Talk in an
Urban Elementary Science Classroom:
Exploring the
Different Perspectives
Jaclyn Campos
Masters Candidate
Urban
Department of Math, Science & Technology
Angela Calabrese Barton
Associate Professor of Science Education
Urban
Department of Math, Science & Technology
In the beginning of the year, in the fourth grade classroom, I
noticed that some students appear to be very uncomfortable with providing their
own observations, answers and arguments. Instead, they insisted on searching
through books for the appropriate answer. Although students were asked to engage
in the same activity, it appeared that students had different ideas about the
practise of science and scientific inquiry. How is it
that students in the same school acquire these different notions about the
nature and practise of science? What philosophies are
presented to the students through the classroom talk? This study examines the
classroom activities and talk that students engage in as they develop their
understanding of the nature and practise of
science.
Introduction
Project 2061 is an educational
reform agenda created by the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS, 1990) to improve the science, math and technology literacy in
Science for All’s
reform agenda is difficult to put into practise
especially in urban public schools. (Calabrese-Barton 1998) Urban public schools
have fewer classroom resources, high teacher turnover, and larger classroom
sizes. The growing field of urban science education studies these communities to
gain a better understanding of those who sit in the margins of Science for All
(Calabrese-Barton, 1998, Moje et al, 2001).
One of the major
concerns in urban science education is how students lean about what science is
and how it connects to their live. Knowledge of science includes an
understanding of “science as a way of knowing or the values and beliefs inherent
to scientific knowledge and its development.” (Lederman, 1992) The nature of science or these ways of
knowing are considered to be a significant part of scientific literacy (Lederman, 1992). Currently, there is much debate as to how
the nature of science should be taught, whether it be explicitly or implicitly.
A number of
studies discuss teacher’s beliefs on the nature of science as it relates to
classroom practise, teachers’ strategies and student
learning. (Laplante, 1997) For example, King et al
(2001) note that the urban elementary teachers’ understanding of their classroom
practises differed significantly from the researchers’
observed lesson. However, there is still a limited
number of studies that research urban elementary science classroom and the
discourse practises that take place in that setting.
This study seeks
to further the literature on urban elementary science classrooms and the
differing philosophies on the nature of science that students are presented
with. Through observing classrooms and interviewing students, the pilot study
explores classroom science discourse, with the hopes of understanding the
messages about science that are embedded in students’ science learning. I use an
ethnographic perspective, which looks towards understanding the culture of
classroom science in urban schools.
Research Questions
The overarching
questions that guide the research are:
(1)
What are the major patterns of talk in the
classroom?
(2)
Through the talk and the activities presented in a
science classroom, what messages about the nature and practise of science are being presented?
(3)
What aspect of classroom science do students’
value?
Through focusing
on one aspect of the science literacy in the classroom (talk), these three
questions explore science classroom discourse as it relates to students’
understanding of science.
Conceptual Framework
As my research questions imply, I am
interested in exploring how discourse in a science classroom influences what
kids learn about what science is. Therefore, in my conceptual framework, I look
closely at the research around discourse and science learning. In exploring
discourses in science learning, I explore three areas of research: (1) talk in
the science classroom (2) discourse and diverse ways of knowing (3) authority
and discourse.
Language plays a
crucial role in a science classroom for it is the medium upon which scientific
knowledge is discussed, constructed, or transmitted. In his book, Wells (2001)
proposes, “students’ opportunities for learning and knowing are crucially
dependent on the nature of activities in which they engage and on the functions
that language performs in these activities.” Through reflecting on the talk in a
science classroom in the context of the activities, one can examine the way that
science is presented to students.
The current
literatures on talk patterns provide a framework upon which, the collected data
can be reflected upon. In the area of peer-to-peer talk, exploratory and
cumulative talk are main conversational patterns that
have been presented in the current literature -directive scaffolding and
supportive scaffolding. (Gallas, 1995, Wilkinson &
Silliman, 2000) Directive scaffold are used primarily
when the teacher’s goals are to transmit knowledge to the students. The
conversational sequence pattern (IRE) consists of the teacher posing or
initiating through a question, the student responding and finally, the teacher
evaluating the student’s response. (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000)
Supportive
scaffolding allows the student to take responsibility for their own learning
through task planning, selecting strategies, and monitoring their understanding.
These conversational patterns include cued elicitations, explicit modeling,
direct explanation and re-explanations, invitations to participate in the
conversation, and verifying student understanding (Wilkinson & Siliman, 2000; Gallas, 1995)
Teacher’s perceptions of students and
their instructional intentions and goals for the classroom also influence their
science teaching. In their critique of Project 2061, Osborne and
Calabrese-Barton (2001) propose the science education reform initiative (Science
for All) maintains the deficit model of minority knowledge or understanding.
Instead, they suggest “an education for marginalized children involves
rethinking foundational assumptions about the nature of the disciplines, the
purposes of education, and our roles as teachers. It does not mean remaking
those children into our images.” (Osborne & Calabrese-Barton, 2001) Instead
of focusing on the ways that urban students are unable to conform to given
science education requirements, the framework of science education itself should
be questioned and reconsidered.
