Assessing teachers' professional vision of oral scientific argumentation

April Holton, J. Bryan Henderson, Nicole Zillmer, Eric Greenwald, Megan Goss, Christina Morales

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

This paper reports the initial development of a measure to assess teachers' professional vision of oral scientific argumentation using online video annotation. Teachers watched segments of videos in which students engaged in whole class, small group, and dyad argumentation sessions and annotated the video with what they noticed in these sessions. Based on previous work on professional vision and our larger study on formative assessment of oral argumentation, a coding scheme was developed and tested with a pilot study. Researchers share initial findings of this pilot which showed differences in professional vision existed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publication14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences
Subtitle of host publicationThe Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, ICLS 2020 - Conference Proceedings
EditorsMelissa Gresalfi, Ilana Seidel Horn
PublisherInternational Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS)
Pages2249-2252
Number of pages4
ISBN (Electronic)9781732467286
StatePublished - 2020
Event14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, ICLS 2020 - Nashville, United States
Duration: Jun 19 2020Jun 23 2020

Publication series

NameComputer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL
Volume4
ISSN (Print)1573-4552

Conference

Conference14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, ICLS 2020
CountryUnited States
CityNashville
Period6/19/206/23/20

Keywords

  • Argumentation
  • Professional vision
  • Video annotation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Education

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing teachers' professional vision of oral scientific argumentation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this