Learning to Support Rich Science Talk: K–2 Teachers' Engagement With Talk-Based Professional Development

• In Event: Science Sense-Making in Elementary Classrooms: Supporting Teachers to Support Students

Abstract

Objectives
This paper reports on a study of K-2 teachers’ participation in an online professional development (PD) consisting of teacher learning communities with instructional coaches and a formative observation tool with the goal of enacting ambitious science talk in their classrooms.
Theoretical Framework
Science is a process of explaining and predicting phenomena and there is evidence that children are capable of and motivated to engage in scientific sense-making (Authors, 2017; Lehrer & Schauble 2017). For young children, who are not yet reading and writing independently, classroom talk is the most powerful tool a teacher can use to support engagement in scientific sensemaking using the practices of science (Authors, 2017a; Colley & Windschitl, 2016; NRC, 2007). Thus, it is critically important to consider how to support teachers in enacting this type of instruction in their classrooms.
Methods
Grounded in a three-pronged research-based framework [(1) supporting equitable science participation and engagement, (2) deepening science understanding, and (3) developing language and literacy for science], eight K-2 teachers participated in a 10-week online PD in which they read articles and watched videos, engaged with teacher learning communities, videotaped lessons, and reflected with an instructional coach using a formative observational tool.

Analysis
Data sources include videos of science lessons at three points in the PD (prePD, Week 5, Week 9) and teacher interviews. We analyzed the lessons and interviews using a priori codes based on the research-based framework and created analytic memos (Saldaña, 2016) to compare science talk within and across teachers to highlight themes and examples.

Results
There was variation in teachers’ growth across the PD, with some making more changes in their practice than others. In post-PD interviews, many teachers lamented that the PD’s short duration made it difficult to “try everything they learned,” but discussed becoming more “purposeful” about engaging students in science talk (e.g., using talk stems I (dis)agree with you because).

For example, 1st grade Teacher A, had noteworthy growth in her science talk. Before the PD, she provided some opportunities for student to share ideas as a class and encouraged the use of talk stems; however, she primarily asked what questions. At the midpoint, she provided more opportunities for partner talk, encouraged students to generate their own question, and scaffolded students’ understanding and use of science vocabulary. By the end, she also employed a KLEWS chart (Hershberger, Zembal-Saul & Starr, 2006) to refer to previous learning, record students’ questions/ideas, and highlight new science terms. In contrast, 1st grade Teacher B, relied heavily on curriculum that involved watching a video and having scripted question and answer sessions. She struggled to use new talk moves while also using this curriculum.

Significance
This study supports prior research that PD focused on specific instructional practices can increase teachers’ knowledge and use of those practices given certain conditions (e.g., Desimone et. al, 2002). This is important because supporting student talk is important for learning (Donovan & Bransford, 2005) and is especially critical for helping children become apprenticed into disciplinary norms (NRC, 2007).

Authors

• Amelia Wenk Gotwals, Michigan State University

• Tanya S. Wright, Michigan State University

• Lisa Domke, Georgia State University

• Blythe E. Anderson, University at Buffalo - SUNY