Skip to main content

Introducing Dialogic Teaching to Science Student Teachers

Journal of Science Teacher Education volume 22, pages 705–727 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

It is commonly believed that science teachers rely on language that allows only minor flexibility when it comes to taking into account contrasting views and pupil thoughts. Too frequently science teachers either pose questions that target predefined answers or simply lecture through lessons, a major concern from a sociocultural perspective. This study reports the experiences of science student teachers when introduced to the Communicative Approach to science education drawing on dialogic teacher-talk in addition to authoritative teacher-talk. This approach was introduced to the students in an interventional teaching program running parallel to the student teachers’ field practice. The practical implications of this approach during initial teacher education are the central focus of this study. The data consisting of videos of lessons and interviews indicate that the student teacher awareness of teacher-talk and alternative communicative options did increase. Student teachers reported greater awareness of the different functions of teacher-talk as well as the challenges when trying to implement dialogic teaching.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1

References

  • Abell, S. K. (Ed.). (2000). Science teacher education: An international perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, L. V., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a three-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 653–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching (3rd ed.). York: Dialogos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher training: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Jacobs, J. K., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers’ developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1–39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2004). Using video in teacher education. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childs, A., & McNicholl, N. (2007). Investigating the relationship between subject content knowledge and pedagogical practice through the analysis of classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1629–1653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 815–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chval, K., Abell, S., Pareja, E., Musikul, K., & Ritzka, G. (2008). Science and mathematics teachers’ experiences, needs, and expectations regarding professional development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education, 4, 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colucci-Gray, L., & Fraser, C. (2008). Contested aspects of becoming a teacher: Teacher learning and the role of subject knowledge. European Educational Research Journal, 7, 475–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespo, S. (2002). Praising and correcting: Prospective teachers investigate their teacherly talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 739–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eybe, H., & Schmidt, H.-J. (2004). Group discussions as a tool for investigating students’ concepts. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5, 265–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fajet, W., Bello, M., Leftwich, S. A., Mesler, J. L., & Shaver, A. N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ perceptions in beginning education classes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 717–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative growth: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2009). Guidance, conceptual understanding, and student learning: An investigation of inquiry-based teaching in the U.S. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 181–206). Munich: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graber, K. C. (1996). Influencing student beliefs: The design of a ‘high impact’ teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 451–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L. (1992). Why models matter: An alternate view on professional growth in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 62, 171–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1884–1892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–169.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 142–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littleton, K., & Howe, C. (Eds.). (2009). Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luera, G., & Otto, C. (2005). Development and evaluation of an inquiry-based elementary science teacher education program reflecting current reform movements. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers’ individual learning in collaborative settings. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13, 145–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23, 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molinari, L., & Mameli, C. (2010). Classroom dialogic discourse: An observational study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3857–3860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in science classrooms. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    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, NY: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, J. (1993). Action research through stimulated recall. Research in Science Education, 23, 214–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A. W. (2009). Developing elementary teachers’ understandings of hedges and personal pronouns in inquiry-based science classroom discourse. Journal of Research in Science Education, 8, 247–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 422–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2007). When theory meets practice: What student teachers learn from guided reflection on their own classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 957–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity-one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E. E. (2010). Shifting to a student-centered science classroom: An exploration of teacher and student changes in perceptions and practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 329–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosaen, C., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 347–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: Striking a balance between ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ classroom talk. School Science Review, 88, 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., Ametller, J., Mortimer, E., & Emberton, J. (2009). Teaching and learning disciplinary knowledge: Developing the dialogic space for an answer when there isn’t even a question. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 322–337). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, D. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 159–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viiri, J., & Saari, H. (2006). Teacher talk patterns in science lessons. Use in teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. (2007). Who we become depends on the company we keep and on what we do and say together. International Journal of Educational research, 46, 100–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G., & Arauz, R. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 379–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2008). Preservice elementary teachers’ beliefs about science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 183–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Lehesvuori gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Finnish Cultural Foundation. Rasku-Puttonen was funded by the Academy of Finland, No. 130707. The work was also funded by the project of Academy of Finland, No. 132316. With thanks to Josephine Moate for her language support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, PL 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Sami Lehesvuori, Jouni Viiri & Helena Rasku-Puttonen

Authors
  1. Sami Lehesvuori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jouni Viiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helena Rasku-Puttonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sami Lehesvuori.

Appendix: David’s and Paul’s Lesson Plans

Appendix: David’s and Paul’s Lesson Plans

David: Lesson plan Tue 4.12.2007, Mrs. Hill, Secondary school’s electric course

Structure

  1. 1.

    Introduction (of David) (5 min)

  2. 2.

    Check homework (10 min) (workbook, p. 73, task 9 and textbook p. 213, tasks 4 and 5) (Note: Data extract)

  3. 3.

    Theory (15 min)

  4. 4.

    Experimental group work 1 (15 min) Notice proper explanations and reviewing (End of first lesson/Recess)

  5. 5.

    Experimental group work 2 (15 min)

  6. 6.

    Demonstration (20 min)

  7. 7.

    Skip if necessary

  8. 8.

    Tasks (workbook p.81 tasks 1 and 3)

Theory

  • Magnet has north- and south pole

  • Similar poles reject each other and different poles attract each other

  • Magnet creates a magnet field

  • This field can be modeled with field vectors

  • Magnets and magnetic matters interact via magnetic field

  • For example Earth has a magnetic field that protects us from harmful particles coming from the Sun

  • Magnetizing means that for instance iron nail is turned to permanent magnet by using another

Experimental group works and demonstrations

  1. 1.

    Experimental group work 1: Workbook p. 74, task 1

  2. 2.

    Experimental group work 2: Workbook p. 75, task 2

  3. 3.

    Demonstration: Workbook p. 77, task 4

  4. 4.

    Experimental group work 3: Workbook p. 79, task 5

Paul: Lesson plan Wed 12.12.2007, Mr. James, Upper Secondary Course nr. 2, duration 9:50–11:25

Topic

Purpose

Implementation

Communicative approach

- Checking of the homework

- A brief introduction

- Review the content of the previous lesson

- Pupils present their tasks in the front

- Discussions about tasks and problems

Teacher presentation (NI/A) and authoritative discussion (I/A)

- Teaching new topic: Entropy

- Teach the concept of entropy

- Discussions about everyday phenomena involving entropy

- Figure out together what entropy is

Dialogic discussion (I/D)

Teacher presentation (NI/A)

- Demonstration

- Illustrate the previous

- A drop of color ingredient spreads to a water tank

- Discuss about phenomena

Dialogic discussion (I/D) and teacher presentation (NI/A)

- Teaching new topic: energy conversion and the third law of thermodynamics

- Teach the concept of the energy conversion and the third law of thermodynamics

- Demonstration with a rubber ball to initiate thoughts

- Figure out the new topics with the assistance from the pupils

Dialogic discussion (I/D)

(Note: Data extract)

and teacher presentation (NI/A)

- Energy in society

(2nd half of the double lesson, not in the lesson figure)

- To get pupils motivated to seek the information

- Getting familiar with greenhouse effect via slideshow

- A group work

- Reviewing together

Teacher presentation (NI/A)

Peer discussions

Dialogic discussions (I/D)

About this article

Cite this article

Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J. & Rasku-Puttonen, H. Introducing Dialogic Teaching to Science Student Teachers. J Sci Teacher Educ 22, 705–727 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9253-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9253-0

Keywords

  • Science teacher education
  • Teacher-talk
  • Dialogic teaching
  • Communicative approach