Supporting teachers’ attention and responsiveness to the substance of student thinking is increasingly emphasized across disciplines. Yet studies demonstrate how such responsiveness, in practice, is highly contextualized and often fleeting. This study conceptualizes and examines what functioned as “resources for responsiveness” within and across nine sustained cases of responsiveness in three science teachers’ inquiry-oriented classrooms. Analyses demonstrated how a diverse range of personal, social, and material/structural resources facilitated teachers’ responsiveness, with some commonalities but also much variation across teachers. These findings contribute to the field’s understanding of what may support teachers’ attention and responsiveness to student thinking and suggest the importance of (a) responsiveness in the design and facilitation of professional learning and (b) increased attention to teachers’ affect.
BallD. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.
2.
BarnhartT.van EsE. (2018). Leveraging analysis of students’ disciplinary thinking in a video club to promote student-centered science instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 50–80.
3.
BrodieK. (2011). Working with learners’ mathematical thinking: Towards a language of description for changing pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 174–186.
4.
CohenD. K.RaudenbushS. W.BallD. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). SAGE.
EmpsonS. B.JacobsV. R. (2008). Learning to listen to children’s mathematics. In TiroshD.WoodT. (Eds.), Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education (pp. 257–281). Sense.
8.
EngleR. A.ConantF. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.
9.
FrankeM. L.CarpenterT.FennemaE.AnsellE.BehrendJ. (1998). Understanding teachers’ self-sustaining, generative change in the context of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 67–80.
10.
FriedL.MansfieldC.DobozyE. (2015). Teacher emotion research: Introducing a conceptual model to guide future research. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 415–441.
11.
GreenoJ. G.GresalfiM. S. (2008). Opportunities to learn in practice and identity. In MossP. A.PullinD. C.GeeJ. P.HaertelE. H.YoungL. J. (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 170–199). Cambridge University Press.
12.
GrossnickleE. M. (2016). Disentangling curiosity: Dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 23–60.
13.
GunerP.AkyuzD. (2020). Noticing student mathematical thinking within the context of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(5), 568–583.
14.
HammerD.GoldbergF.FargasonS. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 6(1), 51–72.
15.
HargreavesA. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835–854.
16.
HaverlyC.Calabrese BartonA.SchwarzC. V.BraatenM. (2020). “Making space”: How novice teachers create opportunities for equitable sense-making in elementary science. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 63–79.
17.
HutchinsE. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.
18.
JaberL. Z.SoutherlandS.DakeF. (2018). Cultivating epistemic empathy in preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 13–23.
19.
JordanB.HendersonA. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.
20.
Kalinec-CraigC. (2017). “Everything matters”: Mexican-American prospective elementary teachers noticing issues of status and participation while learning to teach mathematics. In SchackE. O.FisherM. H.WilhelmJ. A. (Eds.), Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 215–229). Springer.
21.
KavanaghS. S.MetzM.HauserM.FogoB.TaylorM. W.CarlsonJ. (2020). Practicing responsiveness: Using approximations of teaching to develop teachers’ responsiveness to students’ ideas. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 94–107.
22.
KoM. L. M.KristC. (2019). Opening up curricula to redistribute epistemic agency: A framework for supporting science teaching. Science Education, 103(4), 979–1010.
23.
LampertM.BoerstT. A.GrazianiF. (2011). Organizational resources in the service of school-wide ambitious teaching practice. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 1361–1400.
24.
LampertM.FrankeM. L.KazemiE.GhousseiniH.TurrouA. C.BeasleyH.CunardA.CroweK. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243.
25.
LauM. (2010). Understanding the dynamics of teacher attention: Examples of how high school physics and physical science teachers attend to student ideas [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland].
26.
LevinD. M.HammerD.CoffeyJ. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142–154.
27.
LyleJ. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861–878.
28.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
29.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
30.
PiersonJ. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning [Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin].
31.
RadoffJ.RobertsonA. D.FargasonS.GoldbergF. (2018). Responsive teaching in the age of high-stakes testing: Does pursuing students' ideas mean they will perform poorly?Science and Children, 55(9), 88–91.
32.
RichardsJ. (2014). The role of affect in sustaining teachers’ attention and responsiveness to student thinking. In EngelhardtP. V.ChurukianA. D.JonesD. L. (Eds.), 2013 physics education research conference proceedings (pp. 301–304). American Association of Physics Teachers. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2013.pr.063
33.
RichardsJ.ElbyA.LunaM. J.RobertsonA. D.LevinD. M.NyeggenC. G. (2020). Reframing the responsiveness challenge: A framing-anchored explanatory framework to account for irregularity in novice teachers’ attention and responsiveness to student thinking. Cognition and Instruction, 38(2), 116–152.
34.
RichardsJ.RobertsonA. D. (2016). A review of the research on responsive teaching in science and mathematics. In RobertsonA. D.ScherrR.HammerD. (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 36–55). Routledge.
35.
RobertsonA. D.ScherrR.HammerD. (Eds.). (2016). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. Routledge.
36.
RoseberyA. S.OgonowskiM.DiSchinoM.WarrenB. (2010). “The coat traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322–357.
37.
RoseberyA. S.WarrenB.Tucker-RaymondE. (2016). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1571–1600.
38.
ShaughnessyM.BoerstT. A. (2018). Uncovering the skills that preservice teachers bring to teacher education: The practice of eliciting a student’s thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(1), 40–55.
39.
SherinM. G.vanEs, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37.
StroupeD. (2016). Beginning teachers' use of resources to enact and learn from ambitious instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 34(1), 51–77.
42.
SunJ.vanEs, E. A. (2015). An exploratory study of the influence that analyzing teaching has on preservice teachers’ classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 201–214.
43.
ThompsonJ.HagenahS.KangH.StroupeD.BraatenM.ColleyC.WindschitlM. (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(5), 1–58.
44.
ThompsonJ.WindschitlM.BraatenM. (2013). Developing a theory of ambitious early-career teacher practice. American Educational Research Journal, 50(3), 574–615.
45.
vanEs, E. A.SherinM. G. (2021). Expanding on prior conceptualizations of teacher noticing. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53, 17–27.
46.
WatkinsJ.McCormickN.MiltoE.PortsmoreM.SpencerK.WendellK.HammerD. (2018). Data-based conjectures for supporting responsive teaching in engineering design with elementary teachers. Science Education, 102(3), 548–570.
47.
WeissI. R.PasleyJ. D.SmithP. S.BanilowerE. R.HeckD. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Horizon Research.
48.
YinR. K. (2006). Case study methods. In GreenJ. L.CamilliG.ElmoreP. B. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 111–122). Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
ZembylasM. (2005). Beyond teacher cognition and teacher beliefs: The value of the ethnography of emotions in teaching. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(4), 465–487.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
