“I Just Don’t Get It”: Teachers’ and Students’ Conceptions of Confusion and Implications for Teaching and Learning in the High School English Classroom

References

• Akerson, V. L., Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of primary children’s ideas in science on teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 363–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L., & Wilson, S. M. (1996). Integrity in teaching: Recognizing the fusion of the moral and intellectual. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 155–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bretall, R. (Ed.). (1946). A Kierkegaard anthology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 211–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291–310). New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Cazden, C. B. (1996). Selective traditions: Readings of Vygotsky in writing pedagogy. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 165–185). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Chazan, D., & Ball, D. L. (19981999). Beyond being told not to tell. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 2–10.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Conclusion: A new pedagogy for policy? In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 84–129). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath.
   Google Scholar
• Duckworth, E. (1987). The having of wonderful ideas & other essays on teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duckworth, E. (Ed.). (2001). Tell me more: Listening to learners explain. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Flower, L. (1987). The role of task representation in reading-to-write. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. C. Peck (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fogarty, J. L. (1982, March). A descriptive study of experienced and novice teachers’ interactive instructional decision processes. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association meeting, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Fogarty, J. L., Wang, M. C., & Creek, R. (1983). A descriptive study of experienced and novice teachers’ interactive instructional thoughts and actions. Journal of Educational Research, 77(1), 22–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galili, I., & Kaplan, D. (1996). Students’ operations with the weight concept. Science Education, 80, 457–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, D. T. (1999). Understanding students. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(2), 171–195.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, D. (2000). The roots of literacy. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hebrank, M. R. (1997). Reduce confusion about diffusion. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 160–163.
   Google Scholar
• Hillocks, G. Jr. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice. In D. S. Strickland & C. Genishi, (Eds.), Language and Literacy (pp. 54–75). New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hillocks, G. Jr. (1999). Ways of thinking, Ways of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Himley, M., & Carini, P. F. (Eds.). (2000). From another angle: Children’s strengths and school standards. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joyce, B. (19781979). Toward a theory of information processing in teaching. Educational Research Quarterly, 3(4), 66–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lester, J. B. (1996). Establishing a community of mathematics learners. In D. Schifter (Ed.), What’s happening in math class: Envisioning new practices through teacher narratives (pp. 88–102). New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Massachusetts Department of Education. (2001). Website: http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas
   Google Scholar
• McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Introduction: New visions of teaching. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 84–129). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Moschkovich, J. N. (19981999). Students’ use of the x-intercept as an instance of a transitional concept. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(2), 169–197.
   Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 4–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, P. L., & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teachers’ reports of their cognitive processes during teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 15(4), 555–565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Plaut, S. (2004). Pedagogical miscommunication and moments of “confusion”: Teacher and student conceptions and interactions during writing instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Schifter, D. (Ed.). (1996). What’s happening in math class? Envisioning new practices through teacher narratives. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J. J. (1995). Applying the concept of conjugation to the Bronsted theory of acid-base reactions by senior high school students from Germany. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 733–734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneier, L. (2001). Apprehending poetry. In E. Duckworth (Ed.), Tell me more: Listening to learners explain (pp. 42–78). New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Seidel, S. (1998). Learning from looking. In N. Lyons (Ed.), With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher professionalism (pp. 69–89). New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behaviors. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 313–334.
   Google Scholar
• Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Understanding teaching in context. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 167–206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Wolff, M. R. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709–736.
   Google Scholar