Framing in cognitive clinical interviews about intuitive science knowledge: Dynamic student understandings of the discourse interaction

Science Education

Volumn 96, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 573-599

  Russ, Rosemary S ^a   Lee, Victor R ^b   Sherin, Bruce L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862256567     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21014     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Corporation.
2. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.
3. Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
6. Clayman, S. E. (1988). Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems, 35(4), 474-492.
7. Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews. In A.E. Kelly & R.E. Lesh (Eds.). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547-590). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., & Levin, D. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-254.
9. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25-42.
10. Confrey, J. (2006). The evolution of design studies as a methodology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 135-152). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11. Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1995). Students' conceptual ecologies and the process of conceptual change in evolution. Science Education, 79(6), 637-666.
12. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105-225.
14. diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why "conceptual ecology" is a good idea. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 29-60). Dortrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
15. diSessa, A. A. (2007). An interactional analysis of clinical interviewing. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 523-565.
16. Duncan, S. Jr., (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(2), 283-292.
17. Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451-498.
18. Ginsburg, H. P. (1981). The clinical interview in psychological research on mathematical thinking: Aims, rationales, techniques. For the Learning of Mathematics, 1(3), 4-11.
19. Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child's mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
21. Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Converastion analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283-307.
22. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104-137.
23. Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Applied Cognitivge Psychology, 9, 495-522.
24. Grossen, M., & Orvig, A. S. (1998). Clinical interviews as verbal interactions: A multidisciplinary outlook. Pragmatics, 8(2), 149-154.
25. Halldén, O., Haglund, L., & Strömdahl, H. (2007). Conceptions and contexts: On the interpretation of interview and observational data. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 25-40.
26. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
27. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
28. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94, 506-524.
29. Lamberg, T. d., & Middleton, J. A. (2009). Design research perspectives on transitioning from individual microgenetic interviews to a whole-class teaching experiment. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 233-245.
30. Lee, V. R., Russ, R. S., & Sherin, B. (2008). A functional taxonomy of discourse moves for conversation management during cognitive clinical interviews about scientific phenomena. In V. Sloutsky, B. Love, & K. McRae (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1723-1728). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
31. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32. MacLachlan, G., & Reid, I. (1994). Framing experience: "What is it that's going on here?" In G. L. MacLachlan & I. W. Reid (Ed.), Framing and interpretation (pp. 40-67). Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Melbourne University Press.
33. Mayer, S. J. (2005). The early evolution of Jean Piaget's clinical method. History of Psychology, 8(4), 362-382.
34. Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36. Orsolini, M., & Pontecorvo, C. (1992). Children's talk in classroom discourse. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 113-136.
37. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography: Students' alternative frameworks and science education. Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education.
38. Piaget, J. (1929). The child's conception of the world. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
39. Piaget, J. (1952). The child's conception of number. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
40. Posner, G. J., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). The clinical interview and the measurement of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 195-209.
41. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
42. Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. Paper presented at the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi": Research on Physics Education, Varenna on Lake Como, Italy.
43. Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292.
44. Roth, W.-M. (2008). The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological perspective. Educational Research Review, 3, 30-50.
45. Roth, W.-M., & Middleton, D. (2006). Knowing what you tell, telling what you know: Uncertainty and assymmetries of meaning in interpreting graphical data. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(1), 11-81.
46. Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Russ, R. S., & Sherin, B. L. (2008). Reframing research on intuitive science knowledge. Paper presented at the Cre8ting a learning world: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
48. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
49. Saljo, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (1993). Solving everyday problems in the formal setting: An empirical study of the school as context for thought. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 327-342). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101-114.
52. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, VIII(4), 289-327.
53. Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 147-174.
54. Sherin, B. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 479-541.
55. Sherin, B. (2006). Common sense clarified: The role of intuitive knowledge in physics problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(6), 535-555.
56. Sherin, B. L., Krakowski, M., & Lee, V. R. (in press). Some assembly required: How scientific explanations are constructed during clinical interviews. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
57. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
58. Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C. L., & Anzelmo, J. (2001). Understanding students' explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Science Education, 85(4), 328-348.
59. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147-176). New York: State University of New York Press.
60. Tannen, D. (1993). What's in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 14-56). New York: Oxford University Press.
61. Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 57-76). New York: Oxford University Press.
62. Welzel, M., & Roth, W.-M. (1998). Do interviews really assess students' knowledge? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 25-44.
63. Wickman, P., & Ostman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601-623.