Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 769–788 | Cite as

Examining Teachers’ Instructional Moves Aimed at Developing Students’ Ideas and Questions in Learner-Centered Science Classrooms

  • Christopher J. Harris
  • Rachel S. Phillips
  • William R. Penuel
Article

Abstract

Prior research has shown that orchestrating scientific discourse in classrooms is difficult and takes a great deal of effort on the part of teachers. In this study, we examined teachers’ instructional moves to elicit and develop students’ ideas and questions as they orchestrated discourse with their fifth grade students during a learner-centered environmental biology unit. The unit materials included features meant to support teachers in eliciting and working with students’ ideas and questions as a source for student-led investigations. We present three contrasting cases of teachers to highlight evidence that shows teachers’ differing strategies for eliciting students’ ideas and questions, and for developing their ideas, questions and questioning skills. Results from our cross case analysis provide insight into the ways in which teachers’ enactments enabled them to work with students’ ideas and questions to help advance learning. Consistent with other studies, we found that teachers could readily elicit ideas and questions but experienced challenges in helping students develop them. Findings suggest a need for more specified supports, such as specific discourse strategies, to help teachers attend to student thinking. We explore implications for curricular tools and discuss a need for more examples of effective discourse moves for use by teachers in orchestrating scientific discourse.

Keywords

Classroom science discourse Student questioning Elementary school science Instructional practice 

References

  1. Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94(3), 395–427.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baranes, R., Perry, M., & Stigler, J. W. (1989). Activation of real-world knowledge in the solution of word problems. Cognition and Instruction, 6(4), 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Patrick, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Teaching for understanding. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (Vol. II, pp. 819–878). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Carlsen, W. S. (1988). The effects of science teacher subject-matter knowledge on teacher questioning and classroom discourse. Unpublished doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
  7. Carlsen, W. S. (1993). The effects of science teacher subject-matter knowledge on teacher questioning and classroom discourse. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  8. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  9. Chin, C., Brown, D. E., & Bruce, B. C. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chin, C., & Chia, L.-G. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project work. Science Education, 90(1), 44–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dufresne, R. J., & Gerace, W. J. (2004). Assessing-To-Learn: Formative assessment in physics instruction. The Physics Teacher, 42(7), 428–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 451–493.Google Scholar
  19. Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs, V., & Ambrose, R. (2008). Making the most of story problems in teaching. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15, 260–266.Google Scholar
  22. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.Google Scholar
  23. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2001). Diversity and equity in science education: Research, policy, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lehrer, R., Giles, N. D., & Schauble, L. (2002). Children’s work with data. In R. Lehrer & L. Schauble (Eds.), Investigating real data in the classroom: Expanding children’s understanding of math and science (pp. 1–26). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  28. Magnusson, S. J., Palincsar, A. S., & Templin, M. (2004). Community, culture, and conversation in inquiry-based science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 131–155). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marbach-Ad, G., & Sokolove, P. G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 854–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No child left behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467–477.Google Scholar
  32. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.Google Scholar
  33. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2002). Accountable talk: Classroom conversation that works (CD-ROM set). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  35. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, iteracy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mumme, J., & Caroll, C. E. (2007). Learning to lead mathematics professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  38. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  39. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  40. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Research Council. (2010). A framework for science education: Preliminary public draft. Washington, DC: Committee on Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards, Board on Science Education, National Research Council.Google Scholar
  43. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261–290.Google Scholar
  44. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic talk and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussions. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Penuel, W. R., Yarnall, L., Koch, M., & Roschelle, J. (2004). Meeting teachers in the middle: Designing handheld computer-supported activities to improve student questioning. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 404–411). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Phillips, R. S., Harris, C. J., Penuel, W. R., & Cheng, B. (2010, March). Teachers managing students’ ideas, questions, and contributions in the context of an innovative inquirybased elementary science unit. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  49. Reeve, S., & Bell, P. (2009). Children’s self-documentation and understanding of the concepts ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1953–1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up!. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). A highly interactive discourse structure. Social Constructivist Teaching, 9, 131–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibily adaptive instructional designs. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 183–214). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Shechtman, N., Knudsen, J., & Stevens, H. (2010, May). The Bridging Teacher Professional Development project: Supporting mathematical argumentation in distressed urban middle school contexts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  56. Shodell, M. (1995). The question-driven classroom: Student questions as course curriculum on biology. The American Biology Teacher, 57, 278–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shutt, K., Phillips, R. S., Vye, N., Van Horne, K., & Bransford, J. D. (2010, April). Developing science inquiry skills with challenge-based, student-directed learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  58. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2009, June). Learning progressions as vision tools for advancing teachers’ pedagogical performance. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science Conference, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
  60. Thompson, J., Windschitl, M., & Braaten, M. (2009, March). Toward a theory of developing pedagogical expertise: A 3-year study of individuals becoming teachers. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  61. Thompson, J., Windschitl, M., & Braaten, M. (2010, March). Developing a theory of teacher practice. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  62. van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wells, G., & Mejia-Arauz, R. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yarnall, L., Shechtman, N., & Penuel, W. R. (2006). Using handheld computers to support improved classroom assessment in science: Results from a field trial. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 142–158.Google Scholar
  67. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher J. Harris
    • 1
  • Rachel S. Phillips
    • 2
  • William R. Penuel
    • 1
  1. 1.SRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA
  2. 2.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations