Abstract
This study examined the effectiveness of introducing elementary teachers to the scholarly literature on personal pronouns and hedges in classroom discourse, a professional development strategy adopted during a summer institute to enhance teachers’ social understanding (i.e., their understanding of the social functions of language in science discussions). Teachers became aware of how hedges can be employed to remain neutral toward students’ oral contributions to classroom discussions, invite students to share their opinions and articulate their own ideas, and motivate students to inquire. Teachers recognized that the combined use of I and you can render their feedback authoritative, you can shift the focus from the investigation to students’ competence, and we can lead to authority loss. It is argued that explicitness, reflectivity, and contextualization are essential features of professional development programs aimed at improving teachers’ understandings of the social dimension of inquiry-based science classrooms and preparing teachers to engage in inquiry-based teacher–student interactions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.
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.
Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Authority and authority relations in mathematics education: A view from an 8th-grade classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 145–168.
Basista, B., Tomlin, J., Pennington, K., & Pugh, D. (2001). Inquiry-based integrated science and mathematics professional development program. Education, 121, 615–624.
Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Buck, G., Latta, M. M., & Leslie-Pelecky, D. (2007). Learning how to make inquiry into electricity and magnetism discernible to middle level teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(3), 377–397.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Caton, E., Brewer, C., & Brown, F. (2000). Building teacher-scientist partnerships: Teaching about energy through inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 7–15.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315–1346.
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 815–843.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15, 463–494.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of “we” in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 45–66.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2007). From intended curriculum to written curriculum: Examining the “voice” of a mathematics textbook. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 344–369.
Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23, 215–239.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192.
Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 668–690.
Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2007). A study of the effect of sustained, whole-school professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 775–786.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 123–228). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lee, O., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1021–1043.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2006). Overcoming a learning bottleneck: Inquiry professional development for secondary science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 185–216.
Morgan, C. (1996). The language of mathematics: Towards a critical analysis of mathematicstexts. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16, 2–10.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Oliveira, A. W., Colak, H., & Akerson, V. L. (2009). Curriculum translation and environmental education: Considering issues of discursive intentionality, interpretation, and validity. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 149–155.
Oliveira, A. W., Sadler, T. D., & Suslak, D. F. (2007a). Analyzing language, interaction and outcomes in an inquiry-oriented classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 165–170.
Oliveira, A. W., Sadler, T. D., & Suslak, D. F. (2007b). The linguistic construction of expert identity in professor–student discussions of science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 119–150.
Peters, J. M., & Stout, D. L. (2006). Science in elementary education: Methods, concepts, and Inquiries (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge Kegan & Paul.
Polman, J. L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 431–466.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Roth, W.-M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 709–736.
Rounds, P. (1987a). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching assistant training. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 643–671.
Rounds, P. (1987b). Multifunctional personal pronoun use in an educational setting. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 13–29.
Rowland, T. (1999). Pronouns in mathematics talk: Power, vagueness, and generalization. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19, 19–25.
Rowland, T. (2000). The pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse. London: Falmer Press.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. S. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.
Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 393–429.
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.
van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997a). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209–228.
van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997b). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 229–271.
Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 63–89.
Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–37.
Wortham, S. E. F. (1992). Participant examples and classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education, 4, 195–217.
Wortham, S. E. F. (1996). Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speakers’ footing. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 331–348.
Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The ‘filtering effect’ of teachers’ beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81, 137–159.
Yip, D. Y. (2004). Questioning skills for conceptual change in science instruction. Journal of Biological Education, 38, 76–83.
Acknowledgment
This project was funded by the state of Indiana Mathematics and Science Partnership Program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A
See Table 1.
Appendix B
See Table 2.
Appendix C
See Table 3.
Appendix D
See Table 4.
About this article
Cite this article
Oliveira, A.W. Developing Elementary Teachers’ Understandings of Hedges and Personal Pronouns in Inquiry-Based Science Classroom Discourse. J Sci Teacher Educ 21, 103–126 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9157-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9157-4