Despite a large body of research on effective discussion in science classrooms, teachers continue to struggle to engage all students in such discussions. Whole-class discussions are particularly challenging to facilitate effectively and, therefore, often have a teacher-centered participation pattern. This article describes the Critical Response Protocol (CRP), a tool that disrupts teacher-centered discussion patterns in favor of a more student-centered structure that honors students’ science ideas. CRP originated in the arts community as a method for giving and receiving feedback to deepen critical dialog between artists and their audiences. In science classrooms, CRP can be used to elicit student ideas about scientific phenomena and invite wide participation while reducing the focus on “correct” responses. In this article, we describe our use of CRP with preservice science teachers. We first modeled the CRP process as it would be used with high school students in science classrooms, then discussed pedagogical considerations for implementing CRP within the preservice teachers’ classrooms. We conclude this article with a discussion of our insights about the opportunities and challenges of using CRP in science teacher education to support preservice teachers in leading effective whole-class discussion and attending to inclusive participation structures.
Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.
Barton, C. (2018). On formative assessment in math: How diagnostic questions can help. American Educator, 42(2), 33-39.
Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 210-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20270
Cohen, E. G. (1990). Teaching in multiculturally heterogeneous classrooms: Findings from a model program. McGill Journal of Education, 26, 7-23.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99-120. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312032001099
Ellingson, C., Roehrig, G., Bakkum, K., & Dubinsky, J. M. (2016). Critical response protocol: A classroom tool for facilitating equitable critical discourse in science classrooms. The Science Teacher, 83(4), 51-54.
Evagorou, M., Erduran, S., & Mäntylä, T. (2015). The role of visual representations in scientific practices: from conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to ‘seeing’ how science works. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(11). doi:10.1186/s40594-015-0024-x
Gibson, J. D., Khanal, B. P., & Zubarev, E. R. (2007). Paclitaxel-functionalized gold nanoparticles. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 129, 11653–11661. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja075181k
Haverly, C., Barton, A. C., Schwarz, C. V., & Braaten, M. (2020). “Making space”: How novice teachers create opportunities for equitable sense-making in elementary science. Journal of Teacher Education, 71, 63–79. DOI://1d0o.i.1o1rg7/71/00.10127274/0807212148781010878006706
Hennessy, S. (2014). Bridging between research and practice: Supporting professional development through collaborative studies of classroom teaching with technology. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Lerman, L., & Borstel, J. (2003). Liz Lerman’s critical response process: A method for getting useful feedback on anything you make, from dance to dessert. Dance Exchange, Inc.
Lewis, B. P., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937 – 944. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167297239003
Mallow, J. V. (1978). A science anxiety program. American Journal of Physics, 46, 862. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.11409
Mallow, J. V. (2006). Science anxiety: Research and action. In J. J. Mintzes & W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of college science teaching (pp. 325-349). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: MA, Harvard University Press.
Meyer, D. K., & Smithenry, D. (2014). Scaffolding collective engagement. Teachers College Record, 116, 124.
Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk Science Primer. TERC, An Education Research and Development Organization, Cambridge: MA.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Petkau, J. W. (2013). Critical response and pedagogic tensions in aesthetic space. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (1322974486).
Vandenberg, P. (1999). Lessons of inscription: Tutor training and the “professional conversation.” Writing Center Journal, 19(2), 59-83.
WIDA Consortium. 2006a. Annual Technical Report No. 1-Volume 1 of 3: Description, Validity, and Student Results (2004-2005). Technical Reports and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Available: https://wida.wisc.edu. [December 2018].