"lg-«n.

 

 

 

. .5:
. bunnuh.

."M...«ufi.+ ..

adv?
rut

.v
:36
.7.

a ,

.fiflrfin

I.
I. 3...:
5.21::

l V
1. $.29 .
..,!§1L4.).19A

\. A z
inV:34t 9..) t...
11.... El? 2.)
» r :1) xs...’
8. \I.
t“ («H ’15

 

THESIS

uc)

 

 

m“ii/iii"!Iii/iiWiii/xiiflf/i/i/‘i/i

3 1293 01555 3070

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

SCIENCE AS DISCOURSE:
THE ROLE OF DISCOURSE IN CONSTRUCTING
UNDERSTANDING IN A THIRD GRADE SCIENCE CLASS

presented by
Kathleen L. Peasley

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Teacher Education

degree in

 

 

Jot/d

Major professor

Date August 16, 1996

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigam State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record.
TO AVOID F INES return on or before dete due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Ie An Allirmefive ActionlEqnl Opportunlty InethIon
W1

SCIENCE AS DISCOURSE:
THE ROLE OF DISCOURSE IN CONSTRUCTING
UNDERSTANDING IN A THIRD GRADE SCIENCE CLASS

By

Kathleen L. Peasley

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1996

ABSTRACT
SCIENCE AS DISCOURSE:
THE ROLE OF DISCOURSE IN CONSTRUCTING
UNDERSTANDING IN A THIRD GRADE SCIENCE CLASS
By

Kathleen L. Peasley

This dissertation draws upon ideas from literacy, linguistics, and science
education reform documents to develop a definition of scientific literacy which is then
used in an analysis of classroom discourse and student learning.

The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine the nature of students'
talk, the norms for participation in the talk, the individual student's science knowledge
construction, and the relationship among and between these factors in a classroom in
which the teachers were supporting the development of scientific literacy. The
discourse during class discussion was examined and two cases were developed which
closely examined the learning and discourse of two students in the classroom.

There was a clear discourse pattern during the whole class discussions which
was considerably different than the teacher initiation- student response- teacher
evaluation (I-R—E) discourse pattern seen in traditional science classrooms. This social
constructivist pattern, which was very flexible, was both context and content
dependent. Each discourse move was dependent on the content and the context of the
previous move. There was also a blurring of the roles and responsibilities of the
students and the teacher in the social constructivist discussions, with students taking on
roles that were traditionally assumed only by the teacher. Furthermore, in addition to
the traditional moves of initiation, response, and evaluation there were four other
moves present in the social constructivist discussion: probing, reasoning, revoicin g,

and redirecting.

One of the student cases illustrates a student who is able to control and use the
unique pattern of discourse in the classroom to make sense of the science content as he
engages in exploratory talk. The other case illustrates a student who is not yet able to
control and use the discourse to make sense of the science content as she engages in
presentational talk. The extent to which these students are able to use the talk to make

sense of the science content is reflected in their post-assessment scores.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The last word has been written and I have finally completed all the revisions and
edits. I now have the opportunity to thank all the people that have supported me
throughout this process. I found that writing a dissertation is a difficult and time
consuming endeavor. But most of all it is a lonely process. Were it not for the support of
family, friends, and mentors I doubt that I would have finished my Ph.D. This dissertation
truly is a social consuuct. Many of the ideas contained in it are a direct result of
conversations that I had with each of the people acknowledged below.

Most important I want to thank the teachers and students in the third grade team-
room at "Atlantis" Elementary. Ms. Lawson and Mrs. Runner willingly opened their
classroom to me. They always had copies of their plans available for me and were willing
to take time from their very busy day to talk to me about the decisions they were making,
potential target students, and some of the issues they were struggling with as they
integrated science and literacy. I also appreciate the candor of the students as I interviewed
them individually and in small groups. Without them, there would be no dissertation.

I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Kathy Roth. Thank you for being my
advisor, my committee chair, my graduate assistantship supervisor, my dissertation
director, and, most importantly, my friend. Whenever I doubted my data, my writing, or
myself, Kathy was there to provide unwavering support She spent many, many hours
reading drafts, giving feedback and suggestions, and providing editorial support. She
went way beyond the institutional requirements in the amount of time she gave in helping
me write this dissertation. Someday I hope that I will be in a position to give someone the

friendship and support which she gave me.

iv

I owe many of the ideas about Science as Discourse which appear in this
dissertation to the suggestions of Cheryl Rosaen. Like Kathy, Cheryl has been far more
than a committee member and assistantship supervisor. Cheryl has a gift for listening to
me ramble about my thinking and ideas in a disorganized fashion, and helping me pull the
pieces together. More than once I went into her office to discuss my dissertation feeling
very confused about focus and direction only to leave an hour or two later with a far greater
clarity than I would have thought possible. In this way, Cheryl provided a great deal of the
focus for my originally proposed data collection. She also spent many hours reading and
providing feedback on drafts of chapters.

Once I had a proposed dissertation I became concerned about locating a site in
which there was science teaching which was undergirded by a social constructivist
perspective. I am indebted to Ed Smith for helping me find, and gain access to, my lost
"Atlantis", the third grade classroom in which I collected my data. I am also grateful to Ed
for allowing me access to the unit pre- and post-assessment data which he had collected as
part of another research project and also for our early conversations during data collection
which led to the development of the rubrics that I used to score the pre- and post-
assessment data.

My ideas about the relevance of the data to teacher education were shaped by the
two years I worked as a graduate assistant for Linda Anderson. I appreciate all the time she
spent talking with me about teacher's beliefs and the factors influencing their beliefs. I also
am very grateful for Linda's patience during the time I worked for her. Often my attention
was focused more on my dissertation than on the work I was doing for her.

I also appreciate the feedback on drafts I received from Elaine Howes, Constanza
Hazelwood, Angie Calabrese-Barton, and Lori Kurth. I had many long discussions with
each of them (usually over food!). The result of these discussions is a much better

dissertation than would have been possible without their ideas.

I also want to thank my husband Kurt for his unwavering support. He never
complained about my many absences, very late nights and even earlier mornings, and
enthusiastically helped me celebrate every small victory -- such as surviving a statistics
exam or finishing a difficult paper. More recently he has provided support by taking
Christopher and Kyle on outings so that I could write.

I also need to thank my sons, Christopher and Kyle, who taught me to "H ghten up"
and have a life outside of my doctoral program. You help me keep focused on the really
important things in life!

I owe many thanks to my parents, Jean and Neal, and my in-laws, Kay, J an, and
Phil, who have provided countless hours of babysitting while I studied, wrote, and
traveled throughout my doctoral program.

And finally no acknowledgment would be complete without acknowledging the role
of my late father, T.W. Wallace, in reaching this goal. He taught me to love science and to
love learning. And, perhaps more importantly, he taught me to set my sights on a goal and

then work to accomplish that goal. Well, I did it! This one is for you, dad.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1

CREATING A SCIENCE CLASS IN WHICH UNDERSTANDING IS CONSTRUCTED
THROUGH THE DISCOURSE

Introduction and Overview of the Chapter ............................................. 1
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................... 2
A Historical Perspective .................................................................. 3
Research Methods and Questions ........................................................ 6
The Setting ................................................................................. 7
Significance of the Study ................................................................. 8
Organization of this Dissertation ......................................................... 9
CHAPTERZ

SCIENCE AS, DISCOURSE: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON SCIENCE
EDUCATION

Introduction and Overview ............................................................ 10
Science as Discourse: A New Perspective on Scientific Literacy ................. 10
The Importance of Discourse in Socially Constructing Meaning .................. 14
Taking a Historical Perspective on the Discourse in Science Class ............... 16

View of Science Learning and Knowledge Represented by Didactic Science 17
The Role of Discourse in a Didactic Science Class ......................... 18
Criticisms of a Didactic Science Approach .................................. 20

View of Science Learning and Knowledge Represented by Inquiry Science... 22
The Role of Discourse in an Inquiry Science Classroom .................. 25
Criticisms of an Inquiry Science Perspective ............................... 27

View of Science Learning and Knowledge Represented by a Constructivist
Perspective: Conceptual Change Teaching and Learning .......................... 29

Pedagogical Implications of a Conceptual Change Model ................. 35

The Role of Discourse in a Conceptual Change Classroom. .............. 37

Criticisms of a Conceptual Change Model ................................. 40
View of Science Leamin g and Knowledge Represented by a Social
Constructivist Perspective .............................................................. 41

The Role of Discourse in a Social Constructivist Classroom ............ 47

Criticisms of a Social Constructivist Perspective .......................... 49
Summary of the Discourse in Science from a Historical Perspective ............ 50
Discussion and Conclusions .......................................................... 52

CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Introduction and Overview of the Chapter ........................................... 56
Research Questions ..................................................................... 57
Rationale for Using Qualitative Research ............................................ 58
Shifting Focus in Qualitative Research ............................................... 59
The Study Participants .................................................................. 60
Data Collection ......................................................................... 61
Observing and Recording Fieldnotes ........................................ 61
Reflective Vignettes ............................................................ 64
Discussions with Teachers About Their Plans and Copies of the Unit Plan

and Daily Plans ................................................................. 65
Student Interviews ............................................................. 66
Student Documents ............................................................ 67
Group Written Laboratory Reports ................................. 67

Padma's Science Notebook .......................................... 67

Pre- and Post-Unit assessment ...................................... 68

Data Analysis: The Search For Patterns ............................................. 68

Transcript Analysis - Whole Group and Teacher-Led Small Group

Discussions .................................................................... 68

Analysis of Pre- and Post-Test Data ......................................... 70

Interview Analysis ............................................................. 71

Chapter Summary ....................................................................... 71
CHAPTER4

BECOMING FAMILIAR WITH ONE SOCIAL CONTEXT IN WHICH STUDENTS
CON STRUCI' SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE

Introduction and Overview of the Chapter ........................................... 73
Students Construct Scientific Understanding In'A Social Context ................ 73
Welcome to Atlantis Elementary School .............................................. 74
The School As a Community Of Educators .......................................... 77
The Third Grade Classroom ........................................................... 78

The Third Grade Teachers and Their Philosophy of Science and/or Literacy 79

Mrs. Runner: Listening and Responding to Students' Ideas ............. 79
Building on Student's Thinking and Ideas: A Vignette .................. 81
Ms. Lawson: Using Literacy as a Tool for Learning Science ........... 84
Ms. Smith, Dr. Nettings, and Dr. Jones .................................... 85
Overview of the Changes In Matter Science And Literacy Curriculum ........... 86
Changes In Matter Science Unit ....................................................... 87
Science Content Knowledge Strand ......................................... 89
Literacy Component ........................................................... 97
Nature Of Scientific Inquiry Component .................................. 104
Summary Of Tasks in the "Changes in Matter "Unit ..................... 105
Chapter Summary ............................................................ 110

CHAPTERS

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERSTANDING: TEACHERS AND
STUDENTS TAKE ON NEW ROLES DURING DISCUSSION

Overview and Purpose of the Chapter ............................................... 111
Teacher and Student Roles and Responsibilities During Discussion ............ 111
A Traditional Science Class .................................................. 111
A Social Constructivist Science Class ..................................... 113
Background on the March 8 Lesson ................................................. 117
Science Class, Monday, March 8, 2:45 p.m ....................................... 119
Rationale for Establishing Hand and Body Temperature ................ 121
An Instructional Detour ...................................................... 122
What Is Our Approximate Body Temperature? ............................ 123
Giving Answers vs. Exploring Thinking ................................. 127
Sharing Their Thinking ..................................................... 128
An Instructional Detour: What Does Approximate Mean? .............. 131
What is Our Approximate Hand Temperature? ........................... 133
A Third Instructional Detour about "Approximately" .................... 137
Casey Disagrees .............................................................. 139
Another Instructional Detour ................................................ 142
Casey's Argument Revisited ................................................ 142
Chapter Summary ............................................................ 145

CHAPTER 6 A SINGLE LEARNING COMMUNITY FOR ALL? THE
STORIES OF CASEY AND PADMA

Introduction and Overview of the Chapter ......................................... 148
Casey's story: Refusing to be Invisible ............................................ 148
Casey's Social Status In The Third Grade Classroom ................... 150
On The Edge: Sitting Outside The Group ................................. 150

There Are Rules And Then There Are Rules: Figuring Out The

Implicit Rules For Classroom Communication ........................... 151
Figuring Out How To Get The Floor: A Vignette ........................ 153
Rambling And Repeating: A Different Discourse Pattern ............... 156
Casey's Exploratory Speech ................................................ 160
Casey and the Social Constructivist Learning Community ............. 161
Unrehearsed Speech: The Language Of Casey's Learning ............. 164
The Beauty Of Social Constructivism: Allowing The N on-Conformist
To Thrive ...................................................................... 167

The Story of Padma: A Quiet Enigma ............................................. 169

Beginning at the End: Padma's Science Learning During the Unit 169

Science as Discourse: Not for Padrna ..................................... 170
Things Are Not Always What They Appear .............................. 172
When Actions Don't Match Words: The Silent Enigma ................. 173
Safety in Number? Not for Padma! ....................................... 177
Padma's Continuing Participation: Progress or Only an Illusion? 180

Reliance On Familiar Words And Phrases: Yet Another Barrier To
Learning Science .............................................................. 183

The Potential Problems with Social Constructivism: Allowing the
Conformist to Hide ........................................................... 187

Chapter Summary ............................................................ 188
CHAPTER 7 THE SCIENCE CONTENT KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS

CONSTRUCTED THROUGH THE TALK: A GLIMPSE OF STUDENT
LEARNING

Introduction and Chapter Overview ................................................ 192
Description and Purpose of the Whole Class Pre- and Post - Test .............. 193
Overview of the Rubric Development .............................................. 196
Rubric Development - An Illustrative Example .................................... 198

Results: Using the Rubric to Score the Students' Assessment Responses 200

Discussion of the Class Results ..................................................... 201

Examples of Student Pre- and Post- Assessment Responses .................... 202
Discussion of Casey and Padma's Results ......................................... 206

Summary and Conclusions .......................................................... 210

CHAPTER 8 TEACHING SCIENCE THROUGH DISCOURSE: WHAT
DOES THIS MEAN?

Introduction and Overview of Chapter ............................................. 21 1
Conclusions ........................................................................... 21 1
What It Means to Use Discourse to Construct Understanding in
S cience ......................................................................... 2 12
Teaching Students A Different Way of Talking in Science Class ...... 212
Social Constructivism: A Different Way of Participating in Science
Class ........................................................................... 219
Implications of Teaching Science as Discourse .................................... 220

What Does it Mean to be Successful in Science? Three Perspectives . 222

Exploratory vs. Presentational Talk: Changing Images ................. 227

Implications of the Stories of Casey and Padma: More Questions
than Answers ................................................................. 229
Summary of Key Ideas ............................................................... 232
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................ 236
APPENDIX A Teachers' Plans .......................................................... 242
APPENDIX B Student Interviews ........................................................ 246
APPENDIX C Changes in Matter Pre- and Post-Tests ................................ 250
APPENDIX D Unit Assessment Scoring Rubrics ...................................... 258

Table
4. l

4.2

4.3

7.1
7.2
7.3

7.4
7.5

LIST OF TABLES

Description Of The Science Activity, Discussion Task, And Writing
Task For The First Half Of The Changes In Matter Unit.

Description Of The Science Activity, Discussion Task, And Writing Task
For The Second Half Of The Changes In Matter Unit.

Main Ideas in the Science Content, Nature of Scientific Inquiry, and
Literacy in Science Components.

Pre- and Post- Assessment Questions and Goal Conceptions.
Sample Rubric, Assessment Question #16.

Summary of Results on the Unit Pre- and Post- Test for Mrs. Runner's
Class.

Comparison of Two Students Pre~ and Post- Assessment Responses.

Comparison of Casey and Padma's Responses on the Written Pre- and
Post-Tests.

Page
107

108

109

195
199
201

204
207

Figure
3.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
8.1

LIST OF FIGURES

"Changes in Matter" Unit Timeline

Traditional View of Elementary Science Learning

Social Constructivist View of Elementary Science Learning
March 8 Lesson Timeline

Successful Science Learning: Three Perspectives

xiv

Chapter 1

CREATING A SCIENCE CLASS IN WHICH UNDERSTANDING
IS CONSTRUCTED THROUGH THE DISCOURSE

KP: Does it sometimes help you to think of new things to hear other people's
ideas?

Padma: Yes because when I listen to them talk people might say things about it and
think "yeah, that would be a good idea".

KP: So even though there are forty two kids sitting there on the floor you can
still kind of listen and figure out what pe0ple are saying and get ideas from
them?

Padma: Umhmm right...like if I have a different idea and they have a different idea

‘ we can kind of get together and see what's the idea and then you come up
with the best idea together.

KP: Okay. Do you ever disagree on the best idea?

Padma: No, we never disagree. We just kind of, well we kind of talk about it, and

I don't care if I have the best answer or not. But lots of my fiiends don't
care about that either. All I think about is if I really get it.

(Transcript from an interview with a 3rd grade student, March 15, 1993)
I l . l D . E l Cl

Scientific literacy is the goal of the on- going reform efforts in science education
(National Academy of Sciences, 1996; AAAS, 1989; BSCS, 1993; Michigan Dept. of
Education; 1989). The definition of scientific literacy developed in greater detail in the
literature review portion of this dissertation is based upon a social constructivist theory of
learning. From this perspective science is discourse and scientific literacy is the ability to
control the discourse of science such that it can be used to describe, explain, predict, and
design everyday phenomenon in ways consist with the canons of science.

Currently there is a small but growing body of research in science education which

examines the role of discourse in constructing understanding in elementary science. There

are two main lines in this research; one group of researchers has examined the talk that
takes place in science class (Lemke, 1990, Roth, Anderson, and Smith, 1987; Vellum
1995; Yerrick, 1994, Eichinger; 1992; Hazelwood and Roth, 1992; Peasley, 1992) and
another group has considered ways to incorporate discourse into the science curriculum
itself (Smith, 1995; Duschl and Petasis, 1995; Rosebery, Warren and Conant, 1992). This
research in science education has been influenced by the body of research conducred in
linguistics and literacy education (Barnes and Todd, 1995; Edwards and Westgate; 1994,
Gee, 1989; 1995, Michaels & O'Connor, 1990) which has looked at classroom discomse
from the perspective of linguistics and literacy.

The majority of these studies focus on describing the classroom discourse, the
factors influencing the classroom discourse, and what is communicated about learning and
about the nature of science through the discourse. There are few studies which consider
the ways in which the nature and structure of the discourse helps or hinders students as
they attempt to use the science content learned to describe, explain, predict, and design real
world phenomena. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the discourse that
took place in an elementary science classroom in which the teaching was being conducted
from a social constructivist perspective, and to examine the relationship between the
discourse and science content learning.

This first chapter provides an overview of the purpose of the study and the research
questions in greater detail. This is followed by a theoretical rationale for the study based
upon the changes in science education over the past forty years and the calls in the literature
for an approach to science teaching of which there are scarce examples in practice. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of the significance of this study and the organization of
the remaining chapters.

War
The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the ways in which a

classroom of third grade students and their teachers participated in science class discussions

lt‘

l»

in order to uncover and explain the relationship between the classroom discourse and
science content learning over the course of one instructional unit of study. Issues
examined were: (1) the nature of the students' talk in science class, (2) the norms for
participation in the talk in science class, (3) the nature of the science knowledge found in
the talk , 4) individual student's science knowledge construction and, (5) the relationship
among and between these four factors.

We know little about the relationship between elementary students' participation in
science classroom talk and its role in helping or hindering science concept development.
This research was designed to provide empirical data on the role of oral discourse in
constructing scientific knowledge in an elementary science learning community. Thus the
purpose of this study was to provide a "snapshot" picture of a social constructivist learning
community in action, to examine the ways in which the students participated socially as a
community of learners, and to analyze how this participation helped or hindered their
science concept development.

3 H. . l E .

Since the mid- 1950's there have been a number of elementary science initiatives,
each designed to help elementary school students learn science content, the processes of
science, or mm, with understanding. The majority of the earlier science programs (1960-
1980) sought to enrich students' understanding of science by engaging them in hands-on
activities and inquiries. In contrast, more recent approaches to science education (1978-
present) have emphasized individual student cognition and have sought to enrich students'
understanding of science by focusing instruction on eliciting, and in some cases helping,
student's modify their existing conceptual frameworks. Another current emphasis (late
1980's- present) in science education is having students use classroom discourse as a
knowledge construction tool (Smith, 1995; Duschl, 1995; Peasley, 1995).

The emphasis on discourse in science is the result of several fields of study in

education converging in the late 1980's. Beginning in the 1970's, education researchers

began drawing on the works of theorists such as Vygotsky (1962) and Harre (1976) to
develop the view that learning is a social and cultural process in which language plays a
critical role (Lemke, 1990). This view of the importance of the role of discourse in learning
was supported by research done in literacy education, (Barnes, 1976; Barnes and Todd,
1995; Edwards and Westgate, 1994; Au, 1986; Gee, 1989; Michaels and O'Connor,
1990), psychology (Bruner,1990; Gallimore and Tharp, 1990) and on classroom
discourse more generally (Edwards and Mercer, 1987; Cazden, 1986, Mehan, 1979).

At the same time that these different lines of research -- all of which involved
discourse-- were converging, researchers in the conceptual change paradigm in science
were beginning to go beyond individual cognition and focus on the role of individual
cognition within the social setting of the classroom. This led naturally to a focus on
discourse which drew on, and expanded, these earlier, more general, works on classroom
discourse (c.f. Lemke, 1990; Rosebury, Warren, and Conant, 1992).

To date, however, there has been little research done in elementary science
classrooms which focuses explicitly on the relationship between classroom discourse and
science content learning. There is some research evidence that suggests that "talking-to-
learn" may be a powerful tool for helping students learn science (Barnes and Todd, 1995;
Edwards and Westgate; 1994); however, there is also evidence that the nature of the talk in
some secondary science classes may actually hinder the science learning of many students,
particularly language minority students (Lemke, 1990; Warren & Rosebury, 1992).
Furthermore, because much of the research on classroom talk has been conducted at the
middle school and high school level, little is known about the relationship between oral
discourse and science learning in an elementary science classroom.

Discourse for this study was broadly defined as language in use in any context, in
any oral form (Tannen, 1991). Thus the context for language includes both social and
academic talk and could take place inside or outside of the classroom. This study,

however, focused on the academic talk inside the classroom. The form of language

examined included language during class discussion, language during small group work,
and language during individual interviews. The term "discourse" in this dissertation refers
only to oral discourse unless otherwise indicated

The approach to elementary science teaching described in this study is one in which
a hands-on inquiry approach and an emphasis on fostering students' conceptual change
was combined with an emphasis on discourse as a tool for learning science. The discourse
was an explicit and central part of the science curriculum. This approach builds on lessons
learned from the earlier inquiry-based science curriculum reform efforts while considering
ways in which the more recent body of research on children's thinking and social
constructivist learning theory can inform the development of science curriculum and
pedagogy. The result is a new approach to elementary science which appears to have many
of the elements of scientific literacy that are called for in science reform documents around
the country (e.g. Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1989; AAAS, 1994) and are described in greater
detail in the literature review chapter.

The importance of oral discourse in a science class undergirded by a social
constructivist perspective raises many questions about the students' participation in a
learning environment in which the intended social task structure (Erickson, 1982) for
classroom talk emphasizes new roles, responsibilities, rights, and duties for the
participants. Of particular importance in drinking about developing curricular materials and
pedagogical strategies are questions which focus on how the students' ways of
participating in a science learning community influences their ways of lqrowing science
and the science content knowledge learned.

A limitation in much of the research on student learning in science is that it is not
informed by a conception of the social organization of the classroom nor by a conception of
the influence of the social participation structure (the norms for participation, including the
rights and duties of both teacher and students) in shaping the individual students'

opportunity to learn (Erickson, 1982). The cognitive science and constructivist

.1

,i

‘1:

.th.

I»

11!

perspectives emphasize that the learner constructs knowledge but do not take into account
how the social context of the classroom influences this construction (Marshall, 1989).
Thus a critical factor is the classroom learning community: Its social organization and
practices including the relationship of discourse to science learning.

Therefore the purpose of this research is to learn more about how students perceive
and participate in an elementary science learning community in which the teaching is
undergirded by a social constructivist epistemology with an emphasis on talking- to-leam,
and how this participation shapes student understanding of science content.
mm

This study was an interpretive, descriptive study of a third grade science class
over the course of one teaching unit on "Changes in Matter" (methodology is described in
detail in Chapter 3). In this unit the teachers explicitly supported their students in using
oral discourse as a tool for collaborating with their peers to construct their understanding of
science. The focus in this study was on understanding the interactions among the teachers,
the learners, the science content knowledge, the classroom discourse, and the ways in
which the social context (specifically the norms for participation) influenced these
interactions. The participation of two very different students will be examined and
described against the backdrop of the entire class. Following are the questions which
guided this research:

In an elementary science classroom in which the teachers are attempting to
2111:5003. Sitpdent construction of knowledge socially through the use of oral

a. What science knowledge do the students in this science class
construct?

b. What is the nature of the students' talk in science class? What are the
implicit and explicit rules for discourse in science?

c. What is the participation structure in this classroom (including the
rights, roles, duties, and responsibilities of the participants)?

(1. What is the relationship between the students' science learning and their
participation in the classroom discourse?

(In

(.2

f}

Them:

Data collection took place from late February through April in a third grade
classroom in an elementary Professional Development School in which there was a
school/university collaboration taking place. The school was located near a major
university and had an ethnically diverse student pOpulation -— a large percentage of the
students spoke English as a second language. The classroom was actually a double class --
the wall between two classes was knocked out -- which functioned as a single learning
community with two teachers and forty two students. In addition to the two full—time
classroom teachers, there was also a student teacher who had been in the room part time
since September and full-time since January, and two Midwestem University1 faculty
members who had been part of the third grade teaching team since September.

The two classroom teachers had been planning and teaching collaboratively all
subjects except mathematics since the fall. The student teacher was from Midwestem
University's "Literacy Education" program, a small thematic teacher education program
which placed an emphasis on the role of discourse in the social construction of
understanding. One of the classroom teachers was also a graduate of this teacher education
program. One of the Midwestern faculty on the team had expertise in conununications.
She provided planning support for the teachers as they constructed their science and literacy
unit and also taught a small group during science time during the month of March. The
other Midwestern faculty was a science educator who participated in the planning of the
science and literacy unit but did not participate in the actual teaching.

Both of the school-based teachers had been active participants in the third grade
professional development team meetings during the school year. The focus of these
meetings was on developing a science teaching unit in which there was an emphasis on the
use of discourse as a tool for learning science in a conceptual change instructional

framework. This was consistent with the school wide professional development year-Ion g

 

1To ensure confidentiality all names are pseudonyms.

.QL—

a”.

.3

theme of "Science and Literacy". During the spring, a science and literacy unit on the topic
of "Changes in Matter" was taught concurrently by all the teachers in the school. The unit
"Changes in Matter" was not a published text-based unit but rather was one that the
teachers developed with the support of the Midwestern science educator and the
Midwestern literacy educator working with the project. This unit was the culmination of the
year-long, school-wide focus on literacy in science and had as its final activity a school-
wide science conference, one of the first of its kind at the elementary level.

5° '5 E l S I

This study has potential value for elementary science teachers, for teacher educators
who work with elementary science teachers, and for elementary science curriculum
developers. The research provides a rich description of an elementary science classroom in
which the cru'riculum materials and the teaching were undergirded by a social constructivist
philosophy of science knowledge, of teaching, and of learning with an emphasis on the
role of discourse. In this discourse-rich context, the study enables us to examine the
impact of a new kind of classroom talk on science learning.

This work has potential for synthesizing three important movements in elementary
science education -- inquiry learning with its emphasis on discourse and action, conceptual
change learning with its emphasis on individual cognition and personal sense-making, and
social constructivism with its emphasis on discourse and sense-making with members of a
learning community. It provides a snapshot of social constructivism in practice in an
elementary science classroom and the students' ways of participating in such a classroom
while simultaneously tracing students' conceptual learning. To date this kind of science
teaching has been largely theoretical with many reformers calling for movement towards a
social constructivist view of scientific literacy with an emphasis on the discourse but limited
examples of what this might look like in practice.

This study seeks to provide empirical evidence for the value of oral discourse as a

tool for elementary students to use to learn and understand science concepts. Although

3

'5.

x

there is a growing body of research looking at the role of talk in constructing understanding
in science (c.f. Lemke, 1989), there is little work in the science education literature which
examines the norms for participation in the talk in elementary science class and the
relationship of these norms to student understanding of science concepts. Thus this study
will also provide evidence of the ways in which classroom talk at the elementary school
level in one context helped, or hindered, student learning of science content knowledge.
This analysis raises some caveats that teachers should be aware of when working with

students to construct this type of a learning community.

0 .. “.1: .

The remaining chapters of the dissertation are arranged in the following fashion:
Chapter 2 presents a review of relevant literature on science education and the role of
discourse in science learning historically. Chapter 3 describes the data collection and
methods of analysis. Chapter 4 describes the teaching and learning context for this study.
It was this context which led me to describe this classroom as one which had many of the
aspects of social consu'uctivism as it is described in the literature. Chapter 5 contains a
description and analysis of the discourse in a whole class discussion. The purpose of this
description is to provide an image of the type of interactions that were taking place in the
learning community and to provide a context for the two cases of the target students which
appear in Chapter 6. The case studies presented in chapter 6 examine the relationship
between student participation in the discourse and student learning. Chapter 7 provides
additional evidence about student science concept learning based on an analysis of the pre-
and post- unit tests of all students in the class. Finally, Chapter 8 summarizes the findings
and draws conclusions from these findings. In it I also discuss the limitations of a
qualitative, descriptive study such as this, the educational implications of this study, and

the need for further research.

Ft.

2414...

Ex

.I

I.»

Chapter 2

SCIENCE AS_DISCOURSE:
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON SCIENCE EDUCATION

In a world filled with the products of scientific inquiry, scientific literacy
has become a necessity for everyone. Everyone needs to use scientific
information to make choices that arise everyday. Everybody needs to be
able to engage intelligently in public discourse and debate about important
issues that involve science and technology....Other countries are investing
heavily to create scientifically and technically literate work forces. To keep
pace in global markets the United States needs to have an equally capable
citizenry. (National Academy of Sciences, 1996)

Yet the fact is that general scientific literacy eludes us in the United States.
A cascade of recent studies has made it abundantly clear that by both
national standards and world norms, U.S.education is failing to adequately
educate too many students - and hence failing the nation. By all accounts,
American has no more urgent priority than the reform of education in

science mathematics and technology.
(AAAS, 1989)

I l . l D .

This chapter is about scientific literacy. Developing scientifically literate students is the
focus of most major reform efforts in science education in the United States. However, recent
studies reveal that we are currently failing in these efforts (AAAS, 1996). This chapter begins
by drawing on the literature to develop one definition of scientific literacy. I then use this
definition to consider the strengths and weaknesses of various science education reforms
historically. This analysis will be used in later chapters to illustrate the ways in which the
teachers in this dissertation study built upon the successes of earlier reform movements to
create a new social constructivist approach to science education.

i ° ' i n ' i

Over the past decade a line of science education research informed by constructivist and

social constructivist theories of leamin g has emerged. Science education researchers in this

area have focused on the social nature of learning in science by examining the discourse that

10

h.

L

m

\ 2.1. .c. e. a. ax.

11

occurs in science class (Roth, Anderson, and Smith, 1987; Lemke, 1990) and considering
ways to structure this discourse so that students are learning to appropriate and use scientific
Discoursel (Duschl and Petasis,1995; Smith, 1995; Rosebery & Warren 1992). For example,
Roth, Anderson, and Smith (1987) described the nature of three elementary teachers’ talk
during science class. Lemke (1990) considered the structure of the talk in secondary science
classes, examining the ways in which knowledge is communicated, and the values and
attitudes that are communicated about science through the discourse, and Smith (1995)
examined the role of the teacher in supporting consensus building in science discussions.
Some of this recent work on classroom discourse in science education is based upon
Gee's (1989, 1994) notion of literacy (c.f. Duschl and Petasis, 1995; Rosebery, Warren, and
Conant, 1990). According to Gee, literacy (including scientific literacy) can be understood as
the control of discourses that go beyond whatever discourse we fust acquired within our family
(1989). Thus scientifically literate students are those who are able to control and use the
discourse of science when they are participating in science class. Rosebery, Warren, and
Conant (1990) base their work on Gee's notions and the Vygotskian perspective that
"knowledge and understandings are socially constructed through talk, activity, and interaction
around meaningful problems" (Rosebery et. al., 1990) . Believing that science is Discourse
and is a culturally accepted way of talking, Rosebery et. a1. (1990) developed a curriculum in
which language minority students were explicitly supported in appropriating a scientific
discourse. Similarly, Duschl and Petasis (1995) and Smith (1995) worked with teachers to
develop a discourse pattern that would support students in developing scientific explanations -

and thus to appropriate a scientific discourse.

 

1I am spelling Discourse here with a capital "D" to represent Gee' s notion of Discourse. Gee makes the
distinction between discourse which rs strictly men and Discourse which encompasses ways of "talking,
acting, valuing, interacting, thinking, writing and reading, carried out with certain objects, technologies,
and symbolic expressions, in certain physical spaces in order to enact particular recognizable social
identities".

12

This view of scientific literacy is consistent with the recently published National Science
Education Standards (National Academy of Sciences, 1996) which describes scientific literacy
in the following way,

...a person who can ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived
from curiosity about everyday experiences. It means that a person has the
ability to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomenon...A literate
citizen should be able to evaluate the quality of scientific information on the
basis of its source and the methods used to generate it. Scientific literacy
also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence
and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately.

Embedded in this view of scientific literacy is the assumption that the person will notice
and be curious about natural phenomenon and will want to engage in making sense of this
phenomenon using scientific concepts. Thus, from the perspectives described above, scientific
literacy is being curious about natural phenomenon and appropriating, controlling, and using
the discourse to describe, explain, and predict this phenomenon. .

Outside of science education, classroom discourse and linguistics researchers have
contributed to the notion that scientific literacy is a process of appropriating and controlling the
discourse about meaningful problems «such as developing explanations about real world
phenomena. These researchers sought to describe the nature of students' talk in classrooms
(including, but not limited to, science class) and the ways of participating in these classes «the
participation structure (Wells, 1996; Gee, 1994; Edwards & Westgate, 1994; Michaels and
O'Connor, 1990; Middleton and Edward, 1990; Gee, 1989; Cazden 1988; and Edwards &
Mercer, 1987). In their work, Michaels and O'Connor argue that knowing isolated pieces of
information such as facts, terms, and definitions is not sufficient to understand content. They
state:

Beyond vocabulary and background facts, there are discourse-specific ways in
which arguments are made, in which certain kind of information must be
foregrounded and used as evidence. There are discourse-specific ways in
which you must infer connections or " get the point".

They illustrate this point with an example drawn from a science lesson on the topic

of balance using a balance scale with small metal weights hung at different points of the

r

If

I’v'

I

13

scale on both sides. In the lesson the students wee posed with a problem in which the
weights were to be hung on the balance in a certain arrangement. The students were asked
whether the scale would tip to the left, the right, or balance. In response to this question
the students had to make and explain a prediction regarding the behavior of the balance.
The study focuses on the responses of a Creole girl who gave the correct prediction but did
not give the scientifically correct explanation and appeared not to understand the concept of
balance. However, when probed in a later interview, it is clear that she does in fact
understand the science. Michaels and O'Connor concluded that although she knew the
requisite facts and how to apply them in reasoning through the problem, she did not control
the discourse of school science. Consequently she misinterpreted the teacher's questions
leading her to give an inappropriate response.

In this body of research on classroom discourse, the discourse is in the foreground
and the relationship between the discourse and science learning is either not considered, or
is only considered indirectly. For example, in their example of the Creole girl, Michaels
and O'Connor (1990) considered the ways in which the structure of the discourse inhibited
the girl from being able to represent her knowledge to the teacher, but did not consider the
ways in which the form of the discourse may have actually hindered or helped her in
learning that science knowledge.

Another feature that characterizes the studies on classroom discourse is the focus on
social constructivist theories of learning. This is reflected in the emphasis on the
importance of considering the discourse that takes place in science as an integral component
of the science curriculum. From this perspective science is discourse and scientific literacy
is developed through learning to participate in the classroom science discourse in
meaningful ways.

In the existing literature, the emphasis on discourse and a social constructivist view
of learning is often presented as a "new" idea without careful consideration of its

connections to previous research. Since the mid-1950's there are have been a number of

l4

curricular and pedagogical initiatives which have been designed to help students learn
science concepts with understanding. It is important to consider this history because
cmrent approaches to science education, including the social constructivist approach used
by the science teacher in this study, build on the strengths of these earlier approaches to
science education curriculum and teaching.

For this reason I take a historical approach to this literature reivew and look at four
main perspectives on science teaching «didactic science, inquiry science, conceptual
change/constructivism, and social constructivism -- using the discourse patterns associated
with each perspective as a framework for discussion and analysis. In this way I consider
what we have already learned and know about discourse in elementary science -- the
different forms it can take in the classroom and the view of knowledge that is represented
by the different forms. This analysis will then be used to inform later chapters in which
the teaching, and the discourse, draw on the successes of earlier science education
initiatives.

Ill [11' .5.“: 'II'

This dissertation is based upon on the belief that all learning, in and out of school,
is essentially a social process. Learning is a way of making sense of experience in terms of
extant knowledge (Tobin, Tippins, and Hook, 1992). From this perspective knowledge is
the product of language-based interactions (oral or written) which take place in a social
environment and is influenced and shaped by an individual's prior knowledge.

The social context of the classroom, which includes both the form and function of
the discourse and the participation structure, communicates to students what aspects of
knowledge are valued, what counts as learning, what form the knowledge takes, and what
sorts of learning activities are valued (Marshall, 1989). The students receive value
messages such as these both explicitly and implicitly through their daily interactions in the

classroom with the teacher (Kohn, 1989).

15

In these ways the social context of the classroom has a major influence on the form
that the knowledge ultimately takes in the individual's mind. For example, if the classroom
setting is one in which the teacher is primarily telling students the scientific "facts", and the
students are individually doing seat work which emphasizes recall of these facts, the
students will probably tend to view science knowledge as a series of facts to be memorized
individually and repeated at the appropriate time to the teacher who is the ultimate authority
for knowledge in such a classroom. However, if the classroom learning community is
instead primarily one in which scientific knowledge is viewed as tentative and Open to
debate, in which collaboration, sharing, and public revisions of ideas is stressed, in which
students write and talk with one another in order to make sense of scientific phenomena,
students will be more likely to view scientific knowledge as being a social consu'uct which
is a best explanation for real-world phenomena.

Historically, philosopher Herbert Mead (1934) was one of the first to formulate a
social constructivist perspective. Not surprisingly language, specifically in the form of oral
discourse, played a central role in Mead's thinking. Mead believed that meaning is
constructed within the act of communication. Furthermore, Mead postulated that this
communication is absolutely necessary if meaning making is to occur. Psychologist
Jerome Bruner (1966) expanded further on Mead's ideas about the necessity of discourse
in learning, theorizing that oral language allows children to take elements of their
experience and organize them into increasingly more sophisticated thought structures, a
necessary condition of learning. This is in agreement with Russian philosopher, Lev
Vygotsky (1962), who believed that thought is the internalization of dialogue and in order
for students to be able to think though new ideas they must first talk through the ideas with
a "more knowledgeable other".

Recent research conducted with language minority students and with students who
speak "non-standard" English has provided empirical support for the theories of Mead,

Brunet, and Vygotsky. Researchers in this field have concluded that part of learning to

16

make sense in science is appropriating a new discourse -- a new way of talking, and thus of
thinking, about their ideas in science (Rosebery, Warren, and Conant, 1990, Michaels and
O'Connor, 1990). These researchers believe that science knowledge, for example, is "a
socially and culturally produced way of thinking and knowing, with its own ways of
talking, reasoning and acting, its own norms, beliefs and values, its own institutions, its
shared histories and even shared mythologies" (Rosebery, Warren, and Conant, 1990).
Language is used by the interlocuters to think and act as members of a science community.

Rosebery et.al. based their work upon James Gee's notion of learning and acquiring
a discourse (1989). According to Gee, the process of learning disciplinary knowledge,
such as science, is a process of acquiring the discourse used by people within that
discipline. From Gee's perspective the discourse within the discipline is not just the talk
but is:

...a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of

thinking, acting, and of valuing that can be used to identify oneself as a

member of a socially meaningful group or "social netwo " (Gee, 1989).

Support for the importance of oral discourse in learning comes not only from the
fields of philosophy and psychology but also from sociolinguistics and literacy education.
Barnes (1969) argued that the more a learner is able to control his own language strategies,
and the more that he is enabled to think aloud, the more he can take responsibility for
creating explanations. Talk is much more than just a window upon mental processes and
metacognitive concepts -- which is a traditional way in which language in the classroom is
viewed. Conversations are a significant environment in which such thoughts are
formulated, justified, and socialized (Middleton and Edwards, 1990); thought itself is
enabled by language (Winogard and Flores, 1987).

Il’ H. .12 . ID' '5' :1
Rather than assume that previous research paradigms ignored the importance of
discourse and social construction of knowledge, I have re-examined the earlier literature

from a discourse perspective. In the next sections I describe what research has revealed

17

about different approaches to science teaching and learning (didactic, inquiry science,
conceptual change, and social constructivism) highlighting what these bodies of research
revealed about clasroom discourse and its relationship to student learning.

. 1| '1‘! ‘ ,.'-_III'-..IO \,l'. ‘Q"{'0(’ ‘0'... ’10-..." 9’!’

Prior to the 1950's science education, when science was taught at all, was primarily
didactic in nature and characterized by what I will call a traditional perspective on teaching
and learning. The teacher presented information to the students in the form of lists and
formulas. Students memorized this information and repeated it back to the teacher at
appropriate times. The teacher did most of the talking. Students responded to the teacher's
questions only when called upon and rarely, if ever, questioned the teacher or a peer.

Didactic teaching represents science knowledge as being composed of facts and
definitions which have been "discovered" by scientists and defined by the teacher and the
text. In a didactic classroom the students are presented with a great deal of science - facts,
theories, words - but do not learn how to use these tools. In these classrooms, students are
generally exposed to large numbers of facts and vocabulary words, tested for recall, and
moved on to the next topic (Anderson & Smith, 1984; Anderson and Roth, 1988). From
this perspective the role of the teacher is to uansmit facts and the role of the student is to
"absorb," and often memorize, these facts. From this perspective learning is considered to
be a straightforward process. The teacher " gives" the student the information which they
then "have" or.

Learning in a traditional didactic classroom is frequently equated with acquiring
many pieces of information. The usefulness of the knowledge or the real-world application
of the knowledge is not emphasized. I refer to this as the "traditional" approach to teaching
science because it is the most common and was, with the exception of nature study,
virtually the only approach used to teach science at any level prior to 1950.

In traditional didactic school science, students do not typically engage with the

phenomena they are expected to understand in any direct or meaningful way (Rosebery,

18

Warren, and Conant, 1990). Scientific knowledge is portrayed as absolute and
unproblematic, and the learner is viewed as a passive recipient of the knowledge being
transmitted. Science from this perspective is considered to be a discrete body of "facts",
and the transmission of these facts from teacher to student is the goal of teaching
(Gallagher, 1991). The role of the teacher is to provide the facts and the role of the the
students is to u'y to reproduce on a test what the teacher and the textbook had told them to
think.

El [11' . 12.1.5. :1

It follows that most of the discourse in traditional elementary science classrooms is
monologic in nature (Tharp and Gallimore, 1988). In these classes the teacher is the center
of attention. The scope, development, and direction of the class are controlled by the
teacher. Recitation and the teacher dominated initiation-responsecvaluation (I-R-E) format
are found in most science discussions held in a traditional science classroom (Mehan, 1979;
Cazden, 1988; Lemke, 1990). In the I-R-E format the teacher is the center of the
discourse. The teacher initiates by asking a question to which there is a specific answer he
or she is seeking, the students respond to the question, and the teacher evaluates the
accuracy of that response.

The image that immediately comes to mind is of students sitting in neat tidy rows
with the teacher asking a "known answer" question such as, "What are the three types of
rock?". Students then raise their hands vying for the opportunity to recite the three types of
rock. The teacher calls on students one after the other until someone successfully answers
her question (gives her the response as listed in the teacher's guide - sedimentary, igneous,
metamorphic). She will then continue on with the lesson - asking more known answer
questions or presenting more information.

Although the I-R-E format is time efficient, allowing for a lot of content to be
covered in a short period of time, this format leads to problems. Students get the message

that science discussions are supposed to lead to one correct answer —- the answer

r,

l9

determined by the teacher or the text. In addition, this traditional format promotes
competition among the students as they attempt to find the answer the teacher wants and bid
for a chance to show their knowledge (Shoft, 1990).

In the I-R-E format opportunities to build upon one another's thinking and ideas are
sacrificed in the quest for the "right answer". This creates one authority for knowledge in
the classroom —- the teacher -- and the students miss out on the opportunity to learn from
one another’s thinking and ideas. And, indeed, in this setting there is no reason why the
students would want, or need to, learn from one another. The students' attention is focused
on the teacher who is the source of the "right answer", and they tend to ignore the
conuibutions of their peers. These interactions discourage dialogue among the students
and do not create an atmosphere in which the students can learn from one another.

The transcript segment below taken from "Curriculum Materials, Teacher Talk, and
Student Learning" by Roth, Anderson and Smith (1987) illustrates a lesson in which the
teacher uses known-answer questions to determine if the students are taking in, and
remembering, the information that was presented. Roth et.al. noted that when the teacher
in this classroom asked questions that demanded the students respond with an explanation
rather than with just a fact or opinion, the students had difficulty answering the questions.
The teacher, Ms. Lane, handled this problem by rephrasing the question so that the
students would come up with the "right answer"-- the answer she was looking for. In the
transcript segment below Ms. Lane began by asking a question (initiation) which required
the students to explain a phenomenon (response). However, when they were unable to do
so, she changed the question into a series of factual response questions that she asked in a
rapid, drill and recitation format which closely followed the I-R-E sequence.

Initiation Ms. Lane: What is the function of the optic nerve? (waits, no response)
What is it that a nerve does? What do they do?

Response Heidi: Tells whether it is hot or cold.
Evaluation Ms. Lane: Uh, OK..
Initiation Ms. Lane: They send what?

”3.5.

20

Response Students: (calling out) Messages.

Initiation Ms. Lane: Where do they send them?

Response Students: (calling out) To the brain

Initiation Ms. Lane: Without the optic nerve, could you see?

Response Students: (unison) No.

Statement Ms. Lane: Because it sends messages of the image to the brain. (She
writes on the board: Optic nerve leads from the back of the eye to the
brain).

There are several aspects to this transcript which mark it as representing a traditional
didactic approach following the I-R-E format. First is the amount of teacher talk compared
with the amount of student talk. The teacher asks the questions and, ultimately, gives the
explanation. The students are not given an opportunity to ask questions or to puzzle
through their ideas. The questions the teacher asks are "known answer" questions -- there
is one specific response that the teacher is seeking. She does not probe student thinking or
ideas about the phenomenon. The teacher asks the question (initiation), the student
answers the question (response) and the teacher evaluates the accuracy of the response. In
this case a correct response is indicated by the teacher saying "OK" or by simply going on
to the next question, implying the response to the question had been correct. The segment
concludes with the teacher stating the response that she was originally looking for.

C . . . E E. 1 . S . l l

The traditional didactic approach to science education, which remains the
predominant mode of instruction in science today (Stofflett & Stoddart, 1994), has been
consistently shown by researchers to be ineffective in engaging student interest or
developing conceptual understanding of the science content (Anderson & Smith, 1987;
Driver, 1983; Hewson & Hewson, 1988). In fact, large numbers of American students
graduate from college holding many of the same naive conceptions about the world as those
held by elementary children (Stofflet & Stoddart, 1994), even though they have studied the

topics and even gotten good grades in science (passed the tests with flying colors).

CD

21

Often science classes were "parade grounds where students are endlessly drilled in
multiple-choice questions that impart information without context" (Leslie & Win gert,
1990). Generally in a didactic science class, scientific knowledge is misrepresented as
being absolute and unproblematic with no indication that the knowledge being learned has a
history, is tentative, and is the product of a social, human endeavor. Philosophers of
science such as Kuhn (1971), Toulmin (1972), and Mayr (1982) emphasize that science
does not reside as an objective body of knowledge external to the individual but rather
scientific knowledge consists of a "body of shared beliefs among a community of
scientists" (Anderson, 1988).

In a traditional, didactic classroom the students are presented with a great deal of
science - facts, theories, and scientific terminology. However the students are rarely given
an opportunity to use these new tools except to answer questions on a test. In these
classrooms students are generally exposed to large numbers of facts and vocabulary words,
tested for recall, and moved on to the next topic (Anderson & Smith, 1984; Anderson &
Roth. 1988). For example, Roth (1987) found that one elementary teacher covered the
following concepts in one class period on light: light as energy, light for seeing, light
uavels fast, the speed of light, atoms, photons, sources of light, bioluminescence, uses of
light, animals that give off light, reasons light travels fast, lightning, amplitude,
wavelengths, light travels in straight lines, intensity of light, pioneer uses of candles,
electricity provides artificial light, watts, volts, fluorescence, and light cannot curve.

Thus, there is generally a tremendous amount of information presented with no
time for the student to make sense of, and use, the concept in a real world context before
the next concept is introduced. Accordingly, the student is more likely to memorize a few
isolated terms (such as "reflected light") than to develop connected understanding of central
concepts (like how light enables us to see).

Another criticism of the didactic approach is the view of the learner as being a

passive recipient of this barrage of information and a view of learning as a straightforward

-v-1

[L

".1

li‘?

PT.

FT

Sl’

22

process of "taking in" and remembering information. This view of learning does not
acknowledge that students already have ideas or constructions about the world which might
influence their interpretations of the knowledge the teacher is presenting. Furthermore, the
idea of learning as passive reception does not acknowledge the importance of the role of
discourse in learning. The only discourse that takes place many days in a didactic
classroom is the teacher’s discourse. Rather than learning from talking to teacher and
peers, the students in a didactic classroom are assumed to learn from listening to the teacher
talking.

.0 ‘I',,.‘-.III'-..IO\l01i-r."{'01"I‘JO,IQ. '1'

Beginning in the 1950's scientists and science educators began to look for
alternatives to the traditional didactic approach -- a process that continues today. A
common alternative was to move away from teacher—centered didactic teaching and initiate a
hands-on approach to directly involve the students in the process of inquiry.

Additionally it was at this time that cognitive science began to influence science
education beginning with the writings of cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget. These two
factors -- a move towards "hands-on science" and the influence of cognitive science --
resulted in the design of several different inquiry-based approaches to science education
which drew from the Piagetian theory of assimilation and accommodation and the notion of
cognitive development stages (pre-operational thought, concrete operational thought,
abstract formal operational thought).

According to Piaget (1929), who focused on indutidual cognition in his early
work, meaningful learning takes place when the learner is able to recall appropriate schema
from their memory and "fit" the new information they have learned in with that schema.
Piaget theorized that this assimilation of new information into an existing schema is a
straightforward process which requires accessing and recalling appropriate schema.

However, once in a while the student becomes dissatisfied with the existing schema and

[‘1

'1

(W

"1

Fl

l u’

23

must modify or make accommodations in the existing schema before they can assimilate the
new information. Piaget viewed this as being a fairly straightforward process as well.

It was during the Post-Sputnik era of National Science Foundation (N SF)-funded
cuniculum development efforts that inquiry science made its appearance. Collaborations
among scientists, psychologists, and educators led to the creation of several NSF inquiry
based science curriculum programs: Wadi (SAPA, Thier, Karplus,
Lawson, Knott, and Montgomery, 1978), W511
(SCIIS, AAAS, 1975), and WM (ESS, Educational Development
Center, 1971) . These elementary science programs emphasized the importance of the
learner being acrively engaged in science through the manipulation of materials. Students
were encouraged to see themselves as "young scientists" who participated in science
processes in the same way "real" scientists did. According to Bruner, who spearheaded
one of these early NSF programs, "the schoolboy learning physics is a physicist, and it is
easier for him to learn physics behaving like a physicist than doing something else" (1960).

Inquiry science teaching represents science knowledge as being composed of ideas
which can be "discovered" by students through active manipulation and exploration of the
materials under study using scientific inquiry processes. The various inquiry programs
focused on supporting students in developing understanding and acceptance of scientists'
ideas through the interpretation of empirical data. From this perspective the role of the
teacher is the facilitation of inquiry and (in the SCIIS project) the introduction of the
scientific concept. The role of the student is exploration and discovery of scientific ideas.
Although it was not the intention of curriculum developers, many teachers in inquiry
classrooms interpreted inquiry science as a pure "discovery" process in which you new
tell the students the concept. Thus the teacher may have viewed her primary responsibility
as helping students "feel comfortable" with the content and "feel good" about science:

We need to make students feel comfortable with the things, ideas, and
processes of science. Just as we want them to feel comfortable and

accepted in their own neighborhood. They need to develop confidence
that they can ask questions (Rutherford, 1986 as cited by Roth, 1987).

24

If the students were engaged in the processes of science, it was believed, learning
would necessarily follow (Saunders, 1987; Linn and Thier, 1975; Puiser and Renner,
1983; Schneider and Renner, 1980)). With the support of the National Science
Foundation, a great deal of time and money was spent beginning in the 1950's and the
1960's to design curricula that promoted student inquiry by allowing students to undertake
investigations focused on a real world phenomenon such as growing plants, to engage in
hands—on activities such as rolling balls down ramps, and to create stories which explained
the phenomenon under study.

The result were three major national, and influential, elementary curriculum
projects which were very different in their theory, approach, and emphasis.2 However,
they all had some similarities; a) they were all hands-on, process-focused programs, b) the
curriculum writing was dominated by scientists and c) the driving goal was to rapidly
produce more scientists (Duschl, 1990). Two of these, the Science Curriculum
Improvement Project (SCIIS) and the Elementary Science Study (ES S) were influenced
psychologist Jean Piaget's ideas about how children learn. The other, Science A Process
Approach (SAPA) was based upon Gagne's theories of learning hierarchies (1977).

The basis of SCIIS is a Piagetian developmental approach which stressed that the
students go through a linear series of developmental stages -- pre-operations, concrete
operations, and formal operations -- but that this is not necessarily an automatic process.
The philosophy reflected in SCIIS was that an elementary science program needed to
provide an emphasis on concrete, hands-on experiences in order for students to reach each
developmental stage at an age-appropriate time and to develop a richer picture of the
scientific process.

Activities were the core of the SCIIS program and were closely linked to class

discussion during which time students raised questions about the topic under study and

 

2There were other national and local science curriculum projects, however these three represent the three
most well known. These three were also selected because they represent three very different approaches to
inquiry science. Of the three, SCIIS is the most enduring with several school districts in Michigan still

using the program.

25

brainstormed ways to answer their questions. One important role of the teacher during
these discussions was to introduce the scientific concept that connected to their exploration
and discussion. Therefore, the activities provided a concrete context for the students to
learn the science concept. In this way the SCIIS program was an improvement over the
straight transmission model reflected in the didactic approach. The program emphasized
the importance of eliciting and building on students' prior knowledge.

The conceptual framework of ESS was based largely on Bruner’s belief that every
topic can be taught in some intellectually honest form to any student. Bruner also stressed
the act of discovery, which he defined as obtaining knowledge for oneself by the use of
one's mind. There was no single author for E88. Rather different units were developed
by different members of the scientific and teaching community. The role of the teacher in
ESS is one of a guide and a resource person. It is the teacher's responsibility to raise
questions but not answer them, only to verify answers or ask leading questions. What is
learned depends entirely upon what the student does.

The conceptual framework of SAPA was based upon Gagne's theory of learning
heirarchies (1977). According to Gagne, process skills such as observing, classifying, and
formulating hypothesis are skills used by all scientists, are applicable to investigation in all
the sciences, and they can be learned by students and be transferred across science content
domains. The emphasis in SAPA was on hierarchical process skill building and there was
little discussion of students' interpretation of the phenomenon under study. Accordingly,
SAPA was designed to develop the reasoning skills scientists use in their investigations
(AAAS, 1967). It focused on process rather than conceptual learning.

I] B 1 [11° . I . S . :1

In an inquiry classroom using curriculum materials such as the three described
above, the children were given the opportunity to do many things. The role of the teacher
was to serve as a guide or a facilitator as the children asked questions and invented their

own answers to their questions (Roth, 1987). An additional role of the teacher with SCIIS

26

in particular, was to introduce the scientific concept to the children as part of the discussion
(the invention phase of SCIIS). The discourse pattern seen in the inquiry classrooms,
consistent with the way in which teachers interpreted its philosophy, tended to be an open
sharing and acceptance of all student ideas. The students did much of the talking with
probes and questioning from the teacher.

The typical discourse pattern in an inquiry science classroom reflected this belief.
The teacher facilitated discussion and probed ideas, however, unscientific ideas were not
challenged and the students were allowed to continue holding their non-scientific ideas.

The following transcript segment, excerpted from "Leaming to be comfortable in
the neighborhood of Science" by Roth (1987) illustrates a common discourse pattern
associated with inquiry science teaching; in which everyone's ideas are elicited and
accepted as equally valid:

Ms. Kain: What do you think now about what light does for a plant? What
do you think it does for a plant? Jeff?

Jeff: Well, I think that it gives its, the, uh, rays of the light gives the
plant the extra food it needs to produce the chlorophyll...

Ms. Kain: What do you think it does for the plant? John?

John: Well, I'm not sure. It's like us. If we stay outside and you get
sunbumed. It's sort of like what the sun does for us.

Ms. Kain: OK, looks healthier maybe. I'm not sure we can make that analogy.
OK, any other comments about that? Andy?

Andy: The heat.

Ms. Kain: The heat from the light you're saying?

Andy: Yeah, the... grabs all the light and uses all the heat.
Ms Kain: Uh-huh, OK. Melanie?

Melanie: Well, I think kinda, maybe it gives it a little bit more food. I mean
not like food but uh like it gives it green. Green looks more healthy.

Ms. Kain: OK, one more. Heidi?

(Heidi gives her ideas and the discussion ends).

 

27

This discussion took place at the end of an inquiry science unit on plants as food
producers (photosynthesis). Even at the end of the unit the teacher is encouraging students
to share their ideas and is accepting all ideas as being equally valid. This discomse pattern
characterizes the discourse in many inquiry science classrooms where much of the
emphasis is placed on encouraging students to share their theories and stories and accepting
all ideas without making progress toward scientific understanding. Because the goal of
inquiry science is for students to "discover" the information the way that scientists do, the
inquiry teacher often believes that she should ot tell the student information the way that the
didactic teacher did. This is in striking contrast with the focus on "known answers" in the
didactic approach.

These early inquiry programs with their emphasis on hands-on manipulation and
sense-making of the objects under study continue to influence current elementary science
curricular and pedagogical practices. Many current pedagogical pracrices are adaptations
of, or variations on, these early inquiry prograrrrs. For example, the theory that children
(indeed all people) learn through active construction of their knowledge and understanding
that emerged during the inquiry science era is a theory that continues to heavily influence
current science curriculum and teaching.

C . . . E I . S . E .

During the late 1970's and through the 1980's it became evident to science
educators and researchers that the inquiry programs were not fulfilling their promise.
Although the students often enjoyed and felt comfortable with science and were actively
engaged with the materials of science, researchers found that they still were not making the
conceptual connections and developing the rich scientific understandings that the
developers of inquiry science had intended and anticipated (Roth, 1985; Lee, Eichinger,
Anderson & Berkheimer, 1993; Novick & Nussbaum, 1978). Students knew how to
conduct experiments and knew lots of experimental data, such as an embryo will only

develop into a plant if it is attached to at least half of a cotyledon and a plant will begin to

28

grow in the dark, but they were unable to use this data to explain everyday phenomena
such as where a developing plant embryo gets its energy until it is above ground and can
begin the process of photosynthesis.

The conclusion reached by science education researchers was that meaningful
learning in science involves more than just being able to give a definition or memorize a
formula. Meaningful learning of science also involves more than just being able to
complete the activity or enjoy doing the experiment and being comfortable with science.
Meaningful learning of science involves coming to understand scientific ideas as they are
used for their intended purposes, including description, prediction and explanation of real-
world phenomenon. Although this was an intention of the inquiry programs, they never
fulfilled their promise. Researchers concluded that science teachers need to encourage
students to ask questions about the world around them and then support them in designing
activities that help them answer their questions and make sense of the world through
description, explanation, and prediction. Conceptual issues cannot be avoided in favor of
rote procedures (or recipe style directions) or hands-on fun activities that are also not
"minds-on".

Barnes argues (1976) that much learning may go on while children manipulate
science apparatus but "learning of this kind may never progress beyond manual skills and
slippery intuitions unless the learners themselves have an opportunity to go back over such
experiences and represent it [the knowledge] to themselves", p. 30. This opportunity to go
back over the experiences and represent the knowledge to themselves was not built into
most of the inquiry science programs and so was not generally present. This may explain
why students appeared to learn so little fiom inquiry science. They may have had fun in
science, but their conceptual understandings of the world around them did not grow. The
idea of hands-on manipulation of the objects under study was a sound one; it just wasn't

enough in and of itself.

29

IE' [5' l “IllillB ll 2 "E ..
WW

Over the past 15 years advances in the field of cognitive science and in our

 

understanding of the processes of knowing and learning began to affect views of school
and of schooling (Duschl & Petasis, 1995). Many consider psychologist Jean Piaget to be
a "foundational figure" in advancing the field of cognitive science (Phillips, 1995). The
application of cognitive science to education undergirds not only the ideas of inquiry
science but the ideas for the development of schools for thought (Bruer, 1993), the creation
of thinking curriculums (Resnick & Klopfer, 1989), and the design of classrooms as
communities of practice (Brown & Carnpione, 1994). Additionally, the cognitive science
perspective is seen in conceptual change theory (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog,
1982), which many science educators would argue was one of the most influential ideas in
science education in the 1980's.

As science educators and researchers basing their work on Piaget began to focus on
individual student cognition, they became aware of the importance of knowing and
addressing a student's prior knowledge and patterns of thinking in science as they
supported the student through a process of constructing understanding. This was
something alluded to but not explicitly done in the inquiry science approach and not
considered relevant in the traditional, didactic approach.

As described above, one of the most widely studied and adopted perspectives from
cognitive science is conceptual change theory3. Conceptual change theory is a powerful
construct because it represents not only a cognitive science perspective but also a
constructivist perspective. Constructivist learning theory supports the notion that in order
to construct personal understanding of a concept the learner must go through a process of

conceptual change (Driver, 1994). Thus, conceptual change theory brings together the

 

3At this time "conceptual change" is primarily a pedagogical rather than a curricular approach. Extensive
(and expensive) research is needed in order to develop conceptual change curriculum materials. For this

reason the strategy used by science educators has been to help teachers learn a conceptual change pedagogy
through workshops and seminars. Teachers, ideally, are then able to adapt current curricular materials to a

conceptual change approach.

(I:

e

I

30

ideas of about learning derived from cognitive psychology and the ideas about the nature of
science and science learning derived from a constructivist epistemology.

A constructivist perspective has implications for the classroom From a
constructivist perspective meaning is viewed as something being made by the individual
and the meaning that is made will depend on the individual's conceptual framework.
Science learning from this perspective is seen as an aetivity in which students go through a
process of conceptual change (Driver, e.al., 1994). Unlike earlier views of leaming in
which there was an assumption that learning was simply a process of "taking in" the ideas
presented by the teacher, constructivist theories of learning acknowledge the active role of
the learner in constructing meaning. This knowledge construction process is influenced by
students' existing conceptions which influence how the learner makes sense of instruction.
For learning to occur, these existing conceptions may need to be changed, modified, or
abandoned by the student. Thus constructing personal meaning involves going through a
process of individual conceptual change.

Teaching from a constructivist perspective focuses on providing children with the
experiences and activities necessary to engage them in a meaning making process which
may include cognitive conflict, or dissatisfaction, with their prior knowledge. The teacher
then supports the learners in developing new knowledge schemes that are more fruitful for
them than their prior knowledge. "Real world" activities, such as planting seeds under
different conditions to determine the requirements necessary for life, supported by careful
structured group discussion form the core of a constructivist-based conceptual change
approach to teaching (Nussbaum & Novick, 1982).

Over the past decade, science education researchers have found that students often
maintain their fundamental naive conceptions and patterns of thinking about a concept even
while learning the appropriate vocabulary and doing well on unit tests. Thus, it often
appeared on the surface that they understood the science concept - assuming traditional

methods of assessment were employed - when in fact they had not altered their existing

31

naive conception in any way. Although they could give the scientifically correct answer on
a test, they were still using their naive conceptions to make sense of everyday phenomena.
Conceptual change theory, therefore, highlights the importance of emphasizing the
ideas that children form about natural phenomena. As described earlier, these ideas have
been called by a number of terms including "misconceptions" (Novak, 1983), "children's
science" (Gilbert, Osborne, & Fenshaw, 1982), "alternative frameworks" (Hewson,
1985), and "preconceptions" (Osborne & Freyburg, 1985). Traditional didactic and
inquiry-based curricular approaches and teaching methods failed to uncover and/or address
these naive conceptions (Berkheimer, Anderson, & Blakeslee, 1990; Roth, 1986; Ramadas
& Driver, 1989; Minstrel, 1985; Osborn & Freyburg, 1985; Roth, Smith, and Anderson,
1983; Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982) which resulted in students resorting to
memorizing terms and definitions (traditional, didactic science), relying on following step-
by-step procedtu'es (inquiry science), or relying on their (inaccurate) prior knowledge.
Researchers believe that knowledge construction can be made intentional through
instruction interventions such as using a conceptual change model (N ussbaum & N ovick,
1982), making idea prompting statements (Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Steinback, 1984), and
using various teacher questioning procedures (Duckworth, 1994). In these studies learners
were coached by the teacher to think about the material under study in such a way that they
transformed that material, thus consu'ucting knowledge (King, 1994). Additionally, King
(1994) found that knowledge construction and meaning making were further promoted
when children were taught how to construct a good explanation via teacher questions that
guided students to connect ideas within a lesson or to connect the lesson to their prior
knowledge. When students have to explain themselves or defend their own positions, they
begin to examine their understanding in detail (I-Iatano & Inagaki, 1987). As they examine
their comprehension in detail, students become aware of the inadequacies in their
understanding, which may lead them to reconstruct their conceptual framework (Roth and
Roychoudbury, 1993). Students in such a classroom would be encouraged to puzzle

'1

32

through their ideas in writing and aloud so that they can examine their idea and reconsider
it.

Conceptual change models are similar in many ways to Piagetian theory (Pintrick,
Marx, & Boyle, 1993). Teachers who are using a conceptual change approach elicit and
take seriously students' ideas about real world phenomena. Conceptual change theory
differs somewhat from Piagetian theory, however, in that it assumes that ontogenetic
change in an individual's learning is analogous to the nature of change in scientific
paradigms that is proposed by philosophers of science such as Kuhn (Pintrick, Marx, &
Boyle, 1993). Furthermore, the conceptual change approach problemetizes Piaget's idea of
accommodation by showing that the process is not a straightforward process but rather is a
complicated and difficult process that needs to be carefully supported by the teacher.

From a constructivist perspective, such as conceptual change, students are not the
traditionally assumed "tabula rasa" ready to take in all information presented by the teacher.
Rather, students enter the science classroom with a wealth of ideas about how the world
works. Many of these conceptual schemes however, are at odds with scientific ideas and,
often persist following instruction (c.f. Anderson & Smith, 1987; Driver & Erickson,
1983; Helm & Novak, 1983) because they are not explicitly addressed.

According to a conceptual change model, if the student's conception is in conflict
with the scientific conception, there needs to be a radical transformation of the individual
conception if learning is to occur. Without this transformation, the student will alter the
information presented in science class so that it fits with his or her existing conceptual
framework - even if that framework is in conflict with the accepted canons of science.
Furthermore, researchers such as Posner et. al. (1992) have found that unless the teacher
challenges the student's existing conception, they will prefer, and use, their naive
conception over the scientific conception. Students often ignore counter-evidence or they
interpret it in terms of their own naive views (Muthkrishna, Camine, Grossen, & Miller,

1993).

‘-L

‘k

.e

85

was an educational anthropologist who specialized in sociolinguistics and did research
examining the social context in which learning took place. Because of her research
interests on the social consu'uction of knowledge in the classroom there was a strong social
constructivist orientation in this program. Thus, the role of oral and written discourse as
tools for making sense of the content in all subject matter areas was emphasized in Ms.
Lawson's teacher preparation.

Ms. Lawson had been a student teacher at Atlantis and was hired as a full time
teacher the following year. Mrs. Runner told me that Ms. Lawson quickly earned a
reputation as an excellent language arts teacher, and this was the reason Mrs. Runner
approached Ms. Lawson about teaching collaboratively. Although a veteran teacher, Mrs.
Runner felt that she would learn more about teaching language arts from Ms. Lawson.
Thus, despite a vast difference in their years of experience, it was a true collaboration from
the perspective that each felt she could learn from the other and each had knowledge and
skills to contribute to the collaboration. It was clearly not a relationship in which Mrs.
Runner was mentoring Ms. Lawson despite the difference in age and experience.

I l S . l E II . I II 1

Ms. Lawson and Mrs. Runner were part of a five member team involved in the
planning and/or teaching that took place in this classroom during the afternoon science and
literacy time - which varied from 1-3 hours per day. In addition to Ms. Lawson and Mrs.
Runner, the members of the team included a student teacher who had been in the room part-
time since September and full-time since January, and two university faculty members, one
of whom had been part of the team since September, the other had been working on PDS
projects with the building teachers for several years.

The student teacher, Ms. Smith, was a student in the same alternative teacher
education program at the university from which Ms. Lawson had graduated. Ms. Smith,
like many students enrolled in this program, had a strong language arts background.

Although she did not have a strong science background she researched the topic and

33

An example of the strength of children's naive conceptions is given in a descriptive
study by Schneps (1987) which was documented in the video entitled "A Private
Universe". Schneps found that Harvard graduates - including one just receiving a degree
in a branch of physics - hold the same naive conceptions about the cause of the seasons as
high school students who had not had any formal instruction. Schneps illustrated how
instruction can be viewed as being entirely consistent with a student's naive conceptions in
his study of one student, Heather, and her learning about the seasons. Schneps gave the

following description of Heather“:

Before instruction, Heather believed that summer occurred when the
earth was further from the sun, that the sun's rays bounce when it is
summer, and that the shape of the earth's orbit around the sun was a
curlicue. After classroom instruction that showed the orbit of the earth,
Heather now realized the earth's orbit had an elliptical shape. It is not
surprising that the classroom instruction failed to correct Heather” s naive
conception that the sun's rays bounce though, because it used the word
"bent" to describe indirect rays, with no illustration. "Bending" can be
"bouncing".

In a second attempt to correct this naive conception, Heather was
presented with a drawing showing sun rays hitting the earth at a
slantHeather now readily accepted that information, but also maintained her
naive conception that rays bounce: She stated that winter occurred because
the sun's rays both hit at a slant and bounce off other parts of the earth.
This naive conception is consistent with a drawing which did not show the
entire length of the ray from the sun. There is no evidence from these
instructional interactions that a clear, unambiguous explanation, inconsistent
with all misinterpretations, and followed by application exercises would not
have been sufficient to bring about conceptual change in Heather.

As Heather indicated, she learned about these confusing bouncing
sun rays in her eight-grade science class. Part of Heather original naive
conception seems to have resulted from understanding "indirect" to mean
"not straight" or "bouncing" - a reasonable interpretation of the English
language. Heather explained that her ideas about the curlicue orbit of the
earth were also formed by erroneously associating a diagram in her eight—
grade science book with the information about the earth's orbit.

In the celebrated study described above, the emphasis is on Heather and her failure

to go through a process of conceptual change even though she has been presented the

 

41 am including this lengthy quotation because the "Private Universe" video has became extremely well
known. It is frequently used with both pre-service and in-service teachers as an illustration of the failure of
traditional science to change students' conceptions. The teachers in this dissertation study had also viewed
this video.

5 pa
Lou»:
. ..‘1‘

M

.9“ t
:5
‘1 u
U

l
’3‘ IA;-

We“:

. pee
. I
In“

.
m. .5,
I er

cats.
are;

I
gang,“

NR.”

'.
1‘,

4km“

"6“}.
I

34

concept of the cause of the seasons by her teacher. This study is typical of those done by
conceptual change researchers. Although there is a social component to constructivism, the
social aspects of scientific understanding in the classroom have not been a concern of
cognitive researchers who have studied student knowledge construction in science
education. Rather, in the tradition of Piaget, these researchers have generally focused on
what is labeled the individual dimension of scientific understanding (Lee, et. al., 1993).

However, another school of constructivism is beginning to emerge in the literature.
This school of thought has recently been described as "Emergent Constructivism" (Cobb,
1995 ). While this perspective agrees with the psychological or Piagetian constructivist
perspective, it adds the idea that acts of individual meaning making can be seen to occur as
students participate in and contribute to the development of practices established by a local
community such as a science classroom learning community (Cobb, 1995). Thus the
existence of a social context in which meaning making occurs is beginning to be
acknowledged by constructivists.

As Smith (1995) points out, constructivists are not interested only in the isolated
individual while ignoring the social context. For example, Rogoff and Lave (1984) view
constructivist science education as an apprenticeship into a community of practice. And
British science education researcher Rosalind Driver suggests that it is particularly
important to adopt a perspective that embraces both the constructivist and the socio-cultural
(social constructivist) position (Driver & Scott, 1995). To this end she is focusing her
current research on the ways in which school students' informal knowledge is drawn upon
and interacts with the scientific ways of knowing introduced in the science classroom
(Driver, etal. 1994). In this research Driver takes a strong position that all knowledge is
socially constructed and validated (Driver, etal., 1994). Driver believes that although
students must construct meaning individually, they need to be introduced to the
construction process in a social setting. Thus, Driver subsumes a social view of knowledge

construction and meaning making within her view of constructivism. This merging of

Dar:

.‘~ 1)) 0“,) p...

"I
:1

35

constructivism and a more social constructivist perspective is seen in the following quote
by Driver in which she describes the constructivist classroom as being a

"...place where individuals are actively engaged with others in attempting to
understand and interpret phenomena for themselves and where social
interaction in groups is seen to provide the stimulus of differing
perspectives on which individuals can reflect. The teacher's role is to
provide the physical experiences and to encourage reflection. Children's
meanings are listened to and respectfully questioned" (p. 7).

 

 

Conceptual change theory began with a focus on learning -- what conditions must
exist in the learner’s head for successful learning to occur? Thus, Posner and his
colleagues (Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982; Hewson & Hewson, 1984; Strike
& Posner, 1985; Strike & Posner, 1992) outlined four conditions necessary for conceptual
change. The conditions, which are modeled on the conditions necessary for a scientific

paradigm shift, are:

1. There must be dissatisfaction with the existing conception.

2. A new conception must be intelligible or minimally understood.

3. A new conception must appear initially plausible.

4. A new conception must be fruitful.

The requirements outlined by Posner etal. (1982) are cognitive conditions that
must exist in order for the student to develop a complete understanding of a conception that
directly conflicts with a persons initial beliefs. These cognitive conditions do not,
however, directly define what the teacher or the students should do in the classroom.
However, teachers must help students to meet the criteria of dissatisfaction, intelligibility,
plausibility, and fruitfulness if they are to successfully engage in the process of conceptual
change.

Because the process of conceptual change is a difficult one for students to undergo,

there must be a compelling reason for them to be willing to do so. A number of recent

research studies have focused specifically on teaching strategies and the kinds of activities

36

that are necessary for bringing about conceptual change. Roth, Anderson, and Smith
(1987) suggested a set of five teaching strategies for bringing about conceptual change:

1. Eliciting and responding to students' misconceptions.

2. Focusing on explanations.

3. Probing after student responses.

4. Balancing open-ended and closed discussions.

5. Providing practice and application.

And Nussbaum and Novick (1982) investigated a two—part teaching strategy where
students are first made aware of their own relevant prior conceptions and then engaged in
"conceptual conflict" or "cognitive dissonance," triggered by a "discrepant event".

In general these teaching strategies portray a style of teaching in which both
teachers and students are cognitively active and engaged (Smith, Blakeslee, & Anderson,
1993). Teachers encourage students to express their ideas and interpretations orally and in
writing, to the teacher and with their peers, as they try to explain and understand the world.
Teachers who use this strategy also constantly encourage students to think more rigorously
about familiar phenomena, to modify their explanations in the light of new information, and
to develop explanatory and problem solving skills (Smith, et.al., 1993).

According to Smith (1993) this teaching approach represents a more "honest" image
of the nature of science. This image is composed of at least three parts.

1. Science has a complex structure or "conceptual ecology". It is

composed of sets of interrelated ideas, not lists of facts, definitions, or
formulas. Thus knowledge of science lies as much in the complex and
dynamic relationships among concepts as in the concepts (or facts,
skills, etc) themselves.

2. Explaining phenomena is a fundamental purpose of science. When

students engage in making explanations, they are engaging in a central
task of science.

3. Scientific conceptions explain real-world phenomena, not just special

laboratory situations. Neither scientific conceptions nor the phenomena
that they explain are beyond the grasp of students' personal
understanding.
The key to successful conceptual change teaching is finding out about the student's

naive conceptions both prior to instruction as well as throughout insu'uction so that

(“‘1

‘u

\‘

37

situations can be created in which the naive conception fails the student. This does not
typically happen in the traditional didactic approach or in the inquiry approach, although its
importance is alluded to in the theoretical framework of SCIIS. In the traditional didactic
approach prior knowledge was treated as irrelevant and was ignored. Students were also
not given the Opportunity to actually use the scientific knowledge they memorized. In the
inquiry approach the students were encouraged to show and use their prior knowledge.
However, teachers too often were unaware of the ways in which students continued to use
their faulty prior knowledge to apparently (to them) successfully complete tasks. Their
prior knowledge was never fully challenged nor was a plausible, fruitful alternative made
available for them to consider and use.

I] E l [11' . C l :1 C]

A conceptual change, constructivist view of learning sees students as taking an
active role in building their own knowledge by modifying their existing conceptions
through the process of conceptual change (Pines & West, 1986; Posner, Strike, Hewson &
Gertzog, 1982). Students' prior and developing knowledge is central in the discourse.
Thus the discourse pattern in a conceptual change lesson is one in which the teacher elicits
the students' ideas about everyday phenomenon and provides opportunities for students to
puzzle over and question their ideas. This pattern is illustrated in the transcript segment
below which is taken from "Discourse Analysis as a Window Into the Classroom and Into
the Minds of Students" presented by Duschl and Petasis at the 1995 AERA conference. In
this segment the teacher elicits students' conceptions about whether the height of a boat's

sides affects its ability to float when something heavy is added to the boat:

Teacher: Ok. so, the sides matter.
8: Yes.
Teacher: You just told me no, they didn't

8: They do but not that much.

'1

L1

2'}

38

Teacher: What do you think Monica? What do you think about the sides?

S: In our group when we made the boat the one with low sides held
more (washers).

Teacher: A lot more? How many did the one with the low sides hold? The
big one with the low sides? Do you remember? The big one with
the real low sides.

S: Eighty.

Teacher: The one that is not folded with the real high sides.

S: Sixty

Teacher: And how about the little one with the lower sides? Did you
remember? You don't remember. Let's look in your...

S: Twenty

Teacher: It held out about twenty. Is that a big difference?

S: Yes

Teacher: Yeah, it sure is. So, sides do matter, do you think?

(conversation continues with different students explaining why there needs to be a

balance between side height and surface area of boat).

In the didactic example earlier in this chapter all the questions asked were known
answer questions such as "what is the function of the optic nerve"? The questions in this
example do not fall into that category. The teacher is asking for observations, "how many
did the one with the low sides hold", and opinions based upon evidence "do sides matter,
do you think?" Rather than the teacher presenting information directly, she is asking the
student to provide the evidence from the experiment and to draw conclusions from that
evidence.

Similar to the inquiry approach the teacher asked the students to share experimental
findings and conclusions they have reached. However, in contrast to the way in which the
inquiry approach was enacted, with a tendancy toward unquestioning acceptance of all
ideas, this teacher did not unquestioningly accept each student's ideas. She challenged the

student who said that sides matter, pointing out that a moment earlier the student had said

?~ e.—
‘9' mfl

' II
sq-

L n—
"finer.

vII-OL '
‘ l a} ’
“um? i:

.13.,”
l .

M I: 10 0%}
I!

w: l

\‘L
. a.
‘o
‘4 Refit; .
rt. L”!
M
‘2:
.z‘ ‘-

39

that they didn't matter. Following this challenge she asked the class a series of questions
which help them reach the scientific conclusion that yes, the sides do matter up to a certain
height.

Furthermore, unlike the inquiry approach, this teacher was helping the student
clarify, or make explicit, her thinking for herself. When the student said that the height of
the sides don't matter the teacher challenged her, noting that she just said a minute ago that
the height did matter. In this way the teacher is helping this student make her thinking
explicit for not only the teacher, but for herself. She was then able to go on and clarify that
the sides do make a difference but that there is a point of "dirrrinishing returns" with respect
to the height of the sides. This probing of student thinking, making ideas explicit, and
challenging an individual student's thinking is the hallmark conceptual change discourse.

Eleanor Duckworth (1987) focuses more specifically on the discourse of the teacher
(rather than teacher-student interactions) and describes the types of teacher interventions
that are helpful in a class discussion in which the goal is individual knowledge construction
through a process of conceptual change:

"...What do you mean? How did you do that? Why do you say that? How

does that fit in with what she just said? Could you give me an example?

How did you figure that? In each case these questions are primarily a way

for the interlocuter to uy to understand what the other is understanding. Yet in

every case, they engage the other's thoughts and take them a step further"

(1987, pp. 96-97).

Notice in the teacher questions that Duckworth advocates, the emphasis is on
probing the individual student's thinking so that both teacher and student better understand
the sense the student is making of the lesson. This is probably most clearly seen with the
question, "could you give me an example?". Although the other students may be sitting
listening to this conversation, and may indeed benefit from such a conversation, there is not
an explicit attempt to draw them into the conversation with questions such as "What do

other people think about her idea - do you agree or disagree?" or "Did everyone hear what

he just said? Did you all do it the same way?"

b I O
w‘w‘rgm
A. I It.

is not hf
by 3 cont
pitcipa:
studs:
conccpn
ins rcco
1989}. "I

.OECipI‘;

Gigi-“rm

40

C'” ED 1C! 111]

At this point one weakness in much research on student leaming in science is that it
is not informed by a conception of the social organization of the classroom interactions nor
by a conception of the influence of the social participation su'ucture (the norms for
participation including the rights and duties of both teacher and students) in shaping the
individual's opportunity to learn (Erickson, 1982). Cognitive views such as the
conceptual change model suggest that the learner constructs knowledge but does not take
into account how the social context of the classroom influences this construction (Marshall,
1989). Thus a critical variable to be examined in better delineating this process of
conceptual change in science is the classroom learning community and its social
organization and practices including the role of discourse in science learning.

Although researchers on student cognition often suggest specific teaching strategies
or ways of approaching content that could be employed to help students make sense of the
new science content in light of their less sophisticated prior knowledge (Ramadas &
Driver,1989; Roth, 1986; Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982), little work has been
directed at identifying the ways the learning community in which these activities take place
is supporting or hindering student sense making in science. Thus little is known about the
way in which classroom interactions shape, or are shaped by, student learning in
elementary science.

Cognitive science models and a constructivist perspective have been very
productive as tools for conceptualizing student learning. However, there are those who
argue that the classroom context may influence students' cognition and moderate conceptual
change (Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle, 1993) considerably more than the focus on individual
cognition would lead us to believe (Driver, et.al., 1994). There is mounting evidence
which suggests that individual learning in classrooms is not isolated but greatly influenced
by peer and teacher interactions (Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle, 1993). The conceptual change

process, for example, may be influenced by being situated within different classroom

A.
‘1'

nth

I
e. .l

L s are

5‘5,

41

contexts and shaped dramatically by the nature of the interactions between students and
teacher (Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle, 1993). Indeed, in a revision of their original paper on
moving towards a conceptual change model, Posner, and Strike (1992) conceded that a
wider range of factors than the individual student's cognition needs to be taken into account
when describing a leamer's conceptual ecology (or conceptual framework) and "the idea of
a conceptual ecology thus needs to be larger than the epistemological factors suggested by
the history and philosophy of science (p. 162) (Posner and Strike, 1992).

Few good models currently exist for understanding how social processes affect
student learning in classroom. However, there is widespread consensus that research on
social context should focus on teacher-student and on student-student discourse (Tharp &

Gallimore, 1988).

. ‘ . ”.0. .13....‘LH ”WWV ‘_._ 1.. . ._ ”..- H u ..
Rewrite

While the cognitive science and constructivist perspectives continue to help us better
understand the ways in which knowledge is structured by the individual many researchers
have begun to consider the social constructivist perspective and the role of the classroom
context, specifically the classroom discourse, in elaborating and shaping individual
conceptual change (Pintrich, Marx & Boyle, 1993).

Before discussing a social constructivist perspective, however, I want to take a step
back and define my terms. The ideas of "constructivism" and "social constructivism" have
literally taken the science education community by storm in the past decade. However, this
is not without its price. When examining the science education literature from the late
1980's and early 1990's it becomes clear that these terms have come to mean different
things to different people. Thus, before beginning a discussion on the view of science
learning and knowledge and the role of discourse when teaching from a social

constructivist perspective, I want to explain the way in which I am using the terms

42

"constructivism" and "social constructivism" to clarify how I am distinguishing between
the two.

The similarities between constructivism and social constructivism are many while
the distinctions are subtle but important and are generally related to issues of classroom
discourse. I believe that social consu'uctivism can be considered a logical extension of
constructivism. A social constructivist perspective builds on the ideas of constructivism
and expands on them, taking into account the social context of the classroom which
includes an emphasis on classroom discourse. Cobb (1994) holds the position that rather
than being two mutually exclusive or contradictory perspectives, the distinction between
constructivism and social constructivism is primarily a result of which perspective the
observer chooses to take. For example, if a researcher taking a constructivist perspecrive
was conducting research on students' conceptions about changes in matter, he or she might
choose to conduct clinical interviews with individual students. In these interviews the
researcher would elicit students' prior knowledge about change of state and attempt to
understand the ways in which individual students were making sense of instruction.

By conuast, if a researcher taking a social constructivist perspective was conducting
research on students' conceptions about changes in matter, he or she might choose to study
transcripts of class discussions in order to determine the ways in which the discourse in the
classroom learning community was helping or hindering the students, as a class, as they
worked to understand the concept of change of state. This researcher might be interested in
tracing the development of a scientific concept through the discourse across the course of
one or more class discussions and the meaning that the students, as a social group, are
making of the idea.

Similarly, a teacher who is holding a constructivist perspective would choose to
focus his or her attention primarily on the sense-makin g of individual students in the class.
He or she would provide many opportunities for individual students to write about their

changing ideas and the sense that they made of a particular experiment. A teacher holding a

43

constructivist perspective would probably make sure that there were multiple opportunities
to talk with individual students during the lesson. Druin g these conversations the teacher
might probe, challenge, create conceptual conflict, and so on with the individual student.
This teacher is not necessarily denying that the social context influences learning. He or
she is simply paying more attention to individual construction of understanding.

By contrast a teacher who was holding a social constructivist perspective on
teaching and learning would choose to focus primarily on the sense-making within the
larger group - either during class discussion or during small group time. This teacher
would create many opportunities for students to listen to and challenge one another's
thinking and ideas. Small and large group discussions and group written products would
form the cornerstone of the social constructivist teacher's classroom. Because the social
constructivist perspective represents an emphasis on the social context rather than on the
individual, the teacher's attention would tend to be on the group rather than on the
individual. However, this is not to say that individual construction of understanding is
unimportant to the social constructivist teacher -- it is the ultimate goal.

From these examples, an image should emerge in which social constructivism is a
version of constructivism in which the observer (researcher, teacher) pays close attention to
the social context in which learning takes place. What should also be clear fiom these
descriptions is that the distinction between constructivism and social constructivism is not a
clear cut distinction but rather is a question of degree. The more a teacher focuses on
individual cognition, the closer on the continuum he or she is to representing a
constructivist perspective while the more a teacher emphasis the social context of learning,
the closer on the continuum he or she is to representing a social constructivist perspective.
The view of knowledge as being a construct which is social and changing is the same as the
constructivist perspecrive.

A major school of thought on social constructivism derives from the works of

Vygotsky. Knowledge, from a Vygotskian perspective, is a collaborative construction

44

between individuals from which each individual then appropriates the knowledge.
Researchers such as Lemke (1990) and Edwards and Mercer (1987), base their work on a
Vygotskian perspective and represent the knowledge construction process as one in which
the learners are encultmated into a scientific discourse community.

Learning and thinking from this perspective are "situated in physical and social
contexts" rather than occurring solely in an individual's rrrind" (Greeno, 1989 p. 135 as
cited in Marshall, 1989) as the cognitive perspective could be taken to imply. This
drinking led curriculum theorists to draw on the philosophical and epistemological work
done on the social construction of knowledge as a useful way to think about knowledge
development in science and the ways in which students could learn science in school.

Leaming, from this perspective, is a social process of making sense of experience
in terms of extant knowledge (Tobin, Tippins, & Hook, 1992). Thus knowledge, from a
social constructivist perspective, is the product of language-based interactions that take
place in a social environment and is influenced by a person's prior knowledge.

Language, in the form of oral discourse, plays a central role in the social
construction of understanding. Mead (1934) was one of the first to formulate a social
constructivist approach to philosophy and psychology. Language played an important role
in Mead's thinking. Mead believed that meaning is constructed within the act of
communication. This communication is necessary if meaning making is to occur.
According to Bruner ( 1966), it is oral language which allows children to take elements of
their experience and organize them into increasingly more sophisticated thought structru'es,
a necessary condition of learning. Vygotsky (1962) theorized that thought is the
internalization of dialogue and that in order for students to be able to think through new
ideas, they must first talk through the ideas with a "more knowledgeable other".

Researchers with language minority students have found that part of learning to
make sense in science is appropriating a new discourse (Rosebery, Warren, and Conant,

1990). Barnes (1969) argues that the more a learner is able to control his own language

mg:
rsponsi
jrs: 3 vi
ignite

1“,
l L‘Vflygl
I. “UL-HEN

e

t ‘0;’S
“IONA"...

LI tank,

.51.“.

..‘i ‘3
u u ‘

('1'

”we; ‘
a... “10.0

“a
:,H‘ ‘W
Alf-5‘ ‘j‘

I‘ Ran
”r‘m O.

I'ie. ,1
A511 1““:

45

strategies, and the more that he is enabled to think aloud, the more he can take
responsibility for creating explanations, a central goal of science. Talk is much more than
just a window upon mental processes and metacognitive concepts. Conversations are a
significant environment in which such thoughts are formulated, justified, and socialized
(Middleton & Edwards, 1990) and thought itself is enabled by language (W inogard &
Flores, 1980). Thus there is a recursive relationship between learning to Mg; and
"knowing science" (Lemke, 1990; Bruner, 1966; Barnes, 1969; Vygotsky, 1962).

Rosebery, Warren, and Conant (1990) conceptualize scientific literacy itself as
discourse. They believe that science knowledge "is a socially and culturally produced way
of thinking and knowing, with its own ways of talking, reasoning and acting, its own
norms, beliefs, and values, its own institutions, its shared histories and even shared
mythologies". Language is used to think and act as members of a science community.
Thus, from a social constructivist perspective language plays a critical role in learning and
is part of what is learned.

According to Marshall (1989), a "social consu'uctivist conception implies that we
need to focus on the social context within which academic tasks are presented and within
which academic cognitions are constructed". The social context of the classroom
communicates to students what aspects of knowledge are valued, what counts as learning,
the form knowledge takes, and what sorts of learning activities are valued. These are
messages that students receive both explicitly and implicitly through their daily interactions
with the teacher in the classroom as well as in the classroom discourse patterns established
by the teacher. In these ways the social context of the classroom has a major influence on
the form that the science knowledge ultimately takes in an individual's mind.

For example, Roth (1992) describes how her vision of the cognitive science
approach to teaching and learning has been broadened to include the learning community.
Rather than focusing on only the individual cognitive aspects of teaching for conceptual

change in her teaching of fifth-grade science, she explicitly situates these aspects within

46

what could be considered a social constructivist learning community (See figure 2.1).
Thus, although a conceptual change model guides her instructional decisions and actions,
she emphasizes that a community which explicitly values characteristics such as
collaboration, public sharing and revision of ideas, and valuing and respecting others' ideas
plays an integral role in supporting learning.

The social context of the classroom has an important influence on the form the
science knowledge takes in the individual student's mind. For example, if the classroom
setting is one in which the emphasis is on the teacher telling students the scientific "facts",
and students getting work done individually and often in competition with peers, students
will tend to view science knowledge as a series of facts to be memorized and repeated at the
appropriate time to the teacher who is the ultimate authority for knowledge in such a
classroom. However, if the classroom learning community is instead one in which
scientific knowledge is viewed as tentative and open to debate, in which collaboration,
sharing, and public revision of ideas is messed, in which students write and talk with one
another to make sense of scientific phenomenon, students will be more likely to view
scientific knowledge and understanding as being socially constructed by themselves with
the support of their peers in the learning community.

Social constructivism represents science knowledge as being something that people
construct together through language. It also recognizes that all knowledge is social in
natrue. From this perspective teaching involves eliciting different representations of the
knowledge and facilitating discussion and debate about these representations. Learning
involves a willingness to share your thinking and engage in discussion about different

representations of the knowledge.

A

0-»
,4." ma
us“ 5&1-

I' I '
11‘4“?" A
mashed

I'. .
9 lb"- «j.
m» “4*“er

47

118]“? .5.” ..21

A social constructivist classroom with an emphasis on discourse has a markedly
different participation structure5 than a more traditional classroom in which the teacher
didactically presents the scientific "facts". For example in a "traditional" classroom
language is most commonly used as a tool for knowledge display; the students demonstrate
that they know the correct "answer" during class discussion or on a worksheet or test.
Students in such a class are responsible for providing answers in response to questions
posed by the teacher. The teacher, in the role of an authority on classroom knowledge,
then takes on the role of evaluator with responsibility for determining whether the response
given by the student was correct or incorrect. In a classroom such as this the teacher may
ask a lot Of questions. However, the questions asked are not questions designed to
stimulate discussion and debate as the teacher and the students puzzle together over the
ideas. Rather they are questions to which the teacher already knows the answer, often as
given by the teacher's manual. The responsibility of the student is to provide the answer
the teacher seeks (Cazden, 1988; Edwards and Mercer, 1987) as a way to display their
knowledge (Roth, 1986) to the teacher who is in the role of evaluator.

In contrast, in a classroom guided by a social constructivist epistemology,
language could be used as a tool for making ideas explicit by puzzling through these ideas
with Other members of the learning community as part of the sense-making process. For
example, rather than giving finite answers, orally or in writing, the students would puzzle
through many ideas to explore alternative solutions to open-ended questions. And rather
than the teacher being the authority for determining the accuracy of a particular fact, the
members of the learning community would puzzle over many ideas together until a
consensus is reached by the group as to which ideas make sense and will become part of

their newly constructed knowledge. In this way all knowledge is viewed as tentative and

 

5Participation structures are the norms for participating in the classroom learning community including the
roles, rights, and duties of the participants. For a detailed description of the role of the social and academic
participation structure of the classroom see Erickson, 1984 . For purposes of this paper, the ways in which
students participate in science (the participation structure) constitutes the learning community.

48

constantly evolving and the members of the learning community play a role, through their
talk and writing, in shaping the knowledge that is learned in the classroom.

The discourse in a social constructivist classroom is Often dialogic in nature. This
is best exemplified by highly interactive discussion in which the scope, development, and
direction of discourse are shaped by the interaction of what the teacher plans and what the
students say. Classroom discourse is negotiated by the conversants. Student responses
are more sustained, and the discourse is more coherent as both teachers and students speak
in response to each other. In dialogic instruction the teacher questions are authentic (no
pre-specified answers). Dialogic instruction is characterized by uptake, defined as the
teacher's incorporation of a student's answer into a subsequent question (uptake refracts
the student's voice through the teacher’ s) (Tharpe & Gallimore, 1988).

The following brief example was taken from a whole class discussion in Mrs.
RunnerJ s class and illustrates the dialogic pattern in which the teacher refracts the student's

response to her Open-ended question back to the students:

Ms. Lawson: And if you find something you want to share, raise your hand
and Ms. Smith is going to record it on the overhead. Okay...
Reiko?

Reiko: We believe the ice cube on the table takes longer [to melt] because
our ice cube was bigger.

Ms. Lawson: So you are saying that since your ice cube was bigger it took
longer?

Reiko: Yeah

Ms. Lawson: Anybody have any thoughts about that? What do you think about
that? They thought their ice cube was bigger so that would mean it
would take longer. Zane?

Lane: Probably..like..if they were by the window and like..the window

was here and they were right there and then the ice cube was right
here...if they were by the window it would get more heat.

Ms. Lawson: Comments about that? Okay..Manny?

Manny: I have a comment for Zane..um..Reiko says they weren't sitting by
the window

net or'

mind i

”'9 Mai-
all» beer.

”44.3”
5

wuur'

Emma a
‘ L
win.“ h

5

firm or
5:53:00:
«all
“04:21 1:;
Ajax

In:
I .1
V- I... t:

V I a
7) ‘. 5s
N ““13

49

Notice that the questions that Ms.Lawson asks are not ones with a pre-specified
right or wrong answer. Rather she begins by asking the students to share what they
noticed in the experiment. From here she builds on students' responses as they respond to
the original statement and to each other. Although all turns are clearly negotiated through
the teacher (with students raising their hands and waiting for the teacher to call on them),
students are not giving brief answers in response to the teacher's questions but rather are
listening and responding to one anOther.

Although the literature on social constructivism is largely theoretical, it can be
drawn on to create an image of an elementary science classroom. This elementary
classroom would emphasize that knowledge and understandings are constructed through
talk, activity, and interaction around meaningful problems and tools. Students in this
classroom would be taught how to challenge one another's thoughts and beliefs. They
would learn how to be explicit about their meanings so that others could challenge them. In
such a classroom children would need to negotiate conflicts or discrepancies in their beliefs
or evidence and they would need to share and synthesize their knowledge together in order
to achieve understanding (Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1990).

A social constructivist epistemology represents science knowledge as being a social
construct created through language by members of a scientific discourse community. From
this perspective teaching is facilitation of classroom discourse and learning comes about
through participation in classroom discourse.

C . . . E S . l C . . E .

At this point the primary criticism with teaching from a social constructivist
perspective is that, although the ideas are sound in theory, there is not a lot of empirical
evidence to support the assertion that students in a science classroom being taught by a
teacher holding a social constructivist perspeCtive are going to learn, and understand, the

science concepts any better or in different ways than with a constructivist approach. One

50

reason for the lack of empirical evidence is that there are not a great deal of science
classrooms where the teaching is undergirded by a social constructivist perspective. Thus,
there are no concrete images for the teacher who is trying to put the theoretical ideas into
practice.

Another potential problem with teaching from a social constructivist perspective is
the possible interepretation that since all knowledge is socially constructed, then the
knowlege that students construct with their peers in science class is appropriate and valid
knowledge regardless of whether it agrees with the canons of science. This "anything
goes" relativism is very sirniliar to what happened in the inquiry-based classroom where the
teacher held all ideas as equally valid if the students had "discovered" them for themselves
and did not push or challenge the student.

5 E l E' . S . E II. . l E .

The four perspectives on science teaching and learning —-a didactic perspective, an
inquiry perspective, constructivism/conceptual change, and social constructivism --all
represent different perspectives on the role of discourse in learning.

Didactic teaching represents science knowledge as being composed of facts and
definitions which have been "discovered" by scientists and defined by the teacher and the
text. From this perspective teaching is the transmission of the fact and learning is the
passive reception of these facts.

The discourse reflects this perspective. The teacher does most of the talking and
developing of scientific explanations while the students listen. When the students are asked
a question, it is typically a "close-ended" question to which there is a specific answer the
teacher is seeking. In this manner the discourse generally follows the traditional Initiation-
Response-Evaluation (IRE) format often seen in elementary classrooms. Rarely, if ever, do
the :students question one another or the teacher on anything other than procedural

information.

f‘ "l
,rtt

Mi”:
Lab-be

a ml

is bk
1

{9.9-

bibs.

I .
Nth...
In!

t.
”1,.

nu,

vs»-

NA

It‘l“
.

.p"

"it.

e
.A

i "
_‘.‘

51

Inquiry teaching represents science knowledge as being composed of ideas and/or
processes which can be "discovered" by the students through active manipulation of the
materials under study. From this perspective teaching is the facilitation of inquiry and
support of the invention of scientific conceptions. Learning from this perspective is
exploration and discovery of ideas.

In this classroom the students do a great deal of the talking. The teacher encourages
them to share data and ideas and it was intended that he or she would provide information
which would help the students "invent" the scientific conception. However, in practice,
this information providing often did not happen and the discourse became one of open
sharing of ideas and "stories" with not challenge of these conceptions.

A constructivist/conceptual change approach represents science knowledge as being
composed of ideas constructed by individuals which are consistent with the canons of
science. Often these ideas are counter-intuitive and are constructed only after students more
naive or non-scientific conceptions have been challenged and the scientific conception has
been presented as an intelligible, plausible, and fruitful alternative to their naive conception.
From this perspective teaching involves eliciting and challenging students' conceptions and
providing intelligible alternatives which they help the student see as plausible and fruitful.

The discourse in this classroom involves students sharing their everyday
conceptions as in the inquiry classroom. However, in the conceptual change classroom the
discourse resembles a wanting between the teacher and the student to a greater extent
than in the inquiry approach. There is more coaching of cognitive processing by the
teacher. In addition to eliciting students' naive conceptions the teacher also challenges
students' conceptions and provides instances and situations where the students'
conceptions do not work for them

A social constructivist perspective represents science knowledge as being a social

construct which is created through language by members of a scientific discourse

 

[fir

r 3

J.

52

community. From this perspective science is discourse and scientific literacy is achieved
by being able to control and use the discourse to explain everyday phenomenon.

The discourse in a social constructivist class also looks like a conversation;
however, it is not just a conversation between the teacher and one student, rather it is a
conversation among the group which includes the teacher and all the students. Students
listen to, and question, not only the teacher but also each other's thinking and ideas as they
struggle to make sense of the scientific phenomenon under study. One role of the teacher is
to support the students as they learn to appropriate this discourse by teaching specific ways
of talking in science, such as ways to agree and disagree. In this way the discourse is part
of what is learned.

D' ' i n

One way to conceptualize scientific literacy is as Discourse (Rosebery, Warren and
Conant, 1990; Gee, 1989; Gee, 1995). From this social constructivist perspective, in
which all learning is considered a social and cultural process (Lemke, 1990), the discourse
is a central part of what is learned in science. It is only once students have learned the
discourse that they are able to control and use it to describe, explain, predict, and design
real world objects, systems, and phenomena, which are the activities in which scientifically
literate adults engage (AAAS, 1989). Which is the ultimate goal of science education
(MEGOSE, 1994).

Discourse in science class can take many forms. For example, the classroom
discourse could be limited to the students giving short information-based responses to
"known answer" questions asked by the teacher. Alternatively, the discourse in science
could take the form of an open-ended discussion in which students share their thinking and
ideas in response to situations posed by the teacher. It follows that the form of the
classroom discourse will influence what students learn about both science content and the
nature of science. For example, students may learn that science consists of facts and

information and has little to do with the everyday world. Therefore, they learn a number of

53

disconnected lists and facts and isolated pieces of information. Or students may learn that
the purpose of science is to make sense of everyday phenomenon by puzzling through
ideas with teacher and peers. From this perspective they may view all science as consisting
of connected and related ideas with no artificial separation of the disciplines as they learn to
use evidence to support assertions about real world phenomena.

Because discourse does influence both the science content learned and the nature of
that learning, one way to analyze science education historically is to consider the discourse
engaged in by the participants -although discourse analysis was not the focus of this
research historically. This look at the approaches to elementary science over the last forty
years reveals a progression that can be seen as beginning with the teacher as the controller
of the discourse, shifting to more student control of the discourse, and then moving to the
idea of the classroom discourse as a conversation first between the teacher and a single
student and eventually between all members of a classroom learning community. In this
way the discourse and learning in science class is becoming more consistent with the view
of scientific literacy described in documents such as Science for All Americans (AAAS,
1989) and with a social constructivist view of teaching and learning.

One of the criticisms of teaching using a social constructivist perspective is that it is
still highly theoretical. Because social constructivism is a theory of learning which informs
a pedagogical approach as opposed to a strict pedagogical or curricular approach, there is
not a concrete set of "steps" or guiding principles or a teacher's manual which teachers who
wish to teach from this perspective can use.

The best way to support teachers who wish to teach science from a social
constructivist perspective is to provide them with images of what a social constructivist
science classroom might look like. Currently, however, as described in the literature

review, there are many images of what teaching from a social constructivist perspective
timing; look like but scant images of what it does look like. For example, it is clear that

teachers who are holding a social constructivist perspective do not lecture didactically or

54

merely facilitate experimentation, and they do not engage in an Inflation-Response-
Evaluation (I-R-E) mode of discourse. However, because there are not many classrooms
in which the teaching is undergirded by a social constructivist perspective, there are far less
descriptions of what such a teacher might do. If the role of the teacher is not that of
providing information or serving strictly as a facilator then what is the role of the teacher?
What form would the discourse take? If the discourse does not follow the I-R-E pattern
what pattern does it follow? In other words, what is the teacher in a social constructivist
classroom saying and doing?

In addition to the lack of concrete images needed to support a teacher wishing to
teach from a social constructivist perspective, there is limited empirical evidence to support
the theoretical claims that the discourse in a social constructivist classroom supports student
learning of science concepts in more meaningful ways than didactic, inquiry, or even
conceptual change teaching. This lack of compelling evidence may serve to discourage
teachers from being willing to engage in teaching from a social constructivist perspective,
especially given the lack of concrete images to support them in this endeavor. Thus, in
addition to concrete images of a classroom in which the teaching is undergirded by a social
constructivist perspective, there is a need for compelling evidence that the discourse in a
social constructivist classroom is going to promote student understanding of science
concepts in a more powerful way than current teaching perspectives.

Scientific literacy, in which science is conceived of as Discourse, was a framework
that the teachers in this study used for their planning and teaching. The result was a
classroom in which the discourse pattern was consistent with the discourse described in the
literature on social constructivism. This study examines and describes the discourse seen
in that classroom, comparing it to the discourse patterns seen with the different perspectives
analyzed for this literature review. In this way this study provides one concrete image of a

classroom in which the teaching is undergirded by a social constructivist perspective.

55

However, unlike many of the existing studies of discourse in science, which have
focused almost exclusively on describing the discourse, (Lemke, 1990; Anderson, Roth,
and Smith, 1988; Rosebury, Warren, and Conant, 1990), this study also examines the
relationship between the discourse and science content learning and the extent to which the
discourse helps, or hinders, science content learning. In this way this study also provides
empirical evidence that teaching from a social constructivist perspective helps some
students develop a powerful understanding of science concepts such that they can use the
concepts to make sense of everyday phenomenon.

In these ways this study brings together the research done on social constructivism,
classroom discourse, discourse in science, and science content learning, and extends them
to provide an image of a classroom in which science is Discourse and the planning and
teaching are undergirded by a social constructivist perspective, and examines the nature of

the science content learned in such a setting.

 

Chapter Three
METHODS AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

W

This study was a qualitative, observational study of a third grade science class over
the course of one teaching unit on "Changes in Matter". According to Erickson (1988),
qualitative, or qualitative, research is most appropriate when the researcher wants to know
more about what is happening in a particular case rather than across a number of places.
Interpretive field work is well suited when answering questions such as 1) What is
happening, specifically, in social action that takes place in this particular setting?, and 2)
What do these actions mean to the actors involved in them at the moment the actions took
place? (Erickson, Florio, and Buschman, 1980). I was interested in what was happening
in this particular setting, because the teachers were making an explicit attempt to support
their students in using oral discourse as a tool for working with their peers to construct
their understanding of science.

The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the ways in which the
students and teachers participated in the discourse in science class in order to uncover and
explain the relationship between the classroom discourse and science content learning over
the course of one instructional unit of study. Issues explored included: (1) the nature of
the students' talk in science class, (2) the norms for participation in the talk in science class,
(3) the nature of the science knowledge found in the talk , 4) individual student's science

knowledge construction and (5) the relationship among and between these four factors.
Although there is a growing body of research on discourse in science, most of this

research focuses on describing the patterns of talk in science (c.f. Lemke 1990; Roth,

56

7.-

V!

57

Anderson, and Smith, 1987; Yerrick, 1994; Hazelwood and Roth, 1992; Peasley, 1992) or
on developing curriculum and pedagogy to support students in learning or "appropriating"
the discourse of science (c.f. Rosebery, Warren, and Conant, 1990; Smith, 1995; Duschl
and Petasis, 1995; Gee 1994). To date there have been few studies which have focused
specifically on the extent to which the classroom discourse helps or hinders student
learning of science content when learning the discourse of science is an integral part of the
curriculum and teaching. This study, which provides a qualitative description of an
elementary science learning community in which science is discourse (Gee, 1989), was
designed to provide this missing data on the extent to which the discourse helped or
hindered two students' science content learning.

This chapter begins with the research questions. I then give a rationale for using
qualitative research as a method. Following this is a description of the study participants, a
summary of the data collected and the data collection procedures, and a description of the
approach to data analysis that I used. The chapter concludes with a summary of the data
collection and analysis procedures.

Bessemhflmtiohs

The questions about classroom discourse and science learning which guided this

study were:

In an elementary science classroom in which the teacher is attempting to support
student construction of knowledge socially through the use of oral discourse:

a. What science knowledge do the students in this science class construct?

b. What is the nature of the students’ talk in science class? What are the implicit
and explicit rules for discourse in science?

c. What is the participation structure in this classroom (including the rights, roles,
duties, and responsibilities of the participants)?

d. What is the relationship between the students' science learning and their
participation in the classroom discourse?

L)

58

B'lfill'Ql"Bl

I chose qualitative research as a method because I wanted to look closely at the
actions that took place in this classroom and the meanings of these actions to the
participants. Science is not traditionally taught with an emphasis on discourse. Students in
a traditional science classroom are not necessarily encouraged to listen to and challenge the
ideas of their peers Most of the discourse in science class is monologic in nature with the
teacher talking and the students listening (Tharpe and Gallimore, 1988). Furthermore,
rather than being represented as a set of ideas to be questioned and puzzled over, science is
traditionally represented as being composed of discrete facts to be "leamed" -- often
through memorization -- and repeated on a test or to the teacher at an appropriate time.
Students are often exposed to large numbers of facts and vocabulary words, tested for
recall, and moved on to the next topic (Anderson and Smith, 1984; Anderson and Roth,
1988).

I was curious about the ways the children in this non-traditional science class would
participate in the class discussion, and where and how the science content would appear in
the talk. I was also curious about the impact of the discourse on student learning of science
content and the ways in which different students engaged in the discourse and thus in the
science content learning. Interpretive research was one way of getting at all three of these
- the nature of the talk in science, the students' perceptions of their talk in science, and the
relationship of the talk to science learning.

My goal was to look for patterns of participation and learning that could be
connected to the discourse and the classroom learning community in this setting. The
students in this class are unique individuals. There will never be another class exactly like
this one. Therefore, events in this classroom cannot be used to predict events in other
classrooms. No other classroom is going to have the same composition of students with
the same personal and academic histories. However, it is possible to search for and

identify general patterns of interaction among the participants. If these patterns are shown

59

to be productive in enabling the students to make sense of the science content in some
unique or sophisticated ways, a description of the classroom context and the interaction
patterns that were established could be established by other teachers in other classrooms. A
description of productive patterns of interaction around science content could help other
teachers consider ways they might interact with their students as they are making sense of
the science content. This study could also serve as a call for other researchers to begin to
examine the relationship between different forms of classroom talk and science content
learning.

SI .E. E . Q l' . B 1

One characteristic of field work is that although the researcher identifies a
conceptual focus in advance, this conceptual focus sometimes shifts and changes in
response to specific events occurring in the field (Erickson, 1986). Unlike a pure
quantitative study, qualitative research does not seek to control variables. Thus, it is
impossible to predict with total accuracy exactly what is going to happen in the setting. In
addition, data analysis and data collection become closely intertwined as data collection
proceeds (McMahon, 1992). The collected data is analyzed immediately upon leaving the
field by listening to tapes, expanding field n0tes, and writing vignettes. This analysis then
guides decisions regarding further data collection; this data collection then informs the
ongoing analysis, and so on. For this reason the researcher must occasionally shift her
focus in response to events in the field.

This study was originally intended to be a study of the role of talking-to-learn and
writing-to-learn in science. However, although there was an intended oral and written
literacy focus during science in this classroom, the emphasis shifted early in the unit
teaching to a predominant focus on oral discourse and the role of oral discourse in

supporting learning in science. To this end many class discussions were held in which the
students were encouraged to think through their ideas orally and were implicitly and

explicitly taught a discourse pattern of making assertions supported by evidence.

60

By contrast, most of the writing that took place during science was in the form of
data recording and procedure writing. During the actual unit there was limited opportunity
for the students to write about their thinking and ideas about the phenomena under study.
As a result of this shift in emphasis in the teaching, the focus of this research also shifted
from an intended focus on written discourse and the role of writing-to-learn science, to a
nearly exclusive focus on oral discourse and the role of classroom talk in learning science.
I] S I E . .

The third grade team room at Atlantis Elementary was an unusual setting, created
primarily by the two lead teachers -— Mrs. Runner and Ms. Lawson -- who had decided to
work together as they engaged in professional development activities. The class was
actually a double class--the wall between the two classrooms had been knocked out-- which
functioned as a single learning community with two teachers. There were 42 students in
the class, evenly distributed between the girls and the boys. Mrs. Runner and Ms. Lawson
collaboratively planned and taught all 42 students throughout the day except during
mathematics time. At this time there was an accordion divider that was drawn between the
rooms to separate the two groups of students.

Many of the students in this class were foreign students whose parents were
graduate students at the adjacent Midwestem University. The majority of these students
were from a country other than the United States, spoke at least one language other than
English as their first language, and would return to their homeland in 3-6 years.

Of the 42 students in the double class I observed, five were English as a Second
language (ESL) students. Although all five of these students were new to the country the
previous fall (6 months earlier), they were very much a part of life in this classroom ~-
participating in all class activities and playing with the other children at recess time. Many
other students in this class had participated in the ESL program at some previous time but

were proficient enough in the English language that they no longer participated in this

program.

61

From this class of 42 students I selected two target students at the end of the second
week of observation with the help of Mrs. Runner. I decided to follow the science leamin g
and talk of an Indian girl who Mrs. Runner considered to be very bright and articulate
about the role of discourse in her learning. The girl, Padma, is the focus of one of the case
stories in this dissertation. A second target student was originally selected to provide a
contrast to Padma, however because this target student was a special education student he
was not in the classroom during many of the science discussions. Additionally, over the
course of the unit a another boy emerged as being intriguing because of the ways in which
his learning and discourse contrasted with Padma's learning and discourse. This boy,
Casey, is the focus of the other case story in this dissertation.
WW

To understand the ways in which the students participated in the talk and the sense
they made of the science content through their talk, I collected multiple types of data
including 1) field notes, 2) audio and video taped class discussions, 3) audio and video
taped teacher-led small group discussions, 4) informal discussions with the teachers about
their perceptions of the ongoing class discussion, 5) copies of the teachers' unit plan and
daily plans, 6) three formal interviews with one of the target students, 7) student
documents.

The remainder of this chapter outlines the data collected in greater detail and
describes the analysis process I followed
[2] . I E I. E. 1 l I!

I observed science during most of the days it was taught beginning in late February
and continuing through a school-wide science conference held on April 2-3. The timeline

in Figure 3.1 summarizes the unit teaching and data collection time frame.

62

Figure 3.1
"Changes in Matter Unit "Timeline

 

 

 

 

3129-3114 3114-412 412-413
t N— .
2’13 Whole Class Discussions Small Teaching Groups Selene: 6/3
I 279 Small group Icnvities Activities done With a partner Conference 4’ 3 I
. 7 I . |
'Unrt Unit Unit Final
(mun) pm Pm (written)

Although there was a block of time allotted to science Monday through Thursday,
there were many scheduling conflicts due to an assembly or other interruption during the
day as is typical in many elementary schools. Further complicating the schedule were the
student teaching requirements of Ms. Smith who had to teach a science unit that she had
created in her coursework at Midwestern University. To make up for the days on which
there was a schedule conflict or Ms. Smith was teaching, there were days on which science
lasted
longer than the scheduled forty minutes. However, on average, science was taught two

hours per week generally across 2-3 days for a total of twelve science lessons. Each

observation was audio- and videotaped.

1h
conflicts 1
then able a
science a t.
tquix'alcnt

Wt
obscn’cd f
tea he in
able to see

13“..
ku‘ffld)’

.i‘y-h '
‘v‘q‘; '5‘”

has}

I“ '1
$1131

63

There were several days I was unable to attend science class because of schedule
conflicts. On those days a video camera recorded the interactions of the participants. I was
then able to observe and take field notes from the videotapes. Altogether I observed
science a total of 12 days with many of these days consisting of a larger time block, the
equivalent of 2-3 lessons.

Whole class discussions conducted by Ms. Lawson and Mrs. Runner were
observed from February 29 to March 14. During these observations I sat off to the side
near the front of the room at a round table and took field notes. From this position I was
able to see the students from much the same physical perspective as the teacher’ s.
Frequently the teacher who was not the lead teacher for the lesson sat at the table with me,
occasionally interjecting comments into the lesson and also commenting to me --telling me
something about a particular student or comment that she found interesting. I included
these comments as data in my fieldnotes.

I also observed the students as they worked on small group activities -- small
group experiments were a part of the majority for the lessons during the period from
February 29-March 14. Unfortunately, the groups were fluid and the students were
assigned by the teacher to different groups for each activity. Rarely were the same group
of students together for more than one activity. At this point in the unit Casey -- who is the
subject of a case later in this dissertation -- had not yet emerged as a target student.
Therefore, my observations were exclusively on whichever group Padma, who was one of
my original target students, was assigned to on each day. Padma and Casey were never in
the same small group during this period

Beginning on March 15 the class was divided into four small, teacher-led,
discussion groups with 10-11 students and 1 teacher per group. Padma was a member of
Mrs. Runner's small group. Casey was also a student in Mrs. Runner's group, and it was
during this time period that he began to emerge as a potential case. Therefore, from March

15-April 3 I observed only Mrs. Runner and her group of 10 students. Although these

were sum
the large ,

'1
I

Q
( 'D

shor

‘3

.
U

D
put of, :1
map I u
gasp. A
look den
City we
on their ;
1.1% \‘t,‘ a
record in:
i‘ritftszsc
War

3.9, -
H t ‘ M‘.‘
' .V

64

were smaller groups, the discourse patterns and ways of interaction were the same as with
the large group. The groups were still teacher led, and most discourse was negotiated
through the teacher as it had been in the whole class discussions. Figure 3.1 on the next
page shows a time line of the enacted unit.

During the small teaching group observations I sat at a student desk near, but not
part of, the group of students. Because both Casey and Padma were in the same small
group I was able to focus my observations on their participation and interactions in the
group. As with the whole class observations, I audio— and videotaped all interactions and
took detailed field notes during the small group discussions. Because b0th Padma and
Casey were in Mrs. Runner's group, I was able to focus my observations and field notes
on their participation and interactions in the group. Although my focus was on recording
the verbal and non-verbal communications of Padma and Casey, I was able to observe and
record information about the other participants in the group as well. In particularI was
interested in the extent to which Casey and Padma interacted with members of the learning
community other than the teacher, and the nature of those interactions.

8 E] . I 1'

Following each class I supplemented my field notes by listening to the audiotape
and writing vignettes about different moments in the lesson that were intriguing to me at the
time. Typically these were instances in which Padma and/or Casey participated a great deal
in the discussion, or were times when the students in general seemed particularly engaged
in the discussion and were listening to one another and agreeing or disagreeing and
generally building on each other" 5 ideas in the way that the teacher intended. I also wrote
vignettes about instances which were marked because they were the opposite of this.
Equally intriguing were the days in which Padma and/or Casey appeared to be disengaged
from this lesson - possibly never volunteering or refusing to participate when called upon.

I was particularly interested in the events that proceeded and may have precipitated either of

65

these two instances - intense student engagement in the discourse and apparent lack of
engagement in the discourse.

Writing the vignettes was primarily a tool for my personal reflections on my
observations. One way that I make sense of anything is to puzzle through it in writing.

Just as writing can help a student make sense of the science content, writing helped me
make sense of my observations. Often the act of writing itself helped me notice something
I hadn't noticed before or provided new insight or anOther way of looking at an interaction
that had not occurred to me at the time I was observing.

These reflective vignettes provided an opportunity for me to puzzle through and
think further about my observations. Furthermore, they provided a permanent record of
my perceptions of the role of discourse in the science class at nearly the same time I was
observing it. It was through the writing of these vignettes that the largely invisible Casey
emerged as a fascinating participant in the learning community. However, even this was a
gradual process. I didn't initially realize how much Casey was capturing my attention until
I began to reread the vignettes several weeks into the Changes in Matter unit and noticed
that Casey had began to play a greater and greater role in my reflections on my
observations. Without realizing it 1 had begun to write increasingly more about his
participation in the discussion, although he was not intended as a target student up until this
point. It was at this point «around March 14» that I began to pay more attention to
Casey's contributions in class discussion.

...a” .ll '-. [$5010. It' ’-..i ...H 00‘ I i' '11-.“ i"-. ..t

Each day I visited the classroom I had a conversation with at least one of the
teachers about their plans for the day and the purpose of the lesson. These conversations
were not audio- or videotaped; however, I took extensive notes during them. On my first
visit Mrs. Runner provided me with the written materials that they had done during the

initial planning of the unit. These plans included several concept maps as they tried to

66

identify the specific content they would teach. These maps, copies of which are in
Appendix A, helped me identify the intended curriculum prior to giving the administration
of the pre-assessment. I was then able to use these maps as contextual background They
helped me understand what the teachers had originally intended to teach and the ways in
which this originally intended curriculum had been modified in response to the pre-
assessment data. The teachers also provided me with copies of their daily lesson plans
before each lesson. Samples of these plans for selected lessons described in this
dissertation are also included in Appendix A. The informal conversations and the copies of
the plans provided me with a context for watching the lesson and also served as a record
from which I later constructed an outline of the planned curriculum for the unit (this outline
appears at the end of Chapter 4). Having the plans in advance also allowed me to make note
of times when the teacher pursued a line of thinking that was not part of the original plan
but rather was one that the students had introduced or the teacher had modified based on an
earlier class discussion.
Smdenflntem’m

Interpretive research is about the "meaning of actions to the participants" (Erickson,
1986). Therefore, it was important to talk to the students in order to get a sense of their
perceptions of the talk and writing that was going on during science and literacy time.
Interviews also provided information about the sense that the students were making of the
science content and what connections they were making. Padma, who was the original
target student, was interviewed three times during the unit. These interviews were
conducted on the last day the whole class group discussions were held (March 14), the last
day the teacher-led group discussions were conducted (March 29), and the last week of the
school year (June 3). Protocols for these interviews can be found in Appendix B.

During the first and last interviews Padma was probed about her understanding of

temperature and temperature measurement. In all three interviews she was questioned

(’3

K)

‘1

(..Iw

"l l

67

about the role of writing and talking through ideas in her learning of science. During these
interviews she was asked to point to specific entries in her science notebook to illustrate her
comments.

The third interview, unlike the first two interviews, also involved a group problem
solving task which Padma worked on with a partner. The way in which Padma interacted
with her partner during this task gave many insights into the way in which she viewed
herself, her role, and her talk in science class. All interviews were audiotaped and
transcribed.

W5

Although I gradually began to become interested in Casey, he captured my attention
very subtly and did not emerge as a target student until I had completed data collection and
was fully into data analysis. For this reason, I do not have any of Casey's written
documents other than his unit pre- and post-test. Therefore, the documents described in
this section are primarily those of Padma, the other target student.

Group Written Laboratory Reports

I collected and copied all of Padma's group and individual writing. For each small
group or activity conducted, the students completed "laboratory reports" which required
them to draw or describe what they observed and to draw conclusions based on their
observations. They were also asked to support the conclusions with evidence. Although
these were group written products, Padma was often the "reporter" responsible for writing
the report. Copies of selected laboratory reports are found in Appendix C.

Padma's Science Notebook Entries

The individual writing was done in a science notebook and was initially much less

structured than the group writing. I copied Padma's notebook from the beginning of the

year so that changes in her writing across the school year could be considered.

68

Pre- and Post- U nit Science Assessment
As part of the Changes in Matter unit the students were given a written pre- and

post—assessment instrument in order to determine changes in thinking about the science
concepts over the course of the unit. These assessment instruments were oriented toward
conceptual understanding of the unit concepts and involved a series of "real world"
situations or problems. The instruments were specifically designed to examine conceptual
change across the unit. Every student in this class took the pre- and post-assessment.
Copies were made of all students pre- and post-assessments. This provided important class
data about changes in student thinking. Copies of the pre- and post-assessment
instruments are found in Appendix D.
Data Analysis: The Search for Patterns

m .9“ 5h- 'uho- 0.: too -, r - :c n... “.D .J or

From the twelve science lessons observed five whole class and five small group
discussions were selected as the focus of the final data analysis. Field note data and the
reflective vignettes were used to make the decisions about which lessons, and portions of
lessons, to analyze. The other two lessons not included in the final data analysis were
predominantly small group experiments which were conducted early in the unit teaching.
Although the small group work with Padma was documented and includes some interesting
interactions between Padma and her male group members, analysis of the collaborative
groupwork taking place during these lessons was beyond the scope and focus of this
dissertation.

Furthermore, I narrowed down the remaining twelve lessons by focusing only on
the science content discussions. I did not analyze the procedural directions which
sometimes took up to 15 minutes at the start and end of science and literacy time,
particularly as the preparations for the school science conference intensified. Neither did I
analyze time spent doing science seat work or writing in the science journals. Again, while

these observations are interesting, they are beyond the focus of this dissertation. The

69

remaining discussions were generally ones in which the students were explicitly being
supported in using their talk as a tool for learning science. For example, as will be
illustrated in the next chapters, the teacher was teaching them how to agree and disagree
with one another and was helping them learn to listen and respond to one another‘ 5 ideas.

The first step I took in data analysis was to transcribe these five whole group and
five teacher-led small group discussions during science and literacy time. These
discussions lasted anywhere from 20 minutes to two hours. As I transcribed each lesson I
kept a running inventory of things that I noticed This first pass was a fairly broad cut on
the data. Generally the things I noted were "marked incidents" which stood out because
they were qualitatively different in some way than what had been taking place in the lesson.
Marked incidents, for example, were times when the flow or tenor of the discussion
noticeably changed- such as a shift from a discussion in which the students were sharing
their thinking and ideas to a more didactic lecttue with the teacher providing information,
or times when a student participated in a way that seemed different from the participation
of other students. These marked incidents were of interest to me because of the effect that
they might have on students' perceptions of the learning community and on their science
learning. For example, what factors led up the teacher suddenly shifting to a "lecture
mode"? What might this shift communicate to the students about the nature of science and
science learning? Why does a given student respond differently than other students during
class discussion and to what extent, and in what ways, does this different participation
structure affect his learning?

Once identified, these marked incidents were then returned to for closer analysis. I
watched the lesson videotape specifically for these segments to double check the transcript,
confirm the identities of the participants, and to watch for any body language such as hand
raising, position relative to the teacher, and so on. I also read through my comments about

these incidents in the field notes.

70

In addition to identifying marked incidents I used the lesson transcripts to identify
places in which the two target students, Casey and Padma, participated in the discussion.
These instances were carefully studied looking at the content of the talk, how and when
they got the speaking floor, and the nature of the interactions. Some of the questions I was
considering as I examined the transcript were: What sort of teacher or student moves
elicited a bid for the floor from one of them? Did they agree or disagree with ideas put on
the floor by their peers? By what mechanism did they receive the speaking floor ? Were
they nominated by the teacher or were they self nominated?

Videotape was used to supplement the lesson transcript. One pattern that was
noticed in the transcript was that Padma rarely participated verbally in the lesson. The
videotape provided information such as whether she was bidding for the speaking floor and
simply not receiving it, whether she appeared to be engaged in the discussion, or if she was
even present in class on a regular basis. Videotape data also revealed the pattern of
Padma's participation with respect to what type of questions elicited a bid for the speaking
floor and who had to ask the questions in order for Padma to attempt to gain the speaking
floor. Videotape was used in this manner for Casey as well. In his case particular attention
was paid to when and how he bid for the speaking floor and how often he actually got the
floor.

The questions on the written post-assessment were all constructed response items
in which the students were given a situation such as, "What do you think the temperature of
a cold glass of water from the drinking fountain is? Explain why you think it is this
temperature." The majority of the situations were repeated in exactly the same form on
both the pre- and post-assessment so that a comparison could be made pre- and post-unit.
However, there was one problem on the pre-assessment which involved content not
covered over the course of the unit. This question was removed from the post-assessment

and replaced with a new question which involved the concepts studied in the unit.

J

(I)

(I!

In“

r..-

‘17

kfi

71

For each consuucted response item on the assessment instruments I developed a
multi- point scoring rubric (see Appendix E). I then used the rubric to score the pre- and
post-assessment instruments of each student in the class. I determined the total number of
points possible on the assessment and calculated each student's pre- and post-assessment
score as a percent of the total possible points. I also calculated percent gain scores for
those items which were the same on the pre- and post-assessment and descriptive statistics
were used to describe and determine the significance of these gain scores.

This data was used to determine whether the students in the class developed a
conceptual understanding of the unit concepts and also to determine if Padma and Casey
were typical and representative of the students in the class.

I . E l .

I only had interview data on Padma. Transcripts were made of the three interviews
which focused on her understanding of the science content, her perceptions of the role of
talk in her learning, and her perceptions of her role in the learning community. Transcripts
were coded according to these three categories. I was then able to compare Padma's verbal
explanations of the science concepts in the unit with her written responses on the post-
assessment, which were about the same concepts. This triangulation of the data helped
ensure that problems with the writing process weren't hindering her from expressing her
understanding of the science concepts. I compared Padma's descriptions of the role of talk
in her learning and her description of her role in the learning community with transcript
segments showing her verbal participation in the whole class and teacher-led small group
discussion. I was particularly interested in the times when her perceptions and her
participation did not seem to agree.

W

This chapter began with a statement of the four research questions which guided

this study and a rationale for the use of qualitative research. I included a description of the

participants in the setting, the data collected, and the methods of data analysis. In the next

72

three chapters I will closely examine the classroom context, describe one whole class
discussion, and tell the stories of two students perceptions of, and participation in, the
learning community and the ways in which these perceptions and ways of participating

helped and/or hindered their science learning.

Chapter 4

BECOMING FAMILIAR WITH ONE SOCIAL CONTEXT IN WHICH
STUDENTS CONSTRUCT SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE

I l . I Q . E l C]

Atlantis Elementary School was not a typical elementary school, and the science
unit studied for this dissertation was not conducted as a traditional elementary science unit.
This chapter will introduce you to the school, the classroom, the participants in the learning
community, and the science unit itself.

51 C 5"filll ['5']:

Although a visitor's first impression of Atlantis1 Elementary is one of extreme
diversity with many races and cultures represented, Atlantis is not a typical heterogeneous
elementary school. In order to understand the interactions that take place in this classroom,
the unusual social context needs to be described and attended to because some traditional
notions of race and privilege are turned on end in this setting. In addition some traditional
norms for what it means to do school science are challenged in this unusual setting.

First I begin with a general description of the school, the surrounding
environment, its student population, and its involvement with Midwestern University as a
Professional Development School. This is followed by a description of the classroom, the
teachers, and the students who participated in this study, and concludes with a description

0f the "Changes in Matter" science and literacy unit that was studied late February to early

April for this dissertation.

\

lees of the school, the teachers, and the students are pseudonyms

73

74

WNW

Atlantis Elementary is located in the center of a large apartment complex on the
western edge of the campus of a large midwestem university with a student population of
approximately 55, 000. It is a single story, sprawling, U-shaped red brick structure which
has recently been renovated to add a new wing to the school to house the lower elementary
classrooms (K-2). There is a playground in the center of the "U" behind the school and all
classrooms on the inside of the building open directly onto this playground via a coat room
which is between every two classrooms. The classrooms on the outer perimeter of the
building have this same coat room which opens to the outside, but they have to go around
the building to the playground. The classroom studied is on the inside of the building and
the playground is visible from the classroom windows.

Less than 300 students attend Atlantis, which is a true neighborhood school. All
of its students live in the campus apartments and walk to school. No students are bussed in
from nearby suburbs. The surrounding apartment complex has the traditional "married
housing" look of any midwestem university campus, although perhaps on a slightly larger
scale. There is a maze of red-brick, two story buildings with each apartment opening
directly to the outside. There is evidence of children everywhere. Sitting in front of many
of the apartments are Little Tykes® slides and climbing toys. There is playground
equipment for every cluster of buildings. On nice spring days there are often mothers and a
few fathers out pushing small children in strollers or playing with pre-schoolers on the
playground equipment. Although the students at Atlantis all live in these identical-looking
apartments, in reality their "homes" are strikingly diverse. The parents of these students
are all students themselves (or the spouses of students) at Midwestem University, and they
come from all over the world - from Chicago, to Russia, to the Middle East, to study at
Midwestern University.

Some of the parents are non-traditional American undergraduate students. Often

these are single-parent homes where the parent is both attending college full time and also

1'!

e
.y“

75

working either full or part time. The children of these parents, however, appear to be in the
minority.

Many of the parents of students at Atlantis are foreign graduate students at the
university. The majority of these parents come are from countries other than the United
States, speak at least one language other than English as their first language, and will
return to their homeland in 3-6 years. The home life of these Atlantis students is very
different than that of their American peers. The customs of their homeland are still
celebrated in the home and, in some cases, one parent is a full-time parent while the other is
a full-time student. This was evident, for example, when a student brought in a quilt that
her mother had recently completed. Mika shared the quilt with the class and told the story
of quiltmaking in Indonesia .

Most of these foreign, graduate student parents, unlike the parents who are
American non-traditional undergraduates, are attending Midwestem University on some
form of fellowship or scholarship and do not hold jobs other than their graduate
assistantships. Often these parents are under tremendous pressure (imposed either by
themselves or by a number of external factors) to finish their schooling in a timely manner
so that they might return to their own countries.

The children of these foreign graduate students have often had many experiences
unknown to their American counterparts. Not only have they typically travelled extensively
in their homelands, but they have often travelled throughout the United States with their
parents on school vacations and en route to the university. In contrast, many of the
American students I spoke with had never been out of the Midwest, or even their home
state.

Because of the large number of students at Atlantis who do not speak English as
their first language, there is a large English as a Second Language (ESL) program at the
school. Of the 42 students in the two classes I observed, five were ESL students.

Although all five of these students were new to the country the previous fall (6 months

76

earlier) they were very much a part of life in this classroom, participating in all class
activities and playing with the other children at recess time. The other children in the class
appeared very protective of their peers who were still struggling with the language, perhaps
remembering their own struggles, and it was not unusual to see a student helping one of the
ESL students understand what was taking place in the class or what was expected of them
on an assignment.

Atlantis Elementary thrives on its diversity and the celebration of this diversity is
evident from the moment you enter the school. There are bulletin boards in the hallways
featuring world globes and announcing that Atlantis celebrates the diversity of its students.
Immediately inside the front door is a wall on which the names of students who have read a
certain number of books are written on stars. The majority of these names are not Anglo-
sounding, but rather are a collection of ethnically diverse names such as Padma,
Mohammed, and Chen. Student art work in the style of different countries hangs
everywhere- from the ceiling, taped to the walls, and on bulletin boards. In the third grade
classroom, where this study took place, there was a large poster listing the countries

represented in that classroom and a tally of how many students were from each country:

Brazil 2 Korea 3
China 1 Nigeria 1
India 1 Taiwan 2
Indonesia 3 Thailand 1
Jordan 1 USA 5
Iran 1

As will be illustrated in a later case, students who might be underserved in a more
traditional school setting seemed to thrive in the culture of Atlantis Elementary. For
example, one of the target students in this study had come from India with her parents at
the age of six and had attended another elementary school in the district for first and second
grades. In this first elementary school, which is located in an upper middle class,
predominantly white neighborhood, Padma had many socialization problems which in turn
affected her learning. Her parents chose to move to the University Apartments just so their

daughter could attend school at Atlantis, where she thrived socially and academically. She

77

had many friends, was very conscientious about her school work, and was generally
considered "smart" by both teachers and the other students in the class. Padma was also
recommended by her teacher to be a target student for this study because she was very
verbal and articulate about her thinking and learning.
WWW

Atlantis is also unusual because of the professional commitments of its teachers.
Atlantis teachers participate actively in partnership with Midwestern University in a
Professional Development School. The concept of the Professional Development school
was developed in response to reform efforts initiated by the Holmes Group (1986).
Although other schools around the country have also initiated this type of reform, each
Professional Development School is realized in different ways and with differing
philosophies. For this reason I will describe the Professional Development School concept
only as it is enacted at Atlantis.

The philosophy of the Atlantis Professional Development School is that school-
university collaboration in planning, teaching, and research benefits both K-12 students
and university students who are learning to teach while simultaneously generating new
knowledge for the larger community. In Atlantis many teachers have their work
schedules redesigned so that they have blocks of time for collaborative work with
colleagues from the school or university. These collaborative efforts focus on such
projects as planning for instruction, participation in study/reading groups, study of their
teaching, attempting alternative forms of instruction often with support from university
faculty, teaching undergraduate courses at the university, learning to support prospective
teachers, and so on.

To support this collegial work Atlantis had a restructured work week with school
hours Monday through Thursday lasting a little bit longer so that students could be released
at noon on Fridays. This arrangement allowed for the teachers to meet every Friday

afternoon across the school year for a variety of professional development activities.

78

W

The third grade classroom was an unusual setting, created by two teachers who
decided to work together as they engaged in their professional development activities. The
class was actually a double class which functioned as a single learning community with two
teachers. In many ways the room was a typical classroom - there were desks in groups,
a teacher's desk off to one side, many chalkboards and bulletin boards, an overhead
projector, a computer, and a coat room.

Physically the only thing that might have looked different about this room to the
casual observer was that it was BIG. It was not one but actually two regular sized
classrooms in which the wall between them had been knocked out and replaced by an
accordion folding divider - although I only saw this divider closed once in the afternoon
during the 6 weeks I observed this class! There were two teachers' desks - one at each end
of the room. There were 42 students in the classroom. Two thirds of the students in the
third grade at this school were found in this one double classroom.

There were always at least two teachers, Ms. Lawson and Mrs. Runner,
collaboratively planning and teaching these 42 students during the day. Although half the
students were officially assigned to Ms. Lawson and half to Mrs. Runner, the students
appeared to view both Ms. Lawson and Mrs. Runner as their teacher and responded to both
teachers in very similar ways. For example, I never had the sense that they respected one
teacher more than the other or would only participate if "their" teacher were leading the
discussion. Although their desks were located in their "homeroom", the students often
were worked in groups that cut across the two classrooms, and they frequently sat in
desks other than their "own". As a result, it was difficult to distinguish Ms. Lawson's
students from Mrs. Runner's students; the classroom truly functioned as a single learning
community with two teachers.

Ms. Lawson and Mrs. Runner had one hour of release time daily for planning and

research activities and had been collaboratively planning and teaching all subjects except

79

mathematics since the fall. In addition, the entire staff, or smaller grade groups, could use
their restructured Friday time to meet weekly across the year to work on their building-wide
focus for the year. This focus was the integration of science and literacy. This Friday
afternoon time also gave the teachers an opportunity to engage in cross-grade planning for a
"changes in matter" unit which was to be taught as a school-wide unit in the spring. This
unit would be taught in some form in each grade at the same time and was to culminate in a
school science conference to be attended by all the students.
It' It 0 .ru' ‘1 His a... lid 't. 0 .nt 0 'l '2." 0 "cm

Mrs. Runner: Listening and Responding to Students' Ideas

Mrs. Runner, who was the lead science teacher in this classroom, was an
experienced teacher who had taught for more than twenty years. She has always taught
and enjoyed science. In describing her science curriculum and philosophy of science
education, she said that her goal for science is that, along with learning content, the
students would become more observant and curious about the world around them. She
believed that until they were curious about the world, science would not be meaningful to
them because the purpose of science is to answer questions and explain things in the world.
This belief seemed to be based more upon her years of experience teaching science rather
than on any specific research or reform movement, although it is consistent with current
thinking about the purpose and goals of science as described in the literature review chapter
and may have been reinforced through her PDS studies. She felt frustrated that her
students were not very curious about anything when they began third grade. She said that
she could have all kinds of interesting science materials set out around the room and her
students would rarely examine them or ask questions about what they were or why they
were there.

Closely connected to these goals for science teaching, Mrs. Runner said that
beginning in the fall she works with the students to develop three norms for participation in

science. These norms are that 1) they will become more curious about the world around

them
beco
be at

3:011}

it'ar-
U>krt

80

them, 2) they will develop science observational skills which in turn will allow them to
become curious about the world around them and pursue their curiosity, and 3) they will
be able to work producdvely in small groups, because this is the way in which science
proceeds in the "real world".

She said that she wants her students to notice and question everything they see in
the world and be able to share these observations and questions with their peers. She
believed that curiosity is the foundation of science. If students do not notice the world
around them and are not curious about it, they have no use for science. Science is only
useful if it is purposeful, and it is only purposeful if it is trying to describe and explain
phenomena in the natural world In addition, science is a social enterprise. Science
proceeds by sharing observations and questions about the world with other people.

This goal of helping students become observant and cmious, and able to
communicate these observations and questions to peers, undergirded all of Mrs. Runner's
science content teaching during the school year. It was also reflected in much of her
discourse with the students during science.

Atlantis has had a long relationship of research with the university, and Mrs.
Runner has been involved in some of these research projects. For example, a Midwestern
University professor taught mathematics and studied her practice in Mrs. Runner's room
for several years. This professor used a constructivist approach to teaching and learning,
emphasized mathematical reasoning, and used classroom discourse as a tool for
constructing understanding of mathematical concepts. Her influence is seen in Mrs.
Runner’s discourse in science. Not a didactic lecturer, Mrs. Runner spent a large portion
of her instructional time listening and responding to students' ideas, not only when
assessing their prior knowledge at the start of the unit, but also as she taught the unit.
Many of the activities and experiments done during the Changes in Matter unit observed for

this study were designed to challenge a naive conception or reinforce a scientific conception

81

that had emerged during class discussion the previous day. In this way the students'
thinking shaped the science curriculum in her classroom.

Mrs. Runner stressed the value of everyone participating and sharing their thinking
during class discussion and all ideas were treated as valuable. This is not to imply,
however, that all ideas were accepted as being equally scientifically valid, a problem often
associated with inquiry science programs (Roth, 1987). Both Mrs. Runner and Ms.
Lawson were very skillful at challenging naive conceptions and drawing out and extending
the scientific conception. Although it may have appeared to a casual observer, or even the
students themselves, that all ideas were used equally, Mrs. Runner and Ms. Lawson were
actually teasing out those ideas which would provide the most productive discussions in
temrs of leading towards scientific conceptions. Sometimes they deliberately pursued a
naive conception if, based on the writing and the talk the students had done, they felt there
were many students who were holding a naive conception - this often led to an activity
which was designed to challenge the naive conception. However, it should be emphasized
that this deliberate eliciting and challenging of a naive conception was not the same as
having students share their ideas and accepting all as equally valid in an unchallenging
manner.

An example of the way that Mrs. Runner and Ms. Lawson elicited and pursued the
students' ideas was seen very early in the unit. The first activity that the students did in the
unit was to work in small groups to observe an ice cube melting, describe it as it melted,
and draw some conclusions about why it melted. This was followed by a discussion of
their results and ideas on March 3. The teachers' plans for the day included the following,

1. Review and discuss the ice cube on the tray experiment from last
Thursday (2-25-93)

Have students share their explanations and conclusions that they recorded on
their yellow sheets.

May be something like: "We believe the ice cube on the tray melted because the
warm air came into contact with the ice.

82

2. Introduce the ice cube in hand experiment.

"Another idea that you had for melting an ice cube was to put it in your
hand/body. Why do you think that would melt the ice cube? We're going to
try this today. Make a prediction about what you think will happen when you
hold an ice cube in your hand. Make a prediction in your science notebook.

The following transcript segments illustrate the way in which the ideas found in the

teachers' plans above emerged in the discussion and the way in which the teachers were

able to move students gradually to talking about the idea that warm air has something to do

with an ice cube melting. The teachers also did nor have to introduce the ice cube in the

hand experiment but rather were able to elicit the idea from the students and build upon it.

By the end of an apparent open discussion and sharing of ideas the teachers had made a

great deal of progress and accomplished their objectives for the day by building on the

ideas that the students themselves introduced rather than by introducing information directly

themselves.

Ms. L.

Ms. L.

Zane:

So you were saying that you thought that since your ice cube was
bigger it took longer?

Yeah
Comments about that or other things people want to share?
Probably, like, if they were by the window and like, the window

was here and they were right here and then the ice was right here.
If they were by the window it would get smaller.

(This lead to a brief discussion about where different peOple were sitting relative to
the window. Following this Ms. Smith asked a question)

Ms. 8.

Ms 8.

Ms. L:

I have a question. What would sitting by the window have to do
with anything? How would that affect it? How would that make a
difference?

The outside is colder.

So what would that do. Why would it change things?

If it's by the window.. on the outside it is cold...It makes it, if it is

in.. it is going to be hot or warm..but if it's not it's kind of cold..but
it still melts but not as fast.

Ajani just said something that I noticed on a lot of peoples' sheets

Ms. S:

Li:

83

and that was an idea about warm air. An idea about the warm air
melting the ice cube. And I am wondering if anybody has
comments about that idea? A lot of people talked about it being
warm or hot in the room and that is what made the ice melt. Anyone
have a comment? Li?

Well I sort of agree with Ajani and sort of disagree with Zane. I
agree that if the air is cold it will melt slower but I think that light
also helps it melt.

And how would that melt it faster?

I'm not sure but most light.. I mean most light sort of..heat..and..
I'm not sure.

(The discussion about heat and light continued for another minute)

MsL:

So do you think we can kind of say right now that we have two
ideas about the ice cube melting...one is the warm air and the other
is light....Are there other ideas or comments that people want to
make...You could look through your yellow sheets to help you
remember what people said.

The discussion then continued as Ajani brought in the idea of warm and cold air.

The idea of air was then explicitly included by the teachers as they used the idea of warm

and cold. This was followed by an extended discussion by the students about how the

warm air melts the ice cube. Ms. Lawson concluded this portion of the discussion by

summarizing the ideas that they had discussed so far,

Ms. L:

Ms. L:

Okay.. if we think about that theory or that idea a little bit more and
we drink about the hot air that is coming around the ice cube..what
is happening to the hot air and what is happening to the ice cube...
What do you think...Anyone have any ideas about that..what is
happening...Cause a lot of people mentioned ideas like this in your
groups...They talked about warm air..they talked about light..they
talked about the heat..they talked about heat in general..Henrique
what do you think about it?

Well..I agree with Casey..but another thing I think why my ice cube
melted was because I poked it around for awhile just to see if it
would melt faster that way..I touched it.. and then probably the
temperature of my body..it melted a lot faster..it melted really fast.

Now that is an idea that we are going to come back to a little bit.

The discussion then shifted to writing a class statement answering the question "We

believe the ice cube

because As students made

 

84

suggestions the teachers began to push them on the idea of evidence to support their
assertions. After several had shared their ideas Ms. Lawson summarized what they had
said.

Ms. L: Okay..so that would be a kind of conclusion... we believe the ice

cube on the table melted because the heater..air in the room...what
did you say..came all around?

Mike: Spread around the whole team area.

Ms. L: Spread around the team area..the team room.

Ms. S: So that would be your evidence for why it happened?

Ms L: So when you write a conclusion you need to have some evidence.

A little bit more than just saying "we believe the ice cube on the table
melted because ..it was hot" we need to know a little bit more than
that... We need to know why...okay here's what we are going to do
right now.

(Ms. Lawson introduces the ice cube in the hand activity.)

This early discussion was an important one. Many ideas were introduced by the
students which formed the foundation of future discussions. In class discussion over the
next several days many of the ideas introduced by the students were revisited to. For
example, the teachers continue to return to and build on the idea introduced by Li that the
warm or cold air, is what causes the ice cube to melt faster. They also revisit Henrique's
idea that the ice cube will melt faster if someone is touching it and as evidence for this they
had the students measure and discuss their hand temperature -- that hand temperature is
warmer than the temperature of the air around them, and so would speed the melting time.
Ms. Lawson: Using Lteracy as a Tool for Learning Science

Ms. Lawson was the lead language arts teacher in this classroom. She was a new
teacher, having taught less than five years, and was a graduate of a smaller, thematic,
teacher education program at the university in which a small cohort of approximately 30
students worked closely with program faculty. The faculty who taught in this program

program were primarily literacy faculty, and, as a result, there was a strong emphasis in

this program on literacy and the teaching of language arts. The director of this program

86

developed and taught a science unit as a requirement for her student teaching. Although
this unit was on animals in the ocean, when it was enacted it had many similarities to the
Changes in Matter Unit. Like the Changes in Matter unit, Ms. Smith emphasized science
as discourse. The unit was taught primarily through class discussion in which the students
were encouraged to listen to the ideas of their peers and agree or disagree. Also like the
Changes in Matter unit there was an emphasis in Ms. Smith's unit on eliciting students
naive conceptions and then designing instruction to challenge these naive conceptions.

One of the university faculty on the team, Dr. Nettings, had expertise in language
arts and communications and, in addition to participating in the teaching during science time
during the month of March, she had provided planning support for the teachers on a limited
basis in the fall, and on a more regular basis beginning in January. The other university
faculty, Dr. Jones, was a science educator who participated in the initial Friday planning
but did not participate in the actual teaching during March because he had primary
responsibility for another grade level as well as for coordinating the science teaching
building wide. Dr. Jones also played a large role in the planning and organization of the
culminating science conference held at the end of the school wide Changes in Matter unit.
.r‘s'.o l' «..r" tutt‘ 'r'trc,‘rt .-u..n

During the summer of 1992 the members of Atlantis Elementary met to determine a
curricular focus for their PDS study and planning for the coming school year. The result of
this summer planning was the decision to have a building-wide focus on science and
literacy with a common topic, changes in matter, to culminate in a school-wide science
conference in the spring. Once this decision was made, individual grade groups, and
individual teachers within those groups, decided what an emphasis on science and literacy
meant to them, how it would look in their classroom, and what sort of planning time and
teaching or planning support they would need It was during this summer planning time
that Ms. Lawson and Mrs. Runner decided to collaboratively teach science and language

arts (which evolved into collaboratively teaching all subjects except mathematics).

87

Ms. Lawson and Mrs. Runner were active participants in the school-wide science
planning meetings across the year. The focus of these meetings was on developing a
science unit broadly on the t0pic of "changes in matter" in which there was an emphasis on
the role of oral and written discourse in learning the science content. This was consistent
with the year-long school theme of "Science and Literacy" in which literacy (primarily oral
language) was used as a tool for making sense of science content.

Some version of this unit was to be taught concurrently by all the teachers in the
school fiom late February-early April. At the primary grades (K-2) this involved describing
the physical differences between ice and water. At the upper grades (4-5) the unit included
some activities adapted from Matter and Molecules (Berkheimer et.al., 1990) leading up to
the kinetic molecular theory. At this grade level students learned to explain the changes in
the states of matter in terms of the motion and arrangement of the molecules.

The third grade was at a midpoint- although they did not discuss states of matter at
the molecular level (i.e. the kinetic molecular theory) they went beyond a description of the
states to some prediction and explanation of change of state at the observable level. For
example, one of the main ideas in the unit was that when two substances of different
temperatures come into contact with one another the temperature of both substances may be
affected Related to this was a second main idea that when the temperature of some
substances (such as water) changes enough, the form (or state) of the substance also
changes. Students were given many opportunities to practice using this new knowledge.
One activity they did was to predict what would happen to the temperature of a bowl of
soup and an ice cube when the ice cube was added to the soup. They then had to explain
their prediction, test the prediction, and explain their results. Because this activity involved
an ice cube melting, the idea of change of state was also part of part of this activity although
the language "change of state" was never introduced. Other similar aetivities involved

predicting and explaining what would happen to snow when it was at room temperature,

88

predicting and explaining what would happen to hot chocolate if it were left at room
temperature, and designing an experiment that would show that two substances of different
temperatures change temperature when they come into contact with one another.

According to their intended cuniculum developed during the fall and early winter,
Ms. Lawson and Mrs. Runner also planned to emphasize the nature of scientific inquiry in
their unit through the type of discourse in which they engaged the students. Consistent
with Mrs. Runner's philosophy, she explained to me that this discourse would emphasize
making observations and being curious and asking questions about those observations.
This discourse is similar to the form of the discourse in a scientific community. Also in
the scientific community science knowledge is constructed through making observations,
being curious, and talking about ideas.

The ongoing emphasis in the class was on providing evidence to support
assertions. This was evident in every class discussion during which time the teachers
repeatedly asked the students, "And what is your evidence for that?" whenever an assertion
was made. Through the activities they had the students do, the teachers provided
opportunities for the students to collect evidence which either supported their assertions or
caused them to discard or modify certain ideas and assertions. In this way the teachers
skillfully led the students to the scientific conception.

Therefore, the third grade unit was planned to have three overlapping components:
1) a science content knowledge component in which the students would learn a specific set
of science ideas an concepts, 2) a literacy component with an emphasis on listening to and
questioning one another, and 3) a nature of scientific inquiry component in which the
students were encouraged to observe and raise questions about everyday phenomena and
share these questions and their thinking with their peers. These three components are

described below.

St}

[.
>1

Oq.

‘9'

WA

bk.

‘l

 

89

53W

The third grade unit was originally designed to include both properties of matter and
changes of state of matter. The third grade team developed a concept map that showed the
relationships among the various related concepts they wanted to include in their unit (see
Figure 4.2). This concept map, which appears to be primarily a brainstorming exercise,
was used to organize the early planning of the unit. This map might be called more
appropriately a "topic map" because it is very broad and seems to cover many of the major
topics related to matter and its changes. At this early stage of the planning, specific
concepts were not delineated in the map. For example the concepts of freezing, melting,
dissolving, evaporation, and condensation are terminal points on the map. The following
large topics were represented on this concept map;

1) Observation and description of the three states of matter.

2) Properties of matter including shape, size, volume, and weight.

3) Change of state of matter including freezing, melting, dissolving, evaporation,
and condensation.

4) Temperature, temperature change, and temperature measurement

As the unit was enacted, the focus quickly shifted from teaching all four of these
topics to expanding on and teaching only topic number four; temperature, temperature
change, and temperature measurement. From early class discussions and writing coupled
with pre-test data the 3rd grade team discovered that students had many naive conceptions
about the concept of temperature, temperature measurement , and the causes and effect of
changing temperature. Students also exhibited confusion regarding the two temperature
scales, Fahrenheit and Celsius, and used the two interchangeably. The teachers believed
that an understanding of these concepts was necessary before students could understand the
concepts of states of matter and changes of state.

For example, on a pre-test one question ased students what they thought the
temperature of a glass of water from the drinking fountain was and why they thought it

would be this temperature. This is a deceptively simple question, requiring some

9O

sophisticated thinking on the part of the students. The student holding a scientific
conception would have answered the question by giving a temperature slightly above 32' F
or 0' C because that was a cold temperature and drinking fountain water was cold They
would have gone on to explain that the temperature they gave was slightly above the
freezing point of water, which was important because if it was at or below the freezing
point the water in the drinking fountain would be frozen. The response that the students
gave to this question would indicate how meaningful the temperature numbers were to them
and also whether they had a sense of the concept of change of state of water at specific
temperatures and knew what those temperatures were.

The following responses to that question were given by the two target students and
were typical of those given by all the students, "34 degrees because some water fountains
are colder than others", "15 because 15 is pretty cold", and "I don't look at temperature
much so Ican't do this, sorry" . In these examples none of the students who gave actual
temperatures used either Fahrenheit or Celsius units so the numbers do not have a lot of
meaning to anyone reading their pre-test. However, if these are assumed to be Fahrenheit
temperatures, they are both at or below freezing which would make the water in the
drinking fountain ice rather than water. If the temperatures are assumed to be Celsius
temperatures, 15' would be a borderline reasonable temperature (it is closer to room
temperature), however 34' would be much too warm for drinking fountain water.

The students' explanations also gave the teachers some important information.
Saying that 34' is a reasonable temperature because some water fountains are colder than
others does not appear to address the question of why 34 was selected as the temperature,
although it is apparent that the student did have a reason in mind. The other student
selected 15 because 15 is "pretty cold". This is a step in the direction of an appropriate
explanation. They know that the lower the number the colder the temperature but they do
not mention the other piece; that it would need to be above 0‘ C (assuming they were

thinking of the Celsius scale) in order to keep from freezing.

91

Similar responses were given to other pre-test questions which asked the students
to predict the temperature of a snowbank on a sunny day, the temperature of the air in the
room, and the temperature of their hand. From this pre-test data it appeared that the
students' understanding of change of state and the temperature at which this occurs was
fairly general and descriptive -- e.g., ice freezes at a cold temperature and water boils at a
hot temperature. It was clear that when considering temperature questions, students did
n0t typically take changes of state into account.

Ms. Lawson, Mrs. Runner, and Dr. Jones decided that if students were to
understand change of state at anything more than a descriptive level (i.e. when it gets hot
ice melts, when it gets cold water freezes) they would need to know what happened to the
temperature of a substance (such as ice) when it came into contact with another substance
(such as air) which was either hotter or colder than itself and be able to explain this change
at a macromolecular level. In other words, the teachers felt that in order to demonstrate an
understanding of the concepts of temperature and temperature change the students needed
to be able to explain the phenomenon of temperature change of a familiar substance, such
as pop when ice is added, and the sometimes resulting physical change of state (i.e. ice
melting). To do this they felt the students needed to explore questions about familiar,
everyday phenomena such as, "What causes the temperature of an ice cube to change?
Why does ice seemingly spontaneously warm up when left at room temperature? Why
doesn't ice stay frozen and the temperature of the room decrease instead? How can ice be
melted faster? Why does this melt the ice faster?"

From analyzing the pre-test data and early class discussions, the team also
discovered that the students had a lot of naive conceptions about the meaning of the
temperature numbers themselves. For example, students knew that zero was probably cold
and that 100 was probably hot on any scale. However they were not able to use this
knowledge to make sense of real world phenomena. For example, on the pre-test, some

students did give the information that O'C (or 32'F) was the freezing point of water and

92

100°C (or 212'F) was the boiling point of water. However, when asked to make a
prediction about the temperature of water that was very cold but not frozen, they were not
able to use the information about freezing and boiling points to predict a possible
temperature of the water - which would indicate that the numbers themselves had some
meaning to the students. In other words, the knowledge of the freezing and boiling
temperatures was in all likelihood information that they had memorized at some point, or
had heard in an out-of-school context such as listening to a weather report, but it was not
knowledge that was useful to them in making sense of the world In this sense temperature
readings appeared to be disconnected numbers that for them had limited meaning.

Finally, students were confused about how to read a thermometer and so this also
became part of the unit. Possibly because many of them went to school initially in a
country where Celsius rather than Fahrenheit was the unit of temperature measurement ,
there was also confusion between Fahrenheit and Celsius scales. Keeping in mind that
many of the students would be returning to their native countries, the unit was consistently
taught examining both Fahrenheit and Celsius temperatures and noting the difference
between temperature reported in Fahrenheit and temperature reported in Celsius.

Therefore, following some preliminary activities and discussions in the unit, the
teachers decided to focus on the topic of temperature and temperature change for their
Changes in Matter unit. They felt that their students did not have the prior knowledge
necessary for understanding the concept change of state of matter. Their first goal
conception for the evolving unit was that the temperature readings have some meaning and
that students could estimate the temperature of unknown substances based upon certain
"benchmark" temperatures. Their second goal conception was that the students be able to
use the knowledge that when two substances of different temperatures come into contact
with one another, one or both of the substances will change temperature, to make

predications and generate explanations of various everyday phenomenon.

93

Usually Mrs. Runner and Ms. Lawson collaboratively developed the science plans
either after school immediately following the science and literacy teaching time or during
their morning planning times on the day of the lesson. In either case they based their
instructional decisions upon what had occurred during the previous lesson's discussion.
For example, during the discussion on March 4, Mrs. Runner and Ms. Lawson discovered
that they had made too many assumptions - although students knew what temperature was
in a general sense, and knew that room temperature and body temperature were probably
different, they did not have background knowledge to predict what these temperatures
might be or to use these temperatures in any way. Therefore, in order to make sense of the
activity they had done on March 3, two additional days were spent discussing and
measuring room temperature and body temperature.

These concepts, developed on March 8 and March 10, were then used in the March
15 lesson where teachers and students developed what were to become "benchmark"
temperatures based on the temperature of familiar substances. These benchmarks were
used through the remainder of the unit as a basis for predicting the temperature of other
substances so that the predictions were informed by scientific knowledge and reasoning
rather than just being guesses. The benchmark temperatures also provided evidence that
could be used to support assertions about the temperature of unknown substances.

An examination of the teachers' plans for the unit shows the shift in focus that took
place across the unit as the teachers listened, and responded to, the students. The question
raised on February 25, "Why does an ice cube melt?" became the central organizing
question for the unit although it was not clear whether this was originally the intention or
whether this simply became a productive organizing question as the unit unfolded and was
shaped by the interactions among all the participants. March 3 began the shift in focus from
change of state to temperature and how it affects the melting of an ice cube, although at this
point the teachers anticipated that this was going to be a short detour. By March 10 the

emphasis has completely shifted away from change of state and focused on temperature

94

measurement and developing benchmark temperatures to use to predict the temperature of a

substance.

By March 18 the Students were using these benchmark temperatures to make

predictions. This continued through the "doctor for a day" planning, which is the way in

which Mrs. Runner decided they would present their learning about temperature at the

science conference.

Listed below is an outline of the intended cuniculum taken from Ms. Lawson's

and Mrs. Runner's daily plans over the course of the unit.

2125
3/3

3/4

3/8

3/10
3/15

3/16
3/18

3/25

3/29

3/30

4/2

What does it mean to melt? Why does an ice cube melt?

Ice cubes melt because warm air comes into contact with ice. An ice cube
will melt faster if it is held due to contact with body temperature.

The ice cube on the table melted because of contact with warm air.
The ice cube in the hand melted because of contact with a warm hand.
Body temperature is around 98.6F, room temperature is around 70 F.
Therefore, ice in hand melts faster than ice on table.

Temperature is the amount of hot or cold an object has. Body temperature
is 98.6 F and room temperature is 70 F.

Room temperature is going to vary but it is around 70 F.

The temperature of snow is around freezing, the temperature of oatmeal is
around room temperature, the temperature of hot soup is around body temp.
(These will serve as "benchmark" temperatures for making predictions.
Procedure for reading a thermometer.

Same as 3/ 15

Can use benchmark temperatures to predict the temperature of other, similar
things.

Procedure for reading F and C temperature on a thermometer.

Science conference planning - Doctor for a day. What is hand and body
temperature? Are they the same or different? Why?

Science conference planning - Doctor for a day.

Review of what they have learned about taking temperatures, benchmark
temperatures, and predicting temperature using benchmark temperatures.

Science conference planning - Doctor for a day. Measuring hand and body
temperature. Reporting temperature in degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius.

Science conference.

scho<
scho
and t

wt

‘5“

‘I‘a;
gut.

..I
5“

I
Kc?‘

95

Although the teachers in this classroom were trying to establish new norms for
school science, it was a difficult task given the existing structure and limitations of the
school day. First, helping students construct their understanding of science through oral
and written discourse takes considerable more time than the more traditional lecture
method This means that more than the traditional 20-45 minutes per day needs to be
allocated to science. This short period is simply not enough time to explore a science
question or issue in talk or writing in any substantive sort of way. The discussion has
barely begun when it is time to end Additionally, if any experiment or hands-on activity
is done it takes the entire class period and any discussion or writing must take place on
another day. This segmentation tends to emphasize rather than bridge the gap between
"doing" science (process) and talking and writing about science in order to "understand"
science (content). This content/process dichotomy is something the teachers were
expressly trying to avoid.

The teachers also believed that if their students were to understand the unit
concepts, considerably less content could be covered on any given day than is typical
because it is being covered in much more depth than is typically done. For example, an
entire week (March 3-March 10) was spent experimenting and discussing the difference
between room and body temperature and how this difference might affect the ice cube
melting. This same topic, in a traditional lecture-based classroom, might be covered in 5
minutes by the teacher giving the students the information that room temperature is about
70'F and body temperature is about 98°F. Therefore, ice held in a person's hand will melt
faster than ice sitting out in the room on a tray. The problem with this information-giving
approach is that, as was illustrated by students' responses on the pre-test, the temperature
numbers have little meaning and are not useful to the students when they are simply
presented to, and memorized by, the students in this manner. By contrast, the teachers in

the Atlantis third grade classroom believed in taking the time necessary to make sure the

«1}
.Mi

(1'

'1?)

[’1

-—.d

96

students understood the concepts well. They also believed that this understanding took
repeated opportunities to "play around" with the ideas orally and in writing.

Because of this need to spend more time on science, and to cover the content at a
much slower pace than is traditional, it seemed as if a balancing act was always going on in
this classroom. Originally the team intended for science and literacy to last 1-3 hours at
least four afternoons a week. However, in order to teach science in larger blocks of time
like this, something else was going to receive less time. On some days the teachers felt they
could not justify so much time spent on science and literacy as they were falling behind on
other things. For example, on at least two occasions science time was partially or totally
replaced by mathematics because too much time had been consistently "borrowed" from
mathematics time. Other times science provided an authentic context for mathematics
instruction and so some of the science and literacy time was also spent on mathematics. An
example of this was a discussion of the temperature data the students had collected The
data was compiled into a class list, and the children used this data to work with the
statistical concepts of mean and mode, discussing which was the more mathematically
accurate way to treat the data. Thus, science was taught in larger blocks of time but it was
not taught every day.

In addition to students learning specific science content, there was another ongoing
goal the teachers were working on which is not readily apparent from the their written
plans. Both Ms. Lawson and Mrs. Runner were committed to helping the students
become curious about a phenomenon- temperature change- that they had encountered every
day of their lives and had unquestioningly taken for granted. Just as the anthropologist
studying his or her own culture has to first "make the familiar strange" in order to notice
patterns (Bogdan and Biklen, 1982), so too an everyday phenomenon has to be made
problematic for the students in order for them to become curious about the underlying
scientific explanation. Unfortunately, as Mrs. Runner discovered during her years of

teaching, schools do not actively seek to elicit children's curiosity. As a result, curiosity -

uni:
To b

avvvl"
sunk

97

which is the cornerstone of science- is typically not a norm for elementary school science.
To begin to change this "lack of curiosity" norm, teachers needed arouse the students'
curiousity about why an ice cube melted and what there was about holding an ice cube in
your hand that made it melt faster.

During the first half of the unit all 42 students participated in class discussions
together. Then there was a shift in pedagogical strategy approximately half-way through
the unit. On March 15-March 30 students did not meet as a whole group during science.
Rather they broke into four smaller groups. Each of these groups was led by a teacher;
Ms. Lawson, Mrs. Runner, Dr. Nettings, or Ms. Smith. Initially the intended curriculum
for each of these four groups was the same. However, once they started planning for the
science conference on March 25, each group did something different because each group
was responsible for a different conference presentation. I followed the group headed by
Mrs. Runner because my target students were placed in this group.

Although the reason given for breaking into the four smaller groups was that it
would facilitate planning for the science conference, I believe that it was also done for
purposes of classroom management. It is difficult to have a discussion with 42 students; it
takes a long time and many voices are not heard. Breaking into smaller groups facilitated
the participation of more students in the discussion, while at the same time did not take as
much time as a discussion with 42 participants.

Literacxflcmmnem

An important aspect of the science and literacy unit was that teachers were
attempting to change the classroom norms for participation in the science learning
community. Adding a literacy component to the science content knowledge piece was one
way in which these new norms were explicitly taught to the students.

As part of the literacy component, students were taught to listen to their peers'
ideas and to build on, question, or challenge these ideas. The teacher was not viewed as

the only source of knowledge. Rather, the students were taught that there is a great deal of

linov
bull:

tier:

‘3”
by“

98

knowledge residing within their discourse community if they were able to listen to and
build upon, or debate, each others' ideas. The goal of the literacy curriculum was to teach
them how to do this.

Reflecting these literacy goals, the class discussions during the "Changes in
Matter" unit followed a different pattern than the traditional norm in which the teacher is the
center of attention who asks the questions which the students answer while the teacher
evaluates the "correctness" of their answer. This teacher-dominated initiation-response-
evaluation (I-R-E) format is found in most science discussions (Mehan,1979; Cazden,
1988; Lemke, 1990). One reason the I-R-E format is so popular is that it appears to be
time efficient, allowing for a lot of content to be covered in short time period In contrast,
a discussion in which students are supported in making sense of the scientific phenomenon
does not appear to be time efficient in the short term. However, in the long term, research
on conceptual change teaching and learning (e. g. Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, Scott,
1994; Roth, 1992) has shown that a pattern in which the students are supported in making
sense of scientific phenomena is more efficient because it results in personal knowledge or
understanding that students have constructed for themselves, and they have ownership over
that knowledge.

The intended literacy cuniculum, with an emphasis on listening and consensus
building, was adapted by the third grade teaching team from the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCT'M) Standards. This document, which emphasizes the
importance of student thinking and ideas, outlines both the teacher's and the students' role
in the classroom discourse. They may have selected to use this document rather than a
document specific to science because the recommendations in this document were more
detailed and specific than in any science education documents at that time. The

recommendations of the NCI‘ M are, however, consistent with those found in W

AlLAmcticans (AAAS, 1989). For exalnplc, in Chapter 12 of SciencefmAllAmcncans

99

"Habits of Mind", there is a segment on communication skills. The following are excerpts
fiom this segment:

Discourse in science, mathematics, and technology calls for the ability to

communicate ideas and share information with clarity, and to read and listen with

understanding....Everyone should have the skills that will enable him or her to do
the following:

oExpress orally and in writing the basic ideas covered by the recommendations in

the report. This requires, above all, that students acquire some understanding of

those ideas, build them into their own conceptual structures, and be able to illustrate
them with examples and rational argument.

Participate in group discussions on scientific topics by being able to restate or

summarize what others have said, ask for clarification or elaboration, and make

alternative responses.

In addition there is a segment entitled "Critical-Response Skills" which further
elaborates on the ways in which students need to be able to apply critical response skills to
"their own observations, arguments, and conclusions...and should learn to notice and be
put on guard by the following signs of weak argumentsz"

. The premises of the argument are not made explicit.

o The conclusions do not follow logically from the evidence given.

. Fact and opinion are intermingled

Although the third grade teachers did not refer specifically to this particular
document, many of these same ideas are present and further delineated with respect to
teacher and student roles in the N CTM standards --which was used by the teachers to
support their science and literacy planning. According to the version of the N CTM
standards adapted by the third grade team, the teacher's role in the discourse is to elicit
ideas and then listen carefully to student thinking. Once they have done this they need to
decide which ideas to pursue during a discussion as some ideas will be more productive
than others. The teacher also needs to make decisions about what type of problem will lead
the students into constructing a particular mathematical concept, if and when to provide a

particular problem, concept or proof, when to clarify an issue, when to model scientific

thinking and when to lead in a more didactic fashion. Finally, the teacher must monitor

WIULI
m.

n:-
r

an

\

emu

100

students' participation in discussions and decide when and how to encourage students to
participate and engage with their peers in constructing understanding. It may have been in
response to this complex discussion pattern that the teachers decided to break down the
group of 42 into four smaller discussion groups, thus allowing for more student

participation and easier monitoring individual student participation. The role of the teacher

as stated in the NCTM document is as follows:

Pose questions and tasks that elicit, engage, and challenge student thinking.

Listen carefully to student thinking.

Ask students to clarify and justify their ideas orally and in writing.

Decide what to pursue in depth from among the ideas that students bring up
during a discussion.

Decide when and how to attach scientific notation and language to student's
ideas.

Decide when to provide information, to clarify an issue, when to model and
when to lead.

.°‘ 1*" 99°39?

In addition to these NCTM-defined teacher roles, there was another teacher role that
appeared in the discourse in the science discussions in this third grade classroom. This
teacher role was to provide opportunities which would challenge the students' non-
scientific thinking and draw on ideas in the discussion which led toward understanding the
scientific conception.

According to the NCTM standards, the student's role during discussion is to
participate and help construct successful mathematical (or scientific) discourse through
making conjectures (or assertions), providing evidence, and asking questions. They are
also encouraged to listen not only to the teacher but also to the ideas of their peers. They
are expected to challenge their peers' ideas by asking for clarification or justification.
Finally, students have the responsibility for keeping track of the flow of ideas in the
discourse. The following list summarizes the student's role during scientific discourse as

stated in the NCTM document:

1. Make contributions including: stating conjectures, posing questions, providing
information and clarifying, elaborating, and justifying ideas.

2. Encouraging and challenging others by seeking their input or opinion,
reminding them that their contributions are valued, and asking for clarification,

\l
for the sn
cxplltltl)
needed it
pesonil
nth the .
:espnrsil

I
were list
tented a:
uncut
trill-1g n
Lita-n i
flimsy 1
imp-or 1
htma
one 3th
nts: lisr
'35? has:

99363:.

101

elaboration or justification.

3. Listen carefully and valuing the contributions of everyone.

4. Keep track of the flow of the discourse (how arguments are developing and

being supported).

When enacted in the Changes in Matter unit there was an additional responsibility
for the students which paralleled the additional one for the teacher. The teachers, both
explicitly and through the questions they asked, communicated to the students that they
needed to use the evidence collected through experiments and discussion to consider their
personal thinking and ideas and to make modification in their ideas to be more consistent
with the scientific conception. This is an important addition because it was this
responsibility which led students toward an understanding of the science content.

The two specific literacy concepts that were part of the "Changes in Matter" unit
were listening and reaching agreement (consensus). Literacy in this context was not
treated as a subject matter, nor as an isolated process. Rather, the goal of the literacy
instruction was to teach students how to use literacy skills such as listening, debating, and
writing to support their science learning, much the same way a scientist might rely on
literacy in his or her work. In this way science was to provide the authentic context for
literacy learning. The teachers planned to emphasize that in the real world listening is an
important skill. Scientists must listen to, and read, what other scientists write in order to be
able to agree, or disagree, about scientific knowledge. And just as scientists must listen to
one another in a scientific discourse community, students in a science learning community
must listen to one another so they can decide as a class what description or explanation is
the most plausible. A major emphasis in the literacy curriculum was to teach students how
to question, challenge, or build upon someone else's ideas and how to use other peoples'
ideas and thinking to revise their own ideas.

The way in which the teachers planned to promote this was through questions that
asked for students to make assertions and conclusions supported by evidence as called for

in the N CI'E Standards. The following are questions excerpted fiom the teachers plans:

102

oWhat conclusions can be drawn? (have students share ideas)

How can we be sure of our conclusions? (have students suggest ways)

0What evidence do we have? (summarize experimental and thought evidence)

oWhat is our group's conclusion? (reaching consensus)

-Do you agree or disagree with the conclusion? With XXX's ideas?

-What part do you agree with? What part do you disagree with?

These questions were asked repeatedly as the teachers helped the students construct
whole class versions of their conclusions which were consistent with the scientific
conception. Additionally, some of the science classes began with the teachers talking about
the discussion that had taken place in the previous lesson. If it had been a particularly
fruitful discussion in terms of making progress towards consensus about a scientific idea,
the teachers would describe to the students the types of things they had heard the students
saying that were particularly helpful to the discussion. For example they would note that
students had stated that they agreed or disagreed with an idea (rather than a person) and that
they gave evidence to support that assertion. So in addition to modeling the desired
discourse pattern by asking the questions described by the NCTM document, the teachers
also created opportunities to discuss and reflect upon the discourse strategies that had been
used in a particularly fruitful discussion.

Often an entire class period of 1-2 hours would be spent reaching consensus about
what conclusions could be drawn from an experiment. As described earlier, the teachers
were careful and skillful about drawing on those ideas that led to a final version of the
conclusion that was consistent with the scientific conception. Because many of the ideas
came from the students, and because they had debated over the ideas and the wording that
should be in the conclusion, the final group conclusion was something over which all
students who had participated verbally or through listening would hopefully feel
ownership.

The two main literacy concepts in the Changes in Matter unit were listening skills

and consensus building skills. The two of these are closely related -- it is impossible to

reach consensus if people are not listening to one another -- and thus were intertwined

103

throughout the unit. As they were listening to their peers' ideas, the students were
encouraged to decide whether they agreed or disagreed with the other person's idea. They
would be asked to respond to the idea on the table. It was stressed to the students that they
were agreeing or disagreeing with the idea rather than the m.

As with listening, consensus building during class discussion was an integral part
of the science discourse rather than a decontextualized instructional topic. For example,
early in the unit the teacher asked many questions such as, "Do you agree or disagree with
what Avesta just said?" which was a way of modeling or scaffolding students in using the
discourse pattern that was to be adopted in science class. In addition, the students were
always asked to tell MIX they agreed or disagreed. It was not sufficient to simply announce
that they agreed or disagreed with someone's statement; they needed to provide additional
evidence or reasoning for why they were doing so. They were continually challenged by
the teacher to provide this evidence. For example, if a student said "I agree", the teacher’s
response was "Why do you agree?" or "Do you have an additional reason for why you
agree?"

In addition to the oral discourse there was some emphasis on written discourse.
Students had science notebooks which they had been using for a variety of purposes all
year. During the "Changes in Matter" unit they were to write their predictions, data, and
conclusions from the activities in their notebook. Additionally, during the second half of
the unit they were encouraged to use their science notebook to jot down anything that
emerged from the discussion that they found interesting or that they wanted to remember.
However, these notebooks did not work as well as had been anticipated as will be
discussed in the next chapter. In practice the teacher told the students what to write in their
notebooks, and the students dutifully recorded the data they were told to record. Unlike the
pattern in the oral discussions, they were not encouraged to puzzle through their ideas in

writing.

104

ll [5"51':

This component linked the science content knowledge component and the literacy
component. As part of the unit students were to do many science experiments. The
science experiments were to be closely connected to the discourse and were intended to
both teach both science concepts and scientific processes such as debating ideas and
building consensus; this combination represents the essence of the nature of scientific
inquiry. Each experiment was designed to test a class hypothesis which had emerged
either from the students' writing or from class discussion and/or to provide further data or
evidence for an ongoing discussion. For example, the teachers pursued the student-
proposed theory that "an ice cube will melt faster if you are holding it than if it is on a tray"
by designing an experiment which provided data to support this theory. Another
experiment required students to measure and compare hand and body temperature. These
two temperatures, hand and body, were then used as "benchmark" or reference
temperatures for comparison to other data collected later in the unit.

The activities were also designed so that the purpose of the activity was not just to
collect data or answer questions, the purpose was tomekesense of the data collected This
allowed the students to make sense of a real-world phenomenon such as why ice melts
faster when held then when left in a tray. What made the literacy component so critical
was that because of the many naive conceptions held by the students, there were many
times when there were multiple ways in which the experimental data could be interpreted.
This meant that different groups of students could conceivably arrive at different
explanations for their data. There were often multiple interpretations for any data set
although one explanation was generally more plausible and scientifically acceptable.

Because of this polysemic nature of the experimental data, the literacy and science
reasoning skills were critical. Without these literacy and reasoning skills, each student
might have the tendency to believe that their own interpretation of the data was correct

unless told otherwise by the teacher. The students needed to listen to the conclusions that

105

different groups reached, compare them to their own conclusions, debate those conclusions
they disagreed with, and modify their conclusions if needed. Once consensus about the
meaning of the results was achieved, the activities provided evidence that students could
agree upon and use in their discussions with one another.

The activities also served the purpose of teaching students that science
knowledge is constructed through inquiry which is guided by authentic questions. In
science class, authentic questions are ones which emerge from the students' own thinking
and questions rather than questions which are posed by teacher and text. Examples of
questions which were student- generated and became part of the science curriculum are
described in detail in Chapter 5. Authentic questions in science do not call for memorized
definitions, a statistic, or a formula. Rather authentic questions in science are questions
about a real world phenomenon, such as "why does soup cool when an ice cube is put in
it?".

Table 4.1 shows an outline of the three different types of tasks in which the
students engaged during science and literacy time during the first half of the unit. Table 4.2
shows the task outline for the second half of the unit. During the fust half of the unit the
students were all in one group of 42 for the discussions and all did the same activities in
groups of three. During the second half of the unit the shift in focus from changes in
matter to temperature was complete, and the students were divided into form groups of
approximately 10 students each. Each of these groups had a teacher who led the
discussion. All science activities at this point were teacher led and were typically done as a
group, although there were several that were done in groups of two. In addition, the
groups did not each do exactly the same activity near the end when each group was
responsible for a different presentation for the science conference. Table 4.2 summarizes

the enacted curriculum that occurred Mrs. Runner's group.

106

An important thing to notice is that there was never a science task (or activity) that
stands as an independent entity. With only two exceptions there was always bath a
discussion and a writing task to accompany the activity. The two exceptions were on
March 4, when the discussion went on for so long there was not time for the intended
writing task, and on April 2 which was a student-led science conference presentation for a
cross age group of their peers. There was no teacher present in this group on that day.

Table 4.3 at the end of this chapter represents the main ideas in the three curriculum
strands - science content, nature of scientific inquiry, and literacy -- as they are decribed in
the teachers' daily plans. One aspect of the science and literacy component that is clear
from the table is the natural way in which science and the oral and written literacy tasks
were integrated. In informal discussions before the daily science lesson the teachers
described to me the writing task and the discussion topic for the day and how they hoped
the task or discussion would help the students better understand the science concept. The
teachers intended that the discussion and writing tasks would add to and support the
students' understanding of the experimental activities that they had done in small groups.
The curriculum avoids becoming mindlessly activity-based through the use of discourse as
a tool for writing, thinking through, and frequently debating the data collected and the

conclusions that could be drawn from that data.

107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4.1
Description Of The Science Activity, Discussion Task, And Writing Tasks
For The First Half Of The Unit.
Date Science Task Discussion Task Writing Task
2125 (Done in groups of 3) (Whole class discussion) (Group product)
Predict what will happen to an What will happen to an ice Write prediction and
ice cube on their desk cube when it is left out on the explanation. Draw the ice
Watch changes in the ice cube desk? over time. Describe
over time. Describe and What causes the changes in the observations. State a
explain what happened. ice cube when it is left out? conclusion.
Science terms worksheet to be
done between ice cube
observations
3/3 (Done in groups of 3) (Whole class discussion) (Group product)
Predict what will happen to an Sharing conclusions. Write prediction and
ice cube when held in your observations, and explanations explanation. Describe and
hand Describe and explain for ice cube on tray melting. draw ice cube over time. Draw
what happens to the ice cube Description of ice cube in hand ice cube over time. Explain
and the hand holding it over experiment. findings. State a conclusion.
time.
3/4 Class discussion - review (Whole class discussion) None
previous day's activity. Sharing of anything interesting
Whole group measurement of from the ice cube in hand
selected student's hand and experiment.
body temperature. Reporting hand and body
temperature data.
3/8 (Small groups) (Whole class discussion) Individual writing (science
Measuring the temperature of What is the approximate notebooks): Why do you
the room at 8 stations in the temperature of our hands? think body temperature is
two rooms. Groups rotated What is the approximate higher than hand temperature?
from station to station. temperature of our body? Completed table: Location,
temperature. and comments.
3/10 (Small groups) (Whole class discussion) Individual writing (science
Discuss data collected What did we measure on notebooks): Write what you
yesterday. Come up with one Monday (hand and body noticed about the temperatures
room temperature. Decide temperature)? What does it around the room yesterday.
why that is room temperature mean when we say we Complete the phrase "We
(justify). measured something? believe that room temperature
is because
3/15 Measuring and recording the (Teacher led small group Data (as given by the teacher)
temperature of soup, oatmeal, discussion). is recorded individually in
snow. Predicting and How do you read a science notebooks. Teacher
comparing the difference in thermometer? directs them on how to set up
temperature between oatmeal What happens to the a data chart in their notebooks.
and snow. temperature of snow and soup Write predicted and actual
if they are left out at room temperature of the oatmeal,

 

 

temperature?

 

soup, and snow.

 

 

108

TABLE 4.2

Description Of The Science Activity, Discussion Task, And Writing Tasks
For The Second Half Of The Unit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science task Discussion task Writinwsk

3/ 16 (Small group, teacher led. How do you read a Data collected from

discussion.) thermometer? temperature measurement

Using benchmark temps of Is the temperature of snow recorded individually in

soup, oatmeal and snow to outside the same as the science notebook. Told to

predict temp of hot chocolate. temperature of snow inside? record their observations in
Why or why not? What words. not just numbers.
factors atfecr the temperature of Wrote a list of other things
snow? they would like to know the

temperature of.

3/ 18 (Small group, teacher led, Brainstorrned a list of items Individually write predictions
discussion.) Make chart of that were about the same for temperature of soda with
known temps. Use this to temperature as snow, the and without ice in science
predict the temp of soda with room, and hot soup. notebook.
and without ice. Need to use Given math homework
the chart to justify prediction. worksheet, "temperatures we

know".

3/25 Small group, teacher led. Teacher asks students for their No explicit directions given
discussion. Plan how they can ideas about what sorts of however students are taking
organize their science things she might have been notes about supplies needed,
conference "presentation". thinking about when she procedure, etc. in their science

selected the "doctor for a day" notebooks.
topic. Remainder of

discussion is procedural; what

supplies they will need, how

they will organize themselves,

etc.

3/29 Small group, teacher led, Students volunteer concepts Occasional notes in science
discussion. Continued that they have learned about notebooks - up to students.
planning for science temperature which they might No teacher directions re: doing
conference. Review of content want to teach about during this.
learned during unit - deciding their session.
which were the important
things they wanted to share
with other students.

3/30 Small group, teacher led What is the temperature of Occasional notes in science
discussion. Final planning for boiling water? Are air and notebooks. No explicit
science conference. water temperature necessarily teacher directions given
Discussion on the need for the same? however teacher praises kids
precise language in science - for taking notes.

i.e. water vapor vs. gas.
4/2 Cross age group led by None None.

 

students from "doctor for a day
group". No teacher present.
Topic is taking and comparing
hand and body temperature.

 

 

 

 

109

TABLE 4.3

Main Ideas In The Science Content, Nature Of Scientific Inquiry, and
Literacy In Science Components

 

Science Content

Nature of Scientific

Literacy in Science

 

 

Knowledge* Inquiry

Describe temperatures of Observation is an In order to reach

objects or differences in important part of science. consensus and decide

temperatures. (informal conversation which scientific description

-reading a thermometer with Mrs. Runner) or explanation is most
appropriate people need to
listen to each other.
(teachers ' plans)

Estimate the temperature of Science proceeds by being Writing can help support

objects by comparison to curious and asking your thinking during class

reference temperatures of questions about the world. discussions or discussions

freezing, room (informal conversation with peers.

temperature, body
temperature, boiling.

with Mrs. Runner)

(observation of Mrs.
Runner, Ms. Lawson. Ms.

 

Smith)
Predict changes in Experiments provide data Data/ideas need to be
temperature or state of an to support assertions. written down so that it can
object taking into account (observation of Mrs. be used at a later time
the temperature of the Runner, Ms. Iowson, Ms. (teachers' plans)

matter surrounding the
object.

Smith)

 

Explain changes in

Science proceeds by debate

Being a good listener

 

 

temperature in terms of and consensus building . means listening to ideas to
contact or proximity of (teachers' plans) build on someone else's
matter of a different idea and to get new
temperature information to revise your

thinking.

(teachers ’ plans)

It is important to listen and

 

 

decide whether you agree
or disagree with a persons
idea and thenrespond to the
idea.

(teachers ’ plans)

 

*Determined after the unit through discussion with Dr. Jones and Dr. Nettings and based upon participant

observation of the enacted unit.

 

110

Chmfiummant

This chapter gave a snapshot of the school setting, the teachers in that setting, and
the "Changes in Matter" curriculum. This was not a traditional setting. The classroom
was a double classroom in which there were 42 students, two classroom teachers, a
university collaborator, and a student teacher. The students formed a widely diverse group
with respect to race, class, and country of origin. In addition while some of the students
were the children of foreign graduate students in which one parent was a full-time parent,
some of the students were the children of single parents working on a degree as a non-
traditional undergraduate student.

The school, Atlantis Elementary, was a professional development school in which
the professional development project for the school year was creating a school-wide unit on
the topic of "Changes in Matter". There was a focus on both literacy and scientific
understanding in this unit and the culminating school-wide science conference reflected this
focus.

When the unit was enacted in this classroom the teachers employed a different
discourse pattern than the traditional I-R-E pattern. The emphasis in this new pattern,
which will be described in detail in Chapter Six, was on eliciting student thinking and ideas
and encouraging students to listen to and agree or disagree with the assertion presented
based upon evidence.

A small segment of a lesson was described to illustrate the way in which the
teachers used is this new discourse pattern to probe student thinking and support them in
moving towards a scientific conception. A more detailed description of a whole class
discussion is found in Chapter Five while two students' perceptions of and learning

through such discussions is described in detail in Chapter Six.

Chapter 5

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERSTANDING: TEACHERS
AND STUDENTS TAKE ON NEW ROLES DURING DISCUSSION

Water

The whole-class discussion described in this chapter took place approximately two
weeks into the "Changes in Matter" unit and is typical of the whole-class discussions that
were held during the unit. I elected to describe this particular lesson because it illustrates
the unique student and teacher roles during discussion. It will be used to examine more
clearly these roles and the pattern of discourse in the class.

This chapter also provides the context for the stories of Casey and Padma, whose
learning and participation in the discourse community are examined in Chapter 6. For the
stories of Casey and Padma to be meaningful, it is necessary to understand what a typical
whole group discussion looks like and the implicit and explicit teacher and student roles
and responsibilities during class discussion.

‘-. 0’ ..it . 11‘. to ‘ -0 if Mr 'ot'i" 0. 'n D' - or

The norms for participating in the discourse in this class during the "Changes in
Matter" unit differed from the traditional in some important ways. Therefore, this chapter
will begin with a brief discussion of the discourse pattern, view of the learner, and teacher
and student roles and responsibilities in a traditional science class discussion and in a social
constructivist science class discussion.

A Traditional Science Class

In a "traditional" science class the Initiation-Response-Evaluation (I-R-E) mode of

discourse is prevalent (Cazden, 1988; Lemke, 1990; Mehan, 1979). In this mode the

teacher asks a question (initiation) which generally requires a one-word response or a short

111

112

answer. A student is then nominated by the teacher and gives an answer (response) which
the teacher typically evaluates (evaluation) without necessarily considering m the student
responded the way that he/she did (Cazden, 1988; Lemke, 1990; Mehan, 1979). Answers
given by the student are deemed either right or wrong by the teacher and are not typically
challenged or questioned by the teacher or by the other students. If a wrong answer is
given, the teacher simply evaluates it as such (either subtly or not so subtly) and moves on
to another student until someone gives the scientifically correct answer. Once this correct
answer is given, it is accepted and the lesson continues.

This discourse pattern reflects a traditional perspective on the learner. From this
perspective a teacher assumes that all students are at a single place, point "A", prior to the
lesson. Through the presentation of the lesson the teacher moves the students from this
point "A" (no knowledge of the topic) to a new place, point "B" (a knowledge of the
topic) in a fairly lockstep fashion with all students assumed to be moving at approximately
the same pace and in the same ways. This view of teaching and learning implies a fairly
linear progression on the part of the students in which they progress from "absence of
knowledge" to "presence of knowledge" in a relatively unproblematic; if the teacher
presents the information in a clear and understandable fashion, its assumed the students
will learn. Figure 5.1 below illustrates how this path from point "A" to point "B" looks in
an traditional science class.

Figure 5.1

Traditional view of elementary science learning

Point A ------ > ------ > ------- > ----- > ----- > ----- > ----- > ----- > ----- > Point B

"Tabula Rasa" "Scientific fact"
"Scientific information"

Absence of knowledge Presence of knowledge

(all students begin here) (all students end here)

113

From this perspective the role of the teacher is that of "presenter of information",
and the role of the student is that of "receiver of information." The responsibilities of the
teacher in a traditional classroom are straightforward:

*Present the information in an clear, understandable, and interesting manner.

*Question students orally and in writing to ensure they are "getting" (receiving) the
information.

Similarly the responsibilities of the student in a traditional classroom are
straightforward:
*Listen to the information presented by the teacher.

*Leam the information so that when questioned. orally or in writing, an appropriate
response can be given.

A Social Constructivist Science Class

The discourse pattern in a social constructivist class does not consist of the
traditional I-R-E pattern, although the teacher does ask some questions (initiation) and the
students do respond to the questions (response). The differences between a traditional
I-R-E pattern and a social constructivist discussion pattern are described and illustrated in
detail later in this chapter. Generally, however, there is a richer set of possible moves by
both the students and the teacher. Some of the differences are seen in the nature of the
questions the teacher asks, in the near absence of teacher evaluation except in one specific
type of situation, and in the presence of discourse moves not present in the I-R-E.

In addition to "Initiation" (1), "Response" (R), and limited "Evaluation" (EV), four
other moves were present in the social constructivist discussions in this classroom:
"Probe" (P), "Redirect" (RD), "Reasoning" (RE) and "Revoice" (RV). As with both
initiation -- which may include teacher modeling or clarification of something a student has
said previously -- and response, these four new discourse moves may be made by either a
teacher or a student in a social constructivist discussion, although typically only the teacher
revoices or redirects as he or she facilitates the discussion. Furthermore, although a social

constructivist discussion typically begins with some form of a teacher initiation and a

114

student response, the pattern that follows varies depending on the context of the discussion
and the content of what is said in the previous move. Thus, although there is a pattern, it is
not as easy to characterize as the I-R-E because each move is so context- and content-
dependent.

This discourse pattern reflects a social constructivist view of the learner. From this
perspective, the progression from point "A" to point "B" is not a nice neat linear
progression, nor are "A" and "B" clearly defined points. Rather than being at a single point
"A" prior to the discussion, the students could be considered to comprise a constellation of
points. Some students will be fairly near, or even at, the scientific conception, others will
hold a variety of different, non-scientific, conceptions. The teacher must somehow, and
with the help of the students. shift this constellation of points (or conceptions) toward a
new, agreed upon, constellation -- the scientific conception. The scientific conception is
described as a constellation of points rather than a single "right answer" because there may
be more than one way of representing or describing the scientific conception. Not every
student in the class will represent their knowledge and understanding in the same way.

This process is not a linear one because everyone in the class is at a different
starting point and will not reach the scientific conception constellation at the same time and
in the same way. In addition, each student may follow a different path at a different speed
in reaching the scientific conception. Furthermore, as these different students share their
ideas in the discussion, all kinds of unplanned "side excursions" occur which, although
important, are not part of the main trajectory from "constellation A" to "constellation B".
At times the teacher may also see a need to enter into the discussion and take students off
the main path onto a side path that the teacher determines will be a helpful detour for many
of the students. These times are referred to as instructional detours when describing the

lesson. Figure 5.2 on the next page illustrates visually this set of relationships.

115

Figure 5.2
Social Constructivist View of Elementary Science Learning

 

 

*IDzlnstructional Detour

Rather than assuming a single starting point, the teacher who holds this second
perspective on teaching and learning realizes that there may be as many different
conceptions, and ways of representing those conceptions, at the beginning of the lesson as
there are children in the class. A goal for this teacher would be to create a common
discourse for teacher and students which includes not only common ways of agreeing,
disagreeing, and sharing thinking but also a common understanding of the "scientific"
terms that are being used in the discussion. Establishing a common discourse is one
purpose of the discussion described in this chapter.

Creating this common discourse requires the following teacher roles and
responsibilities:

*Valuing and probing students thinking and ideas and drawing on these rather than
presenting her own perspective.

*Working hard at understanding the students' arguments and logic.

l 16
*Listening to student's thinking and "teasing out" the ideas that will lead them
collectively towards a deeper understanding.
*Treating students' questions seriously and using them as "teachable moments".

*Helping students articulate their thinking and give evidence or reasoning to
support their assertions.

*Keeping the discussion going in a productive direction by revoicing a student's
response, redirect a response by calling for agreement or disagreement, and
periodically summarizing the ideas on the speaking floor.

Associated with these common roles and responsibilities are a set of discourse

moves that the teacher makes. These moves are;

*Initiating the discussion by asking a question.

*Probing a student's response for reasoning.

*Revoicing a student's response.

*Redirecting a student's response by calling for agreement or disagreement.

*Evaluating a student's response during an instructional detour.

The student's role in a traditional I-R-E discussion is to pay attention to the teacher
and repeat the appropriate scientific "facts" at the appropriate time -- as determined by the
teacher. The student's role in a social constructivist discussion is considerably more
complicated and cognitively demanding. The students have the responsibility to listen to
both their teacher and their peers and to compare their personal ideas with the ideas on the
floor. They must then decide whether they agree or disagree with the idea proposed by the
speaker. In order to participate in the discussion, they must state their position and provide
evidence which either supports or challenges the assertion on the floor. Because the
teacher does not necessarily dominate the speaking floor, the rules for getting and
maintaining the speaking floor are also more complicated than in an I-R-E discussion.

Participating in a social constructivist learning community requires the following
student roles and responsibilities:

*Listening to, and valuing, the thinking and ideas of the other students in the class.

*Sharing thinking and ideas during discussion.

l 17
*Working hard at understanding the other students' (and the teacher's) logic and
arguments.

*Considering the ways in which the idea on the floor connects with, or does not
not connect with, their personal theory.

*Agreeing or disagreeing with the ideas of their peers and providing evidence or
reasoning to support that.

*Understanding that science is about puzzling through ideas and reaching

consensus rather than about getting the answer.

Associated with these common roles and responsibilities are a set of discourse
moves that the students make. These moves are;

*Response to a teacher's initiation

*Reasoning in response to a probe.

*Evaluation of another student's ideas by agreeing or disagreeing.

*Sumrnarizing at the end of the day's discussion or as a segue to the day’s

actrvrty.

The remainder of this chapter focuses on describing the lesson and the interactions
between the students in the class and Ms. Lawson as they struggled together to understand
each other's thinking and reasoning and gradually work toward reaching consensus -- an
agreement about what the average hand and body temperature are. The purpose of this is
to illustrate a social constructivist discussion in action and to describe the discourse pattern
in such a discussion. Chapter Six will then look closely at the participation and science
content learning of two students in the constellation of the class.

B k n n th March 8 Lesson

Pre-test data indicated that students maintained a number of naive conceptions about
the concept of temperature. They recognized small numbers as representing cold
temperatures and larger numbers as representing hot temperatures but were confused about
the relationship of the numbers to the change of state of matter. For example, they did not
realize that at 0°C (32°F) water would be a solid. Because of this, the teachers decided to

help the students develop a series of "benchmark" temperatures they could use as reference

118

points. Boiling point, body temperature, room temperature, and freezing point were
chosen as the benchmark temperatures. Therefore, it was important that students had a
good understanding of what body temperature was and what the number 98°F meant.
Additionally, in order to understand why their hypothesis that an ice cube in the hand
melted faster was correct, they needed to have some concept of "hand temperature".

Because these temperature values were important for the students to understand if
they were to understand other targeted unit concepts such as temperature change, the
teachers made the decision to spend a substantial amount of time across several class
discussions talking about these numbers. The March 8 class discussion described in this
chapter is one of these discussions. The focus of this particular discussion was on
understanding what body temperature and hand temperature are. Once thing that is unique
about this discussion is that it is about something that most people would consider to be a
scientific "fact"; body temperature is 98.6°F. In many traditional elementary science
classrooms this topic would not be something that would be a topic of discussion; rather, it
would be a piece of information the students would be expected to hear, remember, and
use. It would be considered information to "know" rather than a concept to be
"understood".

In the two lessons prior to this discussion, the students worked in teacher-assigned
groups of three to observe and describe an ice cube melting. (Unfortunately, this is the first
time, and the last time, the groups had this particular configuration. The teachers regularly
changed the group assignments.) As a group they formulated a hypothesis about what was
happening when the ice cube melted and explained their hypothesis during class
discussion. One group hypothesized that their ice cube melted faster than all the other
groups' ice cubes because they kept touching their ice cube with their warm hand. This led
the class to formulate the hypothesis that an ice cube held in the hand would melt faster than

one left on the table.

119

In order to gather empirical evidence for the "ice cube in the hand" hypothesis,
students working in groups of three1 held an ice cube in their hand and measured the time it
took to melt compared to an ice cube left sitting on the table. They also measured the
temperature of their hand to see if it was warmer than room temperature, which would
account for why an ice cube held in the hand melted faster. During class discussion the
teachers also had several people measure their body temperature as a reference point.
Figure 5.3 gives a timeline of the March 8 discussion.

Scie s Mon a March 8 2:4 .m.

It is 2:45 p.m. Monday afternoon. and the students are coming in from afternoon
recess. There is one hour left before they go home for the day. As the students finish
hanging up their coats in the coat room and enter the classroom, the teachers tell them to sit
in the team area. All whole-class discussions during science and literacy time are held in
this area which is a carpeted open floor space between the two classrooms. There is a
blackboard, an overhead projector, and several "adult" chairs at the front of this area.
Generally during a class discussion the teacher leading the discussion will sit on one of
these chairs rather than stand so the students do not have to look up quite so far from their
positions on the floor when talking with the teacher.

Talking quietly, the students hang up their coats and sit cross-legged on the floor in
the team area This area is small and it is cramped for all 42 students to sit in the area.
However, they manage to do so without any altercations. Ms. Smith, Mrs. Runner, and
Dr. N sit at student desks off to one side of the team area. Casey is sitting on the outer
periphery of the group as usual. And, as is typical, he is sitting near the front, but to Ms.
Lawson's left and out of her direct line of sight. By contrast, Padma is sitting in the center
of the group approximately four students back from the front and directly in Ms. Lawson's

line of vision. She is sitting next to Yaza and diagonally in front of Sarina, both of whom

 

1These groups, which were teacher assigned. were not the same groups they had worked in when observing
the ice cube melting on the table.

