View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Orientations-in-Practice: Mathematics and Science Preservice Secondary Teachers Learning to Orchestrate Discussions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Orientations-in-Practice: Mathematics and Science Preservice Secondary Teachers Learning to Orchestrate Discussions
Language: English
Authors: Laura Zangori (ORCID 0000-0002-7512-5559), Rachel B. Snider, Shelby Morge, Meredith Park Rogers, Tracy Hargrove, Ronald S. Hermann, Heather Howell
Source: School Science and Mathematics. 2026 126(3):219-234.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2026
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL)
Contract Number: 2037983
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Preservice Teachers, Secondary School Teachers, Discussion (Teaching Technique), Mathematics Teachers, Electronic Learning, Computer Simulation, Science Teachers, Mathematics Instruction, Science Instruction
DOI: 10.1111/ssm.18342
ISSN: 0036-6803
1949-8594
Abstract: Holding productive classroom discussions to illuminate student thinking is valued in both mathematics and science education. However, this practice can be challenging for even the most experienced teachers. Facilitating such a discussion requires in-the-moment decisions about questions and responses that will elicit student thinking and navigate the conversation toward a learning goal. These in-the-moment decisions are uncovered during observations and are considered a teachers' orientations-in-practice, as they are composed of a teachers' beliefs, dispositions, values, tastes, and preferences. To that end, the purpose of this study was to uncover secondary preservice teachers' (PSTs) developing orientations-in-practice for discussion orchestration. We analyzed 29 (16 math; 13 science) PSTs video performances, which took place in an online simulated classroom environment. Three question and response patterns emerged across all PSTs: (1) framed questions and responses to navigate student thinking, (2) tightened questions and responses to direct student thinking toward more acceptable responses, or (3) used few questions and depended on telling to drive student thinking toward the correct response. Overall, the simulation provided a means to uncover patterns for how PSTs are developing orientations-in-practice. Implications from this study focus on how to support PSTs in adjusting their classroom discussion practice in science and mathematics.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1507543
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF1NjguOHZi0YK1Mi8bAqCXAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHYkYK_j88J7IJM0_QIBEICBmzNfWeaOleYomLszqYPb2Ws9Xma8Lomog5G6kCSsk7XQ1vly38sEyBBjuUzr9Ibd46B68YAoI606_X3MHIxuWiFMOhcPQeWDHXf9nUwRjHUZth97-DDpA3IklXKKsQxCFQxhEqlICB2XuJbyI0NGgpMV1UByaGHGzbnOfV2olN1uNkslexyqbqCvUiBTA4smMxrhxUfxS7Yws-TV
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0194205334;ssm01jun.26;2026Jun03.05:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0194205334-1">Orientations‐in‐practice: Mathematics and science preservice secondary teachers learning to orchestrate discussions </title> <p>Holding productive classroom discussions to illuminate student thinking is valued in both mathematics and science education. However, this practice can be challenging for even the most experienced teachers. Facilitating such a discussion requires in‐the‐moment decisions about questions and responses that will elicit student thinking and navigate the conversation toward a learning goal. These in‐the‐moment decisions are uncovered during observations and are considered a teachers' orientations‐in‐practice, as they are composed of a teachers' beliefs, dispositions, values, tastes, and preferences. To that end, the purpose of this study was to uncover secondary preservice teachers' (PSTs) developing orientations‐in‐practice for discussion orchestration. We analyzed 29 (16 math; 13 science) PSTs video performances, which took place in an online simulated classroom environment. Three question and response patterns emerged across all PSTs: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) framed questions and responses to navigate student thinking, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) tightened questions and responses to direct student thinking toward more acceptable responses, or (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) used few questions and depended on telling to drive student thinking toward the correct response. Overall, the simulation provided a means to uncover patterns for how PSTs are developing orientations‐in‐practice. Implications from this study focus on how to support PSTs in adjusting their classroom discussion practice in science and mathematics.</p> <p>Keywords: classroom discourse; teacher beliefs; teacher education; teacher orientation</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Multiple calls have stressed the importance of practice‐based teacher education where preservice teachers (PSTs) have opportunities to learn to enact high leverage and core teaching practices, such as orchestrating a discussion (Ball et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>]; Grossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>]). The practice of eliciting and working with student thinking is essential in the classroom as it provides equity and access to content for all learners, holds learners accountable to the community, and allows student thinking to drive instruction (Michaels et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>]). Facilitating such a discussion requires in‐the‐moment decisions about questions and responses that will elicit student thinking and navigate the conversation toward a learning goal.</p> <p>Schoenfeld ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref7">35</reflink>]) theorized the nature of these in‐the‐moment decisions as situated in teachers' orientations, which is "an inclusive term to encompass what have been referred to variously in the literature as beliefs, dispositions, values, tastes, and preferences" (p. 84). Teacher orientations are complex, multi‐faceted systems that may be grounded in values and past experiences, and work in concert with a teacher's available resources and goals (Friedrichsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]; Park Rogers et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref9">31</reflink>]). The resources a teacher draws upon to make in‐the‐moment decisions are both internal, such as knowledge and beliefs, and external, such as lesson materials and technological tools. During the discussion the teacher aims to use the available resources to achieve their goals. Overall, the orientation a teacher holds is the underlying "why" for their in‐the‐moment decisions during a discussion. Elucidating the "why" leverages teachers' current orientations to support growth in orchestrating a productive discussion.</p> <p>Stockero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref10">38</reflink>]) consider this intertwining of orientations, resources, and goals as orientations‐in‐practice. They proposed that orientations‐in‐practice fall into patterns that can be analyzed and grouped by a teacher's potential to include high leverage practices in their instruction. We extend this literature through elucidating if orientation‐in‐practice patterns are also evident within and across secondary mathematics and science pre‐service teachers' (PSTs) instruction, and if so, what these patterns indicate about PSTs learning to orchestrate a discussion. We focus on both mathematics and science PSTs as these disciplines have pedagogical overlap in the attention to dialogic instruction in which learners are asked to explain, question, critique, and justify (Cartier et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]; Lehesvuori et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref12">19</reflink>]; Smith & Stein, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>]). Comparing and contrasting how mathematics and science PSTs are developing their orientations‐in‐practice can be used to determine nuanced differences within and between the two disciplines. Understanding these differences can support teacher education programs that are preparing teachers from a broader STEM interdisciplinary perspective, are emphasizing mathematics and science integration, and/or combining mathematics and science teacher preparation coursework due to low secondary enrollments within each discipline (AAEE, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>]; Jenlink & Jenlink, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-3">CONCEPTUAL FRAMING AND BACKGROUND LITERATURE</hd> <p>First, we describe and operationalize orientations‐in‐practice by drawing upon Stockero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref16">38</reflink>]) and McCormack et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>]). Second, we consider how approximations of practice elucidate PSTs development of orientations‐in‐practice when orchestrating a discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-4">Orientations‐in‐practice</hd> <p>Since we did not locate research suggesting patterns for PST orientations‐in‐practice, we draw upon the continuum elucidated by Stockero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref18">38</reflink>]) for how inservice teachers use student thinking as a resource to drive instruction. They provide three different points on the continuum: hindering, low‐potential, and high‐potential. To operationalize these patterns, we use an analytical tool developed by McCormack et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref19">20</reflink>]) to consider how PSTs elicit and work with student thinking in ways that are productive. By eliciting students' thinking, we mean how PSTs frame verbal questions during their lesson to make student thinking visible. Regarding the notion of working with student thinking, we refer to how a PST verbally responds to a student's comment once a student makes their thinking visible by orally sharing in class. By productive, we mean orchestrating a classroom discussion that seeks to "...guide the development of [student] understanding" (Mercer, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref20">23</reflink>], p. 93) in which students' contributions are valued and considered. Considering Stockero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref21">38</reflink>]) continuum, teachers that fall toward the left of the continuum have orientations‐in‐practice that hinder their potential development of working productively with student thinking, while teachers that fall toward the right of the continuum are those whose orientations‐in‐practice exhibit a high potential for productively working with student thinking, as shown in Figure 1.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SSM/01jun26/ssm18342-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ssm18342-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Orientations‐in‐practice conceptual framework." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0194205334-6">A hindering orientation‐in‐practice</hd> <p>All patterns of talk used by a teacher with a hindering orientation‐in‐practice position the teacher as the cognitive authority; their role is to evaluate student knowledge against canonical knowledge (Stroupe, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref22">39</reflink>]). Productive talk does not typically occur within this orientation as the teacher tends to consider that students will only arrive at a correct answer through luck or guessing so the practice of telling the mathematical solution and/or scientific explanation is dominant. Since classroom participation is defined through listening, watching, and practicing, a teachers' ability to perceive how their students are building new knowledge is constrained as student thinking as a resource is discounted (Herbst et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref23">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>When student talk is solicited, the talk tends to fall in a question and response pattern that was uncovered over forty years ago called initiation‐response‐evaluation ([IRE], Mehan, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref24">22</reflink>]). The IRE pattern takes place with one student at a time, often using a yes/no question structure, and cues students that they are expected to speak only when asked to display their knowledge for evaluation and approval. The focus of the talk is correcting student errors and evaluating student progress toward canonical knowledge; it is not a means to elicit and work with student thinking (McCormack et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref25">20</reflink>]). When student talk is unsolicited, a teachers' response tends to ignore the talk through disconnection from what the student said (such as reminding the student to stay on task), move the conversation to a different topic, and/or end the discussion. The unsolicited student talk may also be acknowledged through revoicing, providing generic positive motivation, or using the IRE pattern to evaluate accuracy of a response (Stroupe, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref26">39</reflink>]). With this orientation, there is rarely an opportunity for a teacher's in‐the‐moment decision making to work with students' thinking toward orchestrating a productive discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-7">A low potential orientation‐in‐practice</hd> <p>This orientation‐in‐practice is distinct from a hindering orientation‐in‐practice, as the teacher no longer acts solely as the cognitive authority but invites the students to be a part of the cognitive process. However, the teacher often directs the cognitive activity using leading questions. Question and response patterns align with what Wood ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref27">41</reflink>]) categorized as funneling, where the teacher's questions and responses guide (or funnel) students toward a particular outcome or specific answer. These patterns can occur with one or more students in the classroom, typically involving a sequence of guiding questions that gradually narrow the focus toward the teacher's intended result (Herbel‐Eisenmann & Breyfogle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref28">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>While this approach can help structure the discussion and ensure multiple voices are being heard as the discussion progresses toward the lesson goal, the ways that questions and responses are framed often limits opportunities for students to explore the reasoning behind their answers or provide in‐depth explanations (see Table 1). Student responses that do not align with the teacher's intended pathway are frequently ignored or acknowledged briefly without further elaboration (McCormack et al., ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref29">20</reflink>]). Teacher telling—explicitly providing information or answers—may also be used when necessary to maintain the discussion's trajectory toward the desired outcome. Yet, since teachers within this orientation‐in‐practice are asking questions that begin to elicit and work with student thinking, this orientation‐in‐practice demonstrates a potential for teacher growth toward more productive engagement with student thinking (Stockero et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref30">38</reflink>]). Funneling patterns provide entry points for students to share their ideas, thus positioning them as contributors to lesson objectives. Teachers operating with this orientation recognize student contributions as intellectual resources, thus demonstrating potential to elicit and work with student thinking.</p> <p>1 TABLE Focusing and funneling examples.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Question type</th><th align="left">Mathematics example</th><th align="left">Science example</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Focusing</td><td align="left">How do I find the y‐intercept if this [the slope and one point on the line] is all I know? (Herbel‐Eisenmann & Breyfogle, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2005</xref>, p. 486).</td><td align="left">"Why do you think stars would be born from that? Why do you think that that's [what's happening]?" (Hagenah et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2018</xref>, p. 264).</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Funneling</td><td align="left">(0, 0) and (4,1) are two points on the line in graph B...What's the slope? (Herbel‐Eisenmann & Breyfogle, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2005</xref>, p. 485).</td><td align="left">"And then let's say you know apparent brightness based on a light meter. What can you determine? (Hagenah et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2018</xref>, p. 263).</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0194205334-8">A high potential orientation‐in‐practice</hd> <p>Within this orientation‐in‐practice, question framing and responses support students as leaders of the cognitive activity. Students' prior knowledge and ideas serve as intellectual resources for collective knowledge‐building in which "student thinking, even thinking that is not completely correct, is a resource from which everyone in the classroom—including the teacher—could potentially learn" (Stockero et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref31">38</reflink>], p. 250). Question and response patterns align with what Wood ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref32">41</reflink>]) categorized as focusing, in which questions in the form of how or why invite students into the conversation (see Table 1). Once student ideas are elicited, further teacher responses seek to advance student thinking, contrast student ideas that are in play, and support students in connecting evidence and explanation (Herbel‐Eisenmann & Breyfogle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref33">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Discursive moves within this pattern work to make mathematics and science ideas public through continued discussion and collaboration with students. Even though questions are framed to invite participation, and elicit and work with student thinking, a teacher navigates the discussion through in‐the‐moment decisions so that the conversation may shift between focusing, funneling, acknowledging, and telling depending on student thinking (Herbst et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref34">15</reflink>]). Within this orientation‐in‐practice, there is high potential to leverage the teacher's current orientation for further growth in orchestrating productive discussions (Stockero et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref35">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-9">Approximations of practice</hd> <p>While orientations‐in‐practice have not been elucidated for PSTs, we draw upon the literature for learning to use high leverage practices to consider how PST orientations‐in‐practice may appear as they begin to elicit and work with student thinking. High leverage practices are practices that occur frequently in teaching and are critical for student learning across disciplines (Grossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref36">12</reflink>]). High leverage practices include eliciting student thinking, explaining and modeling content, and leading discussions. Over the past two decades, teacher education has shifted to look at teaching through the lens of high leverage practices (Forzani, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref37">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>The shift in teacher education to specific practices that are high leverage for student learning comes with new teaching methods focused on helping PSTs develop the knowledge and skills needed to enact such practices (Stroupe & Gotwals, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref38">40</reflink>]). These pedagogies of practice include representations, decompositions, and approximations of practice (Grossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref39">12</reflink>]). Representations of a practice can encompass many forms, including classroom video, scripts, and animations. Practices are often decomposed into their constituent parts. PSTs can engage in approximations of practice in which they enact all, or part, of a practice.</p> <p>Approximations of practice for discussion orchestration range from PSTs planning questions (e.g., Colonnese et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>]) and analyzing discussion orchestration videos (e.g., Estapa & Davis, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref41">8</reflink>]), to something that more closely resembling the full practice, such as rehearsing a discussion in a methods course (e.g., Stroupe & Gotwals, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref42">40</reflink>]), leading a full discussion in a classroom with real students (e.g., McNew‐Birren & van den Kieboom, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref43">21</reflink>]), and/or combinations of practice involving the classroom and simulation (Shaughnessy et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref44">36</reflink>]). Orchestrating a classroom discussion can be decomposed into asking questions that elicit student thinking and responding in ways that work with student thinking to drive the lesson forward. Decomposition makes the discussion orchestration pieces clearer for PSTs and enables them to learn the components of the practice. Decomposing this practice is important as PSTs' future students will use these frames as cues for classroom discussion norms, as they indicate to students what and whose talk is prioritized within the classroom (Herbst et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>While field experiences within a K‐12 classroom are important for PSTs to develop their instructional practice at orchestrating a discussion, they can also be challenging contexts due to the variation in student knowledge, experiences, and willingness to respond to PST questions (Shaughnessy et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref46">36</reflink>]). Within field contexts, PSTs feel competing goals between trying out their developing practice and honoring their cooperating teacher's instructional approach, which may conflict with their methods coursework (Daniel, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref47">7</reflink>]). Learning to orchestrate a discussion requires "quiet[ing] the background noise" (Grossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>], p. 2083) of field contexts such as complexities in working with students and conflicting teacher goals. Simulation experiences have emerged to "quiet the background noise" so PSTs can work on translating their ideas into practice. Simulations also allow PSTs to rehearse their discussions without doing any potential harm to real students, and the structured nature of the simulation environment can facilitate comparison across PSTs as each has encountered a challenge that is fundamentally alike (Berg et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]; Shaughnessy et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref50">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>We focus on one type of simulated environment that has emerged as a PST practice space—the Mursion® Avatar Based Simulation (ABS). Using ABS as a PST practice‐based education space is nascent within teacher education, although it is emerging within elementary PST education (Berg et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>]). ABS serves as a low‐risk practice space for PSTs as there is no possibility of introducing confusion or errors to "real" students. PSTs find ABS as authentic and spontaneous because of the student avatars' abilities to respond in real time. This requires PSTs to make in‐the‐moment decisions during the simulation, much as they would within the classroom (Dalinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>]). The student avatars are voiced by a trained interactor, who responds consistently across all PST discussions. This provides an opportunity for all PSTs to engage in the same approximation with the same group of student avatars, allowing for "patterns of interactions" (Berg et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>], p. 744) to emerge across ABS discussions. The patterns can be used by teacher educators to debrief across classrooms of PSTs and use the interaction patterns to support PSTs in building their orientation‐in‐practice.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-10">THE CURRENT STUDY</hd> <p>This study is part of a larger NSF project called [name withheld for blind review]. All participants are enrolled in the larger project. This study included 29 secondary PSTs across three institutions (two on the East Coast, one in the Midwest) that were enrolled in either mathematics or science methods coursework, all working toward teacher certification. Given that high‐leverage practices are intended across disciplines (Grossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref55">12</reflink>]) and the similarities within pedagogical approaches in mathematics education and science education, we aimed to elucidate how mathematics and science secondary PSTs are developing their discussion orchestration practice, and if the patterns across disciplines were similar. This study is not an intervention; our purpose is to formatively assess PSTs orientations‐in‐practice through their question and response patterns within an ABS discussion. We ask:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What orientations‐in‐practices are elucidated through question and response patterns used by secondary mathematics and science PSTs in an ABS discussion?</item> <p></p> <item> Are secondary mathematics and science PSTs similar in their orientations‐in‐practices across ABS discussions?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0194205334-11">METHODS</hd> <p>The overall project that this study is a part of focused on argumentation‐focused discussions as defined by math and science standards documents (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref56">27</reflink>]]; Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>]]). The qualitative study discussed here focused on attending to students' ideas through questions and responses during whole group discussions, which is a foundational practice for argumentation‐focused discussion. If PSTs are unable to orchestrate a productive discussion in which they elicit and work with student thinking, then argumentation‐focused discussions are not possible as students' ideas are not placed on the table for public debate.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-12">Participants</hd> <p>All participants were PSTs from one of three institutions enrolled in a traditional four‐year teacher education program. Each methods course was taught by a faculty member with a Ph.D. in either mathematics education or science education. The mathematics educator was from a university on the East Coast; 16 students from their course were enrolled in this study. Two science educators were enrolled in this study. The first science educator was from a different university on the East Coast than the mathematics educator and six PSTs from their course enrolled in this study. The second science educator was from a Midwest university and seven PSTs from their course enrolled in this study. Each of the 29 PSTs that participated in the study were traditional education students aged 19–21, seeking certification as a middle school or secondary mathematics or science teacher. All PSTs were at junior or senior undergraduate standing and had not completed student teaching prior to this study.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-13">Simulated discussion</hd> <p>Each PST led a discussion within an ABS space hosted by Mursion®. ABS is an online simulated teaching experience with five middle school student avatars (called students throughout the remainder of this study). A detailed discussion of ABS as an approximation of practice is provided in Mikeska et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref58">25</reflink>]). The ABS space was consistent with the same small group of five middle school aged students and learner profiles across the mathematics and science content areas. Each PST discussion occurred outside of their methods class time. PSTs accessed the simulation through their home devices and did not need additional software. Mursion® adult interactors, trained on the student profiles for both tasks, served as the voice for all students using a voice changer for each individual student. The simulation experience was a required part of the mathematics or science methods coursework in the fall of 2022. The discussion simulation had a maximum time limit of 20 min; however, PSTs could end the simulation at any time (they were not required to go for the full 20 min). If the PSTs were still in the simulation at minute 19, they were given a notification that they needed to complete their discussion within the next few minutes.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-14">Discussion content</hd> <p>The ABS discussions were scenario based, replicating how a small group discussion might occur in a regular classroom. PSTs were given a resource packet before their scheduled ABS discussion. The resource packets described the scenario, including detailed information about the activities and/or investigations students completed prior to the ABS discussion, student work completed during the activity, and goals for the discussion. The resource packets also provided content background information, discussion teaching tips, and decomposed the student work that included typical student confusions exhibited when learning the content.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-15">Mathematics scenario</hd> <p>The mathematics scenario was a proportional reasoning task called Hungry, Hungry Huskies (Online Practice Suite [OPS, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]]). The simulation students were given the following problem within small groups:</p> <p>Alex has two dogs, Dottie and Clive. Every 4 days, Dottie eats 5 pounds of dog food. Every 2 days, Clive eats 3 pounds of dog food. If both dogs continue to eat dog food at their own rate, how many days will it take them to eat 22 pounds of dog food?</p> <p>The students then solved the unit rate for Dottie and for Clive and used their calculated unit rates for each dog to determine how long it would take both dogs to eat 16 pounds of dog food.</p> <p>Within the scenario, both groups, Ava, Jasmine and Ethan and Savannah and Dev correctly calculated it would take Dottie and Clive eight days to eat 22 pounds of food. Ava, Jasmine, and Ethan also correctly identified individual unit rates for each dog and correctly determined that it would take Dottie and Clive 5.8 days to eat 16 pounds of dog food. From their work, it is not clear how their strategy of drawing and counting dog food bowls helped them solve the problem and/or if they understand how their strategy worked to correctly calculate the unit rates. The other group, Savannah and Dev used tables to solve the initial problem and then correctly found the individual unit rates for each dog. They then used an incorrect strategy to calculate the combined unit rate (adding individual unit rates in terms of days per pound) to determine the number of days it would take the dogs to each 16 pounds of dog food. They incorrectly conclude that it takes Dottie and Clive 23.52 days to eat 16 pounds of dog food.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-16">Science scenario</hd> <p>The science scenario was titled Keep it Cold (OPS, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]). Prior to the simulated discussion, the students completed three investigations in which they observed temperature changes to hot chocolate in a foam cup and paper cup and recording which cup kept the liquid warmer over 30‐min; observed heat transfer along a strip of aluminum foil; and used an interactive simulation to show the relationship between particle motion and temperature. The ABS discussion focused on a fourth investigation that served to synthesize the ideas within the first three investigations. Students observed cold water in a foam cup and paper cup with lids and recorded which cup kept the water colder over a 30‐min period. Students were asked to use this data to draw a scientific model showing how heat was transferring. They were also asked to critique and compare the other group's model to their own model.</p> <p>The first student group, Jasmine and Ethan, claimed that the cold was leaking out of the paper cup more quickly than the foam cup. In their model, they drew water particles, some blue and some white to represent cold and warm particles. They correctly noted that warmer particles move faster than cooler ones, but they represented the particles as being two different types of particles rather than the same water particles on a continuum of warm (moving faster) to cold (moving slower). They did not incorporate evidence from their previous investigations, such as the investigation from the second activity that demonstrated heat transfer from warmer to cooler areas. In critiquing Savannah, Dev, and Ava's model, Jasmine and Ethan questioned why the other group showed heat moving from warmer to cooler areas instead of from cooler to warmer. Jasmine and Ethan suggested the other group should include a particle representation with particle motion to model the relative temperature of the water in the cups.