Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Factors Affecting the Implementation of Argument in the Elementary Science Classroom. A Longitudinal Case Study

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This longitudinal case study describes the factors that affect an experienced teacher’s attempt to shift her pedagogical practices in order to implement embedded elements of argument into her science classroom. Research data was accumulated over 2 years through video recordings of science classes. The Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP) is an instrument designed to quantify changes in classroom environments as related to reform as defined by the National Research Council (National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996b) and the National Research Council (Fulfilling the promise: Biology education in the nation’s schools, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990) and was used to analyze videotaped science lessons. Analysis of the data shows that there was a significant shift in the areas of teacher questioning, and student voice. Several levels of subsequent analysis were completed related to teacher questioning and student voice. The data suggests a relationship between these areas and the implementation of scientific argument. Results indicate that the teacher moved from a traditional, teacher-centered, didactic teaching style to instructional practices that allowed the focus and direction of the lesson to be affected by student voice. This was accomplished by a change in teacher questioning that included a shift from factual recall to more divergent questioning patterns allowing for increased student voice. As student voice increased, students began to investigate ideas, make statements or claims and to support these claims with strong evidence. Finally, students were observed refuting claims in the form of rebuttals. This study informs professional development related to experienced teachers in that it highlights pedagogical issues involved in implementing embedded elements of argument in the elementary classroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, S. K., Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell, & E. H. van Zee (Eds.) Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 65–79). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R., Costello, P., & Clarke, S. (1993). Improving the quality of argument, Final Report pp. 5–16. Hull, UK: Esmee Fairbairn Charitable Trust/University of Hull.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, J., Czerniak, C., & Lumpe, A. (2000). An exploratory study of teacher’s beliefs regarding the implementation of constructivism in their classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 323–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Cassells, C., & Hewitt, J. (1997). Postmodernism, knowledge building and elementary science. Elementary School Journal, 97, 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.

  • Bright, P., & Yore, L. (2002). Elementary preservice teacher’s beliefs about the nature of science and their influence on classroom practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. (ED46182)

  • Carlsen, W. S. (1997). Never ask a question if you don’t know the answer: Tension in teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures.Studies in mathematical thinking and learning series. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin, & J. E. Coffey (Eds.) Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41–59). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R.A., & Ellenbogen, K. (2002). Argumentation processes in science learning. Paper presented at the conference on Philosophical, Psychological, and Linguistic Foundations for Language and Science Literacy Research, University of Victoria, BC, Canada.

  • Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Understanding dialogic argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC, Canada.

  • Eduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin et al.’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, D., & Shelton, N. R. (2002). Teaching collaboration between a university professor and a classroom teacher. Teaching Education, 13(1), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furman, M., & Barton, A. (2006). Capturing urban student voices in the creation of a science mini-documentary. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 667–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodnough, K. (2006). Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge through self-study: An exploration of problem-based learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 301–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2005). K-6 Science Writing Heuristic Project: An MSP project funded by the Iowa Department of Education. Presentation to The Iowa Department of Education, Des Moines, IA.

  • Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., & DeHaan, R. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 663–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 668–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchener, K. S., & Fischer, K. W. (1990). A skill approach to the development of reflective thinking. In D. Kuhn (Ed.) Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills: Vol. 21 (pp. 48–62). New York: Karger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. E. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Kuhn, T. E. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument. Science Education, 77, 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Dean Jr., D. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables? Psychological Science, 16, 866–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A., Benford, R., Bloom, I., Carlson, M., Falconer, K., Hestenes, D., et al. (2002). Evaluating college science and mathematics instruction: A reform effort that improves teaching skills. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31, 388–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapadat, J. (2000). Construction of science knowledge: Scaffolding conceptual change through discourse. Journal of Classroom Interactions, 35(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapadat, J. (2002). Relationships between instructional language and primary students’ learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (2000). Problem solving and solving problems: Inquiry about inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 113–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lew, L. (2001). Development of constructivist’s behaviors among four new science teachers prepared at the University of Iowa. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

  • Luykx, A., & Lee, O. (2007). Measuring instructional congruence in elementary science classrooms: Pedagogical and methodological components of a theoretical framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 424–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan’s Learning Lessons reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 239–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIsaac, D., & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics education via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40, 479–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, M., & Roth, W. -M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1990). Fulfilling the promise: Biology education in the nation’s schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996a). The role of scientists in the professional development of science teachers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996b). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W., Abell, S., Hubbard, P., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 257–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polman, J. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 431–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polman, J., & Pea, R. (2000). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, V. (1997). Critical thinking in young minds. London: David Fulton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, S., & Tobin, K. (2001). Actions and discourses for transformative understanding in a middle school science class. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) (Tech. Rep No. IN00-1). Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.

  • Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentation activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, J., & Lehrer, R. (2006). Tracing the evolution of pedagogical content knowledge as the development of interanimated discourses. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 549–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17(2), 159–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (1998). About argument and discussion. School Science Review, 80(291), 57–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. Abell, & N. Lederman (Eds.) Handbook on research in science education (pp. 373–391). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zee, E. (2000). Using questioning to guide student’s thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 227–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C., & Narayan, R. (2002). Acquiring the social language of science: Building science language identities through inquiry-based investigations. Paper presented at the Conference on Philosophical, Psychological, and Linguistic Foundations for Language and Science Literacy Research, University of Victoria, B.C., Canada.

  • Weiss, I., & Pasley, J. (2004). What is high quality instruction? Educational Leadership, 61(5), 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I., Pasley, J., Smith, P., Banilower, E., & Heck, D. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wragg, E. (1993). Primary teaching skills. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yip, D. (2001). Promoting the development of a conceptual change model of science instruction in prospective secondary biology teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 755–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zady, M., Portes, P., & Ochs, V. (2003). Examining classroom interactions related to differences in students’ science achievement. Science Education, 87, 40–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Education Department, Teaching and Learning, University of Iowa, N228 LC, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

    Anita M. Martin & Brian Hand

Authors
  1. Anita M. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Hand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anita M. Martin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, A.M., Hand, B. Factors Affecting the Implementation of Argument in the Elementary Science Classroom. A Longitudinal Case Study. Res Sci Educ 39, 17–38 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation