Abstract
Recent science education reforms highlight the importance for teachers to implement effective instructional practices that promote student learning of science and engineering content and their practices. Effective classroom discussion has been shown to support the learning of science, but work is needed to examine teachers’ enactment of engineering design-based science curricula by focusing on the content, complexity, structure, and orchestration of classroom discussions. In the present study, we explored teacher-student talk with respect to science in a middle school curriculum focused on genetics and genetic engineering. Our study was guided by the following major research question: What are the similarities and differences in teacher talk moves that occurred within an engineering design-based science unit enacted by two teachers? Through qualitative and quantitative approaches, we found that there were clear differences in two teachers’ use of questioning strategies and presentation of new knowledge that affected the level of student involvement in classroom discourse and the richness and details of student contributions to the conversations. We also found that the verbal explanations of science content differed between two teachers. Collectively, the findings in this study demonstrate that although the teachers worked together to design an engineering designed-based science curriculum unit, their use of different discussion strategies and patterns, and interactions with students differed to affect classroom discourse.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94(3), 395–427.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2014). Science assessment. Washington, DC.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Educational Research Association.
Authors (2015). Details omitted for double-blind reviewing.
Chen, Y., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2017). Teacher roles of questioning in early elementary science classrooms: A framework promoting student cognitive complexities in argumentation. Research in Science Education, 47, 373–405.
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.
Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300.
Correnti, R., Stein, M. K., Smith, M., Scherrer, J., McKeown, M., Greeno, J., & Ashley, K. (2015). Improving teaching at scale: Design for the scientific measurement and development of discourse practice. In L. Resnick, C. Asterban, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 315–334). Washington: DC: AERA.
Dagher, Z. R. (1994). Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change? Science Education, 78, 601–614.
Dagher, Z., & Cossman, G. (1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers: Their nature and implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 361–374.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Polity Press.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York and. London: Routledge.
Geelan, D. (2012). Teacher explanations. In B.J. Fraser et al. (eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 987–999). Dordrecht: Netherlands: Springer.
Hill, L. (1986). Teaching and the theory and practice of biology. Journal of Biological Education, 20, 112–116.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., Gray, S., & Jordan, R. (2015). Using representational tools to learn about complex systems: A tale of two classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 6–35.
Holstein, J. A., & Jaber, F. G. (2011). The constructionist analytics of interpretive practice. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kourany, J. A. (1987). Scientific knowledge: Basic issues in the philosophy of science. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McNeill, K. L., Pimentel, D. S., & Strauss, E. G. (2013). The impact of high school science teachers' beliefs, curricular enactments, and experience on student learning during an inquiry-based urban ecology curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2608–2644.
Michaels, S., & O'Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
Moje, E. B. (1995). Talking about science: An interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high-school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 349–371.
Moje, E. B. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary a social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 254–279.
Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 469–496.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (with olson, J. F., Preuschoff, C., Erberber, E., Arora, A., & Galia, J.) (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of teacher–student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406.
National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research engineering. Washington: DC: The National Academies Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). An introduction to NAEP. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/parents/2010468.pdf.
National Research Council (2012). A framework for K–12 science education. Retrieved from www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.
O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84.
Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 422–453.
Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2015). Discursive cultures of learning in (everyday) mathematics teaching: A video-based study on mathematics teaching in German and Swiss classrooms. In L. Resnick, C. Asterban, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 181–193). Washington: DC: AERA.
Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367–394.
Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 81–130.
Ryu, M. (2015). Positionings of racial, ethnic, and linguistic minority students in high school biology class: Implications for science education in diverse classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 347–370.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 417–453.
Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49–64.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aranda, M.L., Lie, R., Selcen Guzey, S. et al. Examining Teacher Talk in an Engineering Design-Based Science Curricular Unit. Res Sci Educ 50, 469–487 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9697-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9697-8