</p> <p>The second student group, Savannah, Dev, and Ava claimed that heat from the air entered the paper cup resulting in an increase in the temperature of the water in the paper cup while the foam cup stopped the heat from entering. They understood that heat moves from warmer to colder areas, but incorrectly conceived that foam blocked all heat transfer. In their model, they used arrows to show heat transfer from warm air, through the paper cup, and into the cold water. In the foam cup, their arrows stopped at the edge of the cup, indicating that no heat entered the cup. Their model did not align with their investigation data (which showed that the water temperature increased slightly in the foam cup). In critiquing Jasmine and Ethan's model, they recognized that cold escaping was inaccurate. They questioned the other group's use of colors to distinguish cold and warm particles and why they included "cold particles" outside each cup.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-17">Data collection</hd> <p>All participant PST‐led simulation discussions videos were recorded and collected for data analysis. The videos were transcribed in their entirety. The mathematics discussion simulation times ranged from 16 to 24 min, with a mean of 20 min and a standard deviation of 1.9 min. The science discussion simulation times ranged from 10 to 21 min, with a mean of 17 min and a standard deviation of 3.5 min. Both simulation videos and transcriptions were shared in a secured shared drive for analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-18">Data analysis</hd> <p>Our qualitative analysis focused on how the PSTs framed questions and responded to student thinking within the simulation experience using the McCormack et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref61">20</reflink>]) analytical tool. This tool was developed by discourse patterns found in elementary education PSTs mathematics and/or science discussions which were question and responses using focusing, funneling, acknowledging, telling, and no response. Both the funneling and focusing patterns were from those described in Wood ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref62">41</reflink>]). Focusing patterns occurred when the PST asked students to explain their thinking or provide their reasoning and responded to students in ways to connect students' reasoning, build on student reasoning, and/or pursue the substance of students' thinking. Funneling patterns occurred when the PST asked questions that guided students' thinking to a particular teacher‐preferred answer in support of directing the discussion toward a particular outcome.</p> <p>Additional patterns include acknowledging, no response, and telling. Acknowledging occurs when PSTs' questions are phrased to elicit factual responses without asking for reasoning as to how or why the answer was correct. These types of exchanges are often evaluative, provide encouragement, and/or revoice, but rarely provide substantive movement forward in the discussion through inviting students to explain their thinking or make connections across ideas. The no response pattern occurs when the PST's follow‐up question or comment are disconnected from what the student said, asked (and answers) a rhetorical question, tells students the answer and explanation, moves to a different topic, and/or ends the discussion. Finally, a telling pattern occurs when the PST asks few questions and tells students how to solve a problem or tells students the explanation for phenomena.</p> <p>Data analysis occurred in two cycles with five individual coders. In the first cycle, each individual coder used a priori coding (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref63">34</reflink>]) to code sections using McCormack et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref64">20</reflink>]) data tool. First, all five coders read through the same mathematics PSTs' transcript, and each coded the transcript individually using the data tool. All coders coded "chunks of data" (Miles et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref65">26</reflink>], p. 73). Each data chunk started with a PST question and a new chunk of data began when the analysis found that the direction of the conversation shifted. Using chunks of data helped capture the broader context of the discussion dialogue and avoided taking individual questions and responses out of context. An example of a chunk of data is shown in Table 2 that occurred from discussion minutes 2:39 to 4:15 (total discussion time was 19:31). As shown in the excerpt, the data chunk started with the PST asking Savannah a yes/no question and concluded with an answer from Jasmine. On the transcript, immediately following Jasmine's answer, the PST asked a new question about a different part of the student work (why are the particles the same?) which signified a new chunk of data.</p> <p>2 TABLE Coding example from science PST Morgan.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Transcript</th><th align="left">Code and (notes)</th><th align="left">Memo</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Morgan (PST): Savannah, do you agree with that [to show particles in different colors]?</td><td align="left">(Start of data chunk with a yes/no question)</td><td align="left">The PST used a consistent pattern throughout her discussion. First, she used funneling questions to guide students toward a correct answer. When students exhibited confusion in their response to her funneling question, she shifted to acknowledging. Acknowledging forced (through hand raising) student consensus toward a correct answer. Once students indicated a correct answer, she returned to a new funneling question about a different part of their model. Alternating between funneling and acknowledging occurring throughout her 19‐min discussion.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Savannah: Well, I think it's a little confusing the way they showed them as different colors.</td><td align="left">(Student stating that the particle representation from the other group is confusing because they showed "hot" particles and "cold" particles)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Morgan (PST): Okay. How do you think it could be confusing then?</td><td align="left">Funneling (on why the other group's representation was confusing)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Savannah: Well, because it made it seem like the cold particles and the warm particles are two different things.</td><td align="left">(Student providing reasoning as to why the other groups representation of "hot" and "cold" particles was confusing)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Morgan (PST): Okay. So, they're not two different things?</td><td align="left">Funneling to specifically state there are no "hot" and "cold" particles.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Savannah: Well, no. They're all just water.</td><td align="left">(Student confirms)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Morgan (PST): Okay. All right. Thank you, Savannah... Just raise your hand if you agree the particles are affected by temperature. Okay. Great, great. So now you can put your hands down. Now does everyone agree that the particles are the same and there's not a difference? Raise your hand if you agree that they're the same. All right. You can put your hands down.</td><td align="left">Acknowledging response (evaluative and encouraging)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Morgan (PST): Now Jasmine, why do you think there is different kinds of particles?</td><td align="left">Funneling (on Jasmine's group which had incorrect particle representation. Question asks for reasoning about hot and cold particles)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Jasmine: Well, it's like when we did the particle simulator and there were the cold particles and the warm particles. They're different if they're cold or they're warm.</td><td align="left">(Student provides a connection to prior activity)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>All five coders met and discussed their individual coding of the same transcript and discrepancies across data chunks and codes. Discussion occurred until 100% agreement was reached by all individual coders. We then repeated this method using one science PST transcript and all five coders again met and discussed discrepancies until 100% agreement was reached. Next, one mathematics educator and one science educator co‐coded approximately 13% of the transcripts (<emph>n</emph> = 4; two mathematics PST transcripts and two science PST transcripts) to establish inter‐coder reliability. Inter‐coder reliability was above 90% which was determined as sufficient (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref66">34</reflink>]). The remaining transcripts were divided between the mathematics and science educator to complete inter‐coder reliability. After coding each transcript, each wrote an analytical memo summarizing the discussion trajectory and discussion overall patterns. An example of the primary codes with an analytical memo for a transcript are shown in Table 2.</p> <p>In the second coding cycle, the team focused on code charting. Code charting, as described by Saldaña ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref67">34</reflink>]) is a means to summarize and compare coded data for each participant. We created a chart where we listed the primary codes and analytical memos for each PST. We then completed a third level of analysis in which we aggregated the PSTs by codes and memos within the chart. We found that the patterns aggregated into three groups, or themes, that we discuss next.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-19">FINDINGS</hd> <p>Across the data, we found that all PSTs opened the discussion with a focusing question that prompted students' reasoning, such as, for mathematics, "Can someone in Ava, Jasmine and Ethan's group explain what they did [to solve the task]?" or, for science, "Jasmine, can you tell us why you and Ethan have included the particles in your model?" It was only after this initial question that one of three themes emerged. The first theme we titled Navigators as these PSTs were strategically using focusing and funneling patterns to navigate students' knowledge and ideas as intellectual resources for the discussion. The second theme we titled Directors as PSTs were using funneling questions to direct students to a specific response. The third theme we titled Drivers as the PSTs took on the cognitive activity and drove students to the lesson goal. While all mathematics and science PSTs fell into one of the three themes, the distribution of mathematics and science PSTs across the themes was not equivalent, as shown in Table 3. Over half of the mathematics PSTs (62.5%) were Navigators, while the science PSTs were evenly split between Navigators (38%) and Drivers (38%).