Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of teacher-introduced multimodal representations and discourse on students’ task engagement and scientific language during cooperative, inquiry-based science

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study sought to determine the effects of teacher-introduced multimodal representations and discourse on students’ task engagement and scientific language during cooperative, inquiry-based science. The study involved eight Year 6 teachers in two conditions (four very effective teachers and four effective teachers) who taught two units of inquiry-based science across two school terms. The results show that the very effective teachers spent significantly more time engaged in using embodied representations to illustrate points or communicate information. They also spent significantly more time engaged in interrogating students’ understandings and scaffolding and challenging their thinking than the effective teachers. In turn, the students in the very effective teachers’ classes spent significantly more time on-task and used significantly more relevant basic and scientific language to explain the phenomena they were investigating than their peers in the effective teachers’ classes. These are behaviours and language that are associated with successful learning in science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alford, B., Rollins, K., Padron, Y., & Waxman, H. (2015). Using systematic classroom observation to explore student engagement as a function of teachers’ developmentally appropriate instructional practices (DAIP) in ethnically diverse pre-kindergarten through second-grade classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal. doi:10.1007/s10643-015-0748-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Academy of Science. (2005). Primary Connections: Linking science with literacy. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2011). Australian Curriculum-Science. http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum_1/learning_areaa/science/html.

  • Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “Ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. InterScience. doi:10.1002/sce.10136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundick, M., Quaglia, R., Corso, M., & Haywood, D. (2014). Promoting student engagement in the classroom. Teachers’ College Record, 116, 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. (2006). Enhancing science teaching and student learning: A BSCS perspective. In: Proceedings of the ACER research conference: Boosting science learning: What it will take. ACER Research Conference. Review of Educational Research, 64, pp. 1–35. www.acer.edu.au/research_conferences/2006.html.

  • Chandler, P., & Tricot, A. (2015). Mind your body: the essential role of body movements in children’s learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 365–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, A., Slavin, R., Kim, E., & Lake, C. (2017). Effective secondary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 58–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmer, E., & Stough, L. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36, 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. (2015). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpartick, C., & Pagani, L. (2013). Task-oriented kindergarten behaviour pays off in later childhood. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 43, 94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallardo-Virgen, J., & DeVillar, R. (2011). Sharing, talking, and learning in the elementary school science classroom: Benefits of innovative design and collaborative learning in computer-integrated settings. Computers in Schools, 28, 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giamellaro, M. (2014). Primary contextualization of science through immersion in content-rich settings. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 2848–2871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. (2003). The behaviours, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. & Khan, A. (2008). The effects of teacher discourse on students’ discourse, problem-solving and reasoning during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R., Nichols, K., Burgh, G., & Haynes, M. (2012). The effects of two meta-cognitive questioning approaches on children’s explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and learning during cooperative, inquiry-based science. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 93–106. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R., Nichols, K. & Khan, A. (2015). The effects of scientific representations on primary students’ development of scientific discourse and conceptual understandings during cooperative contemporary inquiry-science. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45, 427–449. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2014.988681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R., Carroll, A., Cunnington, R., Rafter, M., Palghat, K., Bednark, J., & Bourgeois, A. (2016). Multimodal representations during an inquiry problem-solving activity in a Year 6 science class: A case study investigating cooperation, physiological arousal and belief states. Australian Journal of Education. doi:10.1177/0004944116650701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2015). Aligning teaching to learning: A 3-year study examining the embedding of langage and argumentation in elementary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9622-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing the impact for teachers (p. 286). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herakleioti, E., & Pantidos, P. (2016). The contribution of the human body in young children’s explanations about shadow formation. Research in Science Education, 46, 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrenkohl, L., Tasker, T., & White, B. (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 48–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jornet, A., & Roth, M. (2015). The joint work of connecting multiple (re)presentations in science classrooms. Science Education, 99, 378–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilian, B., Hofer, M., Fries, S., & Kuhnle, C. (2010). The conflict between on-task and off-task actions in the classroom and its consequences for motivation and achievement. European Journal of Psychology Education, 25, 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Dialogic argumentation as a bridge to argumentative thinking and writing. Journal of the Study of Education and Development, 39, 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. http://jaylemke.squarespace.com/storage/Literacies-of-science-2004.pdf.

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupyan, G., & Bergen, B. (2016). How language programs the mind. Cognitive Science, 8, 408–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., Urbach, D., Hudson, R., & Zoumboulis, S. (2009). Progressive Achievement Tests in Science. Camberwell: Australian Council of Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach (p. 163). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreau, D. (2015). Brains and brawn: Complex motor activities to maximize cognitive enhancement. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 475–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J., Dantzler, J., & Coleman, A. (2015). Science in action: How middle school students are changing their world through STEM service-learning projects. Theory into Practice, 54, 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory-guided reanalysis of the roel of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96, 849–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, C. (2016). Embodiment and the construction of social knowledge: Towards an integration of embodiment and social representations theory. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour. doi:10.1111/jtsb.12110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction of affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2751–2773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. (2005). Science awareness and scientific literacy. Teaching Science, 51(1), 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogers, J., & Sequeira, L. (2012). Examining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 288–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, S., Rogat, T., Adams-Wiggins, K., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10, 273–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R., Lake, C., Hanley, P., & Thurston, A. (2014). Experimental evaluations of elementary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 870–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K., Delgado, C. & Moje, E. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98, 305–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. (2016). Constructing scientific explanations through premise-reasoning-outcomes (PRO): an exploratory study to scaffold students in structuring written explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 1415–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, A., Ghazali, Z., & Morris, S. (2016). Children’s science learning: A core skills

  • Trickey, S. & Topping, K. (2015). Collaboration using philosophy for children. In R.M. Gillies (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Developments in research and practice (pp. 69-84). New York: Nova Science. approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 481–497.

  • Turner, J., Midgley, C., Meyer, D., Gheen, M., Anderman, E., & Kang, Y. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining Science Education: Engaging the students in science for Australia’s future. Australian Education Review. Camberwell: ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2012). Socio-scientific issues, sustainability and science education. Research in Science Education, 42, 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior science. Research in Science Education, 40, 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watters, J., & Diezman, C. (2016). Engaging elementary students in learning science: an analysis of classroom dialogue. Instructional Science, 44, 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N., Franke, M., De, T., Chan, A., Freund, D., Shein, P., et al. (2009). ‘Explain to your partner’: Teachers’ instructional practices and students’ dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N., Franke, M., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., et al. (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 360–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N., Franke, M., Ing, M., Wong, J., Fernandez, C., Shin, N., et al. (2014). Engaging with others’ mathematical ideas: Interrelationships among student participation, teachers’ instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N., Franks, M., IIng, M., Turrou, A., & Johnson, N. (2015). Student participation, teacher instructional practices, and the development of mathematical understanding in the elementary classroom. In R. M. Gillies (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Developments in research and practice (pp. 47–68). NY: Nova Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, I., Reznitskaya, A., Bourdage, K., Oyler, J., Glina, M., Drewry, R., et al. (2016). Toward a more dialogic pedagogy: changing teachers’ beliefs and practices through professional development in language arts classrooms. Language and Education. doi:10.1080/09500782.2016.1230129.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, Australia

    Robyn M. Gillies

  2. The Australian National University, Canberra, 0200, Australia

    Bernard Baffour

Authors
  1. Robyn M. Gillies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernard Baffour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robyn M. Gillies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gillies, R.M., Baffour, B. The effects of teacher-introduced multimodal representations and discourse on students’ task engagement and scientific language during cooperative, inquiry-based science. Instr Sci 45, 493–513 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9414-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9414-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation