Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Indicators of an Experienced Middle School Science Teacher’s Argument‑Based Inquiry Teaching

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper presents a study that aimed to reveal the process quality descriptors of an argument-based inquiry approach. Process quality signifies whether a teacher is a better or unsatisfactory implementer of a version of in-class science inquiry. An experienced middle school science teacher was the participant. Based on the initial analysis completed by the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol, it was observed that the teacher was a high-capacity implementer of the argument-based inquiry approach. Through episode-based analysis, discursively regulated indicators of the process quality were identified. The teacher adopted a flexible instructional agenda for the high process quality by welcoming students’ everyday social languages. The teacher also combined low interanimation (collecting alternative utterances) and high interanimation (eliciting alternative statements) of ideas. The teacher avoided an early conceptual consensus by pressing the students to cope with a discussant who could not be persuaded easily by unwarranted claims. The teacher played the devil’s advocate role by making the students’ cognitive contradictions explicit and tangible. Before the experimenting phase, the teacher intentionally elaborated on the student-proposed research variables and guided them to evaluate other groups’ experimental outcomes. Educational suggestions are presented about teacher noticing for enhancing the process quality.

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

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 

  • Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachelard, G. (1968). The Philosophy of No. Paris University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94, 765–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., Dalege, J., Kievit, R. A., & Haig, B. D. (2021). Theory construction methodology: A practical framework for building theories in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 756–766.

    Article  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 

  • 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., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449.

    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, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 (pp. 39–53).

  • 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, 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronje, R., Murray, K., Rohlinger, S., & Wellnitz, T. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic to improve undergraduate writing in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 35(16), 2718–2731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, C. (2014). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument (2nd ed.). Danielson Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyke, G., Howley, I., Adamson, D., Kumar, R., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). Towards academically productive talk supported by conversational agents. In Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions (pp. 459–476). Springer, Boston, MA.

  • 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, 399–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkol, M., Kışoğlu, M., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). The effect of implementation of science writing heuristic on students’ achievement and attitudes toward laboratory in introductory physics laboratory. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2310–2314.

    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 

  • Goodwin, A. (2002). Is salt melting when it dissolves in water? Journal of Chemical Education, 79(3), 393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Cavagnetto, A., Chen, Y. C., & Park, S. (2016a). Moving past curricula and strategies: Language and the development of adaptive pedagogy for immersive learning environments. Research in Science Education, 46(2), 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L. A., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2016b). Aligning teaching to learning: A 3-year study examining the embedding of language and argumentation into elementary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 847–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., & van Zee, E. (2006). Seeing the science in children’s thinking: Case studies ofstudent inquiry in physical science. (Book and DVD) Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

  • Hammer, D., Russ, R., Scherr, R. E., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Identifying inquiry and conceptualising students’ abilities. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 138–156). Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. Pearson.

  • Hayes, K. N., Lee, C. S., DiStefano, R., O’Connor, D., & Seitz, J. C. (2016). Measuring science instructional practice: A survey tool for the age of NGSS. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(2), 137–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Osborne, J., & Wild, A. (2015). Beyond construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1668–1697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollo, A., & Wehby, J. H. (2017). Teacher talk in general and special education elementary classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 117(4), 616–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, E. A., Merwin, A. C., & Tekkumru-Kisa, M. (2020). Advancing Cognitively Demanding Tasks in Undergraduate Classrooms: Using Graduate Student Discussion Groups & the Task Analysis Guide in Science (TAGS) as Leverage. The American Biology Teacher, 82(1), 53–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, V. A., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’smathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.

    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). Springer.

    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 

  • Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1645–1663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kisa, Z., & Correnti, R. (2015). Examining implementation fidelity in America’s choice schools: A longitudinal analysis of changes in professional development associated with changes in teacher practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 437–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery: To the historian discovery is seldom a unit event attributable to some particular man, time, and place. Science, 136(3518), 760–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labouta, H. I., Kenny, N. A., Li, R., Anikovskiy, M., Reid, L., & Cramb, D. T. (2018). Learning science by doing science: An authentic science process-learning model in postsecondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 40(12), 1476–1492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Linebarger, D. L., & Norton-Meier, L. (2016). Scientific concepts, multiple modalities, and young children. Using multimodal representations to support learning in the science classroom (pp. 97–116). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, F. E., & Schneider, D. K. (2013). Good student questions in inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 47(3), 166–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mameli, C., & Molinari, L. (2014). Seeking educational quality in the unfolding of classroom discourse: A focus on microtransitions. Language and Education, 28(2), 103–119.

    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.