120

Figure 5.3

March 8 Discussion Timeline

Lesson Introduction

Body Temperature Discussibn
-Review of body temperature data

Instructional Detour #1 & #2
definition of "approximately"

Conclude discussion of approximate body temperature
Discussion of approximate hand temperature

Sarina's question re:approx.
Instructional Detour
-definition of "approximately"

Continued discussion of hand temperature
-Derek's disagreement

Instructional Detour
-'lhermometer structure

l

Continued debate about hand temperature
-Most students disagree with Derek
-Derek continues to argue his position

Discussion of what scientists would do if they
disagreed with their experimental data

Ms. Lawson's cojecture

Transition to writing time

121

are friends of Padma's and appear to compete with her for the mantle of "smart student."
Yaza and Sarina are both active participants later in the day's discussion. The result of this
seating arrangement is that Padma appears to be an active participant in the discussion,
even through she contributes little verbally.

Once they were all seated Ms. Lawson, seated on a stool at the front of the room,
began the lesson by reorienting the students to the activity they had done the previous
week. She spoke in a low, even tone and maintained a consistent pace throughout the
lesson, never speeding up or slowing down and never raising her voice even later in the
lesson when she reprimanded a student for not listening;

Ms Lawson: Okay...you need to have your eyes up here and think back to

last week when we were taking the temperatures of our hands...and I

quickly recorded some of the different hand temperatures in our

classroom...do you think looking up here...today we could talk about kind

of an approximate hand temperature...what does that mean. approximate.

if you were gonna say well approximately..my hand temperature is..what

do you think that means... (Transcript, March 8, 1993)

As soon as she said "okay" the students stopped talking and faced her. This was
their signal that the lesson was beginning. Once she had their attention Ms. Lawson
reoriented them to the data they collected the previous week by reminding them that they
took the temperature of their hands, and she recorded some of their temperatures on the
overhead projector. Not everyone had the same hand temperature she noted; rather there
was a range from 89° to 98° F. Hand and body temperature are not fixed values that are

always the same - for example, body temperature will elevate with exercise or illness.

 

Although "normal" hand and body temperature could be defined as a range of
temperatures such as this, this is not the convention and Ms. Lawson had decided to have
students select a single number as an approximate hand temperature. Having a single
number as the approximate hand temperature would allow the class to have another

"benchmar " temperature they could use for future reference. A single number is also

122

easier to manage and conceptualize for the third-grade students than would be a range of
numbers. Developing an approximate temperature also provided an opportunity to review a
concept learned in mathematics - determining an approximate value.

Review approximation was not in the daily lesson plans and appears to be an
integration opportunity that Ms. Lawson took advantage of as it emerged from the
conversation. I observed this sort of natural integration of mathematics and science a
number of times during the Changes in Matter unit. The teachers in this classroom seem to
take advantage of any opportunity to integrate knowledge across the curriculum. So,
although this was officially a time when science and literacy were being explicitly
integrated, mathematics was often integrated whenever there was a natural place to use
mathematical concepts or reasoning.

AW

If students were to determine an approximate body temperature it was important that
everyone in the class understood what Ms. Lawson meant by the term "approximately."
This knowledge was necessary in order to understand the lesson, the focus of which was
on using the data collected the previous week to calculate an approximate hand and body
temperature and then to use this approximate temperature to decide the effect that different
temperatures have on an ice cube. Thus Ms. Lawson took what I have termed an
"instructional detour" to discuss the meaning of the term "approximately." Instructional
detours such as these where the meaning of a word or term is clarified and discussed are
common in this classroom. These instructional detours seem to be the way that the teachers
slip out of their role of discussion facilitator and take on the role of information provider
and clarifier. There are times when this is necessary; if students do not all have a conunon
understanding of the term "approximately," for example, they will be interpreting the
lesson in different ways based upon their understanding of the word. Instructional detours

allow the teachers to make sure that everyone has a common starting point for the

123

discussion. This is important in any class and may be even more important in a class
where there are so many language minority students.

Ms. Lawson began the instructional detour with the question, "What does that
mean...'approximate'?" This opening question was marked as being different from much
of the discourse that was to come because there was clearly a specific answer that Ms.
Lawson was quickly seeking (as Opposed to opinions, agreement or disagreement, or ideas
which needed to be justified with evidence). In response to this question Casey
immediately raised his hand. As Ms. Lawson finished speaking, Tito and Mike also raised
their hands. Although, or perhaps because. Casey was sitting in the front directly to Ms.
Lawson's left, Ms. Lawson appeared not to see his raised hand and called instead on Tito
who responded by saying "about." Casey turned toward Tito as he answered and then
immediately faced Ms. Lawson again and raised his hand. Ms. Lawson evaluated Tito's
response by repeating "about" and then saying "okay." This evaluation move is unusual in
this class and is typically only present during an instructional detour such as this. Once
Ms. Lawson evaluated Tito's response she continued the lesson despite the fact that Casey
still had his hand raised. Casey kept his hand up for another moment then slowly lowered
it.

WW

Apparently satisfied that "approximately" was a familiar term to the students.
perhaps based upon Tito's accurate synonym, Ms. Lawson turned on the overhead
projector which showed the hand temperature data table constructed during the previous

lesson;

W
T # of le

 

As she did this Ms. Lawson began initially to ask about determining hand

temperature but quickly shifted to talking about body temperature more generally. In this,

and all remaining transcript segments in this chapter, each move has been coded and labeled

as initiation, response, evaluation, probe. reasoning, revoice, or redirect;

Initiation

Initiation

Response

Initiation

(Transcript, March 8, 1993)

Ms. L:

Ms. L:

Shakira:

Ms. L:

(Adjusting overhead projector as she talked) Could
we come up with a ...hand temperature that we could
say well hand temperatures are about..this..what are
our body temperatures about..does anyone remember
when we took the temperature of our bodies".

(Pause as many students, including Casey raise their hands.
Padma is sitting politely with her hands folded and is
looking down at her hands)

What was our approximate body temperature we came up
with? Shakita do you remember?

(somewhat tentatively) Ninety six

Okay I think you're close, maybe it would help to remember
what we had. I think we had, um...

At this point Ms. Lawson may have realized that the students in the class did not

necessarily know that body temperature is 98.6°F. However, rather than explicitly

evaluating Shakira's response and saying that 96 was not correct and/or calling on another

student, Ms. Lawson took another approach. With the students' help she reconstructed

the data they had collected the previous lesson by reviewing what different people's body

temperature was found to be.

Initiation
Response

Elaboration

Revoice

Response

Ms. L:

Chorus:

Ms. L:

Okay I think you're close. Maybe it would help to
remember what we had. I think we had..um

Ninety nine

One person was ninety seven.

(overlapping calling out of temperatures)

Ms. L:

Chorus:

Ninety nine. Mrs. Runner and.

Titi

125

Revoice Ms. L: were Ninety eight
Response Yaza; Ninety nine
Revoice Ms. L: Yaza was ninety nine and then um Miss Smith and 1, our
thermometers weren't working very well. So, hmm...
Initiation Ms. Smith What about Dana?
Ms. L: Hmmm?

Initiation Ms. Smith Dana?

Response Ms. L: Dana was ninety seven right.
Initiation Ms. L: (to Dana) You were ninety seven. right?
Response Dana: Yeah.

(Transcript, March 8. 1993)

The segment began much like an l-R-E discussion with a teacher initiation and
student response. However, rather than evaluating the student’s response and moving on
to another question there was a sequence in which the teacher merely revoiced what a
student had said and another student responded. The segment then ended with the second
teacher asking a question to which the first teacher responded. There was no evaluation
move present as there would typically be in an I-R-E sequence. Thus, if you were to
""map the moves in this segment the pattern would be; I(T1)-R-RE-RV-R-RV-R-RV-
I(T2)-R(Tl)-R with (T1) and (T2) representing the two teachers, Ms. Lawson and Ms.
Smith, who participated in the discussion.

As the students were collectively reconstructing the list of temperatures, Ms.
Lawson was writing them on the overhead:

Body Temperature

 

 

 

Temperature # of people
97 I

98 1 l

99 1

 

126

The students then had a visual representation of the data they had collected the previous
week. They could use this data to decide what they thought was an approximate body
temperature. Ms. Lawson began by asking what the approximate body temperature was and
Micah, raised his hand, and. when called on, responded that he thought body temperature
was 98 degrees.

So far the discussion has followed the traditional I-R-E pattern --the teacher asked a
question to which a student responded. However, at this point, Ms. Lawson departs from
that pattern. Rather than immediately evaluating Micah's answer and giving him feedback as
to whether it was correct. Ms. Lawson questioned him about how he came up with this
number. After Micah had given his reasoning Ms. Lawson did not judge the correctness of
his answer or his reasoning in the traditional sense seen with an Initiation-Response-
Evaluation (I-R-E) discourse pattern. Instead she turned this responsibility over to the
students by repeating what he said and asking for comments. These two discourse moves --
questioning Micah's thinking and calling for comments -- directed the students' attention to
the way in which Micah determined the number rather than the number itself. It was this
emphasis on the thinking rather than on the specific answer that marked this portion of the
discussion (as with much of the discussions in this class) as being different from a traditional
science discussion. This interaction between Ms. Lawson and Micah is shown below:

Initiation Ms. L: So what was our, what's an approximate body temperature based on
our res ults?

Response Micah: (calls out) Ninety eight
Probe Ms. L: And why do you say ninety eight?
(Micah raises his hand to "rebid" for the floor)
Ms. L: Okay. Micah?
Reasoning Micah: Because ninety eight is between ninety nine and ninety seven.
Revoice Ms. L: Ninety eight is between.

Redirect Ms. L: Comments about that?

127

When this exchange is mapped out, the pattern is seen as I-R-P-RE-RV-RD. Ms.
Lawson initiates with a question which Micah responds to. However, rather than
evaluating his response Ms. Lawson probes his drinking and then gives Micah an
opportunity to give his reasoning for his response. Ms. Lawson still does not evaluate but
rather revoices what Micah has said and redirects the response back to the rest of the class
by calling for comments.

By probing Micah in this way and allowing him to share his reasoning for his
original response, Micah's thinking was made visible to everyone in the class and became
part of the shared knowledge of the class. Therefore, Micah's peers had the opportunity to
know not only what he believed body temperature to be based upon the available data but
they also had the opportunity to know how he had determined it. As a class and
individually they could now decide if they agreed or disagreed with Micah based upon his
reasoning. In this way the emphasis in the ensuing conversation is on the underlying
thinking that led to the answer rather than on the "answer" only.

In elementary school there are a multitude of different subjects and many concepts
within each subject area that the district or state requires taught. This creates a situation in
which the teacher is nearly continuously in the position of having to weigh the advantages
and disadvantages of pursuing a particular line of thinking or a particular strategy against
the need to continue on with the lesson so that it is completed in a timely fashion. It is this
pressure to cover a certain amount of content by the end of the year that leads many
teachers to approach science in a more traditional, less time consuming, I-R-E manner.

The exchange between Micah and Ms. Lawson described above is an example of an
interaction that could have been considerably shorter if the teacher had chosen to make it
so. After Micah responded that 98°F is body temperature, Ms. Lawson could have made
the decision to verify the accuracy of this and to tell students that they needed to remember

this number as they would be referring to body temperature in the future and they would

128

need to know a numeric value for it. This would place the emphasis on science content
knowledge, and the student would have the responsibility for remembering this content.

Instead, by asking him why he thought ninety eight was body temperature, Ms.
Lawson tried to communicate to Micah. and the rest of the class, that they have the
responsibility for supporting their assertions with evidence. The potential message is that
their thinking, and how they determined the answer they gave, is equally as important as
reaching an answer. The questioning of how Micah decided that ninety eight was body
temperature shifted the responsibility for meaning making back to the students. In this
discussion the teacher did not claim full responsibility for evaluating whether the answer
was correct or incorrect. Each member of the learning community had the responsibility of
listening to Micah's reasoning and deciding if they thought it made sense. They then had
the responsibility for agreeing or disagreeing with Micah based upon his reasoning and had
to give reasons of their own for this agreement/disagreement. In this manner class
consensus was built.

Ms. Lawson implicitly communicated to the students their responsibility for
participating in the class consensus building by not commenting herself upon Micah's

reasoning. Rather, she asked the students to comment about what Micah had just said;

Initiation Ms L.: Comments about that? Yaza what do you think?

Response Yaza: Yes.

Probe/ Ms. L: You agree.

Revoice

Elaboration Yaza I have another reason why. Because two people were ninety
eight.

Revoice Ms. L: Two people were ninety eight.

Redirect Ms. L: What do you think about that? Mike, what do you think
about that?

(Transcript, March 8, 1993)

129

In this exchange with Yaza, the discourse pattern is exactly the same as in the
interaction with Micah. The two patterns are mapped out below:

Micah I-R-P-RE-RV-RD

Yaza I-R-P-RE-RV-RD

Both Micah and Yaza have now provided different, and valid, statistical arguments
for why body temperature should be considered to be 98°F based upon their data. Micah
argued for the statistical median saying that he thinks ninety eight is the approximate body
temperature because it is in the middle of the three numbers recorded for body temperature.
Yaza said that she agreed but had another reason for agreeing. Her argument was that 98°
represented the statistical mode -- two people were 98°. Although the students did not use
the terms "median" and "mode" they were effectively using these ideas in context-- ideas
which many might consider too sophisticated for third grade students to understand and
use.

The discussion about body temperature continued with Ms. Lawson revoicing the
pieces of evidence provided by Micah and Yaza. Zane and Mike (who is a special
education student) joined the discussion at this point. This is a fairly "safe" time
intellectually to join the discussion. There were several assertions with supporting
evidence on the floor. Although a new idea could be added, students could also join the
conversation at this point by saying that they agree with one or both assertions and
evidence. However, even during this time when students could participate in ways which
were less intellectually risky, some students, such as Padma, chose to sit silently. During
this time these students appeared to be listening attentively, but never made a bid for the
speaking floor.

By the end of this brief interaction, it appeared that the class had reached the
consensus that 98° is the approximate body temperature.

Initiation Ms. Lawson: Mike, what do you think about that? Micah and Yaza
think that ninety eight is the approximate body temperature

because two people were ninety eight and it is also in the
middle of ninety seven and ninety nine.

130

Response Mike: I agree with that.

Probe Ms. Lawson: You agree with that.

Response Mike: Yes.

Initiation Ms. Lawson: Zane?

Response Zane: I agree also.

Probe Ms. Lawson: Why?

Reasoning Zane: Because ninety seven and ninety nine have just one person

but ninety eight has two people.

Probe Ms. Lawson: Do you feel comfortable saying that ninety eight is
approximately body temperature?

Response Zane: Yeah.
(Transcript, March 8, 1993)

Ms. Lawson interacted with Zane and Mike differently than she did with Micah and
Yaza. When Mike said that he agreed, Ms. Lawson revoiced what he said with falling
vocal intonation. She wasn't confirming that he was agreeing, rather she was revoicing
what he had said. However, unlike Micah and Yaza, Mike did not pick up on the subtle
hint to give a reason why he agreed and did not share his reasoning the way that Micah and
Yaza had done before him. Ms. Lawson chose to go on to another student rather than to
probe him.

By contrast Ms. Lawson quickly probed "why?" when Zane said that he agreed. In
response to this, Zane elaborated by repeating the reason given by Yaza that two people
were ninety eight. Additionally, he added further clarification of, and support for, Yaza's
reason saying that ninety seven and ninety nine have just one person each. N 0 one else in
the room raised their hand at this point to say that they are not comfortable saying that
ninety eight is body temperature. This seemed to be at least some indication of consensus.

The pattern of the interaction with Mike and Zane is shown below along with the
pattern seen with Yaza and Micah:

Mike I-R-P-R

I31

Zane I-R-P-RE-P-R

Yaza and Micah I-R-P-RE-RV-RD

In Mike's case once he did not respond to Ms. Lawson's probe she initiated the
question again. By contrast Zane, Yaza. and Micah all responded to Ms. Lawson's probe
with reasoning which led Ms. Lawson to either probe further or to revoice their reasoning
and redirect. The pattern that emerges is that Ms. Lawson will probe a response and in
order for the student to keep the speaking floor, and/or for their idea to remain on the floor
and part of the discussion, they must elaborate and/or give their reasoning in response to
the probe.

A n ' t - A r im M ?

Following the discussion of body temperature, Ms. Lawson began a second,
longer, "instructional detour" about the concept of approximation. This was done by
having the students volunteer synonyms for the word "approximately". As described
earlier, these instructional detours were much closer to a traditional I-R-E sequence.
During this exchange Ms. Lawson used a great deal of repetition, possibly for the
managerial purposes of allowing everyone to hear the responses. She also evaluated
responses both implicitly or explicitly. There is also no teacher probing, and as a
consequence, no reasoning is given. This contributes to the rapid exchange-mo single

person or idea maintains the speaking floor for more than one turn:

Initiation Ms. Lawson: Approximately. Does that mean exactly?

Response Chorus: No.

Initiation Ms. Lawson: What does approximately mean?

Response Sarina: About

Revoice Ms. L: About. ?

Redirect Ms L: Another way you could define approximately? Padma?
Response Padma: Maybe

Revoice Ms. L: Maybe.

132

Evaluation Ms. L: Okay.

Response ???: Almost.

Revoice Ms. L: Almost.

Redirect Ms. L: Pritik?

Response Pritik: Kind of.

Revoice Ms. L: Kind of.

Evaluation Ms. L: Good.

Redirect Ms. L: Rachel?

Response Rachel Close to.

Revoice Ms. L: Close to. 80 approximately we could say body temperature

is ninety eight.
(Transcript, March 8, 1993)

This segment is marked as being different from the rest of the conversation. The
pattern maps out as:
I-R-I-R-RV-(EV)*-RD-R-RV-EV—R-RV-(EV)-RD-R-RV-EV-RD-R-RV

*(EV) represents an implied evaluation in which Ms. Lawson indicated that the
answer was correct by going on to another person for another synonym.

This instructional detour was very rapid, and Ms. Lawson's talk was limited
primarily to revoicing what one student had said and nominating the next student.
Instructional detours like this also included teacher evaluation which was rarely seen during
discussions other than instructional detours. Defining a term or reaching agreement about
the meaning of a word such as this is different than making and evaluating claims about a
phenomenon. This may account for the difference in the structure and pace of these
instructional detours -- which were not about making claims.

Ms. Lawson made this instructional detour concerning the concept of
"approximately" for the second time presumably because of the importance of
understanding this concept . If students do not understand this, they will not have access

to the ideas in the discussion. She may have been generating a range of synonyms for the

133

word approximately so that it is more likely that one will be used which will have meaning
to the students.
1M1 . D ! . II 1 I | 9

Now that students were reoriented to the previous week's activity, had established
an approximate body temperature, and had demonstrated that they understood the term
"approximately" and knew how to determine an approximate temperature from a data set,
Ms. Lawson was ready move into the next segment of the lesson which dealt with
determining an approximate hand temperature. This was a more difficult task for the
students than determining body temperature because there were twenty data points spread
over six temperatures compared to the four data points over three temperatures for body
temperature. This is probably the reason why, when first introducing the idea of an
approximate temperature, Ms. Lawson had abruptly shifted from asking about hand
temperature to asking about body temperature. Students had now had some practice
determining an approximate number from a data set that was a little less intimidating
because it was smaller. The data chart was still on the overhead, recorded in the table with
a green marker;

Hand Temperature

 

 

 

 

 

 

Temp #ofpeople
98 l

95 l

92 1

91 1111
90 11111111
89 111

 

Ms. Lawson began the discussion of the data:

Initiation Ms. L: What do you think approximately hand temperature is based
on the green results you had last week. What would you
say? What would you say Mike?

Response Mike: Ninety.
Probe Ms. L: Okay, why.

 

134

Reasoning Mike: Because it has ten and the others have one or three or four or
(Transcript, March 8, 1993) two.

At this point the pattern of the conversation was identical to the earlier one about
body temperature, I-R-P-RE. Although an answer had been given which is a reasonable
one based upon the data, Ms. Lawson did not immediately accept the response, give
feedback that it was correct, and continue on. Rather, she patiently asked Mike why he
believed that 90 is hand temperature.

At this point in the discussion the students were still remarkably engaged and
attentive. There were forty two 8-10 year old children on the floor in a very small area
looking up at the teacher who is sitting on a stool. They were not wiggling around as you
often see young children doing, nor are they talking or otherwise interacting in some way
with their peers sitting around them. Generally they were sitting cross-legged facing the
teacher, although some of them shifted to look at each speaker as they take a turn. These
factors indicated a high level of engagement with the discussion.

In response to Ms. Lawson's request for evidence that the approximate hand
temperature is ninety, Mike gave the same reasoning that Yaza gave for body temperature;
that there were more people who measured 90 than any other temperature (statistical mode).
Mike's explanation represented one way in which he was potentially learning from one of
his peers in this learning community, specifically Yaza. Mike gave an appropriate statistical
explanation which he may have learned from listening to Yaza. However, it can be argued
that he did not simply memorize Yaza's explanation and parrot it back without
understanding it, because he did not use the exact same language as Yaza. In addition,
Mike had added to his explanation additional information about how many people were at
the other temperatures to his explanation. This is the same thing that Zane did earlier when
he supported Yaza's initial assertion about body temperature.

To further illustrate the assertion that Mike learned both how to calculate the

approximate temperature and how to give evidence for that from listening to his peers the

135

following transcript segments show Yaza's original reason for why 98°F should be the
approximate body temperature. Zane's support and further clarification are shown below
along with Mike's reason for why 90°F should be body temperature. Note the similarity of
the ideas even though the language used is slightly different. Note also the line numbers

which illustrate that these three statement occurred over time, not one after another:

Elaboration 31 Yaza: I have another reason why. Because two [gople
were nineg eight.

Reasoning 41 Zane: Because ninety seven and ninety nine have
just one person but ninety eight has two people.

Reasoning 60 Mike: Because it |90°F| has ten and the others have one
or three or four or two.

(Transcript, March 8, 1993)

The underlined portion of Mike's explanation shows the reasoning process that he
may have learned from listening to Yaza and Zane while, the bolded text shows the
additional supporting evidence he may have learned from listening to Zane.

Following Mike's statement, Mrs. Runner entered the discussion for the first time
during this lesson, probing Mike about how he knew that there were ten students who had
90°F so quickly. Mike explained to her that he understood the tallying method that was
used. During this discussion Mrs. Runner asked Mike what the tally marks stood for, and
Mike communicated some lack of clarity about this. This was followed by an interaction
with Josie explaining to Mike what the tally marks stood for. The interaction is interesting,
because Ms. Lawson gives Josie explicit instructions to talk directly to Mike rather than to a
teacher. By doing so Ms. Lawson is indicated that she was not the only authority for

knowledge in the classroom and that the students needed to talk to. and listen to, one

another.

Initiation Ms. Lawson: (to Mike) Okay, and what do the tally marks stand for?
Response Mike: For how many people or numbers there are.

Redirect Ms. Lawson: Okay, could someone expand on that a little bit. Ten what

were ninety?

136

Revoice Ms. Lawson: Mike said ninety because there were ten.

Redirect Ms. Lawson: Josie?

Response Josie: I think that ten students for ninety.

Elicit St. Ms. Lawson: What do you think about that Mike? Did you hear what she
evaluation said?

Request Ms. Lawson Could you tell him again?

Response Josie: I think that...

Request Ms. Lawson: Why don't you tell hi_m.

Response Josie: ...that ten students are ninety degrees

(Transcript, March 8. 1993)

This exchange is slightly different than the interactions earlier in the lesson,
although it has the same moves with one addition. In one instance, however, the order of
the moves was switched and Ms. Lawson redirected without revoicing. However, when
there was no response to her redirect she "backpedaled" and revoiced at which time her
redirect garnered a response. A new move in this segment was to ask Josie to respond
directly to Mike. Again, this served to illustrate that the students in this learning
community had the responsibility to listen to one another and to help each other understand
the material under study.

Following the discourse pattern that she established in this lesson, Ms. Lawson
continued the discussion by asking the class if they agreed with Mike that 90° is the
approximate body temperature. Naomi raised her hand and, when called on, agreed with
Mike saying, "I think so because there are ten people and not more than ten or like ten
people in the other one". Naomi was the first student during this discussion to agree and
then give her reasons for agreement without explicitly being asked to do so. As with Mike,
Naomi was using the argument for the statistical mode begun by Yaza. that there were ten
people who measured their body temperature to be 90°F, and further clarifying that there

was not another temperature in which there were ten or more people. And, as with Mike,

137

Naomi was not merely parroting the statements made by Yaza. Zane, and Mike, but was
explaining her thinking in her own words.
.. - l ..

Following Naorrri's comment, Sarina raised her hand and asked what the word
"approximately" meant. This was followed by a M instructional detour concerning the
word "approximately". Again. this segment of the discourse is marked as being different
from the rest of the lesson. The conversational tone was dropped, and Ms. Lawson again
initiated a rapid exchange with no probing or reasoning in which the students provided

synonyms for the word approximately which Ms. Lawson evaluated:

Initiation Ms. Lawson: Approximately. What does approximately mean. Mioka?
Response Mioka: Like about or..
Initiation Ms. Lawson: About what were some other, do you remember some other

words we used? Could someone help us with our
definition? What does approximately mean Bethany?

Response Bethany: Almost.
Revoice Ms. Lawson: Almost.

Elaborate Ms. Lawson: Close

Response ???: Near.

Revoice Ms. Lawson: Near.

Redirect Ms. Lawson: Hosea?

Response Hosea: Kind of.

Revoice Ms. Lawson: Kind of. Understand now Sarina?
Sarina: Umhmm.

(Transcript, March 8, 1993)

Once again Ms. Lawson showed a great deal of patience in a situation where many
of us would be tempted to point out that the word had been defined twice before and

therefore another explanation should not be necessary! Ms. Lawson did not, however, tell

138

Sarina that they had already discussed the meaning of "approximately" twice or otherwise
appear irritated with Sarina for asking the question. Rather, she took the question seriously
and used it as another opportunity to review the term which was central to the day's lesson.

Sarina had appeared visibly engaged in the lesson up to this point. She was sitting
on her knees leaning slightly forward, frequently raising her hand when a question was
asked. This apparent engagement in the lesson followed by Sarina's question about a term
that had been defined twice previously shows that a teacher cannot presume that students
understand a term or concept simply because it has been presented once before. It also
illustrates again how difficult the idea of "approximately" is for third grade students and the
importance of the patient repetition done by Ms. Lawson. If Ms. Lawson had only had
students calculate an approximate temperature for one of the data sets, hand temperature, as
she originally began to do, it is possible that Sarina would not have asked her question and
would have left the lesson understanding little. It is only because Ms. Lawson provided
multiple opportunities for the students to calculate an approximate temperature and because
they discussed the meaning of the term "approximate" twice that Sarina realized that she
really didn't understand what the word meant and that she might be missing something
important.

The way in which Ms. Lawson handled Sarina's question was also consistent with
the discourse pattern established in the lesson. Ms. Lawson did not simply invoke her
authority and tell Sarina the definition of the term so that they could continue widr the
lesson. Rather, she asked the students to once again come up with their own definition of,
or synonym for, the term. The students were able to do so based partially based upon the
context in which the term was used in discussion and partly based upon knowledge gleaned
through the first two instructional detours. This gave all students more ownership over the
concept of "approximately" than if Ms. Lawson had told them all what the word meant. It
also provided another opportunity for Ms. Lawson to assess their understanding of the

term.

139

Mama

The preliminary work was now done, the students had been reoriented to the data
they collected the previous week, body temperature had been discussed and an approximate
body temperature agreed upon, and the concept of approximation had been reviewed
several times. The students appeared engaged in the lesson at this point -- they were facing
the teacher, raising their hands to participate, making comments that related directly to the
lesson.

Immediately before the instructional detour about the meaning of "approximately"
Mike had said that he thought hand temperature is 90°F and gave reasons to support this
assertion. Following this instructional detour Ms. Lawson returned to this assertion by
calling for comments. Casey, who had been sitting quietly on the periphery of the group
raising and lowering his hand but never being called on, finally gained the speaking floor
when Ms. Lawson nominated him. He entered the conversation for the first time with a

new theory which led him to disagree with some of the other evidence that had been

provided:

Initiation Ms. Lawson: Are there any comments about. we are trying to decide
which temperature we think is approximately the temperature
of our hand.Mike says he thinks ninety. Comments about
that? Daniel?

Response Daniel: I agree with. all the other ones are like one. two. and three,

or four and ninety has ten.
Redirect Ms. Lawson: Casey

Evaluation! Casey: I disagree with Mike's idea because ninety degrees has ten

Elaboration people out of the whole classroom and there weren't even
ten people to get their temperature taken for the one over
there [points to body temperature table]. So I think that it is
ninety eight.

Redirect Ms. Lawson: Okay. What do you think about that? Saul?

Evaluation Saul: I kind of agree except that I don't agree that it is ninety eight.
I still disagree. I still agree that it is ninety but there were
thirty five people that took their temperature.

(Transcript, March 8, 1993)

140

Although this interaction began with the typical teacher initiation - student response,
Casey changed the pattern by evaluating Mike's idea. Ms. Lawson may have been
somewhat surprised by this change in the pattern and so did not probe and have Casey give
his reasoning as had been the pattern in the lesson. Rather she "skipped" these two moves
and went to the move that normally follows probing and reasoning -- she redirected. Saul
responds, but, taking Casey's lead he also evaluates Casey's response.

Further complicating this interaction was Casey's disagreement at this point in the
discussion. It had appeared that everyone was in agreement that 90°F represented hand
temperature. Ms. Lawson may have been assuming that a few people would support this
assertion. she could announce that consensus had been reached, and the lesson could
continue. The focus of the lesson was intended to be on establishing a numeric value for
hand and body temperature to use as "benchmark" temperatures in the future. A lengthy
discussion of what these temperatures were was not necessarily anticipated and planned for
(teachers' plans, March 8, 1992). And, in a more traditional class, a continued discussion
with someone disagreeing probably would. not have happened. In a more traditional class
once someone had given the approximate temperature of 90°F and someone had supported
that assertion, the teacher would have rhetorically asked if everyone understood why 90°
was the approximate temperature and continued. A student like Casey might not have
gotten this opportunity to disagree out loud.

Although Ms Lawson did not follow her pattern and probe Casey further, Casey
was persistent and would not allow the teacher to " gloss over" his disagreement. The
argument that Casey introduced is that you cannot compare hand and body temperature in
this instance because the sample sizes are different. He also argued that hand temperature
should be 98°F - the same as body temperature although he didn't give a reason for this
belief. Saul, who was working hard at listening and understanding his peer's ideas,
immediately picked up on this argument saying that he agreed that the sample sizes are

different and therefore rrright be problematic, but he still believed that hand temperature is

Ms. .
the p.

due (c

5065ch

141

90. It took careful listening on Saul's part to understand Casey's point. I am not sure that
Ms. Lawson was clear about what Casey was saying, since she had not yet probed and/or
revoiced his idea, a move she generally made in response to assertions and/or evidence
given by a student. Given this, Saul's contribution is fairly remarkable. Not only did he
understand Casey's concern, but he formulated a response to him.

Following Saul, Yaza said that she didn't understand what Casey was saying.
Rather than summarizing or revoicing Casey's idea for him, Ms. Lawson asked Casey to
explain what he meant. This implicitly communicated to the class that they needed to talk
and listen to each other and removed Ms. Lawson from being the sole authority in the
classroom. This also gave Ms. Lawson the opportunity to listen to Casey's ideas a second
time and try to make sense of his argument.

Casey says:

What I mean is Ms. Lawson, Miss Smith, Diana, Chao, and Nino, they went

up to get their body temperatures and I don't think, that's not ten. And the

people said that it's ninety degrees Fahrenheit. There was ten people, there were

ten. And we have more than ten people in our class. So, they got ninety for it

but over here in the red, ninety eight. I think, it couldn't be ten for it cause there's

many people got their temperatures taken.

(Transcript, March 8, 1993)

Even though Ms. Lawson asked him to explain his thinking to Yaza, Casey faced
Ms. Lawson as he gave this explanation, evidence that he continued to see the teacher as
the primary audience for his talk. However it is also possible that his body position was
due to the fact that although Yaza said that she didn't understand, Ms. Lawson was the last
speaker and the one who made their request that Casey repeat his ideas.

Following Casey's speech Ms. Lawson attempted to clarify Casey's argument
saying, "80 you think there needs to be ten people", which is the phrase that Casey
repeated most frequently. Casey responded to this question with a third fairly long speech:

Yeah. If we had, well maybe not ten, but if there were, the thing is, I just think

that it's not ninety because I think that Naomi said that ninety degrees Fahrenheit

was because it had ten. or Daniel, and I think it [hand temperature] would be ninety

eight even though it just had two because...
(Transcript, March 8, 1993)

3P
the
bed
touc
addr
didn l
diffen

”link if

minutes

’ 3"“ r-'_

"mmmm

142

With this speech Casey continued to argue that there was not a large enough sample
size to determine if 90°F is hand temperature. This is a sophisticated idea for a third grade
student to hold, and Casey was having difficulty finding the language to articulate his
thinking clearly. Words for concepts such as "sample size" and "comparison of groups"
and even "fair test" would have helped him make his point but may not have been part of
his vocabulary. At this point. perhaps out of frustration with his lack of suitable language,
his voice trailed off and he gave up on his argument.

Anpther Insflctional Detour

Ms. Lawson shifted the focus following the disagreement with Casey by taking
another instructional detour explaining why everyone didn't take their body temperature.
This instructional detour was different than the ones for the discussion of the concept of
approximation. This time she did not have a "drill and recitation" format but rather took on
the role of an "expert" as she described the expense of the thermometers used to measure
body temperature and that they contain the chemical mercury which isn't particularly safe to
touch if the thermometers were broken and this spilled out. This information partially
addressed Casey's issue of sample size - it explained why they were different. However, it
didn't speak to his concern that you cannot compare the two samples because they are
different sizes.

Cgey's Argument Revisited

Following this detour Ms. Lawson returned again to Casey's idea; "So Casey you

think that the hand temperature should also be 98". At this point Casey has had a few

minutes to think, and he has come up with a third argument for his position:

Yeah, because it is part pf ygur body and if your hand temperature i_s_2_8,

 

the hand is pan pf the body so that should be 98 too. Because 't's pap pf
My and it is 23.

(Transcript, March 8, 1993)
Casey's argument this time was that the hand is part of the body and so its

temperature should be the same as body temperature, which is 98. He made this point

143

three times during his speaking turn. each time repeating the idea that the hand is part of
the body and body temperature is 98 (the repetition is bolded and/or underlined). This
repetition is significant and is discussed in greater detail in chapter six.

For the first time since Saul commented earlier on Casey's original statement
regarding sample size, there was some uptake of Casey's idea by other students. Kareem

responded to Casey, and Sarina commented back to Kareem in the following exchange:

Response Kareem It doesn't always have to be that way.
Probe Ms. Lawson Why?
Elaboration Kareem Cause you know if you don't have any gloves outside right

now, if you have hats on and you have a coat and no gloves
on your body on the inside its gonna be very hot and your

hand is gonna be cold.
Redirect Ms. Lawson Comments. Sarina?
Response Sarina Um..I have something to say to Kareem.

Directions Ms. Lawson Nice and loud.

Evaluation Sarina You know how when people go outside. Like if you think
your hand is cold and your body is hot. I think sometimes
your body gives heat to the whole thing. Maybe your hand
is cold. Maybe a little hot air causes, sometimes your body
might give heat to your hand.

(Transcript, March 8,1993)

The pattern in this segment was similar to the pattern seen earlier in the discussion
with the addition of Sarina evaluating Kareem's idea: R-P-RE-RD-E(SZ). Kareem began
by responding to an idea on the floor, Ms. Lawson probed him, he elaborated, and
although she did not revoice the idea she did redirect it back to the students at which point
Sarina gave her evaluation of the idea.

This segment further illustrated some of the discourse norms which were at work in
this learning community. First is the way in which Sarina raised her hand to get the
speaking floor. Once she had been nominated she told the teacher she had something to

say to Kareem. It can be inferred from this that even if they are making a corrrrnent to

another student, who in this case was sitting on the floor behind Sarina, they have the

C2
ids

H
-—--.O :‘n—- __

144

responsibility for raising their hand in order to get the conversational floor. Then, even
though Sarina said that she was saying this to Kareem, she faced Ms. Lawson as she
talked. Therefore Ms. Lawson was still the audience for her talk, perhaps because she
nominated her to speak. This same pattern was seen with Casey earlier.

Ms. Lawson chose not to pursue the line of reasoning presented by Kareem and
Sarina; instead, she returned to Casey. This may be because she had some time while
Kareem and Sarina were talking to consider how to address the issue Casey raised:
Revoice The most people were 90.

Probe Now Casey if you're a scientist and you do an experiment and you
get results that you don't agree with that you think "well that doesn't
seem right to me", what do you think scientists do? What do they
do if they get results that they aren't so sure about? Daniel?

(Transcript, March 8, 1993)

Several students described their ideas on what scientists would do. Eventually
Casey again entered the conversation with his idea. He elaborates on the other students'
ideas saying:

I kind of think that they would use other gople. They would try pthpr

people for it. Put those results down and then, and then. try some 9mg

Mme. About the same amount that you used on the other test. And then

you find out if they got the same results. Try it three or four times and see.

Cause there might be more people that got eighty nine or something.

(Transcript, March 8, 1993)

Casey described replicating the experiment with a second sample of the same size
but with different people, a fairly sophisticated idea. Again, he used a great deal of
repetition (which is underlined), this time centering around the idea of "other people". This
is a clue that he is thinking about using a different sample - one that would consist of other
people. This is the final speech of the day and Ms. Lawson responded to this by ending
the discussion with a summary of the discussion;

Umhnrrn okay. I'd kind of like to make a conjecture...there are some other things

that we wanted to do today, another experiment that we wanted to do..so would

people feel comfortable if we said according to the results we have right now it
looks like 90 is our approximate hand temperature..but maybe in the future we

could have a time that we could recheck our results to find out for sure..because
there may be other people in our class like Casey who think "that doesn't really

145

make sense to me"..and we can talk about this some more but for right now,

acco7rding to these results we can say it is ninety, would you be comfortable with

??ranscript, March 8. 1993)

The question "would you be comfortable with that?" appeared to be a rhetorical
question. Mrs. Runner did not give the students an opportunity to respond to this question
before moving on to begin the procedural explanation for the day's activity, although
several students nodded their heads or murmured assent. Casey did not respond one way
or another to this statement.

Thus this speech marked the closing of the discussion. Ms. Lawson was
apparently feeling the need to move on. Based on the lesson plans for the day, this
discussion-- which lasted about 20 minutes-- was intended to be a quick introduction to the
day's lesson. It was intended that the students would quickly reach the consensus that
hand temperature was lower than body temperature and puzzle about why that was so.
That this was not quite so simple and straightforward as anticipated is important to
consider. First. students are going to have ideas of their own which may not coincide with
the scientific conception. Second, any time a discussion is opened up for comments and
sharing of ideas it takes considerably longer than anticipated. The result is that even the
simplest concept may take a very long time to teach. For example, the idea of
approximately was reviewed three times (with students requesting the third time) before
students seemed to understand the idea.

ChanteLSummarx

This chapter was intended to give a glimpse of a typical science class discussion
and discourse pattern in Ms. Lawson and Ms. Runner's room. As described in the
literature review. although there exist many descriptions of what a social constructivist
discussion does pp; look like and what the teacher and students do pot do, there are few

descriptions of the pattern of discourse and the roles and responsibilities of the teacher and

(I;

di:

l-R
0W
Sl‘ddr

to he

Pli‘Ce (
133C176]

.DalIEm

Lil‘iOn r
resWise.

146

the students in a social constructivist discussion. This chapter provides one such
description.

A social constructivist discussion does not have a neat and tidy I-R-E pattern in
which the teacher asks a question, a single student responds, and the teacher evaluates the
response. In addition to the moves of initiation, response, and evaluation there are four
discourse moves present in the discussion described in this chapter which are not typically
seen in a traditional discussion: probe, reasoning, revoice, and redirect. At the end of a
discussion or as a segue to a new activity the teacher also occasionally summarizes the
discussion. Furthermore, the moves of initiation, response, probe, reasoning, and
evaluation are done by both teacher _an_d student -- something not seen in the traditional I-R-
E. Revoice and redirect were only done by the teacher in this discussion «primarily as a
discussion management tool.

The most frequently seen pattern in the discussion described in this chapter was a
I-R-P-RE-RV-RD in which the teacher initiated with a question which was frequently an
open-ended question, a student responded, the teacher probed the student's response, the
student elaborated on his or her response, the teacher revoiced the response for all students
to hear and then redirected the response back to the students by asking them to comment on
the response. This pattern was very context- and content- dependent, however.

Context affected the pattern when the teacher's purpose was to review quickly a
piece of knowledge as in an instructional detour, for example. In these instances the
teacher did not probe, and students did not give their reasoning. The result was a discourse
pattern that was marked by very quick and consisted of short responses.

Content also affected the pattern. For example, Casey gave responses in which the
content of his talk may have been difficult to follow or were evaluative. In this case Ms.
Lawson responded by immediately redirecting rather than probing or revoicing the
response. Other times the content of the talk was "off topic" or did not contribute to the

ideas under discussion. In these instances Ms. Lawson also immediately redirected.

change

studen

the rig
to res
stride

\mde

thrill

SIU

[hr

at

147

The change in the discourse pattern from the traditional I-R—E pattern reflects a
change in the view of the learner and in the roles and responsibilities of the teacher and the
students. In a traditional discussion, all students are thought to be at the same point in their
thinking and the teacher assumes that when a "right answer" is given it is being given for
the right reasons, i.e. the student understands the content and has used that understanding
to respond to the teacher's question. However in a social constructivist class discussion,
students are recognized as having many different entering conceptions and developing
understanding at a pace that is appropriate for them and fits with where they were in their
thinking at the start of the discussion. This means that three students could give the same
answer but have three different reasons for doing so. Thus, the teacher needs to probe
student thinking rather than accepting answers giving at "face value". This belief in the
personal, individual nature of learning in the social setting of the classroom demands that
students be allowed to give their reasoning for their explanations and react to the ideas of
their teachers and peers. The result is the unique discourse pattern seen in this classroom.

In this classroom the science was the discourse and the student role was one of an
active participant in the discourse as they learned to control and use the discourse of
science. Each student had the responsibility to listen and respond to the ideas of their peers
in the form of agreeing or disagreeing with their assertions. and to use the discourse --
either through listening or through oral participation -- to make sense of the ideas for
themselves. This discussion description provides the context for the stories of Casey and

Padma told in Chapter Six.

Chapter 6

A SINGLE LEARNING COMMUNITY FOR ALL?
THE STORIES OF CASEY AND PADMA

Inmdpctipn md Overview of the Chapter

Up to this point I have described the ways in which Mrs. Runner and Ms. Lawson
created a discourse pattern in which the students played an active role in constructing and
evaluating ideas. I have described what such a learning community looked like in action,
highlighting the ways in which the discourse in this learning community was different from
the discourse in a traditional science classroom. In this chapter I turn my attention to two
students: Casey and Padma. I explore the ways in which each of them participates in the
discourse, and the extent to which the discourse supports or fails to support their science
content learning.

Casey and Padma's experiences in this learning community help us think about the
advantages and disadvantages of a learning community in which a social constructivist
discourse pattern is used. The story of Casey represents a picture of hope for students who
do not do well in a traditional science classroom, while the story of Padma represents the
conflict experienced by a student who is successful in a traditional science classroom and
encounters difficulties when the norms for participation in the discourse in science are
changed. I begin the chapter with a picture of hope.

Casey's Story: Refusing to be Invisible

I didn't originally plan to tell the story of Casey. In fact I really didn't even notice
Casey during my initial observations of the Changes in Matter unit. Although he had been
present every day I had observed, Casey first captured my attention during my third week
of observations. And even then, I didn't realize that he was a boy. His long hair, slight

build, and delicate features convinced me he was a girl.

148

149

I believe that every class has a Casey -- a student who doesn't receive as much of
the teacher's attention as do many of the other students. Because this student is well
behaved, appears to be engaged in the leanring tasks presented, and performs at grade level
academically, he or she simply doesn't demand the teacher's attention the ways many other
students do. There are so many demands on a teacher's time and attention over the course
of the day that a student like Casey, while not deliberately neglected or unkindly ignored,
doesn't receive as much teacher attention as some of the other, more demanding, students
in the class. This case, which illustrates that it is possible to construct a learning
community in which all students learn - even those who might "slip through the cracks" in
a traditional classroom. paints a picture of hope for students like Casey.

There were a number of possible explanations for why Casey did not immediately
catch my attention during my initial observations of the third grade classroom. It may have
been his dress -- he was shabbily dressed wearing the same, or similar, black T-shirt and
jeans every day. It may have been his unkempt appearance - although always clean, his
hair was long and shaggy, brushing his shoulders. It may have been his unassuming
presence in the classroom or his lack of social interaction with the other students -- he
always sat alone on the periphery of the group during class discussion. It may simply have
been that he held back while many other students were clamoring for the attention of
myself, the "newcomer," in the classroom.

However, what finally captured my attention was that seemingly against the odds
Casey refused to be invisible. Although it was a struggle for him to participate in class
discussion. he continued to bid for the speaking floor and to talk through his ideas when he
finally received the speaking floor. He never gave up, no matter how difficult it was to get
the speaking floor nor how minimal the feedback he received from teachers and his peers.
Equally intriguing was that in spite of what initially appeared to be factors which would
prevent him from being a successful, participating member of the classroom learning

community --his seeming invisibility and his difficulty in getting the speaking floor during

150

class discussion, comparison of pre- and post-test data revealed that Casey was very
successful in learning the science concepts in the unit. His written post-test contained
detailed explanations of scientific phenomena, many of the unit goal scientific conceptions,
and few naive conceptions. Additionally, he showed considerable change between his pre-
and post-test responses indicating that he had learned and understood the unit concepts.

Why was this seemingly invisible child so successful in learning the science? What
was it about the learning community that enabled him to learn successfully despite the
apparent odds against him? The answers to these questions can be found by looking
closely at the discourse patterns in the learning community and the ways in which Casey
modified these discourse patterns to fit with his learning needs. Thus, this case illustrates
the value of creating a supportive learning community in which children such as Casey are
able to find a discourse style that works to support their learning rather than being forced
"lockstep" into a rigid discourse pattern dictated by the teacher as is often seen in a
traditional classroom.
C .5.” '111'15121

Although a white male, Casey was an outsider in this particular classroom. Many
of the students in his third grade class were children of color (primarily Asian, Middle
Eastern, and Hispanic). Although he represented the majority culture in this country, he
was the minority in the classroom. Many of these children from other countries had also
traveled extensively around both the United States and the European or Asian continents.
Thus, they had many life experiences which Casey had not had. Additionally, most of the
students in the classroom were from two-parent homes in which at least one of the parents
was in graduate school. Often the other parent was a full-time parent. Casey was the child
of a single mother who was working on an undergraduate degree.
QIEI‘SH Q 113

When considering Casey's participation in class discussion one pattern that became

visible was his physical placement in the classroom during discussion. This pattern was

151

probably closely related to his social status in the classroom. During science time the
students sat on the floor in a cluster in front of the lead-teacher, who sat on a chair. Casey
always sat at the front of the cluster but on the outer periphery. The only change from day
to day is that sometimes he sat on the right- hand side of the room and sometimes the left.

Although many of the students sat together whispering with friends, Casey did not
appear to have a friend that he sat with. He sat near different students every lesson during
my afternoon visits and did not interact socially with any of the students sitting around him.
During class discussion his body always faced the teacher although he often turned his
head to look at whomever had the speaking floor.

Casey's physical placement during class discussion seemed to be a metaphor for his
relationship with the other students in the classroom. It was not only during class
discussion that he was on the periphery. He didn't appear to talk to any of the students in
the class and during recess he walked around by himself on the outside edge of the other
students' play. He was always respectful of the teachers; they rarely had to ask him to turn
around, or be quiet, or pay attention. His proximity to the teacher (at the front edge of the

discussion) may represent this respect of the teacher.

In»; : ,- c, I_-rr'IheRl'-L:- rs'n_°0 hIm-‘i o _- mu
0 me n

Casey clearly understood the explicit norms for participation during science class
discussions -- which included traditional classroom rules such as "raise your hand and wait
to be called on by the teacher before speaking". He always politely and patiently raised his
hand and waited for the teacher to call on him. I never observed him wave his hand in the
teacher's face or make noises to get the teacher's attention. Neither did he make loud
noises of disappointment when not called on. He simply waited for another opportunity
and raised his hand again in a bid for the floor.

However, Casey didn't seemed to "catch on" to the more implicit norms of

participation in the third grade learning community during the course of the "Changes in

152

Matter" unit. For example, although the explicit rule was "raise your hand and quietly wait
to be called on", the implicit rules were that in addition to raising your hand you should be
sitting at or near the center of the room in order to catch the teacher's eye and you should be
waving your hand in the air to further ensure catching the teacher's eye.

Additionally, there were times when it was okay to forego the hand raising rule and
call out ideas. One example of this was when the teacher requested a specific piece of
information. In one instance the teacher said, "I can't remember, who were the people who
measured their body temperature" (Transcript, March 8). The students then called out the
names of the people who measured their hand temperature while the teacher recorded those
names on the overhead. Self-nomination also occurred during a discussion when a student
was agreeing or disagreeing with an idea that was on the floor. For example, if a child
responded to a statement made by another student by self nominating and saying directly to
the student, "I disagree because I think..." the teacher would revoice that student's idea
rather than reprimanding the student for failure to comply with the hand-raising rule. One
important, and complicating, aspect to this rule was that the self-nomination could
apparently only be made when responding to an idea on the floor and currently under
discussion. If a student wished to put a new idea on the floor and wanted to do so without
directly referencing the idea currently under discussion, he or she had to raise his or her
hand and bid for a turn.

Furthermore, rules of "conversational courtesy" had to be adhered to when self
nominating. For example, students could not interrupt one another or the teacher, and
overlapping talk (i.e. two students talking at once) was also not acceptable. When this
occurred, the teacher would make a statement that she couldn't listen to more than one
person at a time or would point out that she, or another student, already had the floor.

In addition, the speaker needed to follow the classroom discourse pattern in order to
keep the speaking floor, or for their idea to be "picked up on" on carried on in discussion.

As described in the previous chapter, a teacher initiation was almost always followed by a

153

student response Which was then typically probed by the teacher. Ways that the pattern
was changed at different times included responding to a teacher initiation with an evaluation
such as agreeing or disagreeing with a previous response, or by failing to give their
reasoning in response to a probe. When this happened the speaker lost the speaking floor
and the content of their response did not become part of the conversation.

Casey did not seem to figure out these quite complex and implicit rules, and he had
difficulty getting and holding the speaking floor. In one memorable incident he was the
only student with his hand raised to answer a question and the teacher apm to be
looking directly at him. However, she kept repeating the question saying that "someone
must know" until Sarina , who was sitting front and center, said "oooh" and raised her
hand. The teacher then promptly called on Sarina.

h ° Vi

As described above, Casey did not follow the unstated rule about calling out and
waving his arm in order to get the speaking floor during whole class discussion. I wrote
the following vignette after a whole class discussion (field notes 3/4/95). This vignette
illustrates the difficulty Casey had getting the speaking floor but also attests to his
persistence and unwillingness to just "give up" and become invisible. This particular
lesson was being conducted by Ms. Smith (the student teacher) and Ms. Lawson:

Casey is sitting on the floor in his usual spot at the outer edge of the group. He is
in the exact same position as during the previous day's discussion except that he has
changed sides of the room. The teachers instructed the students to sit with members of
their science group from the previous day. If Casey is doing so, it is not obvious to me.
He is not talking or otherwise interacting with any of the students around him. As usual
Casey is wearing his "uniform " of jeans and an oversized black t-shirt which hangs part
way to his knees. Today he has a skinny braid in his hair with several beads in it falling

from his crown the length of his hair.

154

Ms. Smith begins the discussion by asking the assembled class to look over the
worksheet they had done the previous day and think about some things they wanted to
share. The worksheet was a group-written product which the students completed as they
did the day's experiment. On it the group was asked to predict what would happen to an
ice cube if it were held in their hand and to explain their prediction. They were also asked
to illustrate the experimental results on the worksheet. They were then asked to explain
what they thought happened to the hand holding the ice cube and what happened to the ice
cube. The final activity on the worksheet was a conclusion statement that the group was to

H

write together. This statement was to say "We believe because

 

As soon as Ms. Smith asks if they have anything they want to share. Casey raises
his hand. One other student. Jack raises his hand. Ms. Smith calls on Jack This results
in an extended discussion with Jack. the teachers, and several other students. During this
discussion about whether sitting by the window influenced the speed with which the ice
cube melted, Casey raises and lowers his hand twice after he did not get the speaking floor.
He does not attempt to participate in the discussion again for several minutes.

Several more students share their observations about the ice cube melting and their
hand getting cold. Ms. Smith than makes the observation that many students were bringing
in the idea that there is heat in their bodies and raises the question, "What does body heat
have to do with melting? " Casey immediately raises his hand to answer this direct
question; however. 5 -6 other students also raise their hands and Ms. Smith calls on another
student. The discussion continues with several other students sharing their ideas about
body temperature and how that could cause an ice cube to melt. Sarina makes the statement
that she knows her body is hot because when she has a temperature she can feel her
forehead and it is hot. In response to this Ms. Smith asks, "How many people have had
that happen to you? " Casey raises his hand to signal that he has had that experience but
then keeps his hand in the air probably signaling that he has a comment that he wants to

155

make in response to Ms. Smith ’s question. Ms. Smith either does not see or chooses not
to respond to Casey 's raised hand.

Ms. Lawson joins the conversation at this point asking, "Are there other ways you
know if your body temperature is higher?" Casey raises his hand higher and keeps it up
even after another student is nominated and responds to Ms. Lawson '3 question.

Following this student's response Ms Lawson asks if anyone in the class has ever used a
thermometer before. Casey already had his hand up and keeps it up in response to this
question. Once again Ms. lawson calls on another student. As this student talks Casey
keeps his hand in the air for a while then slowly lowers it.

This continues for 53 minutes. Every few minutes Casey raises his hand but does
not get nominated for the speaking floor. Approximately one hour into the lesson Ms.
Lawson asks if anyone has ever taken their body temperature and Casey raises his hand
along with many others in the class. This is evidence that he continues to be engaged in the
discussion although he does not get the speaking floor when he would like it.

Ms. Lawson asks for volunteers to have their temperature taken. There is much
excitement among the students and Casey. along with many others. raises his hand to
volunteer. He is not one of the three selected.

During and after the temperature taking there is a lot of movement as students stand
and walk to the front of the room to see the results on the thermometers. During this time
Casey stands and walks around the back of the group of students trying to see the front.
However, he never moves into the crowd of students but remains on the periphery. Over
an hour elapsed during this lesson and, although Casey raised his hand and attempted to get
the speaking floor numerous times he never got a chance to talk

Casey's experience was not unique. We probably all remember times in our life as
students that we had an idea that we wanted to share yet we could not seem to get the
speaking floor to share the idea. What made Casey unique is that this happened frequently
and yet he never gave up. Additionally, although he was not getting the speaking floor

156

there was something about the learning community that helped him to make sense of the
content even though he was not getting the benefit of talking through his ideas with his

 

On March 3 and March 4 Casey tried hard to be part of the discussion but was
never able to gain the speaking floor as is illustrated in the preceding vignette. However,
persistence paid off for Casey, and on March 8 he was nominated for the speaking floor.

Not surprisingly, however, this was not the end of Casey's communication
problems in the classroom. Further compounding Casey's difficulties in participating in
the classroom discourse was that when he finally did get the speaking floor, his talk did not
follow the established discourse pattern for sharing thinking and/or ideas in science. Often,
in response to a student comment, Casey would respond with an evaluation -- agreeing or
disagreeing with the student comment -- before the teacher had probed, the student
elaborated, and the teacher revoiced and redirected. This interrupted the usual flow of the
discourse. Instead of I-R-P-RE-RV-RD-EV, the pattern became the much briefer I-R-EV.

Additionally, in contrast to the contributions of many of the other students in the
class, Casey's thinking was difficult to follow because his speech appeared disconnected
and rambling. And yet, when careful attention is paid to Casey's talk it provides a window
into his thinking in a way that the more structured "presentational" talk (Barnes and Todd,
1995) of other students does not.

The rambling nature of Casey's talk is illustrated in the transcript segment below in
which Casey is disagreeing with an assertion made by a classmate that hand temperature is
90° F arguing that you cannot compare the ma temperatures taken by ten students in the
class and the dey temperatures taken by five teachers and students in the class because the
sample sizes are different:

Evaluation Casey: What I mean is...Ms. Lawson...Miss Smith...Laura.. .
Keung..and Takeo...they went up to get their body temperatures..and I

don't think...that's not ten...and the people that said it's ninety degrees
Fahrenheit...there were ten people..there were ten..we have more than ten

Probe

Reasoning

157

people in our class..so they got ninety for it...but over here in the red
[on the data table on the overhead] ninety eight I think ...cause..couldn't be
ten for it..cause there's not that many people got their temperature taken.

Ms. L: So you think there needs to be ten people.

Casey: Yeah..if we had..well maybe not ten but..there were..the thing is..I
just think that..that..that..it's not ninety because I think that Ajani
said that ninety degrees Fahrenheit was because it had ten or David
and I think it would be ninety eight even though it just has two
because..um..

(Transcript, March 8)

Following this lengthy speech by Casey, Ms. Lawson appeared to make a decision

to give an explanation in response to Casey's ideas. She shifted to what I have termed in

other places an "instructional detour" in which she talked about the mercury indicator in the

body temperature thermometers and the dangers of mercury:

Information

Initiation

Response
Probe
Elaboration
Elaboration
Elaboration

Initiation

Response

Information

Ms. L:

Ms. L:

Mrs. R:
Ms L:
Mrs. R:
Ms L:
Ms R:
Ms L:

Ms R:

Ms L:

The reason that we had only a few people take their body
temperature is because...the thermometers that Ms. Smith
and Mrs. Runner and I use..have a certain kind of...

What's that [looking at Mrs. Runner]..an element..you don't
call it a chemical do you...?

Indicator I guess we'll call it
You kind of...

It's a metal

Inside of the thermometer
In a liquid form

If it breaks and you swallow it, it can kill you or just make
you real sick?

I'm not sure

I know it's very bad for you..we didn't want to take the
chance in school of having kids put those in their months
even though probably at home that's the kind of thermometer
you use..because your parent can watch you and make that
choice for you so we decided that for the kids for the three
kids we had take their temperature that's why we used those
kind from the office.. those are very expensive and we
didn't want to ask Mrs. F (school secretary) for forty of

158

those thermometers to throw out..um..so that's why Casey
we didn't have everybody take their body temperature..but I
can kind of see what you’re saying..you’re thinking you
wish there were more people that took their body
temperature is that what you're saying?

Response Casey: Umhmm

(Transcript, March 8)

This detour seemed to be a teacher explanation of why only five people (three
students and two teachers) took their body temperature. This explanation, although related
to Casey's statement, did not directly address Casey's concerns about sample size.
However, Casey's reaction to this information is different than I would have anticipated. I
believe that although the information dipper directly address the stated concerns, most
students would have taken the teacher’s explanation as an implicit evaluation that their idea
that hand and body temperature were the same to be incorrect. Casey was more tenacious,
however. He did not assume that the teacher was telling him that his assertion was wrong.
Rather he seemed to have assumed that it was his explanation that was problematic and he
needed to create a better argument and/or better evidence for his argument. Thus, when
Ms. L asked him if he still thought hand temperature was 98°, Casey took advantage of the
opportunity to verbally think through another possible argument. This time his argument
was a little shorter and more focused, but there was a clear pattern of repetition of ideas in

his talk. During this short statement he repeats the phrases "part of the body" and "ninety
eight" three times each.

Probe Ms L: So Casey you think that the hand temperature should also be ninety
eight

Reasoning Casey: Yeah because itispapeflflrebgly and if your body temperature is
ninety eight .um.. the hand is part of the body so..that should be
Lament too because..um.. 31mm and it is ninety.
eight.

(Transcript, March 8)

A number of sociolinguists have examined the use of unconscious repetition in

dialogue and conversation (Tanen, 1989; Hymes, 1981; Becker. 1984) and argue that

159

repetition is the way in which discourse is created (Tanen, 1989). Tanen (1989) puts forth
the idea that repetition serves as a tool for thinking on one's feet. In conversation a person
might repeat something that another person has stated as they are considering how to
respond to the statement, while at the same time maintaining control of the conversational
floon

Although the research on repetition refers to repetition in djflqgue with one
interlocutor repeating another's statement, the idea of repetition can also be applied to
menelegpe where one speaker repeats himself. Casey appeared to be unconsciously using
repetition as a floor-holding device in his monologue. Because he had difficulty getting the
speaking floor, he may have tried to keep it through repetition of his ideas. Thus he might
have used the strategy of repetition to hold the floor while thinking through what he wanted
to say. Alternatively, he may have been repeating himself in an attempt to clarify his
meaning further so that the teacher would not misunderstand the point he is trying to make.

Repetition may also have served another, more conscious, purpose for Casey. As
he elaborated on his original idea he may have continually returned to a specific phrase as
an "organizing phrase." When elaborating he may have been aware of the ease with which
he could become confused or lose his train of thought so he used repetition as a way to
keep reminding himself of the idea that he was thinking through. In the example below the
word "ten" or phrase "ten people" appears to be the "organizing phrase". The use of such
an organizing phrase may also be an unconscious strategy used by Casey whenever he
talks thorough his ideas:

Casey: What I mean is...Ms. Lawson...Miss Smith...Laura..Keung..and

Takeo...they went up to get their body temperatures..and I don't
think...that's not ten...and the people that said its ninety degrees

Fahrenheit...themerejep mople..tl;ere_were1ep..we have more than ten
people in our class..so they got ninety for it...but over here in the red [on
the data table on the overhead] ninety eight think.. cause..couldn't be ten
for it..cause there's not that many people got their temperature taken.

(Transcript, March 8)

160

For whatever reason, the use of repetition is a common, although perhaps
unconscious, strategy for Casey. This repetition marks his responses as being different
because there was not repetition seen in the responses the other students in the class gave.
Wit

Speaking turns of the length of Casey's were not the norm in this classroom.
Although most students had moved away from the "right answer" approach of giving the
teacher the answer she was looking for, most of the students' responses were "neater" than
Casey's longer "exploratory"l speech. In general most students' responses followed a
pattern of making an assertion and then giving a single piece of evidence to support that
assertion. Casey on the other band would often make several assertions and give several
pieces of evidence when he got the speaking floor. The different assertion-evidence
patterns, and the contrast between Casey's exploratory talk, and the "neater" briefer talk of
his classmates can be seen in the transcript segment below:

Response Henri: The air needs to be hot or warm for it to melt the ice cube.
(ASSERTION)

Nomination Ms. L: Casey?
Response Casey: I think to make it melt faster the water. it becomes the ice

when it gets, well when it freezes, and it , and there has to be air in it.
(ASSERTION)

Because there is gt in evegtthing. (EVIDENCE)

And, the cold air turns the water, the ice cube cold so then it, so then the hot
air rises and the cold air goes down. (AS SERTION)

WWW
the hot air will push the cold g up as! then ge out ef the ice eupe ape tl_ren
rt: .0. 0 I; -_ no I r' to -._ I '0 .n 0 it: .31011‘ '
(EVIDENCE)

Nomination Ms. L: Zane?

Evaluation Zane: I disagree with Casey . (ASSERTION)

 

1Barnes and Todd (1994) used the term "exploratory talk" to designate talk which is for the purpose of
exploring and reconstructing ideas. Thus, exploratory talk used by students as a tool for making sense of
ideas. Exploratory talk, according to Barnes and Todd is more common in small group discussions where
there is not a teacher than in teacher- led class discussions.

161

WWW (EVIDENCE)

I still agree with him that hot air can go up but it can go in
ether diteetiens alse, (EVIDENCE)

(Transcript 3/3)

Thus, possibly due to the length and the unfamiliar pattern of his talk, teachers and
students alike often did not respond to Casey's ideas using the established discourse
patterns in the class.

To the casual observer it may have appeared that during class discussion there was
an open sharing of ideas in which the teacher was merely facilitating turn taking. However,
on closer inspection, this was not the case. Although not the traditional drill and recitation
format frequently seen in elementary science. there was a pattern which was being
followed. As part of this pattern the teacher was working very hard to draw out and
expand upon student ideas which would reveal some aspects of their thinking about the
concepts under discussion or would lead in an interesting and productive direction for
student learning of the science concepts.

Casey Ed the Social Constructivist Learning Communipt

The most common discourse pattern in this class was not the traditional I-R-E
sequence (Mehan, 1979; Cazden, 1988). In a traditional I-R-E sequence the teacher initiates
by asking a question to which there is a scientifically accepted "right" answer, the student
responds to the question, and the teacher evaluates the accuracy of this response. For
example, the teacher might ask "What is our body temperature?" to which a student would
respond "ninety eight degrees Fahrenheit." The teacher would acknowledge the accuracy
of this response by saying something like "good." and would move on to the next
question.

There were multiple differences in the discourse pattem in this classroom compared
to the traditional I-R-E sequence. The result of these differences was a classroom learning
community which had the characteristics of a social constructivist learning community. In

contrast to the traditional I-R-E pattern, the teacher initiation in this classroom was

I62

frequently an open-ended question such as "Would someone like to share something
interesting they noticed when measuring their hand temperature?" Students would then
raise their hands and bid for an opportunity to share their thinking and ideas. Once a
student had responded the teacher then frequently probed the student, the student gave their
reasoning for their idea. the teacher revoiced this reasoning, and then redirected it back to
the class for their comments saying, "What do other people think? Do you agree or
disagree?" To which other students would make an evaluation (either agreeing or
disagreeing) and provide evidence for the evaluation. Thus the pattern in this class was
frequently teacher initiation-student response-teacher probing-student reasoning-teacher
revoicing and/or re-initiation.

The transcript segment below illustrates a typical teacher-student interaction
following the initiation-response-prebe-reasoning-revoicing/redirect pattern frequently
followed during class discussion. In this particular segment the teacher probed by
revoicing with rising intonation indicating the revoicing was a question. The student in this

interaction chose not to give their reasoning:

Initiation Ms. L: And if you find something you want to share, raise your hand and
Ms. Smith is going to record it on the overhead. Okay.. Reiko?

Response Reiko: We believe the ice cube on the table takes longer because our ice
cube was bigger.

Probe Ms. L: 80 you are saying that since your ice cube was bigger it took
longer?

Response Reiko: Yeah

Redirect Ms. L: Anybody have any thoughts about that? What do you think about
that?

Revoice Ms. L: They thought their ice cube was bigger so that would mean it would
take longer.

(Transcript, March 3)

This exchange in which Reiko reads her answer directly off her paper is very
different than Casey's lengthy musings. The majority of class discussion fit into the mode

above. Although some student responses were more concise and some were longer, rarely

163

were they as lengthy as Casey's. What marked Casey's talk as being different than the
norm was that while the responses most students gave to a teacher initiation were not a
single word response, they were typically a single assertion supported by a single piece of
evidence. These responses were much more concise and clear than Casey's responses. In
this way most students did not appear to be talking through their ideas out loud to the same
extent that Casey did and thus they did not have the exploratory quality seen in Casey's
talk.

Perhaps as a result of the differences between Casey's talk and that of his peers,
the teacher often did not follow the pattern of revoicing and reinitiation when talking with
Casey, and the exchange didn't "fit" with the flow of the rest of the class. The transcript
excerpts below shows the teacher's response to Casey's statements the two times he got
the speaking floor during a discussion on March 3. In this discussion students are sharing
ideas about what makes an ice cube melt and how to make it melt faster. Neither of
Casey's statements fits the discourse pattern in that they are long and exploratory:
Response/ 78 C: I think to make it melt fast the water, it becomes ice when it
Reasoning gets..well when it freezes, and it, and there has to be air in it

because there is air in everything. And, in the cold air turns
the water,the ice cube cold so um, then it, so then the hot air rises
and the cold air goes down. I was reading in a book that hot air is
lighter than cold air so the hot air will push the cold air up and then
go out of the ice cube and then there would be a clear path for the
hot air to go up to the ice cube to melt it.

79 T: Jack?

****************

Evaluation 91 C: I kind of disagree because I think the hot air is only on the bottom.
It doesn't go on the top. But the hot air is on this side, it is going
this way [gestures with hands]. And the cold air, I think the cold air
won't be going that way. They are always, the hot an cold air are
always connected...So, I don't know..maybe it will work..if the hot
air was up here and the cold air was here [illustrates with hands]
than the hot air wouldn't be rising, it would be going in the cold air.

94: T: Carlos?

164

It was also difficult to always follow Casey's argument and grasp his meaning
when listening to him talk. This may have influenced the teacher’s responses to Casey.
Perhaps because Casey's responses are long and rambling, Ms. Lawson (represented as
"T" in the transcript segment) does not follow the pattern of probing, revoicing and
reinitiation but rather listens quietly to Casey and then calls on another student without
responding to Casey in any way.

ll 1 l l . I] I E C , I .

One possible interpretation of Casey's exploratory, repetitious speech is that he was
just talking to hold the speaking floor because it was such a novelty to have it. However,
based upon the connections among ideas that Casey made by the end of the unit, I believe
that the talk is representative of much deeper, and more complex, thinking on Casey's part
than might first be assumed.

The repetition, the disconnectedness, and the exploratory nature of Casey's
speeches resulted in speaking turns that were much longer than the turns taken by other
students in the class. All of these are indications that Casey's talk is what I call
"unrehearsed talk." Casey did not seem to have mentally thought through exactly what he
was going to say. He did not respond with the neat, coherent answers more commonly
heard in classrooms, including this one. Instead, Casey appeared to know that he has
some ideas about the topic under discussion and bids for the speaking floor as an
opportunity to "think through" his ideas out loud. Although the ideas appear disconnected
from Casey's perspective they may be very connected. He may just not yet have reached
the point where he can articulate the relationship among the different ideas that come
"spilling out" when he has the opportunity to "think aloud."

The repetition in Casey's speech is another indicator of this exploratory talk. If
Casey had thought through, or "rehearsed," his ideas prior to getting the speaking floor he
may not have needed to use the linguistic tool of repetition. Rather he appeared to use

165

repetition unconsciously to hold the speaking floor while figuring out what word or idea to
say next.

Following Casey's speaking turns, perhaps due to the exploratory, unrehearsed
nature of his talk, there was generally limited uptake of his ideas in the form of repetition
or reviocing by the teacher or agreeing/disagreeing by his classmates, thus his ideas rarely
became part of the class discussion. But, surprisingly, this did not stop him from
continuing to argue the position he was taking or from further clarifying his ideas verbally.
When he could get the speaking floor he would often return to the original idea that he had
voiced, even though there was no, or limited, uptake. Often as Casey talked through his
idea for a second or third time he would alter it slightly, perhaps based on further reflection
or as an attempt to clarify his thinking for himself and/or his classmates.

The way in which Casey verbally revisited and modified his ideas is illustrated in
the three statements below which were all made at different times on the same day. Each
statement is an argument that hand and body temperature should be the same temperatures
(rather than hand temperature being 90°C), yet each has been modified slightly as Casey
has listened to, considered, and responded to. the comments made by his classmates.
Evaluation 104 I disagree with Nick's idea [that hand temperature is 90°F] because.

um..ninety degrees has ten people out of the whole classroom and
here weren't ten people to get their temperature taken for the one

over there [body temperature] so I think that it is ninety eight.
(Transcript, March 8)

***********

Evaluation 112 Ms. Lawson, Ms. Smith, Laura, Keung, and Takeo went up to get
their body temperatures and I don't think...that's not ten and the
people said that its ninety degrees Fahrenheit there was ten
people..there were um ten..we have more than ten people in our
class so they got ninety for it but over here in the red ninety eight I
think....cause...it couldn't be ten for it cause there's not that many
people got their temperature taken.

(Transcript, March 8)

***********

Probe 140 Ms. Lawson: So you think that the hand temperature should also
be 98.

166

Reasoning 141 Casey: Yeah because its part of the body so..that should be ninety
eight too because um...its part of your body and it is ninety eight.

(Transcript March 8)

In line 104 Casey stated his argument that hand and body temperature are probably
both 98°F, and he argued that you can't compare hand and body temperature because the
sample sizes are different ("there weren't ten people to get their temperature taken for the
one over there"). In line 112 he restated his argument that the sample sizes are different
and cannot be compared. He clarifies this further by listing the names of the students who
took their body temperature and pointed out that there weren't ten people. He expanded his
argument further arguing that the sample size for hand temperature is too small: "We have
more than ten people in our class". He again entered the conversation several minutes later
after having had the opportunity to listen to his classmates and possibly to consider his
position further. At this point he offered another argument, that the hand is part of the body
and if body temperature is 98°F then so too is hand temperature. He reinforced this idea by
repeating it twice.

Again, this clarification. modification, and addition of ideas is evidence of the
unrehearsed nature of Casey's talk and indicates that he is using the discourse as a tool in
his learning rather than as a way to display his knowledge. Even though he did not receive
teacher support in the form of revoicing, clarification, and/or uptake of his ideas, he still
apparently used the classroom discourse as an opportunity to play with ideas and make
some sense of the science content. This may account for the progress in the sophistication
of his ideas during this unit.

At the beginning of the unit, students were given a written pre-test composed of
constructed response questions to determine their understanding of the content prior to
instruction and to identify any naive conceptions. At the completion of the unit a similar
post-test was given. The same content was assessed, however, in some instances, the

situation the students were asked to explain was slightly different. Detailed information on

167

the content of the tests and the scoring rubrics can be found in Chapter Seven. Once a
student had taken both the pre- and the post-test, gain scores could be calculated to
determine the extent of an individual student's learning.

A comparison of Casey's pre- and post-unit written assessment provides evidence
for the claim that the opportunities to talk through his ideas in class deepened his
understanding of the science content. Casey's pre-test score was 48% and his post test
score was 71%, a gain of 23% from pre-test to post-test.

T Be of ial ons ctivism: All win the Non— nf rrnist 've

The discourse pattern described in Chapter five and Casey's frequent failure to
conform to this pattern illustrate the beauty of a learning community undergirded by a social
constructivist perspective. At the start of this chapter I raised the question, "What was it
about the learning community that enabled a student like Casey to succeed in science
class?" I believe there are two key features of the learning community which supported
Casey and enabled him to engage in and learn the science concepts.

The first was that the teachers encouraged students to puzzle through their thinking
and ideas --although at this point in the year most students were using what Barnes and
Todd, 1994) refer to as "presentation talk" for the teacher-audience rather than the
"exploratory talk" (Barnes & Todd, 1994) that was being encouraged. In this class
thinking was valued over a single right answer. Because of this, even though Casey had
difficulty figuring out how to get the speaking floor, he was still engaged in thinking about
the concepts in a way which promoted his understanding. This sort of thinking and the
resultant understanding is not promoted in a classroom in which the student is focusing on
a single right answer which they rarely get the opportunity to share. Even while Casey had
his hand in the air waiting to share an idea (which he may or may not get an opportunity to
do) he was thinking about his idea, listening to other students' ideas, and perhaps

modifying his own thinking. Although clearly it was an advantage for him to be able to

168

think through his ideas verbally, he appeared to be actively engaged in thinking even while
not always given the opportunity to drink aloud.

Evidence to support this claim of apparent engagement in the content comes from
Casey's post-test data in which he uses some of the same language that emerged in the
class discussion. For example, one concept that was discussed repeatedly drroughout the
unit was the idea that the change in temperature of matter, i.e. snow, is caused by contact
with a substance, such as air, that is a different temperature. Although not in his pre-test
responses, the idea of air causing a temperature change was present in four of Casey's five
post-test explanations for the temperature change of some piece of matter. For example,
when asked why hot chocolate in a cup cools off over time Casey responded, "The air
cools it off". This contrasts with a pre-test response, "Because you would let it sit so long
it would get cold". Similarly, when asked why the snow on a pair of boots melted when
brought inside Casey responded, "It (snow) is a form of water that is cold and warm air
melted it".

Another concept that was stressed throughout the class discussion was that
temperature could be measured in degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius and therefore it was
important to always include units when giving the temperature of an object. Casey
included Fahrenheit units on his pre-test responses and continued to do so on his post-test
responses. It appears that he understood the importance of units prior to the unit and this
was reinforced drroughout the unit. It is also interested that he did not appear to be
confused by the option of using degrees Celsius but continued to consistently refer to the
temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.

The second key feature of this learning community was the established discourse
pattern which, while clearly structured, was flexible enough to accorrrrnodate Casey's
different discourse style. His exploratory style of talk, while challenging for students and
teachers to follow, was not ridiculed or cut off. In this way students in the class were

allowed to work through their thinking and ideas in a way that was most productive for

I69

them rather than in the way that is most productive for the teacher. This is a unique
approach to class discussion and certainly complicates the discussion for both the teacher

and the students as they learn the new discourse norms.

The Story of Padma: A Quiet Enigma

I noticed Padma almost immediately during my first visit to Atlantis Elementary.
She was intrigued by my presence in the classroom. During that first visit she asked me
what I was doing there, and when I told her, asked if she could be one of the students I
was studying. When I consulted with Mrs. Runner about selecting Padma as a target
student, she recommended her because she considered Padma to be bright and articulate.
She felt that I would be able to get good information about Padma's drinking if I were to
interview her. According to Mrs. Runner, Padma enjoyed writing and talking about her
ideas in science. Combined with her eagerness to be part of the study, this enjoyment of

writing and talking about science convinced me drat she would be an interesting target

student.

Beginning at the End: Padma's Science Learning During the Unit

What emerged over the course of the two months I was in the classroom was a
surprisingly different picture of Padma than I had anticipated based upon my early
observations and interactions with her. The unit pre- and post-test revealed that Padma had
made only limited progress along the continuum towards scientific understanding. Her
post-test score of 48% was only 10% higher than her pre-test score of 38%. This contrasts
with a mean gain score of 25% for her classmates.

In addition to the quantitative data, qualitative analysis showed that aldrough
Padma's answers to the constructed response items on the post-test were longer than her
pre-test responses, they were primarily descriptive rather than explanatory and involved a
lot of repetition of information. She said what she wanted to say and dren repeated it in a

different way which made the response appear initially to be very detailed. However,

 

170

further analysis revealed a heavy reliance on repetition rather than on developing an

explanation.

For example, one question which appeared on both the pre- and post assessment
read:

" It is a cold day in winter. The temperature outside is below freezing. You take a
thermometer outside and stick it in a snow bank. After a couple nrinutes, you take
the thermometer out and read the temperature. What would the temperature
probably be? Why would the snow be this temperature?"

A student holding the goal conception would respond to this question by giving a
reasonable temperature below 32° F. The accompanying explanation would be that this
temperature is below freezing which is necessary because snow is solid (frozen) water. On
the pre-test Padma responded to the question by giving a temperature of 0° (no units were
given) . Her explanation for predicting that snow was this temperature was brief ~-
"Because it is very cold outside". On the post-test Padma gave a temperature of 13° (no
units) with the explanation, "Because it is veg celd day and if it is a vent celd day then the
snow would probably be eo_ld so 13° would be a good temperature I drink". In this
response Padma relied on the information in the question. "it is a very cold day", rather
than drawing on the knowledge learned in the unit. She repeated "cold" or "very cold day"
three times in the same sentence. However, although she repeated the information in the
question, Padma did not pick up on a critical piece of information in the question that it is
below freezing. Thus, although she did give a temperature that is below freezing she only
justified it by saying it was a cold temperature and did not further justify it by stating drat it
was below freezing.

Seieng as Discettrse: Not fer Padma

As Mrs. Runner predicted, Padma proved to be delightful to interview and was
quite articulate about her learning and about the role of talk in her learning. However,

there were sonre puzzling contradictions between her talk in the interviews and her actions

 

during class discussion. For example, in the first interview she said that during class

171

discussion, "I don't care if I have the best answer. All I really drink about is if I really get
it" (Interview #1). And yet, during class discussions, she typically only responded to calls
for "known answers" or data. She did not take advantage of the opportunities to puzzle
through her drinking out loud the way that Casey did, although I expected her to do so
based upon in her talk in that first interview.

In all but the last interview -- which was a group interview involving Padma and
two of her classmates -- Padma was articulate and thoughtful as she described how she
talked with her peers to help her make sense of the science content. For example, when
asked how talking with her classmates helped her make sense of the science content she
responded, "IfI have a different idea and they have a different idea we can kind of get
together and see what's the best idea. And then you come up with the best idea together".
(Transcript, Interview #1). It is possible that she did have these kinds of conversations
with her friends at some time outside of science class. However, during science class there
was no evidence of her combining her ideas -- at least orally -- with her classnrates' ideas in
order to reach a conclusion based upon those ideas. Again, her oral participation during
science class discussions was very different than Casey's and very different from the way
in which she described her participation.

The disappointing growth seen in Padma's science content understanding combined
with the discrepancy between her talk in interviews and her actions in class contributes to a
picture of a student who knows the role that the classroom discourse strele play in her
learning, but has not yet learned to control and use the discourse in support of her learning.
Although Padma was making progress towards a vision of science as Discourse, she is not
yet to that point. Thus, the science learning community which was so engaging and
successful in supporting the science concept development of many children in the class,
including Casey, did not appear to support Padma's science learning.

This case raises some new questions about the learning community in this

classroom. Why was Padma, who was perceived by her teacher as a successful student,

 

172

apparently so unsuccessful in learning the science in this unit? What was it about the
learning community that hindered Padma from learning despite the perceptions of her
teacher and peers drat she was a "smart student"? Does Padma's participation in the
discourse give us any clue about why her learning did not show the remarkable growth that
Casey's did? What hindered Padma from learning to control and use the discourse to the
extent that Casey did? Possible insights into these questions can be found by looking
closely at the classroom discourse patterns and the ways in which Padma used the
discourse, possibly unconsciously, to allow her to appear successful to her teacher and
peers -- and possibly herself-- while avoiding engaging in the science content in a way that
promoted her learning.

Things Are Not Always What They Aptxar

Most classes have a Padma -- a student who is perceived by teachers and classmates
as smart. Sometimes such students are especially "smart" about learning how to play the
game of school. They have learned how to be pleasant to have in the classroom and to
always appear eager to learn and willing to "do the wor This good student behavior
may conceal, however, learning struggles. I believe this was the case with Padma.

Padma was very good at appearing to be a good student. She always came eagerly to the
team area for science, she completed all her seat work neatly and in a timely fashion, and
she was always eager to help the teacher in small ways such as running messages to the
office or washing chalkboards at recess time.

As a result of these activities, Padma was a student that Mrs. Runner noticed
favorably. However, most of the activities where Padma captured Mrs. Runner's attention
in such a positive manner were non-instructional activities. Surprisingly, during
instructional time Padma seemed to disappear. Occasionally she would emerge
temporarily; for example, if she had data to contribute to a data list or if a known-answer
question were asked she would raise her hand to talk. But during the intellectually

engaging discussions where the students were encouraged to construct their understanding

 

173

of the science concepts, Padma rarely raised her hand to participate and thus seemed
invisible. She found many opportunities during the day to attract the teacher's attention in a
positive manner but she apparently "shut down" when the more conceptually challenging
discussions were taking place without drawing the teacher's attention to her lack of
participation.

W en c ' ' M W rd ' i1 it

As described earlier in this chapter, the discourse pattern in this class during a
whole class discussion was considerably more involved than the traditional I-R-E pattern
frequently found in science classrooms. While this pattern did include the moves of
initiation, response, and evaluation, these moves could be made by either the teacher or the
student. This contrasts with the I-R-E pattern in which the only move the student makes is
"response". In a social constructivist classroom, there were also the moves of probing,
elaborating, revoicing and redirecting. These moves are not present in a traditional I-R-E
discussion and thus can be used as one way to characterize a social constructivist
discussion.

Further characterizing this discussion as unique was the way in which Ms. Lawson
or Mrs. Runner redirected a student's response or reasoning. This redirection frequently
involved what I call the agree/disagree pattern. The teacher would redirect the question by
calling specifically for the students to evaluate an idea on the floor by agreeing or
disagreeing with the idea. For example, once a student had put on idea on the floor, such
as, "We believe our ice cube melted faster than the others because it was smaller," the
teacher would turn the response back to the students and say, "What do other people drink?
Do you agree or disagree and why?". Other students would then make an evaluation (either
agreeing or disagreeing) and provide evidence or reasoning for the evaluation. This
agree/disagree pattern was part of the literacy cuniculum and was a strategy which students

were implicitly taught through repeated calls for agreement or disagreement. This

 

174

agree/disagree was a discourse strategy that was being taught school wide across the year
(Smith, 1995).

In an interview midway through the unit Padma described her participation in class
discussion and had some surprising drings to say about the agree/disagree strategy when
asked about it:

KP: You said that you talk to your friends a lot and drat sometimes they
help you when you don't understand something. How about when
you are in the team area talking? Does it sometimes help you to
think of new drings to hear other people's ideas?

P: Yeah, because when I listen to them talk people might say drings
about it and I think, "yeah, that would be a good idea so..." [voice
trails off]

KP: So even though there are forty kids sitting there on the floor you can
still kind of listen and figure out what people are saying and get
ideas from drem?

T?

Umhmm, right.

KP: Can you think of somedring that you might learn from talking to
somebody drat you wouldn't learn as well if you were just working
by yourself? Is there anything in science class that it really helps to
work with odrer people?

P: Well, yeah. Like if I have a different idea and they have a different
idea we can kind of get together and see what's the best idea. And
dren you come up with the best idea together.

KP: Okay. How, do you ever disagree on what is the best idea?

7‘?

No, we never disagree. We just kind of, well we kind of talk about
it, and then, I don't care if I have the best answer or not. But lots of
my friends don't care about that either. So we just...[voice trails
off]

KP: You don't care if you get the best answer. So what is important to
you? What do you care about?

P: I don't care if I have the best answer. All I drink about is if I really
get it.

(Interview, March 18)

I was surprised by many of Padma's statements about the value of discourse. My

perceptions of her participation were quite different than her own. First, she described

 

 

175

herself as very much an active listener, listening to other people's ideas and using those

ideas to help her make sense of her own ideas. This was not apparent to me when

observing her. Although she appeared polite and one might assume she was listening, her
lack of verbal participation communicated disengagement to me.

I was also surprised when I asked her whether there was ever any disagreement
about the best idea and she said that there was not. This contrasts sharply with the lesson
transcripts which show that frequently students began their statement by saying "I disagree
with..." or "I agree with..." And, as noted above, this was a discourse pattern which was
stressed as being productive and encouraged by the teachers through questions such as "Do
you agree with that statement?"

There are several possible explanations for this discrepancy. One is that in
reflecting back on the class discussions, Padnra is remembering tone rather than exact
words. She may associate the word "disagree" with an argumentative tone which was not
typically present. Therefore, even drough the words "disagree" are used, she may not
associate them with her definition of disagreement. This explanation casts a favorable light
on the learning community. Although students are continually disagreeing widr one
another's ideas, and are encouraged by the teacher to do so, there is not an argumentative
tone to the class nor is there an atmosphere of animosity or hostility among the students as
they disagree with one another. If there were such an atmosphere, Padma might be more
likely to remember that there was a great deal of disagreement taking place.

An alternative explanation for the discrepancy between the level of disagreement in
the class and Padma's perceptions of the amount of disagreement is that Padma is not as
engaged in the discussion as she appeared and thus was unaware of the level of productive
disagreement that was taking place. Her scores on the unit post-test suggest to me that this
is a likely explanation.

During the short interview segment above Padma said twice. "I don't care if I have

the best answer." This was an idea that the teachers stressed to the students throughout the

 

176

unit discussions. They were frequently told that the purpose of the discussion was to share
ideas and to figure drings out and that there were not right and wrong answers to many of
the questions. This was reinforced by the discourse pattern in which there was little teacher
evaluation of a statement but rather the teacher reinitiating through calling for agreement!
disagreement from the students. Padma had heard the statement that it wasn't important to
get a right answer enough to repeat it in the interview. However, her unwillingness to
participate in the class discussion and her volunteering to answer only familiar questions
and questions with specific "right" answers would seem to contradict this statement.
Perhaps intellectually she knew that it didn't matter if she gave a wrong answer. However,
she may still not have felt "safe" enough in the learning conununity to risk giving a wrong
answer. Again, this gives support to the assertion that although Padma knows that

discourse is to play a role in her learning, she has not yet learned to control and use the

discourse to support that learning.
Although I believe the teachers in this classroom drink "smart students" are the ones

who engage in sharing their thinking and ideas with peers and who puzzle through their
thinking out loud, this is not the traditional definition. A traditional definition of a smart
student is one who regularly responds with the correct answer when called upon by the
teacher. I believe that Padma is having a difficult time overcoming her belief - gained
through three years of full time schooling- that a smart student is one who always knows
the right answer. She may unconsciously be in conflict between what the teachers are
saying, "that it doesn't matter if you have a right or wrong answer as long as you share
your ideas" and what she believes to be true -- it matters very much that you have the right
answer -- based upon her previous experiences as a student. Additionally there are not
negative consequences for her using the discourse to share "right answers" rather than to
puzzle through her ideas. She is not reprimanded in any way for giving "right answers"
and in many ways is reinforced for doing so -- she is considered by Mrs. Runner to be a

smart student. The first day I observed the class Mrs. Runner pointed her out to me as a

 

178

Response Yazwa: Urn. .um. . .

Probe Mrs. R: Would you tell us..what do we put before the
number?

Response Yazwa: We put..um.. [Padma raises her hand]

Redirect Mrs. R: Padma?

Response Padma A minus sign

Revoice Yazwa A minus sign

Revoice Mrs. R: We put a minus sign

(Transcript, March 16)

In this interaction Mrs. Runner was looking for a specific piece of information -- a
"known answer" -- which Padma provided. Once she provided this both Mrs. Runner and
her friend Yazwa revoiced her answer.

A few nrinutes later in the discussion Padma again participated in a slightly different
way. This second time she participated she provided data collected by she and her partner.
In this example, students had just returned inside from measuring the temperature of the
snow outside. While discussing the results of the temperature of the snow in the cup, Mike
had argued that the snow that was indoors in the warm room air would be warmer than the
snow that was outdoors in the cold air. To test this hypothesis the students worked with a

partner to measure the outside temperature of the snow. In the transcript segment below

Mrs. Runner was having the students share their data:

Let's share the temperatures that we found. What did you

Initiation Mrs. R:
find, Yazwa?

Response Yazwa I found drirty degrees Fahrenheit and zero degrees
Celsius.

Evaluation Mrs. R: Okay..I'm going to write these up on the board
(several other students bid for the floor, are called
upon, and share their data)

Initiation Mrs. R: Okay...somebody...all right...Padma?

Response Padma: Forty degrees Fahrenheit.

 

177

good potential target student because she was "bright" and "articulate" and a " good student"
(Fieldnotes, February 25).

A question that the reader might have at this point is why Mrs. Runner didn't
challenge Padma more. Why is Padma allowed to sit quietly and participate only when
there is a called for "known answers" or data. One possible explanation is that because
Mrs. Runner perceives of Padma as bright and articulate, she may have simply assumed
Padma understood the concepts under discussion even when she was not participating
verbally.

' N ‘7 N f m '

About mid-way through the unit on "Changes in Matter" the class was divided into
four smaller. teacher-led working groups. Padma was with her two good friends, Sarina
and Yazwa. in this small group. The smaller group size -- there were about ten students in
the group «coupled with being with her friends may have been less intimidating for Padma
than the large group. Evidence to support this claim is that on the first day she was present
in the smaller group (she had been ill the first day of small group discussion), Padma began
to participate a little more than she had during large group discussion. For example, during
a single twenty minute discussion on March 16 she provided the way to indicate in writing
that a given temperature was below zero, she provided a piece of evidence for the argument
that the temperature of snow is not always the same, and she shared a data point she had
collected with her partner .

In the first example described above -- providing a way to indicate in writing that a
given temperature was below zero, Mrs. Runner had asked the students in the group to tell

her the temperature of snow in a cup according to their data table:

Initiation Mrs. R: Who has a number for the snow? Yazwa?

Response Yazwa: For Celsius I have...for Celsius the snow was..below
zero..

Probe Mrs. R: So how do we write that according to what Casey

told us?

Response

Probe

Response
Redirect
Response
Revoice

Revoice

Yazwa;

Mrs. R:

Yazwa:

Mrs. R:

Padma

Yazwa

Mrs. R:

(Transcript, March 16)

178

Um..um...

Would you tell us..what do we put before the
number?

We put..um.. [Padma raises her hand]
Padma?

A minus sign

A minus sign

We put a minus sign

In this interaction Mrs. Runner was looking for a specific piece of information -- a

"known answer" -- which Padma provided. Once she provided this both Mrs. Runner and

her friend Yazwa revoiced her answer.

A few minutes later in the discussion Padma again participated in a slightly different

way. This second time she participated she provided data collected by she and her partner.

In this example, students had just returned inside from measuring the temperature of the

snow outside. While discussing the results of the temperature of the snow in the cup, Mike

had argued that the snow that was indoors in the warm room air would be warmer than the

snow that was outdoors in the cold air. To test this hypothesis the students worked with a

partner to measure the outside temperature of the snow. In the transcript segment below

Mrs. Runner was having the students share their data:

Initiation

Response

Evaluation

Initiation

Response

Mrs. R:

Yazwa

Mrs. R:

Mrs. R:

Padma:

Let's share the temperatures that we found. What did you
find, Yazwa?

I found thirty degrees Fahrenheit and zero degrees
Celsius.

Okay..I'm going to write these up on the board

(several other students bid for the floor, are called
upon, and share their data)

Okay...somebody...all right...Padma?
Forty degrees Fahrenheit.

179

Revoice Mrs. R: Forty degrees Fahrenheit.
Revoice Padma: Forty

(Transcript, March 16)

In this conversation Mrs. Runner was collecting data without passing judgment on
the correctness of that data. And, prior to Padma's sharing her data, several other students
had also shared their data. Padma was able to check her numbers against those of the
others and see that her data was nearly the same as theirs before sharing her data. Thus
Padma's contribution was reasonably non-threatening -- all numbers were being accepted
and hers compared similarly to ones already given.

Although her participation still tended to be limited to brief data sharing or
responses to known answers, during small group time Padma also attempted to participate
in the agree-disagree discourse for the first time in this unit. The topic under discussion at
this point in the conversation was whether the temperature of snow is always the same or
whether snow is different temperatures as determined by the temperature of the air around
them. Evidence to support the students in making their assertions could be found in the
two data tables they had completed in their science notebook; one table of the temperature
of snow in the cup in the warm room air and the other the temperature of the snow in the
cold outdoor air.

Redirect Mrs. R: How many of you would like Jake to repeat his
idea...so that you could think about it...okay...Jake
could you say that again so that we can all drink
about it?

Response Jake: I think that from two minutes and like um if another
guy like if you put it in for two nrinutes and another
guy put it in for three minutes there is no difference
because the snow isn't changing only the weather
gets colder.

(Kent raises his hand)

Redirect Mrs. R: Kent?

Evaluation Kent: I agree.

180

Redirect Mrs. R: Let's go to Padma now I think she had her hand up a
nrinute ago.
Response Padma l was gonna say..when you said..um.. that the

weather...my mom says that in Michigan the weather
changes every minute.

Revoice Mrs. R: I see.. then you agree with the idea that the weather
changes because in Michigan your mom says it
changes every nrinute.

Response Padma Umhmm

(Transcript, March 16)

This is the first time since the beginning of the unit observations in late February
that Padma has agreed or disagreed with a classmate. She not only agreed with Jake, but
she provided evidence to support her agreement. Therefore, on the first day of the small
group discussions Padma participated three times during one discussion. This is more than
triple her typical daily participation. Furthermore, although two of her three discourse
moves are ones which could be considered "low risk" interactions, this third move
represents a considerably higher risk move. Considering Padma's verbal participation up
to this point, this is a fairly remarkable change.

Padma's Continuing Participation: Progress or Only An Illusion?

Padma continued to participate in the small group on the following days aldrough
after her one "breakdrrough" in which she agreed with a group member and provided
evidence to support her assertion, she fell back into her pattern of sharing responses only
to "known- answer questions". For example, in the discussion below a student has just
read the definition of boiling from the encyclopedia:

Revoicing 151 Mrs. R. The boiling point is the temperature at which

the liquid evaporates.

Response 152 Tirnodry Vapor

Revoicing 152 Mrs. R. Timothy is saying vapor.

Redirect Mrs. R. Have you heard that word before? Vapor?
Have you heard the word vapor?

181

Response 1 53 Padma Evaporate
Revoice 154 Mrs. R Evaporate
(Transcript, March 30)

Again, Padma participated when she could give a short response to which there is a
"right answer". When there were opportunities for Padma to expand on her ideas or puzzle
over them orally, she either withdrew from the conversation or turned the question into a
known-answer response. Puzzling through her ideas orally appeared to be risky for
Padma. One example of her withdrawing from a potentially intellectually risky
conversation is seen in line 74 in the transcript segment below:
Initiation 69 Mrs. R: We have measured some temperatures widrin this

room. The temperature of the air. What do we call
the temperature of the air that's in this room?

Response 70 Padma: Room temperature.
Revoice 71 Mrs. R. Room temperature.
Initiation 72 Mrs. R. What did we find the room temperature

to be? What does that mean then? How would you
define the temperature that is in this room?

Response 73 Padma Seventy two degrees.

Probe 74 Mrs. R. Suppose someone said to you, "What do you mean
Padma, when you say the room temperature of the
air is seventy two degrees"? Suppose someone asks
you, "What do you mean about room temperature? I
don't know what room temperature is" What would
you say to them? How would you answer that?

Response 75 Padma [eyes downcast] shakes her head no.

(Transcript, March 30)

Padma's response to Mrs. Runner's probing effectively ended the discussion. Any
further probing by Mrs. Runner would probably have felt to both Padma and Mr. Runner
as if she were badgering Padma. It is doubtful Padma was willing to say anything more,

regardless of how many questions Mrs. Runner asked, or how kindly they were asked.

182

Another example of Padma's reluctance to puzzle through her ideas even when
explicitly encouraged to do so by Mrs. Runner occurred in another small group discussion.
The class was discussing ways that you could make a hot liquid like soup cool enough to
eat as well as ways that you could make a room temperature drink cold. Mrs. Runner had
posed the following problem to the class:

All right, supposing you went to somebody's house for a birthday party say, and

they had lots of glass sitting out like we sometimes do in here. You didn't feel like

you wanted something real cold to drink that day but your only choice was red pop.

Now some of them had four or five ice cubes in them and some of them had one or

two ice cubes in them and some of the glasses had no ice cubes in them. If you

didn't want something real cold to drink that day which one would you choose?

(Transcript, 3/29)

Mrs. Runner was developing the concept that if two objects of different temperature
come into contact with one another. both will change temperature. She hoped that the
students would respond to her questioning selecting the glass with no ice, because if there

was ice in the glass the liquid touching the ice would become colder; therefore, the pop

would be cold. Padma immediately raised her hand in response to Mrs. Runner's question;

Response Padma: The one with no ice.

Probe Mrs. R: Why?

Reasoning Padma: Because..ice is cold..and you would expect the red
pop to get cold and the red pop with no ice just stays
red pop.

Probe Mrs. R: Okay...

Reasoning Padma: It wouldn't get cold.

(Transcript, 3/29)

In response to Mrs. Runner's query of "why", Padma offered a desep'ptien (the
pop would get cold) but did not offer an explanatien other than to stay that if drere is ice in
the pop you would expect it to get cold. Mrs. Runner responded to this description of the

phenomenon by saying "okay" with her voice trailing off. This was a subtle cue to Padma

183

that she needed to give a further explanation or reasoning. Padma picked up on this cue;
however, she still did not respond with an explanation of why the ice would make the pop
cold. Rather she clarified and extended her description, saying that pop with no ice
"wouldn't get cold". Although Ms. Runner gave Padma an opportunity to puzzle through
her ideas orally, Padma did not take this opportunity. She wasn't encouraged to do so nor
were there any negative consequences when she did not.

I asked Padma a similar question to the one above in an interview approximately
two months after this conversation. She repeated the same information she had given in
class; however in this private conversation away from the audience of her peers, she said
considerably more than she did the day in class. However, she still continued to give a
description rather than an explanation:

KP: Why would a cup of red p0p with ice in it be colder than a cup of

red pop without ice?

P: Because an ice cube is cold and you have red pop and you have
another cup of red pop, plain old red pop. And then you take the ice
cube and put it in one of the cups and the other cup is without an ice
cube. And you leave it and then if you taste them, the one with the

ice cube will probably be cold because the ice cube is cold.

(Interview Transcript, 6/3)

R li on “liar Wor d Phrase : Yet Ano r Banier To Leamin ience

Once the class had been divided into the four small groups and Padma began to
participate more in the discussion, a third pattern emerged in her discourse. A common
pattern seen in science in general is for students to rely on terms and definitions rather than
on trying to develop a conceptual understanding (Roth, l987)2. A variation of this pattern
was seen in Padma's discourse.

On the second day of the teacher-led small group discussion. for example, the

group was discussing an experiment they had done measuring the temperature of snow.

 

2For a more detailed description of this pattern and the reasons kids rely on terms and definitions see
Chapter 2.

184

They were debating whether a thermometer left in a snow bank would "level off" at a
certain temperature or would continue to get colder and colder. Many of the students were
arguing that it would continue to get colder. However, Jake argued that it wasn't the snow
that was changing temperature; it was the weather that was changing. Therefore it didn't
matter how long a thermometer was left in the snow, it would always be the same
temperature.

Padma appeared to have been engaged in this discussion because following the
statement about the weather changing, she entered the conversation:

Padma: I was gonna say...when you said...um..that the weather isn't
changing...my mom said that in Michigan the weather changes
every nrrnute.

(Transcript 3/16)

The statement that the weather was changing may have caught Padma's attention,
because this was a familiar phrase she had heard her mother say. Because of this
familiarity she was able to momentarily enter the conversation and comment upon this
statement. Although this provided an opportunity for Padma to enter the conversation, and
may have represented one way in which she was making sense of the ideas in the
discussion, her response probably didn't fit with the content of the larger discussion from
Mrs. Runner's perspective. As a result Mrs. Runner did not probe, revoice, or redirect
Padma's statement but rather called on another student. Possibly because Mrs. Runner did
not follow the pattern of probing, revoicing, or redirecting, this one statement about the
weather changing represented the end of Padma's verbal participation at this point in the
lesson. Following the interaction about the Michigan weather, Padma remained silent in
her small group for nearly two weeks. It seemed that when her idea wasn't given support
by the teacher or her classmates, she essentially retreated from the discourse.

By March 29 much of the discussion in the teacher-led small groups for the
previous two weeks had centered around reading a thermometer and understanding the

distinction between the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales. A question asked repeatedly during

185

this time was, "What is a diffemppway of saying 212°F (or whichever temperature had just
been named)?" to which the student responded by naming the corresponding Celsius
temperature.

On March 29 Padma finally entered the conversation in a move very similar to the
one made surrounding the issue of the "weather changing" as described above. During the
course of this discussion, Padma was asked a direct question by Mrs. Runner. The
question contained the familiar phrase "dim temperature", which resulted in a patterned
response from Padma which again did not appear to answer Mrs. Runner's question. The
group has been talking about how each time the red indicator moves up in the thermometer

it is a different temperature reading:

Probe Mrs. R: Okay..you mean every time that you jump a little..the
red moves up..it’s going to be a diffeLenL
temperanrte

Reasoning Padma: Well..yeah..because it..um..moving it has different

tempeeapues on each side like..for our hand
temperature we had ninety Fahrenheit and fifty seven
Celsius and they are different so...

Probe Mrs. R: How do you know which one is Fahrenheit and
which one is Celsius?

Reasoning Padma: Because you have an f on one side of a thermometer
and c on the other side

Probe Mrs. R: And the f stands for..

Response Padma: Fahrenheit

(Transcript, 3/29)

In this example even though the question was not a familiar one, Padma picked up
on the key word "different" in the context of a temperature discussion and turned the
question into a familiar one about Fahrenheit and Celsius to which she knew the answer.
In response to Mrs. Runner's clarification question "...the red goes up..it's going to be a
different temperature?" Padma elected herself group spokesperson and agreed that yes, that

is what they, the class, were saying. However, she then went on to clarify further, and the

186

explanation she gave is in the familiar pattern of giving the Fahrenheit and Celsius
temperatures, "Like for our hand temperature we had ninety Fahrenheit and fifty seven
Celsius.." This information, while correct and accurate, is out of place in the context of the
current discussion.

Perhaps because Mrs. Runner perceived of Padma as a smart student, she did not
appear to pick up on the difference between her question and Padma's response. Rather,
Mrs. Runner followed Padma's lead and shifted to discussing Fahrenheit and Celsius
asking the "known answer" question: "And the F stands for..." Padma easily replied,
"Fahrenheit". In this way Padma, perhaps not consciously, shifted the discussion to one in
which she could provide a response to a known answer question.

The final interview in June provided further evidence that Padma relied on familiar
information to answer questions. During a class discussion in March Ms. Lawson had
talked with the students about what would happen to hot soup if an ice cube was added to
it. In an interview at the end of the school year, more than two mondrs after the
discussion. Padma repeated a portion of that earlier class conversation. However, she said
that the situation had happened to h_et, rather than saying it was somedring that had been
discussed in science class. In this case it was the word "steam" which triggered this
response. The first transcript segment below shows the original science class discussion;
the second is from Padma's end-of-the-year interview:

Mrs. R: Okay, supposing you go to a restaurant and you order a bowl of

chicken soup and you wanted to check whether that soup was
awfully hot, what could you do?

Sam: You could put ice in it...when you put the ice cube in it steam
comes off it so that is how you would know it is hot

(Transcript, 3/29)

*******************

Sam: When we mix cold, freezing, and boiling together, steam comes.

Padma: Yes, cause one time I went to a restaurant and I had a bowl of hot
soup and he put the ice cube in the soup and the steam came off.

(Interview transcript, 6/3)

187

One explanation for this is that Padma picked up on the key word "steam" similar
to the way she did with the words "weather" and "different temperature" and repeated the
same thing that Sammy had said two months earlier, except that she has taken "ownership"
of the idea and said that it happened to her. This interpretation supports the assertion that
Padma is picking up on key words or phrases and participating in the discourse based upon
those ideas.

An alternative explanation is that Padma had experienced a similar situation and
when she heard Sammy describe putting an ice cube in soup during class discussion she
immediately connected it with a personal experience. Perhaps because of her reluctance to
speak in a public setting, she refrained from agreeing with Sammy and describing her own
experience as evidence. However. two months later in an interview setting in which there
were only three students present, the reference to "steam" may have again reminded her of
her experience which she then shared in that setting. This interpretation supports the
assertion that key words triggered responses and also the assertion that Padma was not

comfortable talking about her thinking, ideas, or experiences in the whole group and

possibly, although perhaps to a lesser extent, even in the small group setting.

 

When teaching there are always "tradeoffs" -- what works for one student may not
work for other students. Such was the case widr this learning community. Although the
discourse style allowed a student like Casey to thrive in leanring the science concepts,
Padma showed little change from pre- to post-test as described earlier in this chapter.
Unlike Casey, who was a non-conformist in his discourse style, Padma conformed to
traditional classroom discourse styles. She appeared to have a strong image of herself as
a good student when considered from a traditional perspective on teaching and learning.
She did not engage in the discourse in ways that would threaten that image in any way.

Thus, she did not engage in the discourse in ways that promoted her conceptual

188

understanding of the material under study. She did not put her drinking and ideas out in
public for inspection by her teachers and classmates.

Although a learning community such as the one described in this dissertation
provides opportunities for students who are not traditionally successful in science to thrive,
such a leanring community may still allow for the perpetuation of less successful discourse
strategies. Some students, like Padma, are able to continue using the strategies which have
allowed them success in the past. To a certain extent these strategies work in getting
favorable attention from the teacher. However, they do not work when considering the
science content learned.

W

The stories of Casey and Padma represent the rewards as well as the struggles with
creating a learning community in which understanding is socially constructed through the
discourse. Ms. Lawson and Mrs. Runner were working to create a learning community in
which the students became scientifically literate through the use of discourse. From this
perspective, a student who is successfully using the discourse would be successful in
science. This successful student would be listening to the assertions and evidence made by
their peers and agreeing or disagreeing and providing evidence to support their position.

Casey did listen closely to his peers as is evidenced in the responses that he made to
them. He also learned to make assertions and give evidence to support his assertions when
agreeing and disagreeing with his peers. Perhaps because of his ability to engage in the
discourse in this way, he developed a conceptual understanding of the science concepts in
the unit as evidenced by the depth of his explanations on the post-assessment.

However, change is difficult for everyone. Although Casey was agreeing and
disagreeing-- which was a discourse strategy recognized by his teachers as successful» the
way in which he made his assertions and provided evidence for these assertions did not
seem to "fit" with the traditional image of a " good student". He frequently used

"unrehearsed" exploratory talk which was much longer and included more repetition of key

189

words and phrases than the "presentational" talk of his peers. He never figured out the
implicit norms for participation in the discourse and, when he did get the speaking floor, he
often disrupted the flow of the discourse by making an unexpected move -- such as
disagreeing with an idea before a teacher had revoiced an redirected the idea

At the same time, Mrs. Runner had a long history of drinking about good students in a
more traditional way -- a good student is one who is polite, eager to learn, gives the right
answer using presentational talk, and knows the implicit rules for participating in the
discourse. This "preconception" of a good student may have sometimes unconsciously
played into the way in which she viewed the discourse in her classroom. Thus, although
Casey was agreeing and disagreeing with his peers, Mrs. Runner may not have initially
recognized it as such because of the rambling nature of his exploratory talk. Casey's talk
did not have the "neatness" of the presentational talk Mrs. Runner was accustomed to
hearing from her "good students". Thus, Casey did not appear articulate and, initially,
Mrs. Runner may not have realized the power of Casey's discourse and the extent of his
learning.

Furthermore, Casey's physical placement in the classroom compounded his
difficulties. He tended to sit quietly on the periphery of the science class during discussion
and did not wave his hand or make other noise to catch the teacher's attention when he
wanted to answer a question Thus his bid for the speaking floor often went unnoticed, and
he did not participate in the leanring community as frequently as the students who were
perceived of by teachers and peers as good in science.

Thus, Casey did not match the traditional image of a good science student -- an
image that is so deeply entrenched it is difficult to ignore. And yet Casey m successful in
learning the science concepts. One explanation for his success is that the very structure of
the leanring community enabled and encouraged him to use discourse strategies which
promoted his understanding of the science content even when he was sometimes neglected

by the teacher. Thus, for Casey, the discourse allowed him access to the science concepts

I90

even though he was not engaging in the discourse in a more traditional "smart student"
way.

In contrast to Casey, Padma engaged in the discourse in ways that were consistent
with the traditional image of a good science student. For example, Padma used
presentational speech in which she gave clear, concise answers in response to the teacher's
questions. One reason she may have been able to do this successfully was that she
generally responded only to questions which called for information, rather than an
explanation. Because of these clear, easy to follow, responses, she was perceived by her
teachers as articulate - which is a traditional characteristic of a good science student.

In addition to being polite and well behaved during class discussions, Padma had
figured out how to get the speaking floor with minimal difficulty. Unlike Casey who sat
on the periphery, Padma sat in the center, directly in the teacher's sight line. When a
question was asked, Padma raised her hand and waved it in the air. If this didn't catch the
teacher's attention she would also make quiet noises which caught the teacher's attention.
Padma also volunteered to do many extra things - such as run notes to the office or stay in
from recess to wash the blackboards. All these behaviors contributed to an image of
Padma as a good student.

Thus, at the same time that the structure of the learning community allowed Casey
to learn the science concepts, it allowed Padma, perhaps unconsciously, to avoid risky
discourse moves, such as exploratory talk, which would have helped her make sense of
the content. However, because there were enough opportunities for Padma to participate in
ways which did not challenge her thinking or push her intellectually (e.g. known answer
questions and calls for data), her lack of engagement with learning the concepts was not
readily apparent and she fit the teacher's image of a successful student.

This does not mean, however, that Padma cannot learn science concepts in a social
constructivist learning community. I believe that Padma, and many students like her, can

thfiye in such a classroom. However, Padma needs time and support in changing her

191

long-held view of what it means to be a good student. To use the language of conceptual
change, Padma needs to have her conceptions of what it means to be a good student in
science challenged. Interview data provided evidence that this had taken place. Padma
clearly understood that the discourse was to play an important role in her learning --
however she hadn't had enough time and practice controlling and using the new discourse
for it to be "plausible and fruitful" for her. Thus, she continued to rely on her old strategies
of giving known answers, providing data, and using presentational talk. With time and
continued explicit teacher support in learning to control and use the discourse of science,
Padma could change her image of what it means to be successful in science and would

learn to use the discourse as a sense-making tool.

Chapter 7

THE SCIENCE CONTENT KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED
THROUGH THE TALK: A GLIMPSE OF STUDENT LEARNING

WW

I have made the assertion that the classroom discourse in the third grade team room
at Atlantis Elementary provided a powerful tool for Casey to construct his understanding of
the science content. Making the discourse a part of the science curriculum during science
and literacy time enabled Casey to engage in "exploratory" talk (Barnes and Todd, 1995) in
which he thought through the concepts aloud. As he did so, Casey learned to control and
use the discourse of science. In this way Casey developed a conceptual understanding of
the science concepts in the unit such that he was able to use them in describing and
explaining real world phenomenon on the Changes in Matter unit post-assessment. Thus,
for Casey, science was Discourse.

Unlike Casey, who engaged in exploratory talk as he learned to control and use the
discourse in his learning, Padma tended to use "presentational" talk (Bames and Todd,
1995) during class discussions. She did not think aloud, but rather said enough to show
the teacher that she was listening. Accordingly, her teachers viewed her as bright and
articulate. There was no indication that either Padma or her teachers realized that she was
not engaging in appropriating a new discourse that would allow her to make sense of the
science concepts so that she could use them to describe and explain real world
phenomenon.

Thus, for Padma, the discourse perpetuated her image as bright and articulate while
obscuring, probably even to Padma, that she was not engaging in the science content in
ways which led to scientific literacy. As described in the previous chapter. Padma's

responses on the Changes in Matter unit post-assessment were very similar to her

192

193

responses on the pre-assessment. Thus, for Padma, science was not Discourse. Science
was rehearsed speech and right answers.

The purpose of this chapter is to support the assertion drat Casey was not an
anomaly and that the majority of students (60%) in this class-- with its emphasis on using
discourse as science and in which the discourse was part of the science cuniculum--
developed a deeper understanding of the Changes in Matter unit concepts than they had at
the start of the unit. Evidence of this can be found in the written pre- and post-test data. I
begin this chapter by describing the written assessment instruments and the way in which
the scoring rubrics for assessing changes in conceptual understanding were developed and
used. I then quantitatively examine the change in conceptions across the unit for the whole
class.

D ' ' f Wh l l Pr - ~T

Prior to instruction and again at the end of the Changes in Matter unit, the students
were given a written assessment. All of the assessment items on the instrument were
constructed response items in which the students were given an everyday phenomenon,
such as snow melting when it is brought indoors, and asked to write a scientific
explanation for the phenomenon.

The assessment was a "matched assessment" -- the majority of the questions on the
pre- and post-assessment instruments were the same. The instruments were designed this
way so that changes across the unit and progress toward a scientific conception could be
determined through the calculation of gain scores. The one exception to this was a question
on the pre-assessment which dealt with the concept of water in the air. Because this
concept was not covered in the unit, the question was eliminated from the post assessment
and replaced with a question about the temperature of an object sitting out at room
temperature. I did not include these two questions in the quantitative analysis because they
were not on both the pre- and post assessment. Additionally, although I had post-test data

for both classes. I only had the pre-test data from Mrs. Runner's class (which included

194

both Casey and Padma). Therefore, I conducted the analysis for only the 21 students in
Mrs. Runner's class.

Table 7.1 on the next page shows the pre- and post-assessment questions and the
conesponding science goal conceptions. When examining the goal conceptions it is
important to remember that the class is a drird grade class in which the majority of the
students are language minority students to whom even the concept of a Fahrenheit

temperature was a new COIICCPI.

195

Table 7.1
Pre- and Post-Assessment Questions and Goal Conceptions

 

Assessment Item

Goal Conception

 

la. Suppose you had a cup of hot
chocolate. After drinking part of it you
leave it sitting on the table. You come back
an hour later. You feel the cup and taste the
chocolate. What difference would you
notice?

1a. The temperature of the hot chocolate
would be cooler than it was an hour earlier. '

 

1b. Why would this happen?

lb. The air in the room is cooler than the
hot chocolate. When this cooler room air
touches the surface of the hot chocolate it
will cause the hot chocolate to cool down.

 

2a You have been playing outside in the
snow. When you come inside, some snow
stays on your boots. After about half an
hour, you come back and look at your
boots. There is not snow, but there is a
small puddle beside them. What do you
think happened to the snow?

2a. The snow went from a solid (frozen
water) to a liquid (room temperature water).

 

2b. Why would this happen to the snow?

2b. The air in the room is warmer than the
snow on the boots. When the warm room
air touches the snow it warms the snow up
until it is above freezing temperature and it
melts.

 

3a. You get a glass of cold water from the
drinking fountain. You use a thermometer
to find out the temperature of the water.
What temperature do you think the water
would be?

3a. 33-60°F (OR 145°C)

(Below room temperature but above
freezing)

 

3b. Why do you predict this temperature?

3b. It would be this temperature because it
is cold so it is below room temperature but
it is not frozen so it is above 33°F.

 

3c. You leave the cup of water on the table
and come back an hour later. What do you
drink the tem' rature should be then?

3c. The temperature of the water will be
about the same as the temperature in the
room (about 70°F).

 

 

43. It is a co (1 day in winter. The
temperature outside is about 20°F (-3°C).
You get another cup of cold water from the
drinking fountain. You take this cup of
water outside and leave it. You look at the
cup of water again after about half an hour.
The water is not frozen. You then check its
temperature. What temperature do you
drink it would be?

4a. 33-50°F (OR l-lOUC)

(Cold but above freezing)

 

 

4b. Why would it be this temperature?

 

4b. It would be this temperature because it
is a cold day but the water in the cup did not
freeze. This means that the temperature
would be above freezing (33°F) but
probably not a lot above that temperature or
it would not be considered a cold day.

 

 

196

Table 7 .1 (cont'd.)

 

5a. It is a cold day in winter. The 5a. Below 32°F (0°C).
temperature outside is below freezing. You
take a thermometer outside and stick it in a
snow bank. After a couple nrinutes you
take the thermometer out and read the
temperature. What would the temperature

 

 

probably be?
Sb. Why would the snow be this 5b. The information in the question stated
temperature? that it is below freezing so it would have to
be below the freezing point of 32°F.
5c. Suppose the thermometer read 45°F 5c. There are several possible theories:
(6°C)? How might this be explained? 1. The thermometer is broken.
2. I misread the thermometer.
3. I held the thermometer bulb in my hand.
4. I carried the thermometer inside and

waited too long before reading it.
5. The thermometer was not left in the
snow long enough.

 

 

5d. How could you test your explanation? 5d. Designs an experiment which tests
theit theory.

 

 

Overview of the Rubric Development

More than a right or wrong answer, I was interested in student progress towards
the scientific conception. Therefore, I elected to develop and use rubrics to score the
assessment items. Using rubrics allowed me to more accurately determine progress from
pre- to post-assessment. For example, a student might give a response on the pre-
assessment which represented a naive conception and would thus receive a low score
according to the rubric (e. g. a "1"). On the same question on the post-assessment the
student might not give a complete scientific conception, however, they might give a
qualitatively better explanation of the phenomenon than they did on the pre-assessment.
Although not quite at the scientific conception, their post-assessment response would be
much closer to the goal conception than their pre-assessment response. Using a rubric,
their score would reflect this progress and they would receive a higher score (e.g. a "4").
This higher score would then be reflected in the overall gain scores from pre- to post-

assessment.

 

197

Following guidelines established by the MCREL (Mid-Central Regional Education
Laboratories) assessment group, I developed a rubric for scoring each pre- and post-test
item. (See Appendix E for a complete copy of the assessment rubrics). Typically rubrics
are either four point rubrics or five point rubrics. However, my purposes were slightly
different than those of the classroom teacher who might be using a rubric to assess a
student for the purpose of assigning a grade. The rubric point assignment scheme I used
reflected this different purpose. On the rubric I developed, the number of maximum points
possible for each question varied depending on the complexity of the phenomenon. Thus
for every question there was a range of points possible. For example, question la asked
students to predict what would happen to hot chocolate if it were left sitting undisturbed in
a cup for one hour. There is a limited range of reasonable possible responses to this
question. Students might respond that the hot chocolate would cool or that its temperature
would go down. They might respond that it would become the temperature of the room.
They could respond more generally that it would "get cold" . They could also respond by
guessing that it would get warmer, by saying "I don't know" or by not making a
prediction. Because there are only four reasonable responses possible for this question
(excluding "I don't know" and no response), the rubric for this question had only three
points possible.

By contrast, question lb asked the students to explain their prediction. There are a
number of possible explanations. These responses were categorized as "air cooling", "air
as cause", "room temperature", "heat leaves/material transfer", "inevitable temperature
equilibration", description rather than explanation, or "I don't know " or no response (For
a further description of each of these categories see the rubric in Appendix E). Because
there are six possible reasonable categories of explanations (excluding "I don't know" and
no response), there were six points possible on the rubric with "air cooling" receiving six

points and a description with no explanation receiving only one point.

198

When developing a rubric for a question, I first wrote the "ideal" scientific response
to the question. I then worked "backwards" to consider alternative responses which the
students might give. To construct these alternative responses, I reviewed lesson transcripts
and pre-assessment data to identify naive conceptions about the concept that the students
held prior to instruction and early in the unit. I also consulted with Dr. Jones regarding
common naive conceptions about the unit concepts of which he was aware. Once I had
identified possible naive or incomplete conceptions or responses to the question, I
qualitatively ordered them in a table in a continuum from " goal conception" to "naive
conception" and assigned points. By convention, rubrics are constructed with the ideal
response given first and altemative responses following in order of decreasing points. I
followed this convention.

Once I had identified the categories, I went drrough the student responses to ensure
that there were no responses which did not fit into one of the existing categories.

Whenever there was a reasonable response which did not fit an existing category, the rubric
was adjusted to create an additional category. Thus, when the rubric was completed, there
was no student response which did not fit into one of the categories on the rubric.

R ri vel ment - An Illu trative Ex le

As described above, question 1a. asked students what would happen to a cup of hot
chocolate left sitting at room temperature for one hour. Question lb asked students to

explain their prediction. Table 7.2 below illustrates the rubric for question #lb:

199

Table 7.2

Sample Rubric, Assessment Question #lb

 

Code

Label

Description

 

Air as contacting

Cooler room temperature comes into contact with
the hot chocolate which cools the hot chocolate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Air as cause Cites air as being cooler but does not specifEally
mention contact with air.
4 Room temperature Cites room temperature or temperature of the room
being cooler but does not mention air.
3 Heat leaves or Material Heat or hotness leaves OR
transfer Some kind of matter leaves e.g.... hot air left or hot
air rises, OR
Heat from the chocolate goes into the room air OR
Cold from the room air goes into the chocolate.
2 Inevitable temperature Hot materials always cool down and cold materials
equilibration always warm up when left alone.
1 Description only Describes instead of explaining e.g. "because it
was left"
0 Doesn't answer "I don't know" OR
No response OR
circular response.

 

The goal predictien (question 1a) the teachers were seeking was that the hot

chocolate would cool when left at room temperature. The goal explanation (question lb)

was that the cooler di_r in the room would come into contact widr the hot chocolate resulting

in the hot chocolate cooling. Thus "air contacting" was the goal conception and listed first

on the rubric table above.

Another possible but less complete response would be to say that cooler air: was the

cause of the cooling widrout mentioning the idea that there must be contact between the air

and the hot chocolate. This idea is very near the scientific conception and so was identified

as "air as cause" and placed on the table immediately following the goal conception. A

slightly less complete response would be to say that the hot chocolate cooled because the

room was cool. Because this does not involve the idea of air or air contacting the hot

chocolate, this is not as complete as the first two responses. Thus, this was labeled "room

temperature" and placed below "air as cause" on the table.

 

200

A class of naive conceptions drat emerged on the pre-assessment was the idea that
heat or "hotness" left the hot chocolate or that there was some kind of material transfer
between the room and the hot chocolate. Students holding this conception would say that
heat left the hot chocolate or that hot air rises from the hot chocolate and leaves it. Because
this idea often included the idea of air and showed some understanding that there is some
relationship between the temperature in the room and the temperature of the chocolate, this
was identified as "material transfer" and placed next on the table.

Another naive conception that emerged on the pre-assessment I described as
"inevitable temperature equilibrium". According to this conception hot materials always
cool down and cool materials always warm up if left alone. This was placed next on the
table.

On the pre—assessment many students responded to question lb by giving a
description rather than an explanation. For example, some said that the hot chocolate
cooled because it was left at room temperature. This describes what happened but was not
an explanation. This was placed after "inevitable temperature equilibrium" on the table.
Finally, some students either said "I don't know", left the question blank, or gave a circular
answer in which they repeated the question as their response. This was placed last on the
table.

Once the process of identifying possible responses was complete, I assigned points
for each response with this last category receiving zero points, a descriptive response
receiving 1 point, and so on. I then "checked" the rubric against student responses looking
for any responses that did not fit the rubric categories. When none were found I used this
rubric as the final rubric for question lb.

1'. ' 1r° 151.01 0. or 54': .r ' r 't ,t- :0
Each student's response to a question was assigned a certain number of points

based upon the rubric. These points were then added up to give a total number of points

L —';-

201

scored on the test and divided by the total number of points possible to give a percentage
score on the test. Percent change from pre- to post test was calculated for each student.
Table 7.3 below shows the class results of the pre- and post tests and the % change
from pre- to post test.
Table 7 .3
Summary of Results on the Unit Pre- and Post Test

For Mrs. Runner's class“

- est - est
Score in % Score in %

Mean Scores 38% 63%

 

*Pre-test data from Mrs. Lawson's class was not available.
WWW

On the one hand, this data could appear to be discouraging, only four students
scored 70% or better on the post-assessment. However, if progress mm the scientific
conception is considered, the story improves. This data shows that there was a mean

increase of 25% percent correct from pre-assessment to post-assessment. Furthermore,

202

over half of the students (52%) scored over 60% on the post-assessment. This contrasts
dramatically with the pre-assessment on which the m score was 58%. This data
indicates that the majority of the students made progress towards the scientific conception.

Some students, such as student #6 showed tremendous gains from pre- to post-
assessment. This particular student was an Asian ESL (English as a Second Language)
student who was new to this country in September. On the pre-assessment she answered
only the first question. On the remainder of the questions on this pre-assessment she
either placed a question mark or wrote "I don't know". In comparison, her post-
assessment -- which was taken several months later -- contained detailed, and very
accurate, responses to every question. For this particular student some aspect of the
learning community allowed for dramatic growth in her understanding of the concepts.
Although there is not evidence to support this assertion, it is possible that if the unit had
consisted of only rapid teacher lecture, textbook reading, and independent worksheet
writing, this student who was still learning the English language would not have
experienced the success that she did. It may have been the opportunity to hear her peers
discussing and struggling with understanding the concepts that allowed her to reach the
understandings that she did.

One purpose of analyzing the class pre- and post-assessment data was to determine
if Casey and Padma were typical of the students in the class. The range of gain scores was
from -6% to +96% widr a mean gain of 25%. Padma fell into that range, although on the
low end, with a gain score of 10%. Casey fell very near the mean with a gain score of
23%. Thus, it can be concluded that neither student is an anomaly. Furthermore, Casey
appears to be very typical of the students in the class with about half the students scoring
gain scores above his gain score and about half the students scoring gain scores below his.
Exmnksnffitflrntflmdl’nstfimmentfiemm

Table 7.4 illustrates typical responses given on the pre- and post assessment.

Terrance, who was student #12 had a gain score of only 6% from pre- to post-test. By

203

contrast, Klo, who is student #9, had a reasonably high gain score of 32%. Casey, with a
gain score of 23%, and Padma, with a gain score of 10%, fell in between these two

students. Casey and Padma's responses to the same questions are illustrated in Table 7.5

204

Table 7 .4

Comparison of Two Students' Pre- and Post-Assessment Responses

 

Terrance,
Pie-Test

Terrance
Post- Test

Klo
Pie-Test

 

Klo
Post-Test

 

la Suppose you leave a cup of hot chocolate sitting on a table. You come back an hour
later. You feel the cu o and taste the chocolate. What differences would you notice?

 

 

Cold

It was warm

[Cup got colder

I Chocolate got colder

 

lb. Why would this happen?

 

No response.

 

Because you left it
for an hour and it
cooled off.

Because the hot air
goes (evaporates) to
the sky and when
something hot goes
away the place gets
cold.

 

 

Because the cup is
hot and the air is
cold and drere is
more air then the hot
in the cup so the hot
disappears because
the cold doesn't
want the hot to be
there. Then the cold
will take the hot's
place.

 

7a You have been playing outside in the snow. When you come inside, some of the

snow stays on your boots. After about a half an hour, you come back and look at your
boots. There is not snow, but there is a small puddle beside them. What do you drink
happened to the snow?

 

It melted.

It melted into a small

puddle.

It melted.

lIt melted to a puddle
7 of water.

 

2b. Why woulddfiflappen to the snow?

 

 

It got hotter and
hotter and then it
turned to water

Because heat would
melt the snow into
water.

Because snow needs
to be in the cold air
but in the house
(that's where you
take off your boots)
it is hot so the cold
evaporates. And
there is a mark in the
boots where it

 

evaporated.

 

Because if snow or
ice touches hot air
then the snow (ice)
gets changed to a
puddle of water.

 

 

3a. You get a glass 01: cold water from the drinkingTountain. You use a thermometer to
find out the temperature of the water. What temperature do you drink the water would

be?

 

10

20

[ No response

 

Between 60° F and
70° F.

 

3b. Why do you predict this temperature?

 

Because it is very
cold.

 

Because I tasted the
water and it tasted
like 20.

N 0 response

 

 

Because we are 9?
F but the questions
said that the water is
cold so I took away
30 (or 48) and got
60°F.

 

 

205

Table 7 .4 (cont'd.)

 

4a. It is a cold winter day. The temperature outside is about 20° F (-3 °C). You get
another cup of cold water from the drinking fountain. You take this cup of water outside
and leave it. You look at the cup of water again after about half an hour. The water is not
frozen. You then check its temperature. What temperature do you drink it would be?

 

17 I 25 n.f. [ No response I 50 °F

 

4b. Why would it have this temperature?

 

Because my dad did Because it would be N 0 response Because in question
it. that cause of the number 3 it said
heat. 60°F between 70° F
and cold water ..... it
is colder so I drink
50°F would be how
cold it would be.

 

 

 

 

6a. It is a cold day in winter. The temperature outside is below freezing. You take a
thermometer outside and stick it in a snow bank. After a couple rrrinutes, you take the
thermometer out an read the temgrature. What would the temperature probably be?

 

 

 

100 I 6°F 1 20° below I -20 to -30°F
6b. Why would the snow be this temperature?
Because a snow Because it would be Because it is very Because we did do
bank is very, very freezing outside. cold out there and I this and I think I
cold. think 20F below remember the

would be about the temperature being
snow temperature. between -20F and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-30F.

6c. Suppose the temperature read 45° F (6° C). How might this be explained?

I am not sure. Because the It could be cold or Someone was
thermometer went hot out. stepping on it or it
up. went too deep and

got that temperature
6d. How could you test your explanation?

N 0 response. N 0 response I could try it and see You could try

if it works. stepping on it or
putting it in deep.

 

 

Typically students who did well on the post-assessment gave explanations rather
than restating the question or giving a description. An example of this can be seen in
Terrance and Klo's responses to question 6c. When asked for an explanation, Terrance
gave a description while Klo attempted an explanation. Students who did well on the post-
assessment also included the idea of air conring into contact widr a substance as an

explanation of temperature change. Klo included this idea in her explanations in response

206

to questions 1 and 2. Terrance did not include this idea in his response to the same
questions.

The differences between Terrance and Klo's responses are typical of the responses
given by students who did well on the pot-assessment compared with those who did not do
as well. However, it is also important to note that "doing well" is defined as making
W the scientific conception. Although Klo's responses to many of the
questions are qualitatively better than Terrance's, she is not necessarily at the scientific
conception in all instances. However, the use of a scoring rubric enables me to illustrate
her progress toward the scientific conception.

Di ' '

Table 7.5 compares Casey and Padma's responses on the pre- and post-assessment
instrument. The qualitative differences between their responses becomes apparent when
they are examined looking for use of the idea of air coming into contact with a substance to

explain temperature change, and when examining for quality of explanation.

207

Table 7.5
Comparison of Casey and Padma's Responses on the

Written Pre-

and Post- Tests

 

Padma
Pre-Test

 

Padma
Post- Test

Casey
Pre-Test

 

Casey
Post-Test

 

 

la. Suppose you leave a cup of hot chocolate sitting on a table. You come back an hour

later. You feel the cu

a and taste the chocolate. What differences would you notice?

 

 

 

 

Colder Sort of cold. [Cold | Cold
1b. Why would this happen?
Because if it was Because hot Because you would The air cooTsit off
hot, hot chocolate chocolate can't stay let it sit so long it and all the steam
and a hour later it hot for a long time it would get cold. escapes. It cools
has to be cold. will turn cold but if them off.

you left it for two

nrinutes I don't think

it will turn cold.

 

 

 

 

2a. You have been playing outside in the snow. When you come inside, some of the

snow stays on your boots. After about a half an hour, you come back and look at your
boots. There is not snow, but there is a small puddle beside them. What do you drink
happened to the snow?

 

It melted.

It melted.

It melted.

It melted and left a
puddle.

 

2b. Why would this has

n to the snow?

 

Because of the heat
inside the house.

 

Etecause outside and
inside are different,
right? So outside is
cold, the snow stays
how it is. But inside
it is warm, so it
would probably have
melted.

Because the room
temperature is too
warm.

 

It is a form of water
that is cold and
warm air melted it.

 

 

 

3a. You get a glass 01:

be?

cold water from the drinking fountain. You use a thermometer to
find out the temperature of the water. What temperature do you drink the water would

 

15 |

21

1 20°F

1 10°F

 

3b. Why do you predict this temperature?

 

 

Because 15 is pretty
cold and it said cold
water.

 

Because 21 are sort
of like the
temperature of our
drinking fountain in
our hall and it is cold
so that is why I think
it is 21°.

Because the cold
water in the
fountains in the
school seem about
that temperature.

 

I drank some water
and predicted it.

 

 

 

208

Table 7 .5 (cont'd.)

 

4a. It is a cold winter day. The temperature outside is about 20° F (-3 °C). You get
another cup of cold water from the drinking fountain. You take this cup of water outside
and leave it. You look at the cup of water again after about half an hour. The water is not
frozen. You then check its temperature. What temperature do you think it would be?

 

30 1 32° 1 28°F 1 13°F

 

4b. Why would it have this temperature?

 

After an hour it Because water can't Because letting it sit Because it doesn't
should be a little stay cold all the time would warm it up. increase very much
hotter. it will become hotter in open air but it
I think every minute. would increase a
little.

 

 

 

 

6a. It is a cold day in winter. The temperature outside is below freezing. You take a
thermometer outside and stick it in a snow bank. After a couple rrrinutes, you take the
thermometer out an read the tem' rature. What would the temperature probably be?

 

 

o 1 13° 1 20° below 1 10°?

 

6b. Why would the snow be this temperature?

 

Because its very cold Because it is very Because it is cold, Because a cold day
outside. cold day and if it is a cold weather. was 20 but below
cold day then the freezing would be
snow would -20°F.

probably be cold so
13° would be a good
temperature I think.

 

 

 

 

6c. Suppose the temperature read 45° F (6° C). How might this be explained?

 

Because it saidhts I would explainit It would be too hot 45 degrees
very cold and 0 is like a warm day the to have any snow at Fahrenheit ad 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

very cold 45 isn't. sun is sort of out and all. degrees Celsius. It
the wind is sort of would be a hot
hard and cold. temperature. Hotter

than on 5a.

6d. How could you test your explanation?

Once I looked at the I would do it when it I could put a Try it with a

TV weather report is 45°F (6°C). thermometer in a thermometer. Find

and it said 0 and I snow bank to see the the answer.

went outside and it temperature and then

was freezing. do the same thing in

summer/spring

 

Although Padma's post-test responses are longer and appear at first glance to
contain more information, they are primarily descriptive rather than explanatory and involve
a lot of repetition of the same information. She says what she wants to say and then

repeats it in a different way so that she has a longer answer. For example, question 6b

209

asks students to explain their predicted temperature for snow. The goal conception is that
because the snow is solid water the temperature must be below 32° F (0° C) which is the
freezing point of water. In Padma's response to question 5a she relies on the information
in the question rather than drawing on the knowledge leamed in the unit and repeats the
idea that it is a eo_lc_l_ddy or m drree times in the same sentence, "Because it is a very eold
day and if it is a egddday then the snow would probably be geld so 13° would be a good
temperature I drink". Although she repeated the information in the question, Padma did not
pick up on a critical piece of information in the question that it is below freezing. Thus,
although she did give a temperature that is below freezing she only justified it by saying it
was a cold temperature and did not further justify it by stating that it was below freezing.

Padma's response contrasts with Casey's briefer, but better, explanation, "Because
a cold day was 20 but below freezing would be -20." Casey drew on information that was
given in question #4 which made the statement "It is a cold day in winter (20°F) and
applied it to question #5 which stated that it was a cold day. Casey applied the information
in question #4 drat a cold day would be 20°F to the information in question #5 that it is a
cold day. Furthermore. he also noticed an important piece of information in question #5
which Padma did not take into account in her explanation -- it is below freezing outside so
he has taken that into account in his final answer of ~20. Casey's answer is closer to the
scientific conception even though Padma wrote more in her response.

Another concept noticeable in Casey's post-test responses and noticeably absent in
Padma's responses is the concept that air has somedring to do with temperature and
temperature change. Casey includes the idea of the air coming into contact with an object
and changing its temperature in four of his explanations. Padma never mentions the idea of
air. And yet a major concept that was developed in the class discussions was the idea that
when a warm object comes into contact with cool air the object will cool and when a cold
object comes into contact with warm air the object will warm up. Casey understands and is

using the idea of contact with air in his explanations while Padma is not. This provides

210

further evidence that Casey engaged in the ideas in the discussions in ways that Padma did
not.
Won:

From the initial pre-test data it can be concluded drat Padma and Casey were typical
of the students in the class in terms of their content knowledge. Post-test data revealed that
while Casey made a great deal of movement along the continuum toward a deep
understanding of the scientific conceptions in the unit, Padma did not learn quite as much.
As was typical of students who made progress toward the scientific conception, Casey
gave more detailed explanations on the post-assessment and also included the idea of
contact with air as a cause of temperature change of an object.

This data supports the assertion that the exploratory talk in which Casey engaged
supported his leanring of the unit concepts to a greater extent than the presentational talk in
which Padma engaged. While Padma began the unit at about the class mean in terms of her
understanding, by the end of the unit she was 15% below the class mean on the post-test
while Casey was still near the mean. This reinforces the assertions in this dissertation that
while Casey was able to control and use the discourse in ways that promoted learning
science, Padma, although she understood the importance of discourse in her learning, had

not yet learn to control and use the discourse in productive ways.

Chapter 8

TEACHING SCIENCE THROUGH DISCOURSE:
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

I l . I D . E Q

I began this dissertation widr the assertion that although drere is a growing body of
research looking at discourse in elementary science classrooms, drere are perhaps no
studies which examine the extent to which the discourse helps or hinders science content
learning. Chapters Four and Five of this dissertation provided a description of a classroom
in which science was conceived of as Discourse -- a classroom where scientific literacy
included the ability to control and use the discourse to describe and explain everyday
phenomena using science concepts. Chapter Six looked closely at two students' discourse
participation patterns and the relationship of drese patterns to their science concept leanring.
Chapter Seven then showed the progression toward scientific understanding made by all
students in the class. The purpose of this final chapter is to provide concluding comments
about the research findings and to consider the implications of drese findings for teachers,
teacher educators, and researchers.
Censlnsinns

This study was an investigation into the role of discourse in two students' science
learning in a classroom in which the teaching was undergirded by a social constructivist
perspective. The research questions were:
In a classroom in which the teachers are emphasizing the role of discourse in science
learning,

°What science knowledge do students construct?

-What is the nature of the students' talk in science class? What are the implicit and

explicit rules for discourse in science?

211

212

°What is the participation structure in this classroom?

oWhat is the relationship between students' science leanring and dreir participation
in the classroom discourse?

 

Through their discourse with the students, Mrs. Runner and Ms. Lawson shaped a
learning community in which the classroom discourse and the interactions among the
participants had aspects of didactic science, inquiry science, conceptual change science,
and a constructivist approach to science. However, the final result was a learning
community that built upon the successes of those initiatives but was uniquely different and
reflected many of the characteristics of social constructivism as it is described in the
theoretical literature. Students in this class were drinking through their ideas out loud and
were making assertions supported by evidence which other students then agreed and
disagreed with. Although the teacher's supported and directed the direction of the
discourse, they were not the only authority for knowledge in the classroom and, except
during instructional detours, did not "evaluate" student answers in the traditional sense.
Additionally, the curriculum was not wholly predetermined but was responsive to issues
that were raised in class by the students. Emergent activities and questions were designed
to challenge the naive conceptions that the discussions elicited.

Teaching Students a Different Way of Talking in Science Class.

Many teachers may intend to use classroom discourse as a way to help students
make sense of the science concepts as a group. However, in reality, sense-making though
talk is. perhaps unintentionally, discouraged during most class discussions because of the
size of the group, the struggle to get the speaking floor (Barnes and Todd, 1995), and the
teacher's need to maintain order and to cover lots of content. As a result the most common
form of classroom talk is the pattern of teacher initiation-student response-teacher
evaluation of student response (I-R-E) (Mehan 1979). In this pattern the teacher initiates
the discussion by asking a known-answer question. Known-answer questions are those

questions to which there is a single answer which is frequently stated explicitly in the

213

teacher's text. The structure of these questions does not allow for students to share their
thinking and ideas, puzzle through a concept, or respond to a statement made by a
classmate. Nor does a known-answer question allow for multiple interpretations and
multiple responses. Rather. these questions typically require a single student to respond
by giving a single piece of information so that the teacher is satisfied that the student has
been listening and "learning" (Barnes and Todd, 1995). The teacher than evaluates the
response. Thus, in an l-R-E structured discourse students generally use presentational talk
in which they give brief assertions or a pre-planned answer (Bames and Todd, 1995).

An I-R-E discourse pattern does not support students in drinking through their
answers aloud. and it does not fit with a view of science as discourse. The goal of science
education is scientific literacy. An individual who is scientifically literate is able to control
and use the discourse (Gee. 1989) to work with others in the setting to make sense of
everyday phenomena using scientific concepts (AAAS, 1996). The activity of talking with
others to use scientific concepts to make sense of an everyday phenomenon, such as the
"disappearance" of a puddle when the sun comes out, is a very different activity than
individually listing the phases of the water cycle as precipitation, evaporation and
condensation -- which would be a typical activity in an I-R-E discussion.

Thus, when using presentational talk through an I-R-E pattern of discussion the
students tend to learn facts, terms, and definitions that they can use to answer questions.
However, they do not learn to appropriate the discourse so that they can use the facts,
terms, and definitions to explain everyday phenomenon (Rosebury, Warren, and Conant,
1990). Thus, students who are engaged in presentational talk are not leanring to control
and use the discourse of science (Gee, 1989), and are not becoming scientifically literate,
even though they may be perceived by the teacher as being successful in class discussion.

By making scientific discourse a part of the science cuniculum, Mrs. Runner and
Ms. Lawson were attempting to change the discourse pattern in science in their class. Mrs.

Runner and Ms. Lawson taught, and continually reinforced, a new pattern of interaction

214

between students and teacher. This pattern included teacher initiation, student response,
and occasional teacher evaluation. However, unlike the I-R-E, students also initiated,
teachers responded, and there was student evaluation which was typically in the form of
agreement or disagreement with the teacher or a peer. Additionally there were four other
moves which are not present in the I-R-E: probe, reasoning, revoice, and reinitiation.
These four moves could be made by either the teacher or the students. Further
complicating the discourse pattern in this classroom was that, unlike the I-R-E widr its
fairly rigid format, the discourse pattern was much more flexible and each move was bodr
content- and context- dependent. For example, depending on the content of a student's
response, the teacher, or another student, might choose to probe, to evaluate, to revoice, or
to redirect. The context also played a role. If a particular response was given in the. context
of a brief "instructional detour", the teacher was much more likely to evaluate the response
than if it was given in the context of the more typical discussion in which the students were
doing more of the evaluating using the agree/disagree format.

However, although there were more possible moves than in the I-R-E and although
each move was content- and context- dependent, there was a definite pattern seen in the
discourse. There were two different types of discussion which took place in this class.
The fast, and most common, was a sense-making discussion which had many of the
characteristics of a social constructivist discussion. The second, and less common, was an
instructional detour which looked more like an I-R-E discussion in terms of the length of
the student responses and the amount and nature of teacher evaluation. Probing and
elaboration were not seen in an instructional detour.

The most typical discourse pattern during the sense-making discussion was: I-R-P-
RE-RV-RD-EV (Irritiation-Response-Probe-Reasoning-Revoice-Redirect-Evaluate). In this
pattern, the teacher initiated (I) by asking an open-ended question such as, "Did anyone
notice anything interesting while they were collecting their data?" The student responded

(R), the teacher probed (P) this response further, the student gave their reasoning (RE) for

215

their response, or gave their reasoning (RE) which the teacher revoiced (RV) and then
redirected (RD) to the class by saying, "What do other people drink? Do you agree or
disagree?". Anodrer student then responded with an evaluation (EV) and supporting
evidence such as "I disagree because they were not sitting by the window".

Variations in this pattern were seen when a student did not elaborate or give dreir
reasoning in response to a teacher's probe or when the first student response took the form
of an evaluation. In the first instance -- a student not responding to a probe -- the teacher
often initiated with a new or rephrased question. When this happened the student, and the
idea contained in their response, lost the speaking floor. In the second instance, a student
evaluation in response to a teacher initiation, the teacher frequently redirected without
probing or revoicing. This also resulted in the student losing the speaking floor, although
in this instance dreir idea did receive some floor time as another student agreed or disagreed
with it.

This social constructivist discourse pattern resulted in a participation structure
which came much closer to representing a true discussion - one in which there is a back and
forth sharing of ideas and questioning of those ideas -- where students listened to one
another and agreed or disagreed and gave evidence to support their assertions. This also
resulted in a more balanced distribution of power in the classroom. Although Mrs. Runner
did control the discourse, she was not the only person who could question a student and
evaluate the response that they gave. The students were also able to question each other
and Mrs. Runner in ways that are not done in a traditional science class.

Science knowledge, from the perspective in this class, is the product of language-
based interactions that take place in a social environment, and is influenced by a person's
prior knowledge. In their conversations with the class, Mrs. Runner and Ms. Lawson
placed an emphasis on drawing out the students' prior knowledge and making this prior
knowledge explicit to themselves and the students so that it became part of the shared

knowledge of the classroom. They then supported the students in reevaluating and, if

216

necessary, modifying this prior knowledge in order to make sense of the scientific
phenomena This process of eliciting and supporting the modification of prior knowledge
as a group in order to reach a group consensus and mutual understanding about the
scientific phenomenon was a clear emphasis through the Changes in Matter unit.

Mrs. Runner's emphasis on the teaching of oral literacy and language in the
"Changes in Matter" unit was also consistent with a social constructivist perspective which
undergirds most of the recent research on the role of discourse in the classroom.
Language, in the form of oral discourse, plays a central role in the social construction of
understanding. According to Bruner (1966), it is oral language which allows children to
take elements of their experience and organize them into increasingly more sophisticated
thought structures. a necessary condition of learning. Vygotsky (1962) theorized that
thought is the internalization of dialogue and that in order for students to think drrough new
ideas they must first talk through the ideas with a "more knowledgeable other".

Barnes and Todd (1995) argued that the more a learner is able to control his own
language strategies, and the more that he is enabled to drink aloud, the more he can take
responsibility for creating explanations, a central goal of science. Talk is much more than
just a window upon mental processes and metacognitive concepts. Conversations are a
significant environment in which such thoughts are formulated, justified, and socialized
(Middleton & Edwards, 1990) and thought itself is enabled by language (Winogard &
Flores, 1980). Thus there is a recursive relationship between leanring to talkseiepee and
"knowing science" (Lemke, 1990; Bruner, 1966; Barnes and Todd, 1995; Vygotsky,
1962).

According to the literature. the discourse in a social constructivist classroom is often
dialogic in nature. This is best exemplified by highly interactive discussion in which the
scope, development, and direction of discourse are shaped by the interaction of what the
teacher plans and what the students say (Burbulus, 1994). This dialogic discourse is not

rigid, consisting of a pre-planned list of questions, but radrer is flexible and content

217

dependent. The classroom discourse is negotiated by the conversants. and each move
depends on what was said in the previous move. In dialogic instruction the teacher
questions are authentic questions such as "What ideas do people have about why the ice
cube melted faster when it was held in their hand than when it was on the table?" This
contrasts with the known-answer questions, such as, "name one of the states in which
water can exist" which typically form the foundation of an I-R-E discussion, which is not
dialogic in nature.

The dialogic nature of the discussions was clearly seen throughout the "Changes in
Matter" unit. Nearly all teacher-student interactions began with an open-ended question in
which there was not a pre-specified answer. Often this question took the form of a request
for the students to share anything interesting they noticed as they were doing an
experiment. Students were then encouraged to drink out loud and to justify their ideas
through the use of evidence. From there Mrs. Runner or Ms. Lawson often probed a
student's response and the student would elaborate -- the teachers encouraged this
elaboration to take the form of giving a reason. The students' ideas would then be revoiced
to ensure that everyone heard the idea, and then the teacher would reirritiate, often by
asking her students to agree or disagree. In this way Mrs. Runner and Ms. Lawson
encouraged students to listen and respond not just to the teacher, but to one another.

Furthermore, although Mrs. Runner had both an overall unit plan and daily plans
for the lessons, these plans were continuously shaped and modified by the interactions
which took place between her and the students and among the students themselves.
Because it was impossible to predict exactly what ideas the students might bring up in the
discussion, it was impossible to predict exactly where the discussion would go. By asking
for student drinking and ideas, probing those ideas, and having other students respond to
those ideas Mrs. Runner allowed her interactions with the students to shape current as well

as future discussions.

218

Dialogic instruction is also characterized by uptake, defined as the teacher's
incorporation of a student's answer into a subsequent question (uptake refracts the
student's voice drrough the teacher's) (Tharpe & Gallimore, 1988). Uptake of students'
answers characterized the discourse pattern in the Mrs. Runner's and Ms. Lawson's
science class. As described above, the teachers rarely evaluated a student's answer in the
traditional initiation-response-evaluation mode. Rather there was uptake of a student's
answer drrough revoicing, by using the answer to reirritiate the conversation, or a
combination of the two. For example Mrs. Runner might say, "Padma just said that she
drinks ice melted because of the warmth from her hand (revoicing). What do you think?
Do you agree or disagree with her and why?" (reinitiating).

In Mrs. Runner's and Ms. Lawson's science class there was little emphasis on
individual, isolated learning and accountability such as independent reading, worksheets,
tests, and grades. In contrast to more traditional classrooms, there was not a science
textbook, students did not read about isolated science facts, and there were no individually
graded worksheets or tests where students displayed their knowledge of the "facts". The
emphasis in the class was on sharing and discussing ideas, and generating and using
evidence to support assertions about everyday phenomena.

Students did complete tasks - often experiments - and created written products in
this class. However the tasks were not conducted independently but were always done
with at least one other member of the class. And while the written products were
sometimes individual data records or ideas written in a science notebook, more often the
written materials were group-written products. These group writing tasks typically focused
on writing the conclusions reached following an experiment and providing evidence to
support those conclusions. Furthermore, although the teachers read the science notebooks
and group worksheets, the students did not receive a grade for their "work". Instead the
teachers gave them written feedback and asked them questions about their data and

conclusions.

