Jonathan T. Shemwell

Science Classroom Discussion as Scientific Argumentation: A Study of Conceptually Rich (and Poor) Student Talk

One way to frame science classroom discussion is to engage students in scientific argumentation, an important discourse format within science aimed at coordinating empirical evidence and scientific theory. Framing discussion as scientific argumentation gives clear priority to contributions that are sustained by evidence. We question whether this priority is conducive to conceptually rich student talk (talk in which students elaborate key concepts and causal mechanisms). Coding transcripts of six middle school classrooms engaged in whole-class scientific argumentation, we identified whether student conversations about a physical science concept incorporated arguments that were supported by evidence and whether the same conversations amounted to conceptually rich talk. Rich talk and evidence-supported arguments rarely occurred together in the same conversation. In a detailed analysis of selected conversations, we argue that the priority given to evidence within scientific argumentation incurs constraints on discussion goals and reasoning that tend to inhibit conceptually rich talk.

Over reported and misunderstood? A study of teachers’ reported enactment and knowledge of inquiry-based science teaching

ABSTRACT Science education reforms worldwide call on teachers to engage students in investigative approaches to instruction, like inquiry. Studies of teacher self-reported enactment indicate that inquiry is used frequently in the classroom, suggesting a high level of proficiency with inquiry that would be amenable to inquiry reform. However, it is unclear whether the high frequency of self-report is based on sound knowledge inquiry. In the absence of sound knowledge, high rates of self-reported enactment would be suspect. We conducted a study to measure teachers’ knowledge of inquiry as it related to the known, high frequency of reported enactment. We developed a multidimensional survey instrument using US reform documents and administered it to 149 K–12 teachers at a national science teachers’ conference. The majority of the teachers surveyed did not report inquiry enactment based on well-structured knowledge of inquiry. Interviews with participants showed how teachers could readily map non-inquiry activities onto inquiry statements taken directly from reform documents. From these results we argue that teachers often believed they were enacting inquiry, when likely they were not. We further reason that teachers may struggle to interpret and enact inquiry-related requirements of science education reform and will need support distinguishing inquiry from non-inquiry practices.

Supporting Teachers to Attend to Generalisation in Science Classroom Argumentation.

In scientific arguments, claims must have meaning that extends beyond the immediate circumstances of an investigation. That is, claims must be generalised in some way. Therefore, teachers facilitating classroom argumentation must be prepared to support students’ efforts to construct or criticise generalised claims. However, widely used argumentation support tools, for instance, the claim-evidence-reasoning (CER) framework, tend not to address generalisation. Accordingly, teachers using these kinds of tools may not be prepared to help their students negotiate issues of generalisation in arguments. We investigated this possibility in a study of professional development activities of 18 middle school teachers using CER. We compared the teachers’ approach to generalisation when using a published version of CER to their approach when using an alternate form of CER that increased support for generalisation. In several different sessions, the teachers: (1) responded to survey questions when using CER, (2) critiqued student arguments, (3) used both CER and alternate CER to construct arguments, and (4) discussed the experience of using CER and alternate CER. When using the standard CER, the teachers did not explicitly attend to generalisation in student arguments or in their own arguments. With alternate CER, the teachers generalised their own arguments, and they acknowledged the need for generalisation in student arguments. We concluded that teachers using frameworks for supporting scientific argumentation could benefit from more explicit support for generalisation than CER provides. More broadly, we concluded that generalisation deserves increased attention as a pedagogical challenge within classroom scientific argumentation.