The anti-deficit
model considers marginalized children’s understandings, questions, and
experiences of science. It recognizes that Western science leans towards
particular ways of knowing and doing science that excludes people of particular
backgrounds, furthering the ideology of the special truth of science.
It is not surprising that
those who succeed in science tend to be like those who define the ‘appropriate’
way to talk science: male rather than female, white rather than black,
middle-and upper-middle class, native English-speaker, standard dialect
speakers, committed to the values of North European middle class culture
(emotional control, orderliness, rationalism, achievement, punctuality, social
hierarchy, etc). (Lemke, 1990)
In conjunction with knowing and
doing science, Lemke (1990) discusses the role that scientific discourse plays
in convincing students that science is only available to the experts and in
opposition to common sense.
It is easy to
see how urban students who come to science with different cultures, ideas, and
experiences can come to believe that they do not belong in the neighbourhood of science. In a science classroom, students
can be empowered by involving their language and culture and allowing them to
generate scientific knowledge (Callazo, 1999). In
these classrooms, students are encouraged to produce knowledge as they
incorporate their experiences, ideas and questions with the larger body of
scientific knowledge. Furthermore, collaborative inquiry involves students
sharing responsibility of thinking about the topic and performing the activities
such that one person is not responsible for the whole process (Roseberry, Warren, & Conant,
1992).
Language plays
an important role of fulfilling particular purposes of scientific discourse.
(Roseberry, Warren, & Conant, 1992). Thus, scientific literacy also
involves students being “enculturated into ways of
making sense that are characteristic of scientific communities” (Roseberry, Warren, & Conant,
1992). The authors believe that students should be encouraged to perform
meaningful work that is similar to the scientific activities that is performed.
Similarly, this study looks towards understanding the discourse of urban
elementary science classrooms through paying special attention to the classroom
talk.
The
methodological design of this study is ethnography with phenomenological
aspects. Ethnography studies people and their social discourses through
observation and interview. This study describes and interprets the talk practises of an urban science classroom in the context of
the inquiry activities. Ethnography also involves participant observation, such
that the researcher is immersed into the day-to-day happenings of the field
setting (Cresswell, 1998)
Field setting, Consent Practises, and Sampling
As previously
mentioned, Monarca Elementary School is a professional
development school located in the
In the study,
convenient and theoretical sampling has been used to generate an understanding
of the talk in the science classroom. The classroom was selected because of the
rapport with the teacher and his willingness to discuss his science classroom
(opportunistic sampling). In the area of familiarity with classroom teaching,
the teacher appears to be a typical case as most urban schools have
inexperienced teachers.
In his second
year of teaching, Mr. Jonas Linst’s classroom has
twenty-nine fourth-graders in his monolingual inclusive classroom. Jonas
graduated from Teacher’s College. Mr. Linst came to
Monarca in the middle of last year because the school
decided to open a new third grade class. In the spring of 2002, I joined Mr.
Linst’s science classroom to provide support in his
science classes. This year, Mr. Linst decided to loop
with his third grade students into fourth grade. Along with his sixteen third
graders, thirteen new students were added to his class.
Mr. Linst and I are very familiar with one another, as we have
collaborated for a year and a half. We meet every week to discuss, plan,
implement, and reflect on the science curriculum. In addition, some of the
students are accustomed to having me in the classroom because I have known them
for a year and a half.
Criterion
sampling was also used, as students were selected based upon the different
perspective that they could provide. One student from every table was invited to
participate and interviewed. Furthermore, students that approached the
researcher with a desire to share their ideas and thoughts were also
interviewed. Anonymity is maintained through changing the school’s, teacher’s
and students’ names throughout the study.
In the interview
process, this study draws on each participant’s experience of talk in the
science and their understanding of it. Cresswell
(1998, pg 53) explains that the psychological approach of phenomenological
studies focuses “on the meaning of experiences but has found individual
experiences, not group experiences, central.” In the study, students are asked
to describe the experiences of participating in the talk of the classroom and
their understanding of classroom science and the science
profession.
Methods of Data
Generation
I used two main methods to generate
data: (1) participant observation (2) interviews (teacher and student).
(1) Participant observation: My involvement
in the classroom was negotiated with the teacher during the planning of the
lesson. In Mr. Linst’s class, I would occasionally
demonstrate a concept or an idea to the entire class, ask the class about their
ideas or questions, or walk around the class and discuss student projects. I
transcribed the field observations and openly code for the patterns of talk.
For this
research project, I chose Mr. Linst’s electricity unit
(which took place over the course of two months). A number of the science
lessons are videotaped on a digital video camera. During class discussions, the
camera was placed in a corner, facing the teacher and students. At times, I
would take the camera around to different groups of students that were doing
work and ask students about their questions, ideas, or findings.
(2) Student interview:
Students were interviewed during a time that is convenient for them and their
teacher. I conducted these face-to-face interviews in the hallways or classroom
at Monarca, at a time when I have established rapport
with the students. Students were interviewed one or two times for thirty or
forty-five minutes. They were encouraged to talk about their ideas, questions
and feelings on classroom talk and science. I transcribed and coded the
interviews.
Findings
In my findings, I do three things. First I describe the major forms of
talk observed in my study. Second, I analyze those forms of talk for messages
about what science is in terms of: science and science learning, roles in the
science classroom, and science literacy. Lastly, I discuss the aspects of talk
that the students valued.
(1) Major forms of talk
Direct questioning
In whole class discussion, one of the patterns of talk that was observed
and discussed by students is direct questioning. Direct questioning was centered
on students’ understanding of the science content. With the use of props
(whether it be the light switch, or a diagram on the
board), Jonas poses a question to the students. He either calls on a student or
the whole class replies. Jonas calls on both students who raise their hands and
students who do not. If the response is answered correctly, Jonas praises the
student, repeats the answer, or poses a following question. Jonas usually
provides an explanation as to how or why the answer is appropriate. However if answer is
incorrect, Jonas asks the student to rethink their answer and/or Jonas restates
the question. When Jonas asks the student to reconsider his/her answer,
he explains why the answer is incorrect or different from the answer that he is
proposing.
This pattern of talk can be found
throughout the transcribed observation. For example, during discussion of
switches, Mr. Jonas Linst had a diagram of a circuit
on the board. Jonas asked, "What can I put in to turn the light bulb on and off.
On and off. On and off. What
will I put into the circuit?, Amy.” Amy answered a
switch. Jonas responded, “a switch. Excellent Amy” and
poses her another question, "Amy, where do you think I can put a switch? Can you
put a switch in for me? Where show me? Draw a box where you want." Amy walked to
the board and draws a switch close to the battery.
Another example of direct questioning was
when Mr. Linst discussed with students the various
things in the classroom that could be used to make a switch. Prior to this, Mr.
Linst and I had planned for students to make a switch
out of paper clips. Jonas asked the students, “What is something real common
that I could give out to everybody?” Maurice replied, “a penny.” Mr. Linst asked Maurice
to reconsider his response as he explained, “Yah, would you be able to attach a
wire to a penny? It might be really awkward to attach a wire to a penny.”
Finally, Jonas called on “Tania.” Students proceeded to suggest the different
things that might be used as a switch until one student finally suggested a
paperclip. Mr. Linst proceeded to explain how a
student might use a paperclip for a switch, “paperclips. If I had a paperclip
and unwound it…”
For the most part, direct questioning
appears to be a talk pattern similar to the Triadic Dialogue discussed Lemke or
the IRE/F pattern studied by Wells. Triadic Dialogue consists of Teacher
Question, Teacher call for Bids, Student Bid to Answer, Teacher Nomination,
Student Answer, Teacher evaluation, and Teacher Elaboration. (Lemke, 1990)
Lemke (1990) proposes that the teachers’
repetition of the student’s answers, confirms that the answer is correct,
thereby giving it a positive evaluation. Another form of positive evaluation is
through the teacher responding with “Yes,” or “Good.” Lemke (1990) identifies
the action of positive evaluation as the “most characteristic feature” of the
Triadic Dialogue. He selects this characteristic, because it is unlike most
ordinary conversations. For example, in a conversation, one might ask, “How old
are you?” The conversational partner might reply, “45.” It would appear awkward
for one to then reply, “Good” or “That’s right.” Similarly, direct questioning
consists of students receiving a positive evaluation when they reply correctly.
In the Triadic dialogue, the conversation
continues until the students are able to achieve a positive response from the
teacher. (Lemke, 1990) In the same
way, direct questioning in Mr. Linst’s science class
consists of the teacher attempting to elicit the correct response from the
student. The dialogue in Mr. Linst’s classroom
continues until students are able to present an accurate answer.
The Triadic Dialogue pattern proposed by
Lemke (1990) consists of the teacher remaining silent if the wrong response is
given. Unless the teacher gives a positive response, students assume that the
evaluation is negative. However unlike the Triadic Dialogue presented by Lemke,
Jonas explains why the students’ answer is incorrect, ineffective, or different
from the response that he was thinking of. One of the strengths of Mr. Linst’s classroom is that students are often given an
explanation as to why the answer is accurate or inaccurate, allowing for logic
and reasoning to be at the center of the class discussion.
Mr. Linst’s view of whole class talk: When asked about the main science idea that he wanted to present to his students, Mr. Linst replied that he wanted to get his students “to be active in the process of inquiry. I want them to be able to think about a problem and how they can find the solution to that problem.” Mr. Linst was reflective of the whole class talk pattern in his classroom. He explained,
“We do have whole class conversations. Obviously talking about science is
central to learning about it... I think that’s just a little overwhelming for
me, to have a conversation with thirty kids and try to remember where Janna was,
or where Tanya was. To me that’s like too much. So the whole class conversations
are directed, very directed almost fishing for an
answer which is not necessarily the best way to teach but that’s where I’m at
right now. Pose a question, take a bunch of answers, some of which are the right
answer, some of which are the wrong answer, then sort through the answers with
them, say, ‘Does this make sense?’”
Mr.
Linst is quite candid about his current teaching
skills and sees learning to teach science as a process.
Student sharing and
planning
Project time took place after a whole
class discussion as students work with their group mates or partners.
The
talk patterns of student sharing and planning centered on the students’
engagement with the materials provided and their discussions with one another.
Talk occurred between students, between groups, between the teacher and
students, or between the teacher and the group. At the beginning of project
time, Mr. Linst would present students with a
challenge such as creating a switch. After doing this, students were able to
investigate their own questions and try them out.
Students were expected to negotiate with
their partners and were given the opportunities to choose how they wanted to
carry out the activity. For instance, Mr. Linst’s
assessment for electricity consisted of students building a room with a partner.
The groups were given the opportunity to choose what room of the house they
wanted to build. They drew diagrams of the appliances in room and made lists of
the materials that they would need. For example, Rachel was quite excited and
adamant about having a tortilla maker in her kitchen. The students in her group
were confused as to how they were going to illustrate it, but at the end were
pleased with what they had decided on.
Students also discussed with one another
their plans for the project. At times it was as simple as one student suggesting
to another ‘let’s do this.’ Other times the discussion was much more complex,
such that students held a discussion at the beginning of project time as to what
they want or plan to do. The group table then broke up into partner groups based
on what the group members want to accomplish. This talk allowed students to
present goals and expectations to one another.
During
this time, students also discussed their understanding, questions and ideas of
the project or lesson. They talked about their observations, gave demonstrations
to one another, and provided explanations about their projects to one another.
Students were given the opportunity to walk around the classroom and hold
discussions with other groups. For instance, when students worked on creating
their switches, partners were given clay, batteries, wires, and paperclips. One
group of students managed to get their switch to work by placing the two
paperclips together. Students from other groups gathered around them to watch
their switch. Another group made their switch by having the top wire press down
on a bottom one. They called out to Mr. Linst, “I have
a different one.” Over in another corner of the room, Grace and Crystal are
working on Grace’s switch.
During student sharing and planning,
teachers walked to around the classroom and talked with students about their
plans, accomplishments, and discoveries. Mr.
Linst spent most of his time asking students questions
about their circuit (how and why it worked in that particular way), listening to
their explanations,
encouraging students to work together, and assisting students in obtaining the
necessary equipment.
In
a social studies lesson, Mr. Linst made it clear to
students his expectations of student collaboration. He explained to students
that the process of doing work together involved a dialogue with another student
and that it was useless if they did not learn anything from the other person.
During our class, Mr. Linst would remind students
about the importance of working together, when it was clear that students
working independently.
Mr. Linst’s view of student sharing and
planning: Mr. Linst believed that during project time, the talk allowed
him to asses the students understanding. He suggests,
“if we feel that
the child is understanding something, we can move on to the next question. If we feel the child is not showing us a
good understanding of something, we can ask them to talk more about it, we can
probe it, it’s a more dynamic way of assessing
children, by talking to them. Much more fluid.
This way each child can be assessed on their own strengths and
weaknesses.
Jonas explains that his role during project time was to allow them to explain what they were learning; “we just ask them questions and just get them to talk about it, what they know... And from what they’re talking about then we take our assessments based on where we take them further , and where they are, so its very student-directed conversations.”
(2) Analysis of science
messages
Direct Questioning
§
About science and science
learning
Answers: Direct
questioning in Mr. Linst’s classroom sends the message
that science learning involves providing the right answers to the teacher. The
teacher asks clear closed questions that often have only one correct answer.
Whether the answer comes in the form of a vocabulary word (open/closed or
series/parallel) or a reasoning, the focus of the class is centered on providing
that particular response. For example, Jonas turned off the light and asked
students “is it open or closed?” Students raised their hand and provided the
correct response. Another example of this, was during a
discussion about series and parallel circuits. Mr. Linst began the class with the question, “Last week in
science we discussed two types of circuits… What are the names of the two types
we discussed last week?” Mr. Linst called on Amy and
she suggested, “parallel.”
By asking
students to only provide an answer, the emphasis is placed on the students’
knowledge of the particular word or phrase. The message that is being sent to
students is that science involves the “right answers” rather than a discussion
of the process or reasoning. The conversation during direct questioning
resembles more similarly an interview as opposed to a dialogue or discussion.
Furthermore,
the form of the talk pattern focuses on the students’ knowledge and presentation
of the scientific answer as well as its adherence to the teacher’s idea of the
answer. It conveys to students that scientific knowledge transpires through the
passing of information. This may not allow the student to see how knowledge
occurs within a specific context or that it does not emerge objectively. The
teacher’s focus on the recitation of information also suggests to students that
learning science takes place by being able to recall the information on
demand.
Applicable: During
direct questioning, the questions Mr. Linst poses
involve a particular situation or problem. By relating the questions and examples to
situations, science appeared to be connected or applicable to the students’
environment or lives. In Mr. Linst’s class, science
was not distant or abstract. For instance, one of the central questions in our
study on electricity was the benefits and disadvantages to using a series and
parallel circuits. We talked extensively about the different situations where
they might be used.
The tools we
used in science were often found in the students’ classroom. When Mr. Linst wanted students to use a paperclip for their circuit’s
switch, he proposed “Can
someone think of something that we use commonly in the classroom that is made
out of metal?” The students suggested different materials that could be used to
make a switch. Mr. Linst replied to their ideas by
giving reasons why that particular material was different from the one he was
thinking of.
Mr. Linst also used diagrams, tools, or props to convey his
ideas or elicit a response. Through his use of diagrams and tools, students were
able to see how science was tangible to their world or situation. One of lessons
began with Mr. Linst switching the lights on and off,
asking students if they believed the circuit was open or closed.
When we
discussed vocabulary words, Mr. Linst tried to give a
clear definition that used examples of where students may have also heard that
word. For instance, Mr. Linst asked students to name
one of the kinds of circuits we had studied in our previous classes. One student
suggested “series.” Mr. Linst then explained, “Series
means in a row like the World Series is seven baseball games but the same teams
in a row or the series of unfortunate events or I have the Harry Potter series
or books that have 1, 2, 3, 4. Series are things that happen in a row…” (The
students knew about Harry Potter and had been talking about it.[1])
The context
upon which science was raised involved examples that were pertinent to the
students’ lives. It conveyed to students that science involved making sense of
the world them and was very much a part of their surrounds. This may also have
portrayed science as constructive because it associated science with the
happenings of every day life.
§
About the roles in the science
classroom
Students were asked to listen to questions or explanations and reiterate
the correct responses that had been previously discussed. When called upon, they
were to answer the teacher’s questions as students’ voices were limited to
providing the answer. Students’ narrative authorities were underutilized as the
emphasis was placed on the teacher’s positional authority and scientific
authority.
The teacher’s role during the class consisted of asking questions,
selecting students, and providing feedback on students’ responses. It was
assumed that the teacher knew the information, for he/she provided praise when
students gave the correct response. During the discussion, the teacher usually
explained the answers or the reasoning. Because the teacher took on the sole
responsibility of confirming the scientific knowledge, he/she becomes the
authority of scientific knowledge in this discourse.
The teacher’s positional authority determined the pace of the discussion
and the direction of the conversation. The teacher’s responsibility to provide
the questions and his choice in selecting close-ended questions facilitated
his/her control over the inquiry process. Thus, the science inquiry that took
place in the classroom focused on students acquiring the accurate scientific
knowledge and vocabulary.
§
About science
literacy
Direct questioning involved assessing
students’ scientific knowledge. Rather than holding a discussion, the primary
focus of direct questioning was to examine students’ understanding of the
information and correct their answers. Student’s answers came in form of
scientific knowledge and were acceptable because they were verified by the
teacher. This pattern of talk sends a message to students that science literacy
involves knowing particular science facts and vocabulary. Thus, it suggests that
talk is important because of the scientific content discussed or the passing of
science information.
Since the talk focuses on students providing the correct response and students often have incorrect answers, students may also believe that science literacy is necessary because science involves students learning the right answers. Furthermore since students often present the “wrong answers,” students may have the impression that science is a difficult subject.
Student sharing and
planning
§
About science and science
learning
Providing explanations: Sharing and
planning gives students the opportunities to explain or examine their goals and
rationale. The discussion is centered on students’ sense making: students’ goals, their rationale for the
work that they were doing, and their understanding of science content. During
project times students share their ideas with their groups or partners. For
instance, Rachel and her group had managed to get their series circuit to light.
They started talking about how dim the lights were, so Rachel proposed, “I think
we need to batteries to light up more.”
As students
work with the material, they discuss and explain their plans to one another as
well as the teacher. For instance, in our final assessment project, students
worked in groups planning and discussing their goals for their room and their
understanding of the wiring. Furthermore, each group met with a teacher and
explained their plans of the room and their reasons for using that wiring.
Teachers focused on asking probing questions so that he/she could understand the
student’s objectives for their room as well as encourage the student to think
carefully about the implications of their plans.
Embedded in
this talk pattern is the idea that science involves creating plans/objectives
and presenting a rationale or reasoning for their work. This pattern of talk
suggests that science involves both reasoning and having reasons. This
philosophy can be contrasted to the idea that science is just scientific facts
and knowledge that ought to be learned or memorized. In addition, reasoning
allows the students to see how the scientific facts connect to one another as
well as how it might relate to their lives.
Project time
also involves students explaining their understanding to one another and to the
teacher. Mr. Linst and I walk around the classroom,
encouraging students to talk about what is happening in their project. For
instance, I watched Andrew’s light bulb flickers on and off, so I posed the
question to the students who were watching his work, “Oh, look its blinking, how did it do that?” Amy suggests “the little
bit of clay.” The students and I watch Andrew’s light blink on and off as Angel
proposes “the wire.” Ianna adds Angel’s comment,
“plus look their over” and she points to the wires that
are overlapping and bouncing on one another. Andrew gets excited that his switch
is finally working and he calls Mr. Linst to come over
and see his switch finally work.
During project
time, Mr. Linst probes students on their understanding
of the material. He often squats down so he can see their work and asks them
questions about their project. For instance, Costos’
motor continues to spin while he flicks his switch on and off. He was trying to
see why the switch did not his control the motor. Mr. Linst approached his table, opened his switch, and asked
him, “Let’s put it separate, you know you’re circuit right now, Is the switch open or close, Costos?” Costos proposes “open.”
