Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Relationships Between Teacher Discursive Moves and Middle School Students’ Cognitive Contributions to Science Concepts

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

Abstract

This study investigated science classroom discourse in terms of the types of teacher discursive moves (TDMs) and the relationships between the types of TDMs and student-led cognitive contributions in different science concepts by considering the classroom context. An experienced seventh-grade science teacher and her 19 students were engaged in argument-based inquiry activities focusing on physics and chemistry concepts. The analysis revealed that even though the teacher used a variety of TDMs, the following four enacted TDMs were prominent: knowledge providing–evaluating, communicating, monitoring, and evaluating–judging–critiquing. There were implicit relationships between the knowledge providing–evaluating, communicating, monitoring, and evaluating–judging–critiquing moves and the students’ cognitive contributions in different science concepts. For further analysis, several video cases were selected for scrutinizing these episodes, and it was found that evaluating–judging–critiquing teacher moves interacted with classroom culture more than the other two commonly used TDMs by using comparison prompt (simple comparison), evaluation prompt (teacher-led evaluation), and resolution prompt (student–student judgements). It was observed that when the teacher increased the number of resolution prompts, the students reached greater cognitive contributions during the negotiation of physics phenomena. Recommendations were presented for the science teachers’ professional development in the sense of discourse–cognition relations.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ardasheva, Y., Norton-Meier, L., & Hand, B. (2015). Negotiation, embeddedness, and non-threatening learning environments as themes of science and language convergence for English language learners. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 201–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1934). The dialogic imagination: four essays (trans. Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson). In Discourse in the novel. Austin: University of Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: a function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 141–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010a). The evidence-based reasoning framework: assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15, 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N. J. S., Nagashima, S. O., Fu, A., Timms, M., & Wilson, M. (2010b). A framework for analyzing scientific reasoning in assessments. Educational Assessment, 15, 142–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: a review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. M. (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 39–53). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 432–463). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students' development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher educators as researchers: multiple perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 219–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Policy, practice, and politics in teacher education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: new roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: the development of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 399–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 175–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and its implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 223–248). London: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2009). Introduction: macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: key models in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1–8). The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grimberg, B. I., & Hand, B. (2009). Cognitive pathways: analysis of students' written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 503–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurel, D. K., Eryılmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 989–1008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, I., Kloetzer, B., Moeller, K., & Sodian, B. (2010). The analysis of classroom discourse: elementary school science curricula advancing reasoning with evidence. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 197–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, D. G. E. (2005). Why do teachers ask the questions they ask? RELC Journal, 36(3), 297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Janiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I. H., & Kuo, L. J. (2011). Influence of a teacher's scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussion. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom like they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry: logical or psychological? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: the role of teachers' questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004–2027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayima, F., & Jakobsen, A. (2018). Exploring the situational adequacy of teacher questions in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9696-9.

  • Lam, S., Law, Y., & Shum, M. S. (2009). Classroom discourse analysis and educational outcomes in the era of educational reform. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 617–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: an approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefstein, A., Snell, J., &, Israeli, M. (2015). From moves to sequences: expanding the unit of analysis in the study of classroom discourse. British Educational Research Journal, 41(5), 866–885.

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwoord: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, J. B., & Cunha, A. E. (2017). Self-directed professional development to improve effective teaching: key points for a model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 262–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, J. B., Branco, J., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2011). “Learning experience” provided by science teaching practice in a classroom and the development of students' competences. Research in Science Education, 41(5), 787–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tzialli, D. (2012). Identification, interpretation-evaluation, response: an alternative framework for analyzing teacher discourse in science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1823–1856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, K. (2012). Case studies of interactive whole-class teaching in primary science: communicative approach and pedagogic purposes. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1687–1708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: how we use language to think together. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistic, 1(2), 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., & O'Conner, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, D., & Edwards, D. (1990). Conversational remembering: a social psychological approach. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective remembering. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molinari, L., & Mameli, C. (2013). Process quality of classroom discourse: pupil participation and learning opportunities. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molinari, L., Mameli, C., & Gnisci, A. (2013). A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian primary schools: the many faces of the IRF pattern. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 414–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., & Machado, A. H. (2000). Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse. Science Education, 84(4), 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, P., & Vikström, A. (2015). Making PCK explicit-capturing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2836–2857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: a framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S., & Campbell, T. (2013). Understanding of science classrooms in different countries through the analysis of discourse modes for building ‘classroom science knowledge’ (CSK). Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 597–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rappoport, L. T., & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of representation: emergent versus submergent perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1585–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santas, G. X. (1979). Socrates. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. H. (1997). Developing science concepts in secondary classrooms: an analysis of pedagogical interactions from a Vygotskian perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leeds, School of Education.

  • Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: a fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(7), 605–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shemwell, J. T., & Furtak, E. R. (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation: a study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 222–250.

    Article  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(2–3), 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, J. M. H., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: the many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of classrooms: using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Booven, D. (2015). Revisiting the authoritative–dialogic tension in inquiry-based elementary science teacher questioning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1182–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 229–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press (Original work published 1934).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R. (2008). Reason and dialogue in education. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. van der Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning. Advances in cultural-historical activity theory (pp. 273–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their appreciation to Prof. Dr. Murat GUNEL for his valuable and constructive suggestions during the planning and development of this research work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, Istanbul Aydin University, Beşyol Mah. İnönü Cad. No: 38, Sefaköy-Küçükçekmece, Istanbul, Turkey

    Yilmaz Soysal

  2. Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, Middle East Technical University, Üniversiteler Mah. Dumlupınar Blv. No: 1, 06800, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey

    Ozgul Yilmaz-Tuzun

Authors
  1. Yilmaz Soysal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ozgul Yilmaz-Tuzun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yilmaz Soysal.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 An example analysis of the teacher’s discursive moves and student-led cognitive contributions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soysal, Y., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. Relationships Between Teacher Discursive Moves and Middle School Students’ Cognitive Contributions to Science Concepts. Res Sci Educ 51 (Suppl 1), 325–367 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09881-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09881-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation