Teacher sense-making about being responsive to students’ science ideas: A case study

Amy D. Robertson 1 * , Jennifer Richards 2
More Detail
1 Department of Physics, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, WA, USA
2 College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp. 314-342. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9514
OPEN ACCESS   1767 Views   1243 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Being responsive to the substance of students’ disciplinary thinking is central to current visions of reformed science teaching. Studies of classroom practice, however, show that this kind of teaching is relatively rare. In this paper, we use data from one cohort of university physics Learning Assistants (LAs) to illustrate what it looks like for teachers to sense-make about being responsive to student thinking. We draw on the theoretical lens of sense-making – including Spillane et al.’s (2002) notion that teachers need opportunities to sense-make not only about the substance of new instructional approaches but also their own relationship to these approaches – to unpack the central questions that LAs asked about being responsive. We give evidence from course assignments that these LAs’ extended sense-making was productive both (1) for their attention to the substance of student thinking and (2) to their identification with responsiveness as a central facet of good instruction. Our case study highlights the tensions that teachers may experience as they enter this instructional space and what “resolution” of such tensions can look like.
Keywords: responsiveness to students’ ideas, sense-making, university physics

CITATION

Robertson, A. D., & Richards, J. (2017). Teacher sense-making about being responsive to students’ science ideas: A case study. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 314-342. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9514

REFERENCES

  • Allen, C. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2015). Studying Teachers' Sensemaking to Investigate Teachers' Responses to Professional Development Focused on New Standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 136-149.
  • Ball, D. L. (1993). With an Eye on the Mathematical Horizon: Dilemmas of Teaching Elementary School Mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.
  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
  • Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The Work of Teaching and the Challenge for Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
  • Banilower, E., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). The status of K-12 science teaching in the United States: Results from a national observation survey. In D. Sunal& E. Wright (Eds.), The impact of the state and national standards of K-12 science teaching (pp. 83-122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  • Black, P., &Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
  • Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673-708). New York, NY: Prentice Hall International.
  • Campbell, T., Schwarz, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). What we call misconceptions may be necessary stepping-stones toward making sense of the world. Science Scope, 39(7), 19-24.
  • Carlone, H. B., Webb, A., Archer, L., & Taylor, M. (2015). What Kind of Boy Does Science? A Critical Perspective on the Science Trajectories of Four Scientifically Talented Boys. Science Education, 99(3), 438-464.
  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively Guided Instruction: A Knowledge Base for Reform in Primary Mathematics Instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 3-20.
  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., &Empson, S. B. (2000). Cognitively Guided Instruction: A research-based teacher professional development program for elementary school mathematics. Madison, WI: NCISLA, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin.
  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C.-P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using Knowledge of Children's Mathematics Thinking in Classroom Teaching: An Experimental Study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.
  • Chazan, D., &Schnepp, M. (2002). Methods, Goals, Beliefs, Commitments, and Manner in Teaching: Dialogue Against a Calculus Backdrop. Social Constructivist Teaching, 9, 171-195.
  • Clinchot, M., Ngai, C., Huie, R., Talanquer, V., Lambertz, J., Banks, G., . . . Sevian, H. (2017). Better formative assessment: Making formative assessment more responsive to student needs. The Science Teacher, 84(3), 69-75.
  • Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective Sensemaking about Reading: How Teachers Mediate Reading Policy in Their Professional Communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
  • Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping Teacher Sensemaking: School Leaders and the Enactment of Reading Policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509.
  • Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The Missing Disciplinary Substance of Formative Assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109-1136.
  • Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students' relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467-498.
  • Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalizability and the Single-Case Study. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate (pp. 175-200). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Dorph, R., & Chi, B. (2013). Productive Beginnings: The Final Evaluation Report for the Learning Progressions in Scientific Inquiry and Energy Project (NSF #0732233). Retrieved from University of California, Berkeley:
  • Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students' thinking and the learning of science: a constructivist view. School Science Review, 67, 443-456.
  • Driver, R., Guesne, E., &Tiberghein, A. (1985). Children's Ideas in Science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  • Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making Sense of Secondary Science: Research Into Children's Ideas. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Duckworth, E. (2006). "The having of wonderful ideas" and other essays on teaching and learning (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography - Students' and Teachers' Conceptions and Science Education. Retrieved from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/. (Accessed November 2015)
  • Eisenhart, M. (2009). Generalization from Qualitative Inquiry. In K. Ercikan& W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Generalizing from Educational Research: Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Polarization (pp. 51-66). New York: Routledge.
  • Empson, S. B. (2003). Low-performing students and teaching fractions for understanding: An interactional analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(4), 305-343.
  • Empson, S. B., & Jacobs, V. R. (2008). Learning to Listen to Children's Mathematics. In D. Tirosh& T. Wood (Eds.), Tools and Processes in Mathematics Teacher Education (pp. 257-281). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. 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.
  • Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
  • Erickson, F. (2011). On Noticing Teacher Noticing. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics Teacher Noticing: Seeing Through Teachers' Eyes (pp. 17-34). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Carey, D. A. (1993). Learning to Use Children's Mathematical Thinking: A Case Study. In R. B. Davis & C. A. Maher (Eds.), Schools, Mathematics, and the World of Reality (pp. 93-117). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., &Empson, S. B. (1996). A Longitudinal Study of Learning to Use Children's Thinking in Mathematics Instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434.
  • Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Carey, D. A. (1993). Using Children's Mathematical Knowledge in Instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 555-583.
  • Franke, M. L., &Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to Teach Mathematics: Focus on Student Thinking. Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 102-109.
  • Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
  • Furtak, E. (2009). Toward learning progressions as teacher development tools. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
  • Furtak, E. M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R., Swanson, R., de Leon, V. A., Morrison, D., & Heredia, S. (2016). Teachers' Formative Assessment Abilities and Their Relationship to Student Learning: Findings from a Four-Year Intervention Study. Instructional Science, 44(3), 267-291.
  • Ghousseini, H., Beasley, H., & Lord, S. (2015). Investigating the Potential of Guided Practice With an Enactment Tool for Supporting Adaptive Performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 461-497.
  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
  • Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15(2), 273-289.
  • Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery Learning and Discovery Teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 485-529.
  • Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 68(7), S52-S59.
  • Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, lectures 1-3. In E. F. Redish& M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 279-340). Bologna: Italian Physical Society.
  • Hammer, D., &Elby, A. (2000). Epistemological resources. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 4-5). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., &Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, Framing, and Transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective (pp. 89-119): Information Age Publishing, Inc.
  • Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics, and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.
  • Hammer, D., & van Zee, E. (2006). Seeing the Science in Children's Thinking: Case Studies of Student Inquiry in Physical Science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Harrer, B. W., Flood, V. J., &Wittmann, M. C. (2013). Productive resources in students' ideas about energy: An alternative analysis of Watts' original interview transcripts. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(2), 023101.
  • Harris, C. J., Phillips, R. S., & Penuel, W. R. (2012). Examining Teachers' Instructional Moves Aimed at Developing Students' Ideas and Questions in Learner-Centered Science Classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 769-788.
  • Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students' learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393-425.
  • Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2003). The Use of Argumentation in Haitian Creole Science Classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 73-93.
  • Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94, 506-524.
  • Horizon Research International (2003). Special tabulations of the 2000-2001 LSC teacher questionnaire and classroom observation data. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
  • Jaber, L., & Hammer, D. (2016). Learning to feel like a scientist. Science Education, 100(2), 189-200.
  • Jacobs, V. R., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., &Battey, D. (2007). Professional Development Focused on Children's Algebraic Reasoning in Elementary School. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 258-288.
  • Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional Noticing of Children's Mathematical Thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169-202.