Jonas explains “It’s open, look it still works, why does it
still work if it’s still open?” Costos answers,
“because of the battery?” Mr. Linst asks Costos, “so where can you put that to make the circuit work
better” and points to the motor. Costos points to the
side of his circuit which was next to the switch as Mr. Linst encourages him, “try it.”
Through having
conversations with students about their understanding of the material, student
may come to understand that science involves more than just making observations
or answers. During student sharing and planning, science involves explanations
and comprehension.
Other sources of information: During student sharing and planning, the
talk allowed students to use books and one another as sources of information.
Through encouraging students to talk with a friend or turn to the science
literature for assistance, the authority of science or science knowledge is not
solely placed on the teacher. Students approach one another for help. During our
lesson, Grace struggled to make her switch work. Her friend, Crystal came by to
assist her. After
Students’
expertise in terms of having worked with the material was considered a source of
knowledge or authority during student sharing and planning. For instance, when
we began our study on electricity, the students were given the opportunity to
make a circuit with batteries, wires, and circuits. I noticed one student
explain to their partner, “Oh I know how to do it, I
did it before at home.” Another example of a student valuing the importance of
another student’s experience can be found during a student interview.
During project
time, students that had accomplished their work visited other tables and offered
their help. Project time was more than just an opportunity for students to work
with the materials. Through placing students in partners or groups, encouraging
them to turn to another student for help, and allowing students to visit other
table groups or the classroom library, students may come to see how there are
other sources of authority in science. In the process of having students share
and plan, students might come to know one another and themselves as doers and
knowers of science.
Solutions: During project time, the
context of the talk allowed students to see the value in allowing for different
projects as well as the necessity of problem-solving. In Mr. Linst lesson plans on switches, students approached the
problem of making switches in different ways. Serena’s group made a switch that
sat on the clay and joined the paperclips together, while Andrew had wires that
overlapped and lit up. As Amy watched Andrew’s circuit, she asked him, “Aren’t
you supposed to use clay?” Andrew answer, “no, I don’t
need to use clay” and called out for Mr. Linst to come
and see his switch because it was “different.”
Rather than
there being one correct way of making a switch, the different switches were
valued for their originality and creativity. This was different from Mr. Linst’s direct questioning which allowed for only one
correct answer. Furthermore, students knew that materials provided were
available for their use and creativity rather than a restriction as to how they
were supposed to approach the problem.
In every
science lesson, students were given the opportunity to work with the batteries,
wires, lights, and motors. Although students planned out ways of making their
circuit work, there were often obstacles such as a dead battery, broken light
bulb, or unattached wires that prevented their circuits from working. These
challenges allowed students to see the importance of problem-solving in science.
For instance, Saul and his group added a new battery with the hopes of making
the lights on their series battery brighter. When the circuit failed to light
up, Rachel began to suggest that perhaps the bulbs were broken. I explained that
just a few moments ago they had lit up, so I believed that perhaps it was
something else that was preventing the circuit from working and we continued to
have a discussion about it.
The context upon which science was raised
involved presenting multiple solutions and problem solving. It conveyed to
students that science allowed for different solutions or creations and that each
was acceptable. It also suggested that the process of doing science was not
always formulaic. Instead, the practise of science
involves finding solutions as well as trial and error. Science was more than
just drawing diagrams on maps, for as students tried to create their circuits,
they began to realize that doing science involved adjusting their plans or
finding a solution.
§
About the roles in the science
classroom
Students were asked to work with the materials and talk about their
ideas, questions, or explanations to their. Project time included instances such
as creating plans of a room they wanted to build, students making a list of the
necessary materials, students construct a working switch, or students providing
a rationale for their work. Student’s experiences with the materials or previous
understanding of it were considered a source of knowledge in class as students
were given the opportunity to share their stories.
During project time, students allowed to walk around the room and look at
other students’ work. They were encouraged to seek a friend/teacher’s help when
they were struggling or assist another group when they had finished. Along with
the freedom to move around the class, project time also gave students freedom in
terms of talk. Students initiated conversations at their own time/place, with
their own question, and with the person of their choice. The role that students
were given can be contrasted to direct questioning in which the teacher decided
whom s/he was speaking to and what the student was to answer about.
Students were encouraged to be confident and clear about their
goals and reasons with their group members and the teacher. As compared to direct questioning, students
were given some opportunities to pose their own questions and carry out their
investigations. Doing science involved a willingness to ask questions,
try out their ideas, solve their own problems, and engage with the materials; so
project time was more student centered and directed. Through allowing students
to create their plans, direct the pace of their work, and provide explanations
of their goals/rationale, students were given the authority to be doers of
science, under their own terms.
An important role that was given to students is that of collaborator.
Students worked with partners or groups thus it was necessary for students learn
to work together. Groups negotiated and discussed their ideas over what to do,
how to do it, why something was happening, or what they needed. They were asked
to turn to one another or another group for help as well as assist those who
were struggling. Mr. Linst made it clear that
negotiating and discussing was an important aspect of doing science. The teacher
also helped in resolving conflicts between group members and facilitated
discussions between students.
The teacher’s role consisted of asking open-ended questions, resolving
conflicts, obtaining materials for students, and helping students make sense of
their projects. At times, the student would call on a teacher and ask them to
help them figure out why the circuit was not working. Other times, the teacher
would notice a struggling student and ask questions to probe his or her
thinking. Since teachers assisted students in getting the materials and working
with them, their role in the classroom consisted mostly of supporting the
student’s work and questions.
During project time, it was assumed that both the teacher and students
had something important to say about the workings of the circuit. Student’s
stories, questions, ideas, and solutions were welcomed and shared. Altogether,
both teachers and students were seen as an authority of scientific knowledge.
§
About science
literacy
Through student sharing and planning, talk in science focused on students
present their questions, ideas, goals, and understanding to others and the
teacher. Students were also able to share their stories, explanations, or
suggestions. Talk in science involved being able to communicate one’s ideas,
goals or questions to another person. As compared to direct questioning where
student were often asked to answer a question, the talk in project time was more
open-ended.
Talk in student
sharing and planning also focused on negotiating and resolving conflict between
group members. During a dispute, students were encouraged to present their sides
and come up with a solution that satisfied both parties. Emphasis was placed on
students being able to partner with any of the students in the classroom. The
teacher would encourage students to be supportive of their partner’s questions
or ideas and did not allow students to be rude or disrespectful to one another.
Students knew that this type of behaviour would lead
to sitting alone in the corner of the classroom library.
(3) Student Value
I also interviewed students to learn more about what they valued about
these two forms of contrasting talk. Three or four ideas emerged as the
strongest themes: (a) furthering student’s work, (b) the importance of
listening, (c) learning through talk, (d) the necessity of talking in
science
(a)
Furthering student’s work
Three of the students discussed the importance of talk as part of their
work doing science. Luis, Angel, and Costos proposed
that talking with other students allowed them to further their science inquiry.
Although all three students recognize the value of peer discussion, the students
have different understandings as to how talk affects the outcome of their
science inquiry: interesting experiments, easier process, “more smartness,” and
an experiment that works.
Luis: Luis explains that when
he works with his group members, they discuss the process of doing the
experiment; “I talk to my tablemates. How they should build this thing
together.” He proposes that group discussion and sharing is necessary in science
because it allows for him to have interesting and working experiments. Luis
suggests that “If you don’t talk in science, ain’t
going to be any interesting experiment… And nothing is going to work if you
don’t talk in science.” In his explanation of a successful science student, Luis
believes that the student is able to “share ideas with one
another.”
Angel: Angel enjoys working on
the projects with partner because there were “two brains (and that is better
than one of course).” In her interview, she discusses the process of working and
negotiating with her partners, suggesting that when “you are working with
someone else with another brain and when your ideas come together, you’ll have
disagreements and conversations about what you are doing…you get to listen to
your partner’s ideas and they get to listen to yours and you come together with
an agreement and then about the experiment and I get to talk a lot with my
partner about the experiment…” Angel also notes how group discussion allows her
to get help from friends when the teacher is busy.
Angel believes that group discussion allows for “more smartness out of
two people and then you are able more easier to do the
work.” Angel sees the value of group discussion and work, because of the
capacity or capability of doing better work when two people are involved and the
process of doing science is easier.
Costos: Costos
believes that the process of doing science involves a discussion with his
partner. When asked “what science is,” Costos proposes
that science involved projects and experiments, such that experiments had to be
done “in class, because if you take it home, you are not going to tell what’s
happening to your partner.”
Costos proposes that learning in science
happened through whole class discussion and sharing of group information. He
counts on the work done by his other groups to help him with his work. He
suggests, “If you don’t get something, Mr. Linst, we
have a conversation and then we, some other tables that have figure it out, they
tell the whole class then we try it and if it does work then great.”
(b)
The Importance of Listening
In their interview, Grace and Tania discuss the importance of listening
to the teacher’s understanding of the science content or how the student can
accomplish the task. The two students appear to have different reasons for
listening to the teacher.
Tania: Tania believes that the
teacher should “tell them (students) what the science teacher knows so that they
can learn.” Throughout her interview, Tania discusses the importance of a
science teacher in teaching students and even scientists what they are to learn
about science. Tania’s view of science and science learning places an emphasis
on understanding the science content.
This view of science and science learning also shapes or is shaped by her
understanding of talk in the science classroom. When asked why we talk in the
science, Tania answers, “so we can pass the test.”[2]
How does Tania feel about the test? She replies “nervous,” explaining that, “I
am afraid that I am gonna fail it,
yah.”
Grace: Grace explains that
during whole class discussion, “we talk a lot about the experiment.” She
believes that the whole class talk consists of sharing their ideas “of what we
are going to do” and the teacher demonstrating or giving “an example of what you
are going to do.” Graces believes that this is done in order to make it easier
on the student as she spoke about the teachers doing it the “easy
way”
When asked how it is we learn science, Grace points to listening as an
important part of learning science. She explains that in a science classroom,
students “actually learn by listening. We learn important stuff, if you don’t
listen you might know nothing, you might get caught up in oh really bad.” Grace
proposes that even scientists learn through listening. She believes that through
listening one is able to learn from another person who knows the material.
