DOCUMENTING VARIABILITY WITHIN TEACHER ATTENTION AND RESPONSIVENESS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF STUDENT THINKING

Amy D. Robertson; Jennifer Richards; Andrew Elby; Janet Walkoe

doi:10.4324/9781315689302-11

DOCUMENTING VARIABILITY WITHIN TEACHER ATTENTION AND RESPONSIVENESS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF STUDENT THINKING

Amy D. Robertson, Jennifer Richards, Andrew Elby, Janet Walkoe

School of Education and Social Policy

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

The education research community is trying to figure out how to foster and assess responsive teaching, which in turn requires us to conceptualize what counts as progress toward greater responsiveness. As we discuss below in our literature review, much of the existing work on teacher noticing/attention/responsiveness describes responsive teaching in terms of levels (or a spectrum), with greater responsiveness consisting of more attention to the substance of student thinking and more responses that interpret rather than correct students’ ideas. These accounts often treat a teaching episode as “more” vs. “less” responsive or as “responsive” vs. “not responsive.

Original language	English (US)
Title of host publication	Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics
Publisher	Taylor and Francis
Pages	227-247
Number of pages	21
ISBN (Electronic)	9781317423744
ISBN (Print)	9781138916982
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315689302-11
State	Published - Jan 1 2015

Funding

This work was supported by grants AG-020269, AG-025688, NS-35345, NS-050595, and AT-00611 and by a grant from the Alzheimer's Association.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Social Sciences

Access to Document

10.4324/9781315689302-11

Cite this

@inbook{fb522aeae5754fe886f8a38be648b82d,

title = "DOCUMENTING VARIABILITY WITHIN TEACHER ATTENTION AND RESPONSIVENESS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF STUDENT THINKING",

abstract = "The education research community is trying to figure out how to foster and assess responsive teaching, which in turn requires us to conceptualize what counts as progress toward greater responsiveness. As we discuss below in our literature review, much of the existing work on teacher noticing/attention/responsiveness describes responsive teaching in terms of levels (or a spectrum), with greater responsiveness consisting of more attention to the substance of student thinking and more responses that interpret rather than correct students{\textquoteright} ideas. These accounts often treat a teaching episode as “more” vs. “less” responsive or as “responsive” vs. “not responsive.",

author = "Robertson, {Amy D.} and Jennifer Richards and Andrew Elby and Janet Walkoe",

note = "Funding Information: This work was supported by grants AG-020269, AG-025688, NS-35345, NS-050595, and AT-00611 and by a grant from the Alzheimer's Association. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2016 Taylor & Francis.",

year = "2015",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.4324/9781315689302-11",

language = "English (US)",

isbn = "9781138916982",

pages = "227--247",

booktitle = "Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics",

publisher = "Taylor and Francis",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - DOCUMENTING VARIABILITY WITHIN TEACHER ATTENTION AND RESPONSIVENESS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF STUDENT THINKING

AU - Robertson, Amy D.

AU - Richards, Jennifer

AU - Elby, Andrew

AU - Walkoe, Janet

N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported by grants AG-020269, AG-025688, NS-35345, NS-050595, and AT-00611 and by a grant from the Alzheimer's Association. Publisher Copyright: © 2016 Taylor & Francis.

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - The education research community is trying to figure out how to foster and assess responsive teaching, which in turn requires us to conceptualize what counts as progress toward greater responsiveness. As we discuss below in our literature review, much of the existing work on teacher noticing/attention/responsiveness describes responsive teaching in terms of levels (or a spectrum), with greater responsiveness consisting of more attention to the substance of student thinking and more responses that interpret rather than correct students’ ideas. These accounts often treat a teaching episode as “more” vs. “less” responsive or as “responsive” vs. “not responsive.

AB - The education research community is trying to figure out how to foster and assess responsive teaching, which in turn requires us to conceptualize what counts as progress toward greater responsiveness. As we discuss below in our literature review, much of the existing work on teacher noticing/attention/responsiveness describes responsive teaching in terms of levels (or a spectrum), with greater responsiveness consisting of more attention to the substance of student thinking and more responses that interpret rather than correct students’ ideas. These accounts often treat a teaching episode as “more” vs. “less” responsive or as “responsive” vs. “not responsive.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050680885&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050680885&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4324/9781315689302-11

DO - 10.4324/9781315689302-11

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85050680885

SN - 9781138916982

SP - 227

EP - 247

BT - Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics

PB - Taylor and Francis

ER -

DOCUMENTING VARIABILITY WITHIN TEACHER ATTENTION AND RESPONSIVENESS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF STUDENT THINKING

Abstract

Funding

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this