Developing and Using an Instrument to Assess the Dialectical Potential of Whole-Class Discussions in Teaching Science

• In Event: Toward a More Dialogic Pedagogy: Improving Student Learning in Science, Mathematics, and Language Arts Education

Abstract

The Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve, 2012) place argument from evidence at the core of what it means to do science (Crombie, 1994). In this paper, we report on the outcomes of work undertaken to measure the quality of elementary teacher’s attempts to engage students in this central scientific practice. Research suggests that collaborative, critical discourse supports student learning and builds a more authentic picture of the nature and practice of science (Lemke, 1990; Osborne, 2010). However, such learning requires students to engage in discourse that supports productive disciplinary engagement (PDE) (Engle & Conant, 2002; Forman & Ford, 2014). What are the features of such discourse and, more importantly, are teachers better able to facilitate and support such interactions after participating in a program of professional development focused on developing and building their expertise?

To answer this question, we report on the instrument we have developed and used to analyze 270 videos of science discussions by elementary teachers. Drawing on scales developed in mathematics (Boston, 2012) and language arts (Grossman, 2013; Reznitskaya, 2012), an instrument for assessing the quality of discourse in science was developed. Discussion in science is distinguished from other disciplines by the need to provide evidence to support claims and the nature of the evidence used. In particular, the goal of closure can only be achieved by engaging in the critique of ideas that are advanced by others and by asking students to be accountable for their ideas (Forman & Ford, 2014). Such discourse is also dependent on establishing the procedural norms that enable a culture of listening and deliberation (Michaels, O'Connor, & Resnick, 2008). Drawing on these principles, our research team constructed a framework with 3 scales for teacher practice – the degree to which they ask productive questions; press students for their reasoning; and help students to compare and contrast their ideas. An additional 3 scales explore the extent to which students offer elaborated explanations; co-construct ideas with other students; and engage in critique of what other students offer. The research group, working collaboratively over the course of a year, iteratively refined this instrument.

Emerging from this work are two features of note. First, the work offers a science-specific instrument for identifying the core features of productive classroom discussion. Second, the analysis shows that teachers improved on their ability to ask questions and press students for evidence. Less successful was scaffolding the act of critique and advancing the discussion towards consensual agreement. Similarly, students improved in their ability to provide explanations supported by evidence and to co-construct understandings, but not in challenging or critiquing each others’ ideas. Our conclusion is that dialogue, of itself, is insufficient. Rather for PDE to occur, interactions must transcend dialogism to become dialectic, demanding that students engage with each other’s ideas in a critical fashion. Establishing such dialectic interaction requires that the teacher identify salient juxtapositions of competing points that s/he uses to advance the construction of new understandings.

Authors

• Jonathan F. Osborne, Stanford University

• Hilda Borko, Stanford University

• Evan J Fishman, Stanford University

• K.C. Busch, Stanford University

• Susan Louise Million, Stanford University

• Anita Tseng, Stanford University