  • Martinez, J. F., Borko, H., & Stecher, B. M. (2012a). Measuring classroom assessment practice using instructional artifacts: A validation study of the QAS notebook. Educational Assessment, 17(2–3), 107–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, J. F., Borko, H., & Stecher, B. M. (2012b). Measuring instructional practice in science using classroom artifacts: Lessons learned from two validation studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 38–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Slater, S. C., & Boston, M. D. (2008). Toward measuring instructional interactions “at-scale.” Educational Assessment, 13(4), 267–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meeks, L., Stephensen, J., Kemp, C., & Madelaine, A. (2017). How well prepared are pre-service teachers to teach early reading? A systematic review of the literature. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 21(2), 69–98.

    Article  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. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer, & Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in schools. London: Sage.

  • 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 

  • Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2015). Conceptualising talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussions. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socialising intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 347–362). American Educational Research Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., Scott, P., & El-Hani, C. N. (2012). The heterogeneity of discourse in science classrooms: The conceptual profile approach. In Second international handbook of science education (pp. 231–246). Springer, Dordrecht.

  • Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children’s science writing. Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurkka, N., Viiri, J., Littleton, K., & Lehesvuori, S. (2014). A methodological approach to exploring the rhythm of classroom discourse in a cumulative frame in science teaching. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(1), 54–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picón, R. O., Sevian, H., & Mortimer, E. F. (2020). Conceptual Profile of Substance. Science & Education, 29(5), 1317–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, J. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.

  • Quarderer, N. A., & McDermott, M. A. (2020). Examining science teacher reflections on argument-based inquiry through a critical discourse lens. Research in Science Education, 50(6), 2483–2504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinfried, S., & Tempelmann, S. (2014). The Impact of Secondary School Students’ Preconceptions on the Evolution of their Mental Models of the Greenhouse effect and Global Warming. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 304–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. (2017). Student discourse for learning. In G. E. Hall, D. M. Gollnick, & L. F. Quinn (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., & Wilkinson, I. A. (2021). The Argumentation Rating Tool: Assessing and supporting teacher facilitation and student argumentation during text-based discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106, 103464.

  • Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Shaver, J. P. (1983). The Verification of Independent Variables in Teaching Methods Research. Educational Researcher, 12(8), 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soysal, Y. (2019). Effects of the teacher discursive moves on the students’ reasoning qualities in the context of science teaching: Discourse analysis approach. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(3), 994–1032.

  • Soysal, Y. (2020). Investigating discursive functions and potential cognitive demands of teacher questioning in the Science Classroom. Learning: Research and Practice, 6(2), 167–194.

  • Soysal, Y. (2021a). Managing a discursive journey for classroom inquiry: Examination of a teacher’s discursive moves. Journal of Science Learning, 4(4), 394–411.

  • Soysal, Y. (2021b). Exploring elementary and middle school science teachers’ metadiscourse moves: A Vygotskian analysis and interpretation. Learning: Research and Practice, 7(1), 70–104.

  • Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Preston, C., Kisa, Z., Oz, E., & Morgan, J. (2020). Assessing instructional quality in science in the era of ambitious reforms: A pilot study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. Abell, & N. Lederman (Eds.) Handbook on research in science education (pp. 373–391). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.s

  • 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 

  • Tytler, R., & Aranda, G. (2015). Expert teachers’ discursive moves in science classroom interactive talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 425–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Veen, C., van Kruistum, C., & Michaels, S. (2015). Productive Classroom Dialogue as an Activity of Shared Thinking and Communicating: A Commentary on Marsal. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(4), 320–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Veen, C., van der Wilt, F., van Kruistum, C., van Oers, B., & Michaels, S. (2017). MODEL 2 TALK: An intervention to promote productive classroom talk. The Reading Teacher, 70(6), 689–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using Multi-Modal Representations to Improve Learning in Junior Secondary Science. Research Science Education, 40(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walkington, C., & Marder, M. (2014). Exploring excellence in teaching using the UTeach observation protocol: Connecting teaching behaviors to teacher value-added on assessments measuring conceptual understanding. In T. Kane, K. Kerr, & R. Pianta (Eds.), Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance from the measures of effective teaching project (pp. 234–277). Jossey-Bass.

    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.

  • Weller, D., & Finkelstein, C. (2011). From “adding inquiry” to “doing science”: Embracing the tensions in teaching inquiry-based science. Science and Children, 48(7), 49–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, L., & Clarke, D. (2019). Speaking or not speaking as a cultural practice: Analysis of mathematics classroom discourse in Shanghai, Seoul, and Melbourne. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(1), 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Yilmaz Soysal

Authors
  1. Yilmaz Soysal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yilmaz Soysal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soysal, Y. Quality Indicators of an Experienced Middle School Science Teacher’s Argument‑Based Inquiry Teaching. Sci & Educ 32, 689–736 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00327-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00327-1

Search

Navigation