A Science Teacher's Teaching Moves about Low and High Achieving Students: A Belief System Approach

Year 2023, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 1 - 17, 30.06.2023

Ruhan Özel , Ahmet Kılınç

https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1195260

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Closing the science achievement gap between low achieving (LA) and high achieving (HA) students has become an important part of educational policies, particularly in Turkey. Bearing this in mind, the purpose of the present study is to reveal a science teacher’s teaching moves about LA and HA students and the pedagogical belief system behind these moves. This single case study relates to one science teacher (Mehmet), who performed explicit teaching moves. In order to determine the moves being used with LA and HA students, Mehmet is asked to write questions that he often uses in his lessons and explain the moves that he has applied during the questioning and solution phases. In addition, semi-structured interviews regarding teaching motivation, science teaching motivation, science teaching practices and beliefs about LA and HA students are conducted so as to reveal the belief-oriented background of these moves. The results show that the teaching moves varying according to the achievement differences is a complex phenomenon. Mehmet changes the structure of his scaffolding, his scientific practices and classroom technologies according to the achievement differences. He produces these teaching moves using a nested structure in which he contextualizes his teaching strategies in is daily science teaching practices.

Keywords

Belief system, High achieving students, Low achieving students, Science teaching moves

References

• Acar, Ö. (2018). Investigation of the science achievement models for low and high achieving schools and gender differences in Turkey. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.1-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21517
• Barbier, K., Struyf, E., & Donche, V. (2022). Teachers' beliefs about and educational practices with high-ability students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103566
• Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2011). Research methods, design, and analysis. (20th Edition). Pearson.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
• Even, R., & Kvatinsky, T. (2009). Approaches to teaching mathematics in lower-achieving classes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 957-985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9141-z
• Felch, J., Song, J., & Smith, D. (2010, August 15). Who’s teaching L.A.’s kids? Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-aug-14-la-me-teachers-value-20100815-story.html
• Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors: Vol. 2. (pp. 471–499). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13274-019
• Fives, H., & Gill, M. G. (Eds.). (2015). International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Fletcher, A. K. (2016). Exceeding expectations: Scaffolding agentic engagement through assessment as learning. Educational Research, 58(4), 400-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1235909
• Georgiou, S. N., Christou, C., Stavrinides, P., & Panaoura, G. (2002). Teacher attributions of student failure and teacher behavior toward the failing student. Psychology in the Schools, 39(5), 583-595. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10049
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
• Hambacher, E., & Thompson, W. C. (2015). Breaking the mold: Thinking beyond deficits. Journal of Educational Controversy, 9(1), 1-17. http://cedar.wwu.edu/ jec/vol9/iss1/7.
• Hayes, J. (2010). Factors affecting student achievement in science: a study of teacher beliefs. (Masters Thesis), Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• Jönsson, A. (2018). “Meeting the needs of low-achieving students in Sweden: An Interview study.” Frontiers in Education, 3, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00063
• Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Uitto, A., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2010), “Science teaching methods preferred by grade 9 students in Finland”, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(4), 611-632. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10763-009-9177-8
• Kilinc, A., Kartal, T., Eroglu, B., Demiral, U., & Afacan, O., Polat, D., Demirci Guler M.P., & Gorgulu, O. (2013). Preservice science teachers’ efficacy regarding a socioscientific issue: a belief system approach. Research in Science Education, 43, 2455-2475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9368-8
• Kilinc, A., Afacan, O., Polat, D., Demirci Guler, M.P., Yildirim, K., Demiral, U., Eroglu, B., Kartal, T., Sonmez, A., Iseri, B., & Gorgulu, O. (2014). Preservice science teachers' belief systems about teaching a socioscientific issue. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(3), 79-102.
• Kilinc, A., Demiral, U., & Kartal, T. (2017). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(6), 764-789. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21385
• Kousa, P., Kavonius, R., & Aksela, M. (2018). Low-achieving students' attitudes towards learning chemistry and chemistry teaching methods. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(2), 431-441. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7rp00226b
• Kuş, E. (2006). Computer-aided qualitative data analysis in social sciences, demonstrations of the sample program Nvivo. Ankara: Anı yayıncılık.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
• Lokan, J., McRae, B., & Hollingsworth, H. (2003). Teaching mathematics in Australia : results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. https://research.acer.edu.au/timss_video/4
• Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16633182
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, ohttps://www2.ed.gov/ nclb/ overview/ intro / execsumm.pdf
• Page, R. N. (1990). The lower track curriculum in a college-preparatory high school. Curriculum Inquiry, 20, 249-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784. 1990. 110 7 6077
• Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
• Primary Education Program, (PEP). (2018). Ministry of Education General Directorate of Basic Education. http://tegm.meb.gov.tr/
• Raes, A., Schellens, T., & De Wever, B. (2014). Web-based collaborative inquiry to bridge gaps in secondary science education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(3), 316–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.836656
• Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, R., & Cheong, C. (1993). Higher-order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 523-553. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312030003523
• Reinhold, F., Hoch, S., Werner, B., Richter-Gebert, J., & Reiss, K. (2020). Learning fractions with and withouteducational technology: What matters for high-achieving and low-achieving students? Learning and Instruction, 65,101264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101264
• Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2006). Understanding teacher responses to constructivist learning environments: Challenges and resolutions. Science Education, 90(3), 385-399. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20140
• Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Alberg, M., & Lowther, D. (2004). Using classroom observation as a research and formative evaluation tool in educational reform. Observational research in US classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity, 144-173.
• Schmid, R. (2018). Pockets of excellence: Teacher beliefs and behaviors that lead to high student achievement at low achieving schools. SAGE Open, 8, 215824401879723. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018797238
• Sonmez, A. (2015). Investigation of the relationships between science teachers’ epistemological belief systems and their teaching of socioscientific issues. (Unpublished PhD Thesis), Abant Izzet Baysal University.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
• The Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development. (OECD) (2018). PISA 2015 results (volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-i-9789264266490-en.htm
• Torff, B. (2006). Expert teachers’ beliefs about use of critical thinking activities with high and low-advantage learners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 37-52.
• Yang, Y., van Aalst, J., Chan, C. K. K., & Tian, W. (2016). Reflective assessment in knowledge building by students with low academic achievement. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 281-311. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11412- 016- 9239-1
• Yang, Y., van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2020). Dynamics of reflective assessment and knowledge building for academically low-achieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 57(3), 1241-1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219872444
• Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study methods: design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Pbc.
• Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaakin, E. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about low-achieving students and higher-order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,469-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00007-5