</p> <p>3 TABLE Mathematics and science PSTs within each group.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">PST as navigator</th><th align="left">PST as director</th><th align="left">PST as driver</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Number</th><th align="left">Percent (%)</th><th align="left">Number</th><th align="left">Percent (%)</th><th align="left">Number</th><th align="left">Percent (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Mathematics</td><td align="char" char=".">10</td><td align="char" char=".">62.5</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">12.5</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td><td align="char" char=".">25</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Science</td><td align="char" char=".">5</td><td align="char" char=".">38</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">23</td><td align="char" char=".">5</td><td align="char" char=".">38</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">15</td><td align="char" char=".">51.7</td><td align="char" char=".">5</td><td align="char" char=".">17</td><td align="char" char=".">9</td><td align="char" char=".">31</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0194205334-20">Theme 1, PST as navigator</hd> <p>Fifteen PSTs (10 mathematics; 5 science) each strategically implemented and maintained both focusing and funneling questions across the discussion, switching their questioning pattern and response based on student responses. However, when PSTs uncovered that students were unable to articulate their sense‐making about their answers, held an alternate conception about a concept, and/or were confused about concepts, PSTs changed their discussion trajectory to acknowledging and pushed students to a correct answer. We provide an example from Mathematics PST Chris, in Table 4, from minute 12:00 to minute 15:00.</p> <p>4 TABLE Navigator mathematics excerpt from PST Chris.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Transcript (time stamp)</th><th align="left">Code (notes)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Chris (12:02): So I see that we have two different days. Savannah and Dev, you have 23.52 days while Ava, Jasmine, Ethan have 5.8 days. One of those answers is correct. Can your groups turn and talk and try and just discuss reasons why you think your answer is correct?</td><td align="left">Focusing (Question on student sense‐making about unit rate)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">[Student groups talk for 45 s]</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Chris (12:47): Okay. Let's bring it back together. Would anybody like to explain first?</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Jasmine (12:54): Well, we were talking about it. And we think that our answer is right because when we first came up with our answer, we checked it with the work that we did in the Hungry, Hungry Huskies problem. And we think that it makes sense.</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Chris (13:12): Okay. And quickly going back to your answer for the...Hungry, Hungry Huskies problem. Can you explain to me how you used Dottie and Clive's circles with the food diagrams to get that answer or at least to justify it?</td><td align="left">Funneling (question on unit rate sense‐making using a drawing)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Jasmine (13:38): You mean, how we used it to check our answer for the second follow‐up question? We didn't really use the pictures...we said that it would take eight days for [the dogs] to eat 22 pounds....in the follow‐up question, we said it would take them 5 8/10 days to eat 16 pounds...it just made sense...that it would take them less days to less pounds.</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Chris (14:12): Okay...Savannah and Dev, why do you think your answer is correct?</td><td align="left">Focusing (Question about unit rate sense‐making)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Dev (14:21): ...because we know we got the right answer for the Hungry, Hungry Huskies problem...and the way we did the second follow‐up questions...and so we think it's probably right because we figured it out so easily.</td><td align="left">(Student does not provide sense‐making)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Chris (14:41): So in the second follow‐up question it takes a little over...23.52 days to each 16 pounds of food according to your unit rate. And does it make sense that it would take more days to eat less food?</td><td align="left">Acknowledging question (Framed as a yes/no question to correct the incorrect unit rate)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Savannah (15:07): Well, I guess no. It doesn't make sense.</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Chris (15:12): So looking back at your work...is there anything that ...we could potentially change so the answer would make sense?</td><td align="left">Acknowledging question (An evaluation to correct the incorrect unit rate)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Throughout the first 12:00 min of the discussion Chris used focusing patterns to elicit student knowledge and funneling patterns to ask questions about students' unit rate calculation sense‐making. For example, asking "Now could somebody in the group [answer]...how did you get the answer 22 pounds in eight days?" (2:17) and, when uncovering a student confusion, responded with "Can you explain how you and Savannah found this out?" (7:24). However, from minutes 12:00 to 15:00, the discussion pattern changes. Chris asked students to make sense of their calculation ("Can your groups turn and talk and try and just discuss reasons why you think your answer is correct?"). When Chris called the groups back together, Jasmine explained that their groups unit rate calculation "just made sense...that it would take them less days to less pounds." Dev responded that their answer was right because it was easy to calculate. Dev did not include reasoning about the answer for his group. This is the first time in the discussion that Chris receives a response that is off track and is not correct.</p> <p>Immediately following Dev's response, Chris switches to an acknowledging question for Dev ("...does it make sense that it would take more days to eat less food?"). Savannah (Dev's group member) responds that their answer did not make sense. Chris asked another acknowledging question pushing Dev and Savannah to change their answer ("is there anything that you see that we could potentially change so the answer would make sense?"). From this point until the discussion ends at 20:28, Chris continues to use acknowledging questions to push both student groups to a correct unit rate for each problem.</p> <p>Chris's navigation of the discussion was typical for PSTs that fell within the Navigator group. Both the mathematics and science PSTs used focusing and funneling questions that provided space for student reasoning during the discussion until they reached a point in the discussion in which they uncovered student confusion or misconceptions, such as when Chris uncovered that Dev could not explain if their answer made sense for the problem. When PSTs reached student confusions or gaps in knowledge, they adjusted their trajectory to acknowledging to navigate unexpected student thinking. Once they provided the answer, the PSTs in this trajectory then returned to a focusing and funneling discussion trajectory.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-21">Theme 2, PST as director</hd> <p>Five PSTs (two mathematics; three science) were in this theme. Here, the PSTs consistently moved to funneling patterns early in the discussion and shifted between funneling and acknowledging throughout the remainder of the discussion. Shifting between funneling and acknowledging did not leave space to elicit student sense‐making or build on student thinking; however, it did result in all students reaching correct answers by the end of the discussion.</p> <p>An excerpt from Casey's discussion from minute 3:43 to 5:23 in Table 5. Casey asked funneling questions that became successively narrower and shifted to acknowledging questions which forced students to a specific answer. As shown in Table 5, Casey did connect questions and responses for the topic ("Ava, why did your group decide to add the unit rates in question two?"; "[Ava] How did you know that you were allowed to add them together, that this was an okay thing to do?"), concentrating the funneling question/responses for the student group with the correct calculation (Ava, Jasmine, and Ethan). However, Casey shifted to acknowledging questions for the student group that did not calculate the correct unit rate (Savannah and Dev). This directed them to change their answer ("Savannah or Dev, could you see why it would be reasonable that you could have two dogs eating a combined amount in the same number of days?"). Casey followed this same pattern across the discussion. Using funneling questions for the group with a correct answer and acknowledging questions for the group with the incorrect answer, but not asking students to make sense of their answers. The discussion ended with both groups arriving at the correct answer.</p> <p>5 TABLE Director mathematics excerpt from PST Casey.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Transcript (time stamp)</th><th align="left">Code (notes)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Casey (3:43): Ava, why did your group decide to add the unit rates in question two?</td><td align="left">Funneling (for unit rate decision)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ava (3:56): Well, because it said to calculate how long it would take them to eat a total of 16 pounds. We thought that seemed like an addition problem. So, we thought that was a good place to start by adding them together.</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Casey (4:10): How did you know that you were allowed to add them together, that this was an okay thing to do?</td><td align="left">Funneling (for explanation on unit rate decision)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ava (4:17): I guess we didn't know, but we added them together and then, we double checked our answer based on the answer to the Hungry, Hungry, Huskies problem, so that helped us know that we were doing it right.</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Casey (4:32): Savannah or Dev, could you see why it would be reasonable that you could have two dogs eating a combined amount in the same number of days?</td><td align="left">Acknowledging (to yes/no response on unit rate)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Savannah (4:50): Yeah, that makes sense.</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Casey (4:54): Can you describe to me how you're thinking about that in your head? How it's possible that two dogs can both eat in one day, and we can add those together?