Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
This multiple case study investigated how six elementary teachers’ argumentation discourse patterns related to students’ discussions in the science classroom. Four categories of classroom characteristics emerged through the analysis of the teachers’ transcripts and recorded class periods: Structure of teacher and student argumentation, directionality, movement, and structure of student talk. Results showed that the differences between the teachers’ discourse patterns were related to their modified reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) scores and to how the interaction of those differences affected student learning. Teachers with high RTOP scores were more likely to challenge their students’ claims, explanations, and defenses and to provide less guidance and more waiting time for their students’ responses than teachers with medium- and low-level RTOP scores. Students in the high-level teachers’ classes challenged, defended, rejected, and supported each other’s ideas with evidence and required less guidance than students in the medium-level and low-level teachers’ classes.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin Books.
Britton, J. (1982). Talking. In G. M. Pradl (Ed.), Prospect and retrospect: Selected essays of James Britton (pp. 112–122). Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to Foster scientific literacy a review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80, 336–371. CrossRef
Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 427–449. CrossRef
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chen, Y.-C. (2011). Examining the integration of talk and writing for student knowledge construction through argumentation. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa. http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1129
Corson, D. (1988). Oral language across the curriculum. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, T. (2005). What counts as knowing: Constructing a communicative repertoire for student demonstration of knowledge in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 139–165. CrossRef
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. CrossRef
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2005). Developing arguments. In S. Alsop, L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analyzing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933. CrossRef
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423. CrossRef
Hand, B., Vaughan, P., & Carolyn, W. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students’ answers to recall and higher-level test questions. Research in Science Education, 32, 19–34. CrossRef
Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451–493. CrossRef
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153–196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education., 39, 17–38. CrossRef
McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203–229.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576. CrossRef
Pea, R. D. (1993). Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: Conversational analysis meets conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 28, 265–277. CrossRef
Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223–238. CrossRef
Pontecorvo, C. (1987). Discussing for reasoning: The role of argument in knowledge construction. Learning and Instruction: European Research in an International Context, 1, 239–250.
Prawat, R. S. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher, 22, 5–16. CrossRef
Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593. CrossRef
Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., Rasmussen, D., ... Gallimore, R. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Videostudy. Statistical Analysis Report. Washington, DC: NCES-National Centre for Educational Statistics.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Ideas in the air: Speculations on small group learning, environmental and cultural influences on cognition, and epistemology. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 71–88. CrossRef
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity: An empirical study. The Journal of the Learning Science, 12, 221–258.
Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631. CrossRef
Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65, 381–405.
Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 393–429. CrossRef
Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62. CrossRef
- An Analysis of Argumentation Discourse Patterns in Elementary Teachers’ Science Classroom Discussions
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta