Characterizing pedagogical decision points in sense‐making conversations motivated by scientific uncertainty
Abstract
Science education researchers have highlighted how uncertainty can foster meaningful scientific sense‐making, supporting students to re‐evaluate their understandings of scientific phenomena and pursue deeper causal accounts. However, facilitating whole‐class conversations motivated by uncertainty is complex and challenging, calling for further descriptions of the pedagogical work involved for teachers. In this study, we consider recurring pedagogical decision points as a way to get a handle on how teachers orchestrate classroom conversations and improvise to respond to students' reasoning. To examine these decision points, we analyzed five classroom episodes where classroom communities transformed a student's expression of uncertainty into an episode of collective, scientific sense‐making. Across these episodes, we found that teachers needed to make decisions around (1) whether to make space for an uncertainty, (2) how to transform an uncertainty into a collective problem, (3) which elements to fix and which to leave open, (4) when and how to support the class to evaluate their accounts, (5) whether to make space for and/or mark new goals. Using detailed analyses of two episodes, along with short descriptions of the others, we illustrate how these decision points emerged, the different choices teachers made, and how these decisions shaped the trajectories of the classroom conversations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In order to foster students' sense-making, teachers have to decide which ideas or paths of reasoning to emphasize and fix, and which ones to open for students to figure out by pointing out plausible ways forward.
“Recent studies show that, in order to foster students' sense-making, teachers have to decide which ideas or paths of reasoning to emphasize and fix, and which ones to open for students to figure out by pointing out plausible ways forward”
From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Watkins and Manz 2022
Cites
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry
Longino, H. E. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9780691209753 · Cited by 3,092 · see citing works
The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995) · Computer Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5 · Cited by 2,274 · see citing works
Learning to Feel Like a Scientist
JABER, L. Z., & HAMMER, D. (2016) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21202 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Caño, L., & Sanz, J. (2025) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.70010 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Watkins, J., & Manz, E.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Boston University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Watkins, Jessica
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-06-30
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1408-1441
- ISSN
- 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-237X
- OpenAlex
- W4283751182
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15
- FWCI
- 21.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science Education (publishedVersion)
- OpenBU (Boston University) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
- Keywords
- scientific uncertainty, sensemaking, teacher orchestration, classroom discourse, teacher improvisation, collective sensemaking, student reasoning, causal explanation, science education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review