Reflective discourse: developing shared understandings in a physics classroom
Abstract
The study examines ways of speaking that foster the communication of physics principles through reflective discourse. By reflective discourse we mean classroom discussions during which three conditions frequently occur: students express their own thoughts, comments and questions rather than recite a textbook exposition; the teacher and individual students engage in an extended series of questioning exchanges that help students better articulate their beliefs and conceptions; and student/student exchanges involve one student trying to understand the thinking of another. Data consisted of two videotaped lessons about the nature of gravity and its effects. We developed a narrative analysis of the transcripts and identified characteristic features of reflective discourse. These included invoking metaphors for teaching and learning, following a student's lead in thinking and structuring the discussion to foster and monitor changes in the students’ conceptions.
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?
Constructivist teaching is often contrasted with teaching by transmission where teacher questions often elicit only restricted student responses consisting of pre-determined single detached words which typically only require lower-order thinking.
“Constructivist teaching is often contrasted with teaching by transmission where teacher questions often elicit only restricted student responses consisting of pre-determined”
From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as van Zee & Minstrell, 1997
Teacher questions that encourage students to elaborate, discuss various points of view, and promote higher-order thinking can elicit more substantial student responses in full sentences, benefiting science learning.
“Such questions can elicit more substantial student responses in full sentences, benefiting science learning (Chin, 2006(Chin, , 2007;;van Zee & Minstrell, 1997).”
From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as van Zee & Minstrell, 1997
Cites
Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be A Way of Speeding Up!
Rowe, M. B. (1986) · Journal of Teacher Education · doi:10.1177/002248718603700110 · Cited by 534 · see citing works
Using Questioning to Guide Student Thinking
van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0602_3 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work
Reiser, B. J. (2004) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2 · Cited by 1,054 · see citing works
Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20131 · Cited by 719 · see citing works
Using Questioning to Guide Student Thinking
van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0602_3 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
Self-citationAn, J., & Childs, A. (2023) · Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.14746/ssllt.38283 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“Constructivist teaching is often contrasted with teaching by transmission where teacher questions often elicit only restricted student responses consisting of pre-determined “single detached words” (Chin, 2006, p. 1317) which typically only require lower-order thinking (van Zee & Minstrell, 1997).”
- Authors
- Zee, E. H. V., & Minstrell, J.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Mercer Island School District (US)
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 209-228
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W2151443775
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 37.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Science Education (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- James S. McDonnell Foundation
- University of Washington
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- reflective discourse, classroom discussion, physics education, student conceptions, teacher questioning, peer learning, nature of gravity, metaphor in teaching, mutual understanding
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