Knowing the material leads to being “a better person in life and doing the right
thing.” However, if one does not learn, that person may get into trouble.
(c)
Learning through talk
One of the themes that emerged from the data was the value of student
discussion for it allowed students to learn through talking about the material.
Most of the students discussed the importance of student sharing and planning in
terms of being able to listen to and have the assistance of another student.
Alongside this, student sharing and planning also allows students to learn
through discussing or sorting through their ideas.
Angel: Angel enjoys working in
groups because, “you have somebody to talk to and let your ideas come out. And
say that’s okay, that’s right. It’s better working with someone else than
working by yourself.” Angel notes the value of group
discussion for it is a place where she can talk, present and organize her
thoughts. She also is aware of how another student’s assistance or affirmation
can help her.
(d)
The Necessity of talking in science
Whole class
discussion focuses on students providing the right answer to the teacher.
Christopher believes that talk is important because students often get the
answer wrong. He relates the students’ ability to respond to the teachers
question to the need for more talk in the science classroom.
Christopher: During an interview with Christopher, he explained to me that we talked a lot in science because most of the time students got the answers wrong. As he suggests that students talked the most in science “because when the teacher asks some questions, then the kid over there gets it wrong then another guy has to try and another guy until someone gets it right,” Christopher points around the room noting the different students that have tried to answer the teacher’s question. Christopher compares science to math and social studies and suggests that science required more talk, because “most of the people get it wrong.” Christopher’s view of whole class talk and science illustrates how some students may understand science as a more difficult subject.
Discussion and
Implications
In Mr. Linst’s science classroom, the talk and activities shaped the type or kind of science that was valued. During direct questioning, the students’ knowledge of science content was essential, while in student sharing and planning, the process of doing science was more important. The major patterns of talk sent two different messages about what science means, how we do science, what science is, and who does science. These two discourses set up different value systems, such that students were asked to code-switch and take up different roles in the settings. Thus, elementary science teachers and science educators should consider what it is they want their students to know about science.
Secondly, it is important as science educators to learn about where
teachers are in the process of learning how to conduct a science discussion.
Through my time working with Jonas, I have seen him try to move from direct
questioning to a whole class teacher-student conversation. Teachers should be
given the support they need to build their teaching pedagogy and be provided
with opportunities to practice how they might talk in the classroom.
Lastly, changing the talk in the science classroom also involves
understanding the students’ expectations and views of science. One particular
student (that did not appear to be interested or engaged with the materials or
the project activities) had a very different perspective of science. In her
interview, Tania spoke about how science was learned through the science
teachers providing the information (as to what they needed to know and what they
were supposed to do). Tania was more concerned about fourth-grade science test
and whether or not she knew or understood the material for it. Thus, from her
perspective, the process of doing science did not involve working with or
learning through using the science materials. In order to understand the science
talk, we should consider the students’ understandings of science for they two shape the classroom dialogue. As teachers, we should
also work towards explaining our own ideas about science to the students.
Bibliography
American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for All Americans.
Calabrese-Barton, A. (1998).
Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation and identity.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34,
379-394.
Cresswell, J. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design:
Choosing Among Five Traditions.
Fusco,
D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning
and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
38, 860-877
Gallas,
K. (1995). Talking Their Way Into Science Teacher’s College Press,
Gee, J.P. (2001).
King, K., Shumoz, L., & Lietz, S.
(2001). Science Education in an Urban Elementary School: Case Studies of Teacher
Beliefs and Classroom Practices. Science Education, 85,
89-110.
Laplante, B. (1997). Teachers’ Beliefs and Instructional
Strategies in Science: Pushing Analysis Further. International Journal of
Science teaching, 81, 277-294
Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ Understanding of the
Nature of Science and Classroom Practice: Factors that Facilitate or Impede the
Relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916-929.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking
science: Language, learning and values.
Luke,
A. (2000). Critical literacy in
Moje,
E. B. (1996). “I teach students, not subjects”: Teacher-student relationships as
contexts for secondary literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 31, 172-195.
Moje, E., Collazo, T., Carillo, R., &
Marx, R. W. (2001). Maestro, what is quality?":
Examining competing discourses in project-based science. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-495.
Osborne, M.
&Calabrese-Barton, A. (2001). Power, privilege, and
the social construction of identity in science class. Girls and feminist science teaching. In K. Cornbleth (Ed.) Curriculum Politics, Policy and
Practice: Cases in Context.
Oyler, C. (1996).
Making room for students: Sharing teacher authority in room
104.
Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B. W.,
& Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority
classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2,
61-94.
Wells, G. (2001). Action, Talk & Text Teacher’s College Press,
Wilkinson,
L.C., & Silliman, E.R. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning. In M.L. Kamil,
P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol. III) (pp. 337-360).
[1] A few students approached me to show how much they had read in the Harry Potter book. The students also compared themselves with one another.
[2]
In