Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Middle School Science Teachers’ Discursive Purposes and Talk Moves in Supporting Students’ Experiments

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper reports qualitative findings from a study about how science teachers enacted discursive purposes and talk moves to support the students’ experiments. Science teachers may have difficulties assisting students in designing and conducting valid and reliable experiments as the core epistemic practice of science teaching and learning. It is also known that teachers’ talk moves surround all teaching activities. It is therefore contributory to explore the teachers’ verbal scaffolds in aiding the students’ experiments. Nineteen middle school science teachers were the participants. This study was conducted as a naturalistic inquiry where the teachers’ in-class science inquiry implementations were systematically explored and analysed without any external intervention. Episode-based classroom discourse analyses and the systematic observations of the video records were conducted to classify the teachers’ discursive purposes and talk moves. The teachers tried to help the students compose better research questions by prompting them to operate multivariable reasoning. The teachers encouraged the students to replicate their experiments in different contexts with other persons or materials. The students were also assisted in coping with the presumable confounding variables to elucidate some unexpected experimental results. The teachers helped the students to gather reliable data. The students were also supported for generating richer discourse by making their research variables original within an acceptable time interval. Two discursive purposes, encouraging students to compose better research questions and use the given time effectively, were prominent among the observed eight purposes. For actualising these discursive purposes, the teachers enacted 26 types of talk moves with different frequencies. Recommendations were offered primarily in the sense of teacher noticing.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding students’ experiments-What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719–2749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: Conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891–1912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedict-Chambers, A. (2016). Using tools to promote novice teacher noticing of science teaching practices in post-rehearsal discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 28–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, C. L., Willoughby, C., & Frey, J. G. (2013). Laboratory notebooks in the digital era: The role of ELNs in record keeping for chemistry and other sciences. Chemical Society Reviews, 42(20), 8157–8175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K., & Kennedy, H. (2011). Learning through conversation: Exploring and extending teacher and children’s involvement in classroom talk. Social Psychology International, 32(4), 377–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding ‘a framework for K-12 science education.’ Science Teacher, 78(9), 34–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candela, A. (2005). Students, participation as co-authoring of school institutional practices. Culture and Psychology, 11, 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamizo, J. A. (2013). Technochemistry: One of the chemists’ ways of knowing. Foundations of Chemistry, 15(2), 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn. Math Solutions Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çalik, M., & Alipaşa, A. (2008). A critical review of the development of the Turkish science curriculum. In R. K. Coll & N. Taylor (Eds.), Science education in context: An international examination of the influence of context on science curricula development and implementation (pp. 161–174). Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çalik, M., Alipaşa, A., & Coll, R. K. (2007). Investigating the effectiveness of a constructivist based teaching model on student understanding of the dissolution of gases in liquids. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 39-53). Springer.

  • De Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 54–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furberg, A. (2016). Teacher support in computer-supported lab work: Bridging the gap between lab experiments and students’ conceptual understanding. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 89–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gooding, D. (1990). Experiment and the making of meaning. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, H., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2002). Keeping the inquiry in curriculum designed to help students’ conceptual understanding of cellular respiration. Proceedings of the 2002 International conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465 602).

  • Girault, I., d’Ham, C., Ney, M., Sanchez, E., & Wajeman, C. (2012). Characterizing the experimental procedure in science laboratories: A preliminary step towards students experimental design. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 825–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinath, A. S., & Southerland, S. A. (2019). Applying the ambitious science teaching framework in undergraduate biology: Responsive talk moves that support explanatory rigor. Science Education, 103(1), 92–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work, in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidou, O., & Erduran, S. (2021). Beyond hypothesis testing. Science & Education, 30, 345–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayima, F., & Jakobsen, A. (2020). Exploring the situational adequacy of teacher questions in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 50(2), 437–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction-effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, S. (2006). A theoretical framework for contextual science teaching. Interchange, 37(1–2), 31–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, S. (2007). The application of historical narrative in science learning: The Atlantic cable story. Sci & Educ, 16(3–5), 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, S. (2009). Identifying and addressing student difficulties with the Millikan oil drop experiment. Science & Education, 18(5), 593–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Dean, D., Jr. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables? Psychological Science, 16(11), 866–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23(4), 435–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrie, G., & Grøndahl, L. (2015). Wiki technologies and communities: New approaches to assessing individual and collaborative learning in the chemistry laboratory. Chemistry education: best practices, opportunities and trends (pp. 671–692). Wiley-WCH (1st Edition).

  • Lawson, A. E. (2002). What does Galileo’s discovery of Jupiter’s moons tell us about the process of scientific discovery? Science & Education, 11(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Sense Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mameli, C., & Molinari, L. (2013). Interactive micro-processes in classroom discourse: Turning points and emergent meanings. Research Papers in Education, 28(2), 196–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manz, E., & Suárez, E. (2018). Supporting teachers to negotiate uncertainty for science, students, and teaching. Science Education, 102(4), 771–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masnick, A. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Error matters: An initial exploration of elementary school children’s understanding of experimental error. Journal of Cognition and Development, 4(1), 67–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matlen, B. J., & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing? Instructional Science, 41(3), 621–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, J. (2007). Erkenntnisgewinnung als wissenschaftliches Problemlo¨sen [Inquiry as scientific problem-solving]. In D. Krüger & H. Vogt (Eds.), Theorien in der biologiedidaktischen Forschung [Theories in Didactics of Biology] (pp. 177–186). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. A. (1911). The isolation of an Ion, a precision measurement of its charge, and the correction off Stoke’s Law. Physical Review (Series I), 32, 349–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. India: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., & El-Hani, C. N. (2014). Conceptual profiles: A theory of teaching and learning scientific concepts (Vol. 42). Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munier, V., Merle, H., & Brehelin, D. (2013). Teaching scientific measurement and uncertainty