Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 155–188 | Cite as

Activity Structures and the Unfolding of Problem-Solving Actions in High-School Chemistry Classrooms

  • Brett A. CriswellEmail author
  • Greg T. Rushton
Article
  • 656 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we argue for a more systematic approach for studying the relationship between classroom practices and scientific practices—an approach that will likely better support the systemic reforms being promoted in the Next Generation Science Standards in the USA and similar efforts in other countries. One component of that approach is looking at how the nature of the activity structure may influence the relative alignment between classroom and scientific practices. To that end, we build on previously published research related to the practices utilized by five high-school chemistry teachers as they enacted problem-solving activities in which students were likely to generate proposals that were not aligned with normative scientific understandings. In that prior work, our analysis had emphasized micro-level features of the talk interactions and how they related to the way students’ ideas were explored; in the current paper, the analysis zooms out to consider the macro-level nature of the enactments associated with the activity structure of each lesson examined. Our data show that there were two general patterns to the activity structure across the 14 lessons scrutinized, and that each pattern had associated with it a constellation of features that impinged on the way the problem space was navigated. A key finding is that both activity structures (the expansive and the open) had features that aligned with scientific practices espoused in the Next Generation Science Standards—and both had features that were not aligned with those practices. We discuss the nature of these two structures, evidence of the relationship of each structure to key features of how the lessons unfolded, and the implications of these findings for both future research and the training of teachers.

Keywords

Activity structure Scientific practices Problem-solving Discourse analysis Inquiry teaching 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Both authors would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the individuals who reviewed this manuscript who were able to provide truly valuable suggestions in relation to adding clarity to the way our ideas were presented.

References

  1. Achieve, Inc., Next Generation Science Standards home page, retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/ on November 10, (2012a).
  2. Achieve, Inc. Lead state partners, retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/lead-state-partners on November 10, (2012b).
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  6. Berland, L. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 625–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K–12 classrooms: understanding a framework for K–12 science education. The Science Teacher, 78(9), 34–40.Google Scholar
  8. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  9. Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  10. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. In: R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, & A.W. Shouse (Eds.), Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Criswell, B.A. (2012). Reducing the degrees of freedom in chemistry classroom conversations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(1), 17–29.Google Scholar
  12. Duschl, R. (2012). The second dimension—crosscutting concepts. The Science Teacher, 9(2), 34–38.Google Scholar
  13. Edelson, D. C., Tarnoff, A., & Schwille, K. (2006). Learning to make systematic decisions. The Science Teacher, 73(4), 40–45.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards, J. A. (2003). The transcription of discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 321–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  17. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. W. (2007). Routines, roles, and responsibilities for aligning scientific and classroom practices. Science Education, 91(1), 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gump, P. V. (1967). The classroom behavior setting: its nature and relation to student behavior. Final Report to the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research. ED 015515.Google Scholar
  20. Gunstone, R. F., & Northfield, J. R. (1986). Learners–teachers–researchers: consistency in implementing conceptual change. Paper presented at the 67th annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 16–20, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524.Google Scholar
  24. Keeley, P. (2008). Science formative assessment: 75 practical strategies for linking assessment, instruction, and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kelly, S., & Turner, J. (2009). Rethinking the effects of classroom activity structure on the engagement of low-achieving students. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1665–1692.Google Scholar
  26. Koballa, T. R., & Tippins, D. J. (2003). Cases in middle and secondary science education: the promise and dilemmas. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
  27. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Lee, O. (2002). Promoting scientific inquiry with elementary students from diverse cultures and languages. Review of Research in Education, 26, 23–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, S.-T., & Lin, H.-S. (2005). Using argumentation to investigate science teachers’ teaching practices: The perspective of instructional decisions and justifications. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(3), 429–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science. Westport: Ablex.Google Scholar
  31. Lemke, J. (2000). Across the scales of time: artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nassaji, H. & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406.Google Scholar
  36. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  37. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Philips, S. U. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370–394). New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  40. Polman, J. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 431–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85(3), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rose, S. L., & Barton, A. C. (2012). Should Great Lakes City build a new power plant? How youth navigate socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roth, W. M., McGinn, M. K., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: the interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 293–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Schneider, C. (2012). Core ideas of engineering and technology: understanding a framework for K12 science education. The Science Teacher, 79(1), 32–36.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1992). Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sprod, T. (1998). “I can change your opinion on that”: social constructivist whole class discussions and their effect on scientific reasoning. Reasearch in Science Education, 28(4), 463–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, R. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Mathematical. Thinking & Learning, 10(4), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stodolsky, S. S. (1983). Classroom activity structures in the fifth grade. Final Report to the National Institute of Education. ED 242412.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Thorburn, W. M. (1915). Occam’s razor. Mind, 24, 287–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tolhurst, D., & Debus, R. L. (2002). Influence of prior knowledge, attitudes, ability, and activity structure on students’ learning and use of software. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(3), 275–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Oers, B. (1984). On the role of mistakes in the development of scientific thinking. In M. Hedegaard, P. Hakkarainen, & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Learning and teaching on a scientific basis: methodological and epistemological aspects of the activity theory of learning and teaching (pp. 229–262). Aarhus, DK: Aarhus Universitet, Psykologisk Institut.Google Scholar
  54. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008a). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 9(5), 941–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008b). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiser, M., & Amin, T. (2001). “Is heat hot?” Inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wood, J. M., & Nezworski, M. T. (2005). Science as a history of corrected mistakes. American Psychologist, 60(6), 657–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woodruff, E., & Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations from intra- and inter-group discourse: students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Kennesaw State UniversityKennesawUSA

Personalised recommendations