</td><td align="left">Acknowledging (with an evaluation of why their unit rate is incorrect)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Dev (5:07): I guess if I imagine two dogs eating their food, it would just be them eating out of their bowls. If they're eating in the same day, maybe they live together, and they're in a room eating out of their own bowls.</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Casey (5:23): Yeah. They're eating different food, just at the same time. Perfect</td><td align="left">Acknowledging (Getting the correct answer)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0194205334-22">Theme 3, PST as driver</hd> <p>Nine PSTs (four mathematics; five science) had patterns that were predominately acknowledging and no response with limited funneling questions. We illustrate this trajectory from science PST Dakota (Table 6). This excerpt takes place from discussion minute 3:02 to 6:02. Dakota first asked a funneling question about how to show the different movement between particles. After Ethan responded, Dakota shifted to acknowledging questions to direct the conversation toward a particular answer ("what would you make to differentiate between the two [different particles] of them?"). Within this acknowledging series of questions, Dakota's emphasis on using a pen or pencil to differentiate the particles leads Jasmine to respond about how to show a difference with a pen or pencil but Jasmine did not address why the particles moved differently. Dakota then switched to no response in which she talks for two minutes telling students how to represent the two different particles ("...maybe the warmer particles can be represented with longer, curvy segments to show that they're moving faster than the cold particles..."). As Dakota talked, she drew the particle representation for the students on the whole‐group consensus model and showed it to the students. Students' sense‐making did not drive the discussion; rather, Dakota relied on questions with specific answers, acknowledged students' answers, and told students the answers to drive the lesson toward the lesson goal of constructing a consensus model.</p> <p>6 TABLE Driver science excerpt from PST Dakota.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Transcript (time stamp)</th><th align="left">Code (notes)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Dakota (3:02): Good. So if we know that within one cup the particles are at the same temperature and with our model, how do you think we would show the difference in those particles, if we know that one of them is moving faster than the other?</td><td align="left">Funnel (on particle movement)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ethan (3:26): Well, that's why we wanted to make them different colors, to show the difference between the cold particles that move slow and the warm particles that move fast.</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Dakota (3:36): So if we only have a pencil or a pen to draw this, if we didn't have access to different colors, what would you make to differentiate between the two of them?</td><td align="left">Acknowledging (with respect to an evaluation of how to show particles)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Jasmine: Well, I guess maybe you could color one in and leave one empty.</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Dakota (4:00): Yeah, that's a good idea. But then, we're also going to have the same issue again of the different colors if you shade one in. So maybe the warmer particles can be represented with longer, curvy segments to show that they're moving faster than the cold particles. So if we look at our consensus model and we want to draw in our particles so that we know we're moving at different speeds, but we want to keep them the same color...I'm going to draw four particles in each cup at the same size, so you guys can do that as well. And we know that the particles in the paper cup, they get heated faster, like we have discussed. We want to show that in some way...</td><td align="left">No response (PST talked from minute 4:00 to 6:02)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0194205334-23">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The notion of a teacher orientation is a pervasive term across both mathematics (e.g., Remillard & Bryans, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref68">33</reflink>]) and science education (e.g., Friedrichsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref69">11</reflink>]). Teacher orientations have predominately been situated within teacher beliefs and how those beliefs are connected to teaching actions. However, espoused beliefs about teaching do not necessarily align with actions taken while teaching. Schoenfeld ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref70">35</reflink>]) theoretically proposed that orientations encompass more than beliefs, as beliefs contribute to teaching behavior, but do not fully explain teacher behavior. Stockero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref71">38</reflink>]) suggested that teacher orientations, as conceived by Schoenfeld, may be a useful construct. They proposed patterns of orientations‐in‐practice for an inservice teacher's potential to consider student thinking as a resource within their classroom. These patterns were elucidated within scenario‐based interviews, due to the inherent complexities of uncovering patterns within the classroom.</p> <p>We operationalized orientations‐in‐practice through focusing on how PSTs framed questions and responses to elicit and work with student thinking during an ABS discussion. Each PST's discussion involved the same mathematics or science content, and the student avatars were the same regardless of discipline, thus providing a consistent comparison context. The instructional scenario remained consistent across PSTs which provided a means to observe and look for question and response patterns. The data aggregated into three orientations‐in‐practice groups that encompassed both the mathematics and science secondary PSTs. The patterns within each group provide insights into how the PSTs are developing their orientation‐in‐practice potential to elicit and work with student thinking during a classroom discussion. This analysis does not serve to generalize the orientations‐in‐practice of the participating PSTs; rather, we use it as an elucidation of patterns for formative assessment to support PSTs discussion practice development.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-24">PST orientation‐in‐practice as navigator and director</hd> <p>PST orientation‐in‐practice as Navigator most aligned with Stockero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref72">38</reflink>]) notion of a high potential orientation‐in‐practice. The PSTs within this theme navigated the discussion using a variety of framing such as focusing, funneling, and acknowledging as they made in the moment decisions respond to student thinking. They switched their question and response strategy (i.e., when Dev does not provide reasoning) to acknowledging patterns as they uncovered student confusions and/or knowledge gaps. Once they were able to navigate students to a more acceptable explanation, they returned to focusing and funneling questions.</p> <p>PST orientation‐in‐practice as Director most aligned with Stockero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>]) notion of low potential orientation‐in‐practice. These PSTs also began with focusing questions; however, they keyed in on funneling questions earlier in the discussion than Navigator PSTs. Director PSTs also switched to acknowledging sooner, particularly when they uncovered student confusion and/or knowledge gaps, such as in when Ava does not provide correct reasoning (in Table 5). While the strategies used by both Navigator and Director supported the PSTs in continuing to move the conversation forward, the patterns also showed moments when the PSTs minimized opportunities for eliciting and working with student thinking. The distinction between Navigator and Director is that this minimization occurred much sooner within Directors.</p> <p>Asking questions that seek to elicit student thinking places teachers in thorny positions, in which they must figure out how to navigate the messy process of students' ideas and knowledge gaps (Stroupe, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref74">39</reflink>]). We conjecture that Navigator PSTs may have a more developed understanding of the importance of eliciting and working with student knowledge than Directors, as Navigators continued to return to focusing questions and responses throughout the discussion. Director PSTs also attempted to elicit and work with student thinking, but they quickly switched to funneling and acknowledging patterns to direct the conversation when reaching these thorny instances. Most important, PSTs in both groups showed their orientations‐in‐practice potential within discussion orchestration. This finding suggests that these mathematics and science PSTs were developing their abilities to use student responses as resources to shift instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-25">PST orientation‐in‐practice as driver</hd> <p>Driver PSTs may have what Stockero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref75">38</reflink>]) considered a hindering orientation‐in‐practice as the questions asked after their initial question were not framed to support student sense‐making. All PSTs in this orientation‐in‐practice provided the solution or explanation to the students. However, we also want to consider other reasons we may have located this group. First, the PSTs were attempting to use a core practice that they may not have experienced as a mathematics or science learner and/or may not have observed within their field placements (Lehesvuori et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref76">19</reflink>]). Without experiencing this practice as a learner or observer, it takes considerably more time and opportunities for PSTs to learn both how and why to elicit and work with student thinking. It is important to note that all PSTs within theme three did attempt at the start of the discussion to elicit student thinking, which suggests there is potential to build this skill.</p> <p>Second, research has suggested that PSTs realize they should ask students questions but do not yet understand the purpose for asking questions (McNew‐Birren & van den Kieboom, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref77">21</reflink>]). This was evident within this group, as when Dakota (a science PST) focused on how to use different colors to show particle movement, rather than why it was important to show particle movement. We suggest that PSTs within this theme need explicit practice and support for the purpose of asking questions for what they should elicit about student understanding, how to frame questions so they can elicit student understanding, and why they should do so. A possible means to do this may be to provide detailed rationales throughout a classroom discussion transcript that highlights both how questions were framed with teacher reasoning for their framing choice, as well clarity for how and why a teacher continued to work with the student responses, once elicited, as they furthered the discussion toward a learning goal.</p> <p>Third, we also consider that this pattern may have appeared more within the science PSTs (38%), than the mathematics PSTs (25%) due to the breadth and depth of the scenario‐based content used for their simulation experience. A scenario‐based simulation space was important as it provided means for PSTs to review student work, consider student confusions and knowledge gaps within context, and see how students were building explanations toward the learning goal (Kazemi, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref78">17</reflink>]). The scenario provided a basis for the PSTs to plan how they may guide students thinking as well as make connections across student thinking to explore complexities of different understandings (Franke & Kazemi, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref79">10</reflink>]). However, within the scenario, the mathematics PSTs only had to synthesize the discussion across one activity and mathematic concept while the science PSTs had to build student ideas across four prior energy activities. While common student confusions and knowledge gaps about thermal energy flow were included in the design of the simulation experience and resources, the science PSTs also had to navigate common student conceptions and confusions for change in average kinetic energy as measured by temperature. This bundling of NGSS standards may have been too much content for novices to navigate in a discussion, so they shifted to telling to resolve this content complexity.</p> <p>There has been a push in recent years within science education to bundle science content within big ideas (e.g., Reiser et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref80">32</reflink>]). While these may be beneficial for experienced teachers, as PSTs are learning core practices, such as discussion orchestration, it may be important to simplify content to one NGSS performance expectation (PE). When PEs are bundled, then PSTs are attempting to learn how to navigate a challenging core practice in addition to synthesizing content across PEs, such as a thermal energy flow and change in average kinetic energy as measured by temperature. While experienced teachers may be able to elicit and respond to student thinking along bundled lines of inquiry, we suggest that it may be better to streamline content for novices, particularly across an abstract science idea such as energy. If content is streamlined, the PSTs may be better positioned to learn how to navigate students' partial understandings and knowledge gaps about the specific focal content while also implementing their developing practice of eliciting and working with student thinking.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-26">IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION</hd> <p>There are three implications from this work. First, elucidating common patterns provided a means for guiding PST support for their specific needs in developing this high leverage practice. Research has shown that PSTs know the importance of student talk and planning questions to elicit student thinking (e.g., Daniel, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref81">7</reflink>]; McNew‐Birren & van den Kieboom, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref82">21</reflink>]). Our results suggest there must also be a heightened focus on planning to work with student thinking, once elicited. Knowing about these three orientations‐in‐practice potentials may support teacher educators in targeting their instruction. For example, those in theme three may need explicit instruction on the purpose of asking questions, while those in theme two may need explicit instruction on how to respond when students answer in unanticipated ways. In addition, demonstrating various orchestration‐in‐practice patterns visible to PSTs through content‐oriented discussions may also support development of productive orientations through modeling the availability of other approaches, the payoff of engaging students in particular ways, and providing ways of thinking about questioning at different grain sizes. We see this as a rich area for yielding meaningful insights for supporting PST growth in this high‐leverage practice.</p> <p>Second, this study contributes to the conversation about the use of ABS as an approximation of practice for secondary teacher education. ABS has been found to show promise as a low‐stakes rehearsal space that can be designed for specific PST learning within elementary education (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref83">18</reflink>]; Mikeska et al., ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref84">25</reflink>]). However, the use of ABS is not widespread within teacher education, and simulations in general may provide "skepticism" (Shaughnessy et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref85">36</reflink>], p. 608) as they can be viewed as artificial and distant from the actualities of the classroom. Yet, both classroom experiences and simulation experiences have affordances and limitations for PSTs pedagogical development. While simulations do not provide the same experience as working with students and navigating the intricacies of the classroom (such as classroom management and wide variation of student responses), simulations place PSTs in a context where they will be able to practice and improve their developing skills without inherent distractions and possible competing goals of host teachers. Simulation spaces are tools for PSTs to practice in a low‐stakes environment, without the possibility of doing student harm as well as for teacher educators to discern how to direct support for PSTs in building their orientation‐in‐practice.</p> <p>It is a limitation of this study that we were unable to observe if the orientations‐in‐practice we located would hold if the PSTs were to lead a discussion in a secondary mathematics or science classroom. However, there is some evidence at the elementary level that PSTs do not react differently to avatars than real students and they do transfer some practices developed during ABS into the classroom (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref86">18</reflink>]). With the use of simulations becoming more common, we suggest this is also a fruitful area for further study.</p> <p>Third, implications for this study provide a cross‐disciplinary perspective of PST development of a high‐leverage practice. There is some evidence that elementary PST discussion orchestration follows a similar development across mathematics and science content areas (e.g., Estapa & Davis, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref87">8</reflink>]), yet there is little cross‐disciplinary research exploring the patterns across these disciplines within secondary classrooms. However, high‐leverage practices cross disciplinary boundaries (Grossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref88">12</reflink>]). New proposals for STEM literacy call for teacher educators to look across STEM disciplines to align mathematics and science teacher preparation so that these PSTs are prepared to use high leverage practices in similar ways in preparation for interdisciplinary curriculum materials (Jenlink & Jenlink, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref89">16</reflink>]). We see our cross disciplinary approach as an important contribution to this conversation.</p> <p>Orientations shape how teachers perceive, interpret, and prioritize student learning within their classrooms (Schoenfeld, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref90">35</reflink>]). Teachers are not conscious of their orientation; they are only elucidated during teaching activity and occur through an intertwining of orientation, resources, and goals. An orientations‐in‐practice framework serves as a valuable lens to examine teacher activity within instruction, as teachers draw upon their orientation, resources, and goals.</p> <hd id="AN0194205334-27">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2037983. We thank Elizabeth Davis for her thoughtful comments on an early draft of this manuscript.</p> <ref id="AN0194205334-28"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> This manuscript is not previously published or simultaneously submitted elsewhere and we confirm that all original research procedures were consistent with the principles of the research ethics published by the American Psychological Association, except as may be detailed in the manuscript.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0194205334-29"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> American Association for Employment in Education [AAEE]. (2023). Educator supply and demand report 2022–23. https://aaee.glueup.com/event/2022‐2023‐educator‐supply‐demand‐report‐digital‐access‐78774/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T. A., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1086/596996</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Berg, C., Dieker, L., & Scolavino, R. (2023). Using a virtual avatar teaching simulation and an evidence‐based teacher observation tool: A synergistic combination for teacher preparation. Education Sciences, 13(7), 744. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cartier, J., Smith, M., Stein, M. K., & Ross, D. (2013). Five practices for orchestrating task‐based discussions in science. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref40" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Colonnese, M. W., Reinke, L. T., & Polly, D. (2022). An analysis of the questions elementary education teacher candidates pose to elicit mathematical thinking. Action in Teacher Education, 44(3), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2021.2020696</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref53" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dalinger, T., Thomas, K. B., Stansberry, S., & Xiu, Y. (2020). A mixed reality simulation offers strategic practice for pre‐service teachers. Computers & Education, 144, 103696.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref47" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Daniel, L. (2021). Competing influences that impact preservice teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 33, 383–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00309-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref41" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Estapa, A., & Davis, J. (2023). Prospective teachers' instructional decisions and pedagogical moves when responding to student thinking in elementary mathematics and science lessons. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(5), 1703–1724.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref37" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding "core practices" and "practice‐based" teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory into Practice, 40, 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4002_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedrichsen, P. J., Van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20428</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross‐professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100905</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagenah, S., Colley, C., & Thompson, J. (2018). Funneling versus focusing: When talk, tasks, and tools work together to support Students' collective sensemaking. Science Education International, 29(4), 261–266. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1205424.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herbel‐Eisenmann, B. A., & Breyfogle, M. L. (2005). Questioning our patterns of questioning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School Classroom, 10(9), 484–489.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herbst, P., Brown, A., Chazan, D., Boileau, N., & Stevens, I. (2023). Framing, responsiveness, serviceability, and normativity: Categories of perception teachers use to relate to students' mathematical contributions in problem‐based lessons. School Science and Mathematics, 123(7), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12600</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenlink, P. M., & Jenlink, K. E. (2019). Epilogue: The future of STEM teaching. In P. M. Jenlink & K. E. Jenlink (Eds.), The next generation of STEM teachers: An interdisciplinary approach to meet the needs of the future (pp. 157–162). Rowman & Littlefield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazemi, E. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 203–235.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, T. D., Lee, C., Newton, M., Vos, P., Gallagher, J., Dickerson, D., & Regenthal, C. (2024). Peer to peer vs. virtual rehearsal simulation rehearsal contexts: Elementary teacher candidates' scientific discourse skills explored. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 35(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2023.2181505</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehesvuori, S., Hähkiöniemi, M., Ketonen, L., Lerkkanen, M. K., Pöysä, S., & Pakarinen, E. (2021). Reflections on dialogicity: Challenges and suggestions by mathematics student teachers. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 31, 100567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100567</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCormack, S., Hawkins, S., Park Rogers, M. A., Zoretic‐Goodwin, M., Avsar Erumit, B., Melki, C., Wiebke, H., & Lee, M. Y. (2014). Examining pre‐service elementary teachers' abilities to attend to students' scientific thinking [paper presentation]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNew‐Birren, J., & van den Kieboom, L. A. (2017). Exploring the development of core teaching practices in the context of inquiry‐based science instruction: An interpretive case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mercer, N. (2008). Changing our minds: A commentary on 'conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education'. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9099-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mikeska, J. N., Howell, H., & Kinsey, D. (2023). Do simulated teaching experiences impact elementary preservice teachers' ability to facilitate argumentation‐focused discussions in mathematics and science?Journal of Teacher Education, 74(5), 422–436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NGSS Lead States. (2013). The next generation science standards: For states, by states. NAP.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Online Practice Suite. (2021a). Teacher educator guidelines for using the secondary mathematics Online Practice Suite: Avatar Based Simulations (ABS): Facilitating student to student discussion on the Hungry, Hungry Huskies Activity. Pre‐release Task Version developed under Grant No. 2037983. https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Online Practice Suite. (2021b). Teacher educator guidelines for using the secondary science Online Practice Suite: Avatar Based Simulations (ABS): Facilitating student to student discussion on the Keep it Cold Activity. Pre‐release Task Version developed under Grant No. 2037983. https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park Rogers, M. A., Cross, D. I., Gresalfi, M. S., Trauth‐Nare, A. E., & Buck, G. A. (2011). First year implementation of a project‐based learning approach: Addressing teachers' orientations and professional experience. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 893–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9248-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiser, B. J., Novak, M., McGill, T. A., & Penuel, W. R. (2021). Storyline units: An instructional model to support coherence from the students' perspective. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 805–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1884784</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034820</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). A theory of goal‐oriented decision making and its educational applications. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaughnessy, M., Boerst, T. A., & Farmer, S. O. (2019). Complementary assessments of prospective teachers' skill with eliciting student thinking. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(6), 607–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-018-9402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions (1st ed.). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stockero, S. L., Leatham, K. R., Ochieng, M. A., Van Zoest, L. R., & Peterson, B. E. (2020). Teachers' orientations toward using student mathematical thinking as a resource during whole‐class discussion. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23, 237–267.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science‐as‐practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stroupe, D., & Gotwals, A. W. (2018). "It's 1000 degrees in here when I teach:" providing pre service teachers with an extended opportunity to approximate ambitious instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(3), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117709742</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing? In H. Steinbring, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167–178). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Laura Zangori; Rachel B. Snider; Shelby Morge; Meredith Park Rogers; Tracy Hargrove; Ronald S. Hermann and Heather Howell</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref80"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1507543
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Orientations-in-Practice: Mathematics and Science Preservice Secondary Teachers Learning to Orchestrate Discussions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Laura+Zangori%22">Laura Zangori</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7512-5559">0000-0002-7512-5559</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rachel+B%2E+Snider%22">Rachel B. Snider</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shelby+Morge%22">Shelby Morge</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meredith+Park+Rogers%22">Meredith Park Rogers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tracy+Hargrove%22">Tracy Hargrove</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ronald+S%2E+Hermann%22">Ronald S. Hermann</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Heather+Howell%22">Heather Howell</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22School+Science+and+Mathematics%22"><i>School Science and Mathematics</i></searchLink>. 2026 126(3):219-234.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 2037983
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discussion+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Discussion (Teaching Technique)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Teachers%22">Mathematics Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Learning%22">Electronic Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Simulation%22">Computer Simulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Teachers%22">Science Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Instruction%22">Mathematics Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ssm.18342
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0036-6803<br />1949-8594
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Holding productive classroom discussions to illuminate student thinking is valued in both mathematics and science education. However, this practice can be challenging for even the most experienced teachers. Facilitating such a discussion requires in-the-moment decisions about questions and responses that will elicit student thinking and navigate the conversation toward a learning goal. These in-the-moment decisions are uncovered during observations and are considered a teachers' orientations-in-practice, as they are composed of a teachers' beliefs, dispositions, values, tastes, and preferences. To that end, the purpose of this study was to uncover secondary preservice teachers' (PSTs) developing orientations-in-practice for discussion orchestration. We analyzed 29 (16 math; 13 science) PSTs video performances, which took place in an online simulated classroom environment. Three question and response patterns emerged across all PSTs: (1) framed questions and responses to navigate student thinking, (2) tightened questions and responses to direct student thinking toward more acceptable responses, or (3) used few questions and depended on telling to drive student thinking toward the correct response. Overall, the simulation provided a means to uncover patterns for how PSTs are developing orientations-in-practice. Implications from this study focus on how to support PSTs in adjusting their classroom discussion practice in science and mathematics.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1507543
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1507543
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ssm.18342
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 219
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discussion (Teaching Technique)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Electronic Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Orientations-in-Practice: Mathematics and Science Preservice Secondary Teachers Learning to Orchestrate Discussions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Laura Zangori
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rachel B. Snider
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shelby Morge
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Meredith Park Rogers
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tracy Hargrove
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ronald S. Hermann
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Heather Howell
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0036-6803
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1949-8594
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 126
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: School Science and Mathematics
              Type: main
ResultId 1