• Ming-Chin Hsin
  • Sung-pei Chien
  • Yin-Shao Hsu
  • Chen-Yung LinEmail author
  • Larry D. Yore


Common core standards, interdisciplinary education, and discipline-specific literacy are common international education reforms. The constructive–interpretative language arts pairs (speaking–listening, writing–reading, representing–viewing) and the communication, construction, and persuasion functions of language are central in these movements. This research developed and validated a communication progression in science education for elementary–secondary schooling in Taiwan. The framework for the communication progression was based on relevant literature, international curricula, and focus-group deliberations; it consisted of three dimensions: presentation, reaction, and negotiation. Delphi deliberations with questionnaires were applied to experts to evaluate the theoretical considerations and to experienced science teachers to evaluate the practical considerations. Results confirmed the importance of communications in science learning and the developmental nature of communications across elementary, middle, and secondary schools and validated the proposed framework and progression. The communication progression has application to other international education systems as they address common core standards and curricula in language and science.


communication progression functions of language national curricula science education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2014_9589_MOESM1_ESM.docx (43 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 43 kb)


  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2012). The F-10 curriculum—Science. Sydney, NSW: Author. Retrieved from Scholar
  3. Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J. & Redmond, M. V. (2005). Interpersonal communication (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Carlsen, W. S. (2007). Language and science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 57–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Felton, M. & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finnish National Board of Education (2004). National core curriculum for basic education 2004. Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from Scholar
  9. Hartigan, J. A. & Wong, M. A. (1979). Algorithm AS 136: A k-means clustering algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C: Applied Statistics, 28(1), 100–108.Google Scholar
  10. Henriques, L. (1997). A study to define and verify a model of interactive-constructive elementary school science teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
  11. Hsu, C.-C. & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10). Retrieved from
  12. Hughes, M. & Daykin, N. (2002). Towards constructivism: Investigating students’ perceptions and learning as a result of using an online environment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(3), 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Lin, S.-S. (2014). Science and non-science undergraduate students’ critical thinking and argumentation performance in reading a science news report. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1023–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shiau, S.-H. & Yang, C.-B. (2000). A fast sorting algorithm and its generalization on broadcast communications. In D.-Z. Du, P. Eades, V. Estivill-Castro, X. Lin & A. Sharma (Eds.), Computing and combinatorics (Vol. 1858, pp. 252–261). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shymansky, J. A., Wang, T.-L., Annetta, L. A., Yore, L. D. & Everett, S. A. (2012). How much professional development is needed to effect positive gains in K–6 student achievement on high stakes science tests? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stocklmayer, S. M. (2001). The background to effective science communication by the public. In S. M. Stocklmayer, M. M. Gore & C. Bryant (Eds.), Science communication in theory and practice (pp. 3–22). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer/Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Taiwan Ministry of Education (2008). Grade 1–9 Curriculum guidelines. Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  22. Tobin, R. & Tippett, C. D. (2014). Possibilities and potential barriers: Learning to plan for differentiated instruction in elementary science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated edition). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. United Kingdom Department for Education (2013). National curriculum in England: Science programmes of study. Retrieved from
  25. United States National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  26. United States National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ming-Chin Hsin
    • 1
  • Sung-pei Chien
    • 1
  • Yin-Shao Hsu
    • 1
  • Chen-Yung Lin
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Larry D. Yore
    • 2
  1. 1.National Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.University of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  3. 3.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations