has examined how teachers can make visible the ways students’ ideas about a phenomenon can be expressed and explored within a tool’s representational system. In this paper, we elaborate on the construct of ontological alignment—that is, identifying and leveraging points of resonance between students’ existing ideas and the representational system of a tool.