  • Kelly, G. J., Brown, C., & Crawford, T. (2000). Experiments, contingencies, and curriculum: Providing opportunities for learning through improvisation in science teaching. Science Education, 84, 624-657.
  • Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Sotelo, F. L., & Stigler, J. W. (2010). Teachers' Analyses of Classroom Video Predict Student Learning of Mathematics: Further Explorations of a Novel Measure of Teacher Knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 172-181.
  • Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & den Brok, P. J. (2012). Teachers' positioning towards an educational innovation in the light of ownership, sense-making and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 273-282.
  • Lampert, M. (1990). When the Problem Is Not the Question and the Solution Is Not the Answer: Mathematical Knowing and Teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29-63.
  • Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using Designed Instructional Activities to Enable Novices to Manage Ambitious Mathematics Teaching. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines (pp. 129-141). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
  • Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., . . . Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping It Complex: Using Rehearsals to Support Novice Teacher Learning of Ambitious Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226-243.
  • Levin, D., Hammer, D., Elby, A., & Coffey, J. (2012). Becoming a Responsive Science Teacher: Focusing on Student Thinking in Secondary Science. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
  • Levin, D. M. (2008). What Secondary Science Teachers Pay Attention To in the Classroom: Situating Teaching in Institutional and Social Systems (J. E. Coffey Ed.Vol. Ph.D.). College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
  • Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice Teachers' Attention to Student Thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154.
  • Levin, D. M., Tudela, A. S., & Lau, M. (2016). Responsive Teaching and Power: Toward Practice of Anti-Oppressive Science Pedagogy. Paper presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers, Sacramento, CA.
  • Lineback, J. E. (2015). The redirection: An indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 419-460.
  • Lovegren, C. E., & Robertson, A. D. (2013). Development of Novice Teachers' Views of Student Ideas as Sensible and Productive. In P. Engelhardt, A. D. Churukian, & D. L. Jones (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2013 Physics Education Research Conference (pp. 225-228). Melville, NY: AIP Press.
  • Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity Development As a Lens to Science Teacher Preparation. Science Education, 91(5), 822-839.
  • Luna, M. J., & Sherin, M. G. (under review). Supporting a particular kind of teacher attention: Engaging teachers in noticing and making sense of students' science ideas in a video club context. Teaching and Teacher Education.
  • März, V., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Sense-making and structure in teachers' reception of educational reform. A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 13-24.
  • Maskiewicz, A. C. (2016). Navigating the Challenges of Teaching Responsively: An Insider's Perspective. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics (pp. 105-125). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the Co-Construction of Inquiry Practices: A Case Study of a Responsive Teaching Environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464.
  • Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279-300.
  • McDermott, L. C., &Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 755-767.
  • McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core Practices and Pedagogies of Teacher Education: A Call for a Common Language and Collective Activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378-386.
  • Michaels, S. (2005). Can the Intellectual Affordances of Working-Class Storytelling Be Leveraged in School? Human Development, 48, 136-145.
  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGACBP) & Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
  • NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • Otero, V., Finkelstein, N., McCray, R., & Pollock, S. (2006). Who is Responsible for Preparing Science Teachers? Science, 313(5786), 445-446.
  • Otero, V., Pollock, S., & Finkelstein, N. (2010). A physics department's role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model. American Journal of Physics, 78(11), 1218-1224.
  • Philipp, R. A., Thanheiser, E., & Clement, L. (2002). The role of a children's mathematical thinking experience in the preparation of prospective elementary school teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 195-210.
  • Pierson, J. L. (2008). The Relationship Between Patterns of Classroom Discourse and Mathematics Learning Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Mathematics Education. University of Texas at Austin. Austin, TX.
  • Putnam, R. T., &Borko, H. (2000). What Do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking Have to Say About Research on Teacher Learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
  • Radoff, J., & Hammer, D. (2016). Attention to Student Framing in Responsive Teaching. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive Teaching in Science (pp. 189-202).
  • Richards, J. (2013). Exploring what stabilizes teachers' attention and responsiveness to the substance of students' scientific thinking in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Science education. University of Maryland at College Park.
  • Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2016). Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). "The Coat Traps All Your Body Heat": Heterogeneity as Fundamental to Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322-357.
  • Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2015). Developing Interpretive Power in Science Teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. doi:10.1002/tea.21267
  • Roth, K. J., &Garnier, H. (2007). How five countries teach science. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16-23.
  • Russ, R. S., Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., & Hutchison, P. (2009). Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic reasoning. Science Education, 93(5), 875-891.
  • Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., & Seltzer, M. (1999). Relations between Classroom Practices and Student Learning in the Domain of Fractions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 1-24.
  • Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
  • Scherr, R. E. (2007). Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity. American Journal of Physics, 75(3), 272-280.
  • Schifter, D. (2011). Examining the Behavior of Operations: Noticing Early Algebraic Ideas. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics Teacher Noticing: Seeing Through Teachers' Eyes (pp. 204-220). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Sfard, A. (1998). On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
  • Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 163-183.
  • Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (2011). Mathematics Teacher Noticing: Seeing Through Teachers' Eyes. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using Video to Support Teachers' Ability to Notice Classroom Interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475-491.
  • Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of Video Club Participation on Teachers' Professional Vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
  • Sikorski, T.-R. (2016). Understanding responsive teaching and curriculum from the students' perspective. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive Teaching in Science (pp. 85-104). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Siry, C., & Max, C. (2013). The collective construction of a science unit: Framing curricula as emergent from kindergarteners' wonderings. Science Education, 97, 878-902.
  • Smith III, J. P., diSessa, A. A., &Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
  • Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
  • Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98, 487-516.
  • Sykes, G., Bird, T., & Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher education: Its problems and some prospects. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 464-476.
  • van Es, E. (2011). A Framework for Learning to Notice Student Thinking. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics Teacher Noticing: Seeing Through Teachers' Eyes (pp. 134-151). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers' "learning to notice" in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244-276.
  • van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2010). The influence of video clubs on teachers' thinking and practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 155-176.
  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1983). Learning as Constructive Activity. In J. C. Bergeron & N. Herscovics (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the North American Group of Psychology in Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 41-101). Montreal: PME-NA.
  • Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., &Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking Diversity in Learning Science: The Logic of Everyday Sense-Making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.
  • Wehlage, G. (1981). The purpose of generalization in field study research. In T. Papkewitz& B. Tabchmie (Eds.), The study of schooling (pp. 211-226). New York: Praeger.
  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96, 878-903.
  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.