Examining Existing Discussion in Science Classrooms as a Means of Building Toward Evidence-Based Argumentation

• In Event: Reading for Understanding: Initial Studies of Students and Teachers Using Multiple Sources in Content Areas

Abstract

Objectives: In this poster, we examine the existing discussion practices in two middle and two high school science classrooms to understand the ways in which teachers and students developed questions, interpreted data and built theory, and built shared understandings through oral discourse. These teachers were recommended to us as ones whose instruction promoted a high level of critical thinking using multiple representations.

Theoretical Framework: Developing questions, building theory, and building shared understandings are three functions of science talks, a discourse practice that engages students in knowledge construction and argumentation (Ballenger, 1997; Radinsky, Olivia, & Alamar, 2010). This work is grounded in a theoretical framework that posits that literacy practices such as reading, writing, and discussion must be situated within specific disciplines (Lee & Spratley, 2010; Moje, 2008; Siebert & Draper, 2008). It is also informed by the expanded reading for understanding model (Goldman et al., 2009).

Methods and Data Sources: This study focuses on short-term observations of three life-science teachers engaging in discussion in their science classrooms - two from middle schools in one urban West-coast district and one teacher from a high school in a suburban Midwestern district. Data sources include fieldnotes, video, and audio recordings.

Findings and Analysis: We employed constant comparative analysis. Our first pass involved using Ballenger’s (1997) three functions of science talk as a lens to view the data corpus, and then constantly cycling through the data to compare differences across classrooms and across data sources. Initial analyses suggest that students were exposed to different types of data, multiple representations, and well-planned activities, as well as teacher-directed, whole-class discussion. The activities, however, were focused on procedural completion of tasks and thus did not provide many opportunities for students to build theories and shared understandings. These observations are consistent with previous research about student talk in science that suggest the need for careful attention to the design of activities – in particular the artifacts and discursive tools used, class configuration (whole class or small group), and the roles that students take up (Herrenkohl, Palincsar, DeWater, & Kawaski, 1999; Roth, McGinn, Woszczyna, & Boutonné, 1999). These data indicate that engaging students with multiple texts is but a first step in advancing science literacy practices. Curriculum materials need to be accompanied by challenging inquiry tasks that require use of the data to build and contest shared understandings and theories.

Significance: Science talk can be a useful vehicle for engaging students in evidence-based reasoning in science and helping them understand science practices. The present study provides a baseline understanding of the current discourse practices in which teachers engaged students in these classrooms, and information about potential points of entry to build oral discussions using different participation and activity configurations.

Authors

• Tanya Cleveland Solomon, University of Illinois at Chicago

• Megan Hughes, University of Illinois at Chicago

• Ursula M. Sexton, WestEd

• Irisa Charney-Sirott, WestEd

• Willard R. Brown, WestEd