219

,m'... H u ~17 . W t. . T W. . ..u' .... ... . :1 .

A science class taught from a social constructivist perspective with an emphasis on
discourse has a markedly different participation structure than a more traditional classroom
in which the teacher didactically presents the scientific "facts". For example, in a
classroom guided by a social constructivist perspective, language would be used as a tool
for making ideas explicit by puzzling through these ideas with other members of the
leanring community as part of the sense-making process. This would result in a
participation structure that differed from the norm. For example, rather than giving finite
answers in the form of presentational talk, the students would puzzle through many ideas to
explore alternative solutions to open—ended questions drrough exploratory talk And rather
than the teacher being the authority for determining the accuracy of a particular fact, the
members of the learning community would puzzle over many ideas togedrer until a
consensus is reached by the group as to which ideas make sense and will become part of
their newly constructed knowledge. In this way all knowledge is viewed as tentative and
constantly evolving, and the members of the leanring community play a role drrough their
talk in shaping the knowledge that is learned in the classroom.

In Mrs. Runner's and Ms. Lawson's science class the participation structure was
social constructivist in nature. The problems that were posed were real-world problems
such as, "How could you quickly cool a bowl of hot soup," and the teachers pressed for
explanations for real- world phenomena: "Why would adding an ice cube to the bowl of
soup cool it down? What is happening when you add the ice cube?" Students were
encouraged to listen to one another and to respond directly to one another's drinking and
ideas (although turn taking was generally negotiated drrough the teacher).

This approach to science education highlights the importance of social interaction
in learning. Students are not passive learners. They actively construct meaning for
themselves as they interact with others in the learning community including teacher, peers,

and text. Furthermore the meaning that they construct interacts with, and is influenced by,

220

their existing mental framework - which may include a naive conception rather than the
scientific conception. Thus leanring is a highly complex phenomenon which is influenced
by many factors bodr individual and social. This perspective is represented in most of the
group discussions during the Changes in Matter unit. Every interaction between
participants in the discussion became a part of the social fabric of the classroom, there were
no individual or private conversations between the teacher and the students when they
involved the science content.

I 1' . [I 1 . S . E'

This dissertation represents a small contribution towards a great need. Because
social constructivism is a theory about how students learn radrer than a teaching strategy,
there is n0t a single way that a teacher holding this dreoretical perspective would teach.
Because drere is no single strategy or set of steps to be followed, the best way to help pre-
and in-service teachers conceptualize teaching from a social constructivist perspective is to
provide illustrative examples for drem to read or view and analyze. For example, I picture
the description of the classroom context, the lesson, and Casey and Padma's participation
and perceptions as one chapter in a book in which every chapter describes a different
classroom in which the teaching is undergirded by a social constructivist perspective. Each
of these classrooms would have some common dremes such as an emphasis on science as
discourse, the goal of scientific literacy, a shift in the audrority for knowledge in the
classroom, and non-traditional roles for teachers and students, but each would also be
different. For example, the social organization would vary -- some classes would use
primarily whole class discussions, some primarily small group work, and some a
combination of drese approaches. Odrer variations would include the pattern of the
discourse, the implicit and explicit rules for participation, and the way in which the teacher
communicated specific pieces of information. For example, Mrs. Runner used an

instructional detour format. Anodrer teacher might have a different approach.

221

When I teach undergraduate teacher education students about teaching elementary
science, I am continually frustrated because I am trying to help future teachers imagine a
way of teaching without having vivid examples of that teaching approach. The same is true
when I conduct workshops with in-service teachers. I challenge preservice and inservice
teachers to teach science differently than the way most of them were taught, yet I struggle
to provide epnc_rete images of what this teaching would look like. A great need for
purposes of pre- and in-service teacher education is an anthology of images of classrooms
such as I describe in this dissertation. This anthology could be a book, a collection of
video clips, or a combination.

Additionally, this study provided insights into two students' participation in, and
perceptions of, the discourse. Analysis of the discrepancy between Padma's talk and
actions during class discussion gave some insights into why a student might not be
participating in the discussion in productive ways. Padma appeared to understand the
importance of talking though her ideas with members of the classroom leanring
community, but had not yet learned to control and use the discourse in order to do so. By
contrast, Casey h_ad learned to control and use the discourse to help him make sense of the
science concepts even when his style of discourse did not always fit with the existing
pattern of the class. Casey's case gives some insights into the power of the discourse in a
social constructivist discussion to enable students, including those who might disappear
between the cracks in a more traditional class, to use the discourse to support their learning.
Insights such as those gained from Casey and Padma's cases can help teachers notice
students who are using presentational talk rather than engaging in the science content more
deeply and may help teachers consider ways to respond to students who do not participate
in the discourse in the expected ways.

In addition to the need for illustrations of a social constructivist classroom and
individual student perceptions and participation, there is also a need for research on

teaching using a social constructivist perspective which focuses on the teacher. One area

222

for future research is teachers' beliefs about social constructivism and how these are
represented in the classroom. A deeper knowledge of this would allow us to work on
helping pre-service teacher education students examine their own beliefs and to contrast
those beliefs with the ones held by teachers holding a social constructivist perspective. If
we want to help teachers move towards teaching from a social constructivist perspective,
we also need to help them change their beliefs about how learning proceeds.

One other area to explore would be teacher decision making. How do teachers
conring from a social constructivist perspective make decisions about science cuniculum
and science pedagogy? Again, this has implications for pre- and in-service teacher
education. Questions to be addressed would include: How does a teacher holding a social
constructivist perspective determine the cuniculum? To what extent is the curriculum
teacher driven and to what extent is it student driven? How do teachers holding a social

constructivist perspective make decisions about which ideas in a discussion to pursue and

which ones to leave untouched?

 

Padma, Casey, and the teachers all had different images of what it means to be
successful in science. As part of the curriculum designed to teach discourse as part of the
science content, Mrs. Runner had an image of what a successful science student would be
doing during class discussion which she articulated bodr in her description of her goals for
student learning and in her description of Padma.

From Mrs. Runner's perspective, a student who was successful in science would
agree and disagree with the ideas presented by others in the class. As part of this
agreeing/disagreeing, successful students would provide experimental evidence to support
their assertions. When they presented their assertions and evidence, the discourse of drese
successful students would be clear, concise, and articulate. It would not be long, rambling
and confusing like Casey's. Their speech would have a pre-planned or rehearsed quality to

it such as that seen in presentational speech and in the majority of Padma's responses

223

during small group discussion. Their speech would not have an unrehearsed quality to it
such as the exploratory talk in which Casey engaged.

Another characteristic of successful students is that they are visible. They sit
where Mrs. Runner can see them and they frequently talk to the teacher. eidrer during
discussion or at other times. Padma, who sat front and center and frequently talked to Mrs.
Runner -- often during non-instructional times such as recess -- was viewed as a successful
student. By contrast, Casey sat off to the side on the outer periphery of the group. He did
not often participate in the discourse often because he did not figure out the implicit nrles
for this participation. Mrs. Runner did not consider Casey a successful student. She did
not recommend him to be a target student and expressed surprise when I told her that he
was one of my target students.

Padma was a student who was very visible to her teachers and myself because she
was always eager to take a note to the office, wash blackboards, or stay after school or in
from recess to talk to the teacher or to be interviewed. She also participated in small group
discussions on a semi-regular basis (1-2 times each discussion) by answering known-
answer questions or calls for data. Additionally, Padma understood the implicit rules for
gaining the speaking floor when necessary. She always sat in the middle of the group,
directly in front of the teacher and knew when hand raising was required and when "calling
out" was appropriate. When considered from a traditional perspective on teaching and
leanring, Padma is a very good student. It was probably these behaviors that led Mrs.
Runner to characterize Padma as a good student. It was also these behaviors which led me
to notice her as a potential target student.

However, discourse analysis revealed that most of the activities where Padma
captured the attention of Mrs. Runner and myself were non-instructional activities, or
activities that did not involve Padma engaging with the science concepts in a meaningful
way. Thus, when Padma's participation is considered from a social constructivist

perspective, a different image of Padma emerges. Although she understood the importance

224

of talk in her leanring, Padma did not learn to control and use the discourse as a tool for
leanring science. In contrast to her visibility during "non-instructional time", during the
intellectually engaging discussions where the students were constructing their
understanding of the science concepts, Padma rarely raised her hand to participate and
seemed invisible. Because Mrs. Runner had to attend to the participation of forty students
during discussion and because there were enough opportunities during the day for Padma
to participate in some form of discourse, Padma was allowed to "shut down" and remain
silent when the more conceptually challenging discussions were taking place without
drawing Mrs. Runner's attention to her lack of participation.

Padma engaged in other behaviors that Mrs. Runner viewed as the behavior of a
successful student. She was clear and articulate, using predorrrinandy presentational
speech which answered the questions Mrs. Runner asked. However, although Padnra,
either consciously or unconsciously, engaged in many of the activities of a successful
student from Mrs. Runner's perspective, she did not engage in many of the behaviors that
characterized Mrs. Runner's social constructivist goals -- agreeing, clarifying, giving
reasons, etc. The structure of the discourse allowed Padma to be successful in traditional
ways in science while obscuring, from both Mrs. Runner and Padma herself, that she was
not learning to control and use the discourse to make sense of real world phenomena.

Casey also did not fit all of Mrs. Runner's characteristics of a successful science
student as is illustrated in Figure 8.1. In contrast with Padma, he excelled in giving
reasons and in agreeing and disagreeing with his peers. In this way he fit Mrs. Runner's
image of a good student. However, the ways he reasoned aloud and his failure to use
some traditional strategies obscured him from Mrs. Runner's view as a good science
student.

Casey did listen closely to his peers and had learned the discourse strategy of
"agree/disagree". However, although Casey was agreeing and disagreeing-- which was a

discourse strategy recognized by his teachers as successful-- the way in which he made his

225

assertions and provided evidence for these assertions did not seem to "fit" with the image
of a good student held by Mrs. Runner. For example, Casey frequently used
"unrehearsed" exploratory talk which was much longer and included more repetition of key
words and phrases than the "presentational" talk of his peers. Because his talk didn't fit the
more polished pattern, Mrs. Runner did not always respond to his contributions following
the same pattern used with the other students. He also learned to make assertions and give
evidence to support his assertions when agreeing and disagreeing with his peers.

However, his evidence tended to be logical evidence rather than the experimental evidence
that Mrs. Runner valued and expected.

Casey was also non-traditional in his behavior of sitting quietly on the periphery of
the science class during discussion, not waving his hand or making other noises to catch
the teacher's attention when he wanted to answer a question. Thus his bid for the speaking
floor often went unnoticed, and he did not participate in the leanring community as
frequently as other students.

Because of these factors, Casey in many ways challenged Mrs. Runner's image of
a good science student -- showing her another discourse style that could clearly be
characterized as one legitimate way to puzzle and make sense of ideas. This strategy was
accepted in this discourse community and enabled Casey to learn the science concepts so
that he was able to use them to explain the everyday phenomena on the post-assessment.
One explanation for his success is that the very structure of the learning community enabled
and encouraged Casey to use discourse strategies which promoted his understanding of the
science content even when he was sometimes apparently neglected by the teacher. Thus,
for Casey, the discourse allowed him access to the science concepts even drough he was
not engaging in the discourse in the same way as the majority of his peers.

Casey introduced into the learning community a new style of discourse that was

accepted by the teachers as consistent with their social constructivist goals. Although it

226

took awhile for him to gain the speaking floor and aldrough the teachers had some difficulty
figuring out how to respond to his rambling speech, Casey was not silenced.

The story of Casey, which illustrates drat it is possible to construct a learning
community in which students who might "slip duough the cracks" in a traditional
classroom can participate productively and learn science, presents a picture of hope. Casey
did not do well in a traditional classroom and was not considered a good student by his
teachers and peers «probably because they didn't notice him. However, against what
appeared to be odds against it, Casey was successful in learning the science concepts in the
unit. Casey's story illustrates that science M accessible to all students, even those
who are not accepted as "smart" students in the traditional sense.

The Venn diagram in Figure 8.1 below illustrates the relationship between Casey

and Padma's behaviors and Mrs. Runner's image of a successful science student.

Figure 8.1
Successful Science Learning: Three Perspectives

*Exploratory talk .
(1 . 1 'ng aloud, long *Rrght answers

rambling speech) (short, concise, speech)

*Raising hand to get floor. *Not arguing

*Agreeing/disagreein *Presentational talk

*Listening to peers *Clear re nses (argicula .
*Questioning peers *Visible waving hand,
*Sharing reasoni . ; sitting fiont center)
MRS.
RUNNER
*Using physical evidence

to support assertions

 

227

The determining factors in whether a student would be perceived as successful in
this science class appeared to be the nature and form of the student's talk -- whether it was
presentational or exploratory and whether the student was able to use the agree/disagree
format. However, these two factors were somewhat in conflict because it was possible to
use the agree/disagree pattern as part of film talk « which was not valued in the
same way that presentational talk was. Thus. although Casey engaged in the valued
agree/disagree pattern he was not seen as successful because he did so through exploratory
talk radrer than presentational talk.

Figure 8.1 above illustrates that Casey did engage in many of the activities which
Mrs. Runner encouraged students to do. He listened to his peers and asked them
questions, he used logical argument, and he evaluated his peers ideas and argued with them
based upon this evaluation. However, the way in which Casey engaged in drese activities
was through the use of exploratory talk. This contrasted with Padma. Although she was
net engaging in many of the activities which Mrs. Runner valued, Padma had "mastered"
using presentational talk. When she did participate orally in class, the responses that
Padma gave were clear, concise, and clearly addressed the question that Mrs. Runner had
initiated. Because of the way in which she made use of presentational talk over the course
of the unit, Padma appeared bright and articulate even though she was not engaging in such
activities as agreeing or disagreeing with a peer, or listening to and questioning a
classmates drinking. Thus, her failure to learn the science content as indicated by the
post-assessment was initially surprising. It was only through subsequent analysis of the
ways in which she participated in science class that her lack of engagement with the science
concepts became visible.

This presents a bit of an anomaly. Casey's exploratory speech was often long,
rambling, and difficult to follow, especially when compared with Padma's. However, it

was useful to Casey in making sense of the science concepts. Mrs. Runner probably

228

wanted students to engage in the exploratory talk that Casey used, however she had not had
students in the past who took this invitation to think aloud so seriously. As a result,
Casey's talk did not conform to the image of the talk of a successful science student. As
described earlier, a teacher such as Mrs. Runner would probably benefit from a description
of Casey and Padma's participation in the learning community and their science leanring.
Such a description might help her understand the ways in which Casey is using the
discourse to promote his learning. This understanding would lead to valuing exploratory
talk over presentational talk to the extent that students could be taught how to use dreir talk
in this way. Understanding the ways in which Casey was using his talk would also lead to
greater understanding of the ways in which to respond to exploratory talk so that it
becomes a valued form of science leanring.

A further problem with changing the norms for classroom discourse from primarily
presentational to exploratory talk is that there will always be students like Padma who have
been successful in science and will not easily make the transition to participating in the
discourse in different ways. A challenge for the teacher is to become aware not only of the
talk of successful students like Casey, but also of students such as Padma. They then need
to continue to work with them more explicitly to change their understanding of what it
means to be a "good student" in science class.

I strongly suspect that Padma exemplifies a common problem when a teacher is
trying to change the norms for participation in the science discourse. Padma was
successful in science by the traditional definition. Her teacher believed that she was a
good student. A limitation of this study is that I do not have data on Padma's participation
in science in previous years nor samples of her tests from these years. However, I suspect
that she did well in the past on science recall tests. It must be confusing to Padma, that she
did not do well on the science post-assessment. During discussions she didn't appear to
understand what the teacher was looking for with her questions, she was not participating

in the discussion. and when she did participate she relied on strategies that didn't work to

229

promote her learning although they did help her maintain an illusion of being a good
student.
"'29!" on‘o'u ...c 0°O'lon 4.4:. w

More research is needed to identify and confirm my assertion that Padma is not
unusual and that there are many students like Padma who suddenly find themselves
struggling and are not as successful in science (e.g. on a post-test) when the norms for
classroom discourse are changed from the traditional norms to one in which the purpose of
the talk is to make sense of ideas. Questions to be addressed in future research are: Are
there other students like Padma who struggle with the change in discourse norms? And, if
so, what strategies do they use when they participate in the discourse? Do they use some
of the same, less productive, strategies that Padma used?

Padma's case has implications for pre— and in-service teacher education as well.
She raises an interesting dilemma: What can a teacher faced with a classroom with several
students like Padma do so that these students' self concepts in science don't suddenly
plummet? Certainly the leanring of these students cannot be sacrificed so drat the leanring
of students like Casey' improves. How can one structure the discourse community to meet
the needs of students like Casey as well as students like Padma?

Teachers and teacher education students need to be aware that when they try
teaching using a social constructivist perspective, there are going to be students like Padrrra
and Casey. Students like Casey will challenge the teacher with new discourse styles while
students like Padma will rely on traditional participation structures and avoid wrestling
seriously with ideas. Changing these students' image's of what it means to be good in
science is not as simple as just saying, "I want you to listen to your peers and decide if you
agree or disagree based upon the evidence."

As they change the norms for discourse in their science classrooms, teachers are
going to have to work hard at drawing students like Padma into the discourse at the very

times when they want to retreat from the discourse. Mrs. Runner tried to do this on one or

230

two occasions; however, she did not follow drrough « perhaps because it was painful for
both she and Padma However, persisting in drawing Padma in and helping her
understanding more productive ways to participate in the discourse is important if Padma is
to leam science content.

Furthermore. teachers need to help students like Padma change their image of what
success in science is. Although the teachers were very clear that they wanted the students
to participate in the discourse, the idea that in order to be successful in understanding
science it is mandatog to participate orally in the discourse was never made explicit. It will
take time and self conscious effort on the part of the teacher to help Padrrra change her
image of what being good in science means and looks like. However, this is time well
spent. If this is not done and Padma is allowed to continue to rely on her ineffective
strategies, she is going to find herself slipping further and further behind her peers in her
understanding of the science concepts as is illustrated by the lack of progress she made
from pre- to post-test in this unit when compared with her peers.

Casey participated in the class in different, and more productive ways, than Padma.
The questions that the story of Casey raises for me is: Is Casey an anomaly? Or are drere
other students like him who are not perceived of by teachers and peers as good students in
the traditional sense who are quietly making sense of the content in very productive ways
when they are in a social constructivist classroom?

One need for further research is to study other classes which reflect a social
constructivist perspective to see if there are odrer students like Casey « students who are
not getting the speaking floor or who get the speaking floor but using it in ways
inconsistent with the norm for traditional classroom discourse, yet are making sense of the
science content in productive ways. One way in which the leanring community was so
powerful for Casey was that, while he had a unique style for participating in the classroom
learning community - using exploratory radrer than presentational talk - this classroom

accommodated Casey's unique style so that he was able to use his way of talking to

231

productively make sense of the science content. Another question, then, is: Is this typical
of a social constructivist discussion - that many different discourse styles can be
accommodated in such a positive manner?

And, if there are other classrooms which accommodates the discourse of students
like Casey: Are these students using similar discourse strategies to Casey's? How
common are the strategies of unrehearsed speech, repetition, and use of organizing
phrases? Are these strategies commonly used by students who successfully use the
discourse to make sense of the science content? If they are, this has implications for how
we teach students to talk about their ideas in science.

The story of Casey highlights the challenge and potential power of creating a
classroom discourse community in which participation in the discourse is an Option open to
all students. Many of my teacher education students write admirable lesson plans which
include a statement such as, "my role will be to facilitate discussion and make sure that
every student participates in the discussion." While this is adrrrirable, it is also simplistic as
the story of Casey illustrates. In a class of twenty or more students, there are always
students who are better than other students at gaining the speaking floor. Some students
quickly figure out the implicit rules for participation and in fact, may have a role in shaping
these implicit rules, while others never quite figure out the rules.

A social constructivist discourse pattern is challenging even for experienced
teachers. There are many moves than in a traditional I-R-E discussion and these moves
need to be used in a flexible way. In a traditional discussion a teacher needs only decide if
a student's response is correct or incorrect, evaluate it was such, and either move on to the
next question or call on another student to answer the same question. By contrast, in a
social constructivist discussion, the teacher must listen to the student's response, probe the
student to give their reasoning, then decide the next move based upon the student's

response. This next move might be an instructional detour, a reinitiation, a revoicing, or

232

might be to redirect the response by calling for agreement or disagreement from the
students.

Casey's story raises the idea of making explicit the implicit rules for participation.
Both in-service and pre-service teachers who are learning to teach from a social
constructivist dreoretical perspective need to be aware that there are always going to be
implicit rules for participation « I believe drat as soon as the implicit rules are made explicit
other implicit rules will take dreir place. They need to consider that students like Casey
who are not participating may be doing so because drey have not figured out the rules, not
because they do not understand, or have interest in, the concepts being discussed. They
also need to be open, like Mrs. Runner and Ms. Lawson were, to new ways of talking that
may be productive learning tools for different students. They need to learn to not shut
these new styles down, but use them to learn more about discussion participation patterns
and their effects.

Snmmmafllierddm

The perspective on discourse in science developed in this dissertation is that science
is discourse and in that order to be scientifically literate students must learn how to
appropriate, control, and use the discourse to describe and explain everyday phenomena
using the concepts of science. This dissertation focused on describing the discourse and
learning of the students in one science class in which learning to appropriate, conn'ol, and
use the discourse was a central part of the science curriculum.

The social constructivist discussions described in this dissertation differed from the
traditional discussions in some important ways. The most common form of classroom
discourse in a traditional class is the Initiation-Response-Evaluations (I-R-E) pattern in
which the teacher asks a known-answer question (initiation), the student responds by
giving the called for piece of information (response) and the teacher evaluates that response
(evaluation) eidrer explicitly through statements such as "good", or implicitly by calling on

another student in the case of a wrong answer or continuing on with the next question in

233

the case of a correct answer. The teacher and student roles in this discussion rarely, if
ever, vary. The teacher always initiates. The questions that the students ask are procedural
questions rather than calls for information. A student always responds and the teacher
typically evaluates. It would be very unusual for a student in an I-R-E discussion to
evaluate another student's response because the teacher would have already evaluated it.
Thus, the student would either be supporting the teacher's evaluation or disagreeing with
the teacher. This is somedring that does not occur in traditional classrooms.

A social constructivist class discussion includes the discourse moves of initiation,
response, and evaluation. However these moves may be made by the teacher or a student.
Additionally, in the discussions analyzed in this dissertation. there were four additional
moves: probing, reasoning, revoicing, and reinitiation. Typically, but not always, a
teacher asked an open-ended question (initiation) and a student responded (response).
What followed after this was considerably more flexible than the evaluation that followed in
the I-R-E and was both context and content dependent. Most commonly either the teacher
or another student followed a response with a probe for more information (probe). In
response to this probe the original respondent would elaborate on their response by giving
their reasoning (RE). The teacher then typically revoiced or restated the student's response
and reasoning (revoicing) and turned the response back to the class for comment
(reinitiation) by calling for agreement or disagreement. At this time a student would often
agree or disagree with the original responder (evaluation) and provide evidence for their
assertion.

Additionally, in this class there were two different types of class discussion. The
first, and most common, was the sense-making discussion which followed the pattern
described above. The second was an instructional detour. During an instructional detour
the teacher presented information or checked for understanding in a rapid exchange which
had many of the elements of the traditional I-R-E including considerably more teacher

evaluation than was seen during the sense-making discussions. In these ways pattern, the

234

roles of the participants, and the goals of the discourse in a social constructivist class are
very different from those in a traditional class.

Leanring from a social constructivist perspective is different than learning in a
traditional classroom. Learning in a traditional classroom involves paying attention to the
teacher and repeating the information given at appropriate times. Leaming in a social
constructivist class involves becoming a participating member of a discourse community
(Lemke, 1990; Edwards and Mercer, 1987) in which the science is discourse (Gee, 1989).
The "Changes in Matter" unit was planned and taught with an emphasis on having students
make sense of the science by talking about their ideas with their peers. Over the course of
the unit Mrs. Runner, Ms. Lawson, and the other teachers provided many opportunities for
the students to share their drinking and ideas, to agree and disagree with one anodrer, and
to work on consensus building as members of a discourse community. For example,
nearly every discussion began with a question such as, "Who has somedring interesting
they noticed they would like to share?" From there the discussion shifted to students
responding to the ideas on the floor by agreeing or disagreeing and providing evidence to
support their assertions. Throughout the unit Mrs. Runner implicitly and explicitly stressed
the value of classroom talk and sharing thinking and ideas as a way to learn.

There were problems as well as benefits associated with the social constructivist
discourse. Although some students, like Casey, who do not do well in a more traditional
science discourse community, thrived in Mrs. Runner's class there were other students,
like Padma, who, either consciously or unconsciously, became invisible during class
discussion because of the structure of the discourse conununity.

The complication of creating a discourse community of any type is that it evolves
and is shaped by the participants. There are both explicit nrles for participation and tacitly
agreed upon implicit rules for participation. Because many of the rules are implicit they are
often difficult for some students to figure out. The struggle to figure out the implicit rules

for participating in the discourse was seen in different ways in the cases of Casey and

235

Padma. Casey struggled to figure out the implicit rules for panig'pamti in the classroom
discourse while Padma struggled to figure out the ppm of the classroom discourse.
This struggle is a valid struggle that goes on in all classrooms. However, it is more
pronounced in a classroom in which the norms are being altered than in a classroom which
follows traditional school norms.

The classroom described in this chapter provides a much needed concrete example
of one elementary science classroom in which the teaching is undergirded by a social
constructivist perspective. The students in this class participated in the discourse in
different way than the traditional and, as a group, did well on a science post-assessment
which measured the growth in their ability to use the concepts learned to explain everyday
phenomena. However, this was not the perfect classroom - no such thing exists. The
story of Casey represents what is possible when teaching from this perspective and the
story of Padma represents some of the problems encountered when teaching from this

perspective.

LIST OF REFERENCES

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1993. Eenehmatksfp:
Seieneefltezaey. New York. Oxford University Press.

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1989. W
Amefieans. New York: Oxford University Press.

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1975. Emmmfipideef
WWII Delta Education Inc" Nashua. NH.

Anderson, C. W. & Smith, E ..L (1987). Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler
(Ed.,) MW New York: Longman

Anderson, C. W. and Roth, K. L. (1988). Teaching for meaningful and self-regulated
learning of science. In Brophy, J. (ed. ):

 

Anderson, CW. and Roth, K]. (1988). Teaching for meaningful and self-regulated
learning of Science. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching.

Barnes. D. (1976). Emmfinnnnunrcannnrnfintnculnm Portsmouth. NH:
Boynton/Cook.

Barnes and Todd (1995). Cemmpnieatienfliddeamingflmisitm. Portsrrroudr, N .H.:
Boynton/Cook.

Berkheimer, G., Anderson, C. W., & Blakeslee, T. (1990). W
. . East

 

Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching.

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, Marx, Krajick, J., Guzdial, & Palinscar, A. (1991).
Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.
Wham 369- 398

Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of lLearners.
In K. McGilly (Ed)
We. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bruer, J. T. (1993).
Cambridge MA: The MIT Press/Bradford Books.

Driver, R., E. Guesne, and A. Tiberghien. (1985). ChildLeanideamtieienee, Great
Britain: Open University Press.

Bruner, J. (1966). WWW Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

236

237

Carey. S. (1985). W Cambridge. MA: MITPress.

Carmichael, P., Driver, R., Holding, B, Phillips, 1., Twigger, D., and Watts, M. (1990).
2113:. Centre for Studies
in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds, United Kingdom.

Cazden . C. (1988). Wm

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

 

Cobb, P. (1995). Where 15 the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on
mathematical development. W23) 7, 13- 20.

Driver, R. & Scott, (1995). Mind 1n communication: A response to Erick Smith.
W241 6 27- 23

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J, Mortimer, E., and Scott, P. (1994). Constructing
scientific knowledge 1n the classroom. WW 7,5 12.

Duckworth, E. (1987). " ' '"
W. New York: Teacher’ 5 College Press.

Duschl, R. and Petasis, L. (1995). '

.Paper presented at the National Association for
Research 1n Science Teaching Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Edwards & Mercer, (1987). W. New York: Methuen & Co.

Edwards & Westgate (1994). W London: Falmer Press.

Eichinger; D., Anderson, C. W, Palinscar, A. S., and David, Y. (1991). AW

 

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Eisner, E. (1990). Objectivity.
At the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

Erickson, F. (1982). Taught cognitive learning: A neglected topic in the anthropology of
education Anthmmlmfidmfimmm (13) 2 149-179

Gee, J. (1989). What is literacy? 1911mm 171(1), 18-25.

Gergen, K (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American
Wm. 40 (3). 266-275.

Harre, R. (1984). Social sources of mental content and order. In J. Margolis, P. T.

Manicas R Harte andPF Secorthdsu) Wanna
(pp. 91-127). Oxford, England. Basil Blackwell.

Hazelwood C_ and Ruth KJ (1992) WWW
Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects
Paper Series No.60. Michigan State University.

238

Hewson, P. W. & Hewson, M G. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict 1n conceptual
change and the design of science instruction. mmmemljeienee, 13, 1- 13.

Karplus, R., and Thier, H. (1978). W. Berkeley: Science
Curriculum Improvement Study, University of California, 1974.

Kuhn (1970). WW5, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Lee. 0., Eichinger, D, Anderson, C.W., & Berkheimer, G. (1993). Changing middle
school students' conceptions of matter and molecules. leumalgflfiesemhjn

Wetting (30) 3, 249-270.

Lemke. (1990). We: Norwood. NJ: Ablex
Press.

Leslie & Wingert, (1990). Not as easy as A, B, or C. Newsweek, January 8, 56-58.

Marshall, H. (1990). Beyond the Workplace Metaphor: The classroom as a learning
setting W (29) 2 PP 93 101

Mayr.E. (1982). WWW Cambridge. MA: Balknap-
Mead. H. (1934). Wen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mehan, H. (1979). What time is it Denise? Asking known-information questions in

classroom practice, W (18) 4, 285-94.

Michaels, S. and O'Connor, (1990). ' ' ' ' ' °
' ' ' Paper presented at the Council of
Chief State School Officers Summer Institute.

Middleton, D. and Edwards, D. (1990). Conversational remembering: A social
psychological approach. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds. ) 291129111:
remembering. (2345). London: Sage.

Michigan Department of Education (1991). Micmmfissennalfinalsandflbjmwm
5' El . 1H2:

Minstrel, J. (1984). Teaching for the understanding of ideas: Forces on moving objects.
In C. W. Anderson (Ed),
1984 Yearbook of the Association for the Education of
Teachers in Science. Columbus, OH: ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics, and
Environmental Education.

National Academy of Sciences (1996). National Science Education Standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). (1989). Curriculum and
Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Resont, VA: N CTM.

Nussbaum, J. & Novick, S. (1982).
Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Association for Research 1n
Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.

239

Novick, 8., and Nussbaum, J. (1978). ‘ ' ' ' -
WScience Education 62. 187-196.

Osborne & Freyburg (1985). WWW

Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.

Palinscar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching for comprehension-fostering
and monitoring activities. WW 1,117-175.

Peasley, K.L., Rosaen (C. L.) and Roth, KJ. (1993, April). W

 

 

.P r
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Atlanta. GA.

Peasley, KL. (1992). . .. _ A . A . _
.11"? It 10‘ 0 .1‘ ‘utt' on" 1.5 '1 an “1191' H'b new '1 ..o
' Elementary subject Center Series Paper No. 61.
Michigan State University.

Pines, A .L. & West, L. (1983). A framework for conceptual change with special reference
to misconceptions. In H. He. m and J. D. Novak (Eds. ),

 

Cornell Un1vers1ty !

Phillips (1995). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism.
WW) 7 pp 5 12

Piaget, J. (1970). QenefieEpjstemelegy. Translated by Eleanor Duckworth. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Pinuick, Marx, & Boyle (1993) Beyond cold conceptual change. The role of motivational
beliefs and classroom contextual factors 1n the process of conceptual change.

W63 (2)167-199.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation
of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Seienee

Edueanen. 66, 211-.227

Ramadas & Dn'ver (1989). WWW Iccds UK:
Center for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.

ResniCk L.B. (Ed). (1989). ' ' '
W. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated.

Rogoff and Lave (1984). ' ’
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rosebery. A-. Warren. 8.. & Conant, F. (1992). - - -
. . ’ ' . (Working Paper No. 1-92).
Cambridge, MA: TERC.

Rodi KJ (1992) Mammaumsflminammunma East
Lansing, MI. Elementary Subjects Center Paper #56.

240

Roth, KJ. (1986). Conceptual change learning and student processing of science texts.
Research Series No. 167. East Lansing MI: Institute for Research on Teaching,
Michigan State University.

Roth, KJ. (1985). Conceptual change learning and study processing of science texts.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Michigan State University.

Roth, K. J., Anderson, C. W, and Smith, E. L. (1987). Cuniculum materials, teacher talk
and student learning: case studies if fifth grade science teaching. leumm
erriculumfimdies (19)6. 527 548.

Roth, K. J., Smith, E. L, and Anderson, C. W. (1983). W
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada

Rutherford, F.J. and Ahlgren, A. (1990). Ween; New York: Oxford
University Press.

Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Steinback (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written
composition W 8 173- 190

Schneps, MH., and Sadler, P..M (producer). (1989). W
[videotape]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University and the Smithsonian Institute.

Smith, E. (1995). Where rs the mind? knowing and knowledge 1n Cobb's cconstructivist
and sociocultural perspectives. We: (24) 6, 23- 24.

Smith, EL. (1987). What besides conceptions needs to change in conceptual change
learning? In J .D. Novak (Eds), l ' ' ’
0111.101‘1101111 ‘-._11' 111'4" 01‘1‘211 -.1'11-.1 .Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University.

 

Stofflet and Stoddard (1994). The ability to understand and use conceptual change
pedagogy as a function of prior content learning experience.

W310) 31- 51

Strike, K..A & Posner, G. J. (1982). Conceptual change and science teaching. Emepean
IonmalofScienceI-Lducation (4) 3 231- 240

Tharp and Gallimore (1988). '
W. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, S. (1972). W. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.

vonGlaserfeld, E. (1983). W. Poetics, 12, 207-218.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Development of scientific concepts in childhood. In W
W (PP 82-118). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Warren, B, Rosebury, A. S, and Conant, F..R (1989). Wmd
MW Unpublished manuscript

241

West. L., and PincS. A. (Eds). (1985). WWW:
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Win0grad. T. & Flores. F. (1987). W New York:
Addison-Wesley.

Wittgenstein (1953). WWW (GEM. Anscomb, Trans). Oxford
England: Basil Blackwell.

Yerrick, R. (1993).

 

‘ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association
for Research on Science Teaching, Atlanta.

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A
TEACHER'S PLANS

APPENDIX A

TEACHERS' PLANS

 

  
  

Measure

.can be

 

 

Y
a

   

 

 

 

 

Evaporat:

242

243

313113

Changes in Matter recorder:

 

Problem 4

illustrator:

 

 

investigator:

 

1. Predict what will happen to an ice cube when you hold it in your hand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Explain why you think this will happen to the ice cube. (List all of the reasons
your group can think of.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

244

phonpmacrrvrrv 6

Goal: To discover room temperature

Goal: To and approximate hand temperature from last Thursday.
Whole group

1. Find approximate hand temperature based on the table on overhead
2. Compare body and hand temperature.

0 Record hand and body temps in science notebook
(complete chart) .

3. Answer this question in notebooks:

dvt' vte "t ?

Goal: To discover room temperature
Whole group
1. Vist 8 stations - go in order - clockwise around room.
0 Move at the same time - wait for teacher directions.
0 Complete worksheet (attached) -- Need help? Ask other people that are at the -.
e No need to shake the thermometer, but may pick it up to read it. Then replace it.
0 Why wouldn't it go below 70 on Thursday? Speedometer. ovens.
- 70 what?
2. Discussion - Team area .
c What did you noticelobvserve about temperatures?
. Whyaretheee thermometersat7p? ForC? Whydoeeu‘tthetemp. gobelow7OF?
0 What Is temperature? ‘ (The degree of homes or coldness)
0 What is this measuring?
3. Answer question. ‘What Is temperature? in science notebooks. ??

245

4. Based on the data you collected, work with your group to answer the
following questions:

a) What happened to your ice cube? Why do you think so?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b) What happened to your hand? Why do you think so?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c) Develop your group's conclusion:

We believe

 

 

because

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B
STUDENT INTERVIEWS

APPENDIX B
STUDENT INTERVIEWS

Interview #1
The Role of Writing in Science

Part I. General

. Tell me about yourself.

I want to talk to you about your science class. How would you describe science class
to a person who has never been to school before?

. Tell me what you are learning about in science.

Is science class this year different from, or pretty much the same as science class last
year (in second grade). What is the same? What is different?

Tell me what you are leanring about in science.

Part II. Perceptions of the writing

1.

You do a lot of writing in your science notebooks. Why do you think your teachers
have you write so much in these notebooks?

Does writing in your science notebook help you learn science? How does it help you
learn/not learn science?

Who reads your science notebook? (Probe: self, fi'iends, parents, teacher, other)

a. Do you ever go back and read what you wrote? Show me something you have
gone back and looked at (or think you might like to revisit).

b. Would you ask anyone to read your science notebook? Who? Why would you
ask them to read it? (why or why not?)

Do your teachers grade your science notebook? Do you think they look to see if you
have the right answer? Is it always important to have the right answer? Why or why
not?

Show me something you wrote in your science notebook that you really like! think is
pretty good, What do you like (or think is good) about what you wrote?

246

247
Interview #2
Learning about Science

1. One day that I watched your class you measured the temperature of snow, oatmeal, and
hot
soup.

a. What did you find out from doing that?

b. Do you remember about what the temperatm'e of each of these was? Snow?
Oatmeal? Hot soup?

c. What happened to the temperature of the hot soup when it was left out in the room?
(did the temperature ever change)

(I. What happened to the temperature of t he hot soup when you put the ice cube in it?

e. Why did t he soup cool off (or whatever they say) when you put the ice cube in it?

f. What do you think happened to the ice cube when you put it into the soup?

g. Why did the ice cube melt (or whatever they say) in the hot soup?

2. Tell me one new thing you learned from the science conference.

248
Interview #3
Group Problem Solving Task

1. Ice Cube Melting Race

a. What did your group decide was the fastest way to melt the ice cube?

b. Why do you think this made the ice cube melt faster?

c. What if I said I didn't believe you. What could you do to get evidence to
convince me?

11. Why do you think I had you do the ice cube race?

e. Why do you think I had you work in small groups on this problem?

249

Name

 

Ice Cube Melting Problem

Suppose you wanted to melt an ice cube as fast as possible. What are some
ways that you might make it melt faster using only thinks in your
classroom? For each way, explain why that would speed up the melting

 

Ways to speed up Why would that speed up melting? .
melting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C
CHANGES IN MATTER PRE- AND POST-TEST

APPENDIX C

Changes in Matter
Pre-Test

The purpose of these problems is to explore the ideas you have as we
begin our unit on changes in matter. Try to explain your ideas instead of
just answering with one or two words. This will help your teachers in
planning our unit. Your answers will be useful even if you are not sure
that someone else would agree with them.

1. Suppose you have a cup of hold chocolate. After drinking part of it,

you leave it sitting on the table. You come back an hour later. You feel
the cup and taste the chocolate. What different would you notice?

Why would this happen?

2. You have been outside playing in the snow. When you come inside,
some snow stays on your boots. After about a half an hour, you come back
and look at your boots. There is no snow, but there is a small puddle
beside them. What do you think happened to the snow?

Why would this happen to the snow?

250

251
3. You get a glass of cold water from the drinking fountain. You use a
thermometer to find out the temperature of the water. What temperature
do you think the water would be?

 

Why do you predict this temperature?

You leave the cup of water on the table and come back an hour later. What
do you think the temperature of the water should be them?

 

4. It is a cold winter day. The temperature outside is about 20°F (-3°C).
You get another cup of cold water from the drinking fountain. You take
this cup of water outside and leave it. You look at the cup of water again
after about half an hour. The water is not frozen. You then check its
temperature. What temperature do you think it would be?

 

Why would it have this temperature?

 

252

5. It is a cold day in winter. You and a friend are riding in the back seat
of a car. After a few minutes, you notice that the window beside you has
"fogged up".

What is the "fog" on the window?

What evidence or other support can you give for your answer?

Try to explain how the "fog" formed on the window.

What evidence or other support can you give for your explanation?

253

6. It is a cold day in winter. The temperature outside is below freezing.
You take a thermometer outside and stick it in a snow bank. After a couple
minutes, you take the thermometer out and read the temperature. What
would the temperature probably be?

 

Why would the snow be this temperature?

Suppose the thermometer read 45° F (6° C). How might this be explained?

How could you test your explanation?

 

254
Changes in Matter

Post-Test

The purpose of these problems is to explore the ideas you developed from
our unit on changes in matter. Try to explain your ideas instead of just
answering with one or two words. This will help your teachers understand
your ideas. Your answers will be useful even if you are not sure that
someone else would agree with them.

1. Suppose you have a cup of hot chocolate. After drinking part of it, you
leave it sitting on the table. You come back an hour later. You feel the
cup and taste the chocolate. What difference would you notice?

Why would this happen?

2. You have been playing outside in the snow. When you come inside,
some snow stays on your boots. After about a half an hour, you come back
and look at your boots. There is not snow, but there is a small puddle
beside them. What do you think happened to the snow?

Why would this happen to the snow?

255

3. You get a glass of cold water from the drinking fountain. You use a
thermometer to find out the temperature of the water. What temperature
do you think the water would be?

 

Why do you predict this temperature?

You leave the cup of water on the table and come back an hour later. What
do you think the temperature of the water should be them?

 

4. It is a cold winter day. The temperature outside is about 20°F (-3°C).
You get another cup of cold water from the drinking fountain. You take
this cup of water outside and leave it. You look at the cup of water again
after about half an hour. The water is not frozen. You then check its
temperature. What temperature do you think it would be?

 

Why would it have this temperature?

256

5. It is a cold day in winter. The temperature outside is below freezing.
You take a thermometer outside and stick it in a snow bank. After a couple
minutes, you take the thermometer out and read the temperature. What
would the temperature probably be?

 

Why would the snow be this temperature?

Suppose the thermometer read 45°F (6°C). How might this be explained?

How could you test your explanation?

257

6. If you were to place a thermometer on your desk and leave it there for
ten minutes, what temperature do you think it will show?

 

Why would it show this temperature?

Suppose you held the ball of t he thermometer between your thumb and
finger for two minutes. What do you think the temperature reading would
be then?

 

Why would it show this reading?

APPENDIX D
PRE- AND POST TEST SCORING RUBRICS

APPENDIX D

SCORING RUBRICS

Question 1a

Prediction of Hot Chocolate Cooling

 

Code

Label

Description

 

Cbolfitg Predicts chocolate getting 1rcooler"
or the temperature goes down.

 

Room temperature Predicts chocolate will come to
about room temperature.

 

ONOIUJ

Get cold Predicts chocolate getting "cold"

 

 

 

No cooling No mention of coolrng or
temperature change

"I don't know", no response, or
circular answer.

 

 

 

Question 1b

Explanation of Hot Chocolate Cooling

 

Code Label

Description

 

Air contactin

 

Air as cause

Cites cooler air contacting the choc.

 

Cites the air being cooler but does not
specifically mention contact with the
an.

 

Room temperature

Cites room temperature or the room as
beingch (no mention of air)

 

Heat leaves /
Material transfer

Heat or hotness leaves OR

Some kind of matter leaves e. g. hot
air left or hot air rises OR

Heat from the chocolate goes into the
room air OR

Cold from the room air goes into the
chocolate.

 

Inevitable temp.
equilibration

Hot materials always cool down and
cold materials always warm up when
left alone.

 

 

T Description only

DescrflSes instead of explaining, e.g.
because it was left or cooled.

 

Doesn't answer

 

Don't know OR No response OR

 

circular response.

 

258

 

259

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 2a
Prediction of Snow Melting
Code Label Description
4 Solid to lith1d Predicts snow wfll turn from selid
1i i
3 :Turn to liquid Pred1cts snow will turn into liquid
water
2 Turn to water Predicts snow will turn inge water
1 Melting Predicts snow will “melt
(7 Doesn't answer "I don't Enowfblafir, or circular
question. response
Question 2b
Explanation of Snow Melting
Code Label Description
6 Air contacting Cites warmer air contacting the
snow
5 Air as cause Cites the air or air being warm (not
contact with air)
4 Room temperature Cites room temperature or the room
hem warm (no mention of air)
3 Heat transfer] Heat

 

material transfer Wmelts the snow OR
Warm air went into the snow.

 

 

 

2 Heat as cause Heat or hotness melted the snow
(no mention of where it came
from)

1 Description Describes fistead of explaining.
e.g., because it was left inside.

‘ (5 'Doesn't answer hfl don't know", no response, or

 

 

 

question circular answer.

 

 

260

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 3a
Prediction of Drinking Fountain Water Temperature
, Code label Description
oom temperature 61-73' F or l6524' C
elow room 33-60' F or 1-15' C
emperature but
bove freezing _
1 elow fiezing or Below 3fi,or Above 75' F
bove room temp. OR
Below 0' C or Above 24' C
0 answer Leaves blank
Question 3b
Prediction of Water Warming
Code LabeT Description
4 Room temperature Predicts water will come to about
the temperature of the air in the
room.
3 Specific temperature Predicts a specific temperature
warmer than the one they ave. ,
7 Warming Predicts water getting “warm?' or
temperature goes up
1 N 0 change Predicts the temperature will stay
the same.
0 Doesn't answer Says "I don’t know", no response,
question or circular response.
3 Cooling Predicts water getting “cooler"

 

 

 

 

 

261

 

 

 

 

 

Question 3c
Explanation of Cold Water Warming
Code Label Description
6 Air contacfig tes warmer Wthe
water
5 Air as cause Cites the air being warmer (but not
contact with the air).
4 Room temperature Cites room temperature ofthe room
being warm (no mention of air)
3 Heat or material Heat goes fi'om the room air into
transfer the water.
OR

Some kind of matter enters the
water e. . warm air got into it.

 

 

2 Heat enters Heat or otness enters (no mention
of where it came from)
1 Inevitable temp. Temperature of objects always
equilibration changes. Hot objects cool, cool
or Description glgeas warm.

Describes instead of explaining,
e.g. because it was left it warmed
up.

5 'Doesn't answer "I don'tltnowTTno response, or
question circular response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

262

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 4a
Prediction of Cold Water Placed Outside
Code Label Descripfion
oldbut above 33-60‘F or 1-15'C
zrng.
utside temp 20‘F or -3'C
1 elow outside temp Below 20' F or -3‘C
sn't answer question 1'I don't know", no response, or
circular response.
Question 4b
Explanation of Cold Water Placed Outside
Code Label Description
4 Cold air as cause, Outside W is cooler than fire
water not frozen water but water is above the freezing point
because it is not yet frozen.
3 Outside temp, water Outside W cooler than water (but
not frozen. does not mention contact with air) but
water is above freezing point because it is
not frozen yet..
i2 Outside temperature Takes into account the outside temperature
OR but doesn't take into account the water isn't
Water not frozen yet frozen
OR
States that the water isn't frozen so the
temperature isn't below freezing but
doesn't mention role of outside air temp.
1 _Descfiption only Describes instead of explaining, e. g.
Because it was left outside or it cooled.
0 Doesn't answer "l don't know”, no response, or circular

 

 

question

 

response.

 

 

263

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 5
Not analyzed. This concept was not covered in unit or on the post test.
Question 6
Prediction of snow temperature
Code Label Description
easonable Below 37F OR O‘C
emperature below
zing.
reezing point 32'F OR 0°C
1 bove freezing point Above 32'F QR O'C
oes not answer "I don't know", no response, or
uestion circular response
Question 6b
Explanation of snow temperature prediction
Code Laba Description
2 _Cites freezing point It is below freezing soit must be
below about 32° F or 0' C.
1 Descriptive Because it is bflow freezing
0 Doesn't answer "I don't know", no response or
question circular response.

 

 

 

 

 

Question 6c
Explanation of 45 F Thermometer Reading

 

Code Label Description

3 Provides a theory Student provides a reasondble

theory for the discrepancy such as

1. Broken thermometer

2. Misread thermometer

3. Delayed reading thermometer
until it had warmed up.

4. Held thermometer by bulb
raising temperature.

5. Thermometer not left in snow
long enou 1h.

2 Error wifh reading Gives the explanatfinihat 45'F has

but no explanation. to be wrong but doesn't give

explanation why.

1 No dilemma seen DEscribes 45F as kind of cold but

not freezing. Does not indicate that

this reading is problematic.

0 Does not answer the "I don't know", no response, or

question. circular response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

264

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 6d
Testing the explanation
Code Label Description
4 Appropriate Designs an experiment which tests
experiment for their; theory.
testing their theory
3 Appropriate Designs an experiment which is
experiment but does accurate but does not test £1121:
not test their theory theory.
'2 Attempts Designs an experiment which
experimental design. would not test theory .
1 Descriptive States that you could do an
experiment.
0 Does not answer the Does not give an experiment OR
question. says "I don't know" or gives a
circular response or no response. '

 

Prediction of temperature of thermometer on desk.

Question #7a

(Post-Assessment Only)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Codel Description
oom temperature 61-75'F OR 16-24‘C
bove or below Above W'C
oom temperature OR
Below 61'F or 16'C
O oes not answer "I don't know", no response, or
uestion circular response
Question #7b
Explanation for prediction of temperature of thermometer on desk.
Code | Label Description
4 ir as cause Cites the air in the room as being
measured
easuring desk Said that the desk is the same,
emperature warmer, or cooler than the room
and predicted accordingly.
oom temperature Says it will be the same as ihe
temperature in the room but does
not say why.
1 scription Describes instead of explaining,

e.g. because it is in the room, on
the desk, etc.

 

0 answer

 

 

Leaves blank

 

 

 

265

Question #7c
Prediction of temperature of thermometer in hand

 

Code Label Description
‘ alue determined in 90'F
nit to be hand temp.
Ody tern Jerature 98‘F

1 bove or elow hand Above or below 90'F
. emperature.
0 answer Leaves blank

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question #7d
Explanation of temperature of thermometer in hand

 

Description
Argues that body temperature is
warmer than room temperature so
if you are holding the thermometer
the temperature would go up to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

body temperature.
Describes findings in unit with
regard to hand temp.
evidence
1 Cites experimental "Because this is what it is when I
evidence. did it in class"
oesn't answer 1'I don't knoW‘, no response, or

 

 

uestion leaves blank.

 

 

MICHanN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
lllllWilli“llll”Ill“WNWlllllllllllllllllllllllll
31293015553070