Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Science Teacher Education 3/2015

01-04-2015

An Analysis of Argumentation Discourse Patterns in Elementary Teachers’ Science Classroom Discussions

Authors: Sungho Kim, Brian Hand

Published in: Journal of Science Teacher Education | Issue 3/2015

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

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.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Literature
go back to reference Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin Books. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin Books.
go back to reference Britton, J. (1982). Talking. In G. M. Pradl (Ed.), Prospect and retrospect: Selected essays of James Britton (pp. 112–122). Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Britton, J. (1982). Talking. In G. M. Pradl (Ed.), Prospect and retrospect: Selected essays of James Britton (pp. 112–122). Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
go back to reference Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
go back to reference 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. 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
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
go back to reference Corson, D. (1988). Oral language across the curriculum. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Corson, D. (1988). Oral language across the curriculum. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRef Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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., & 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.
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423.CrossRef Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423.CrossRef
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference Pea, R. D. (1993). Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: Conversational analysis meets conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 28, 265–277.CrossRef Pea, R. D. (1993). Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: Conversational analysis meets conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 28, 265–277.CrossRef
go back to reference Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223–238.CrossRef Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223–238.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Prawat, R. S. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher, 22, 5–16.CrossRef Prawat, R. S. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher, 22, 5–16.CrossRef
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65, 381–405. Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65, 381–405.
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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 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
Metadata
Title
An Analysis of Argumentation Discourse Patterns in Elementary Teachers’ Science Classroom Discussions
Authors
Sungho Kim
Brian Hand
Publication date
01-04-2015
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Science Teacher Education / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1046-560X
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1847
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9416-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Journal of Science Teacher Education 3/2015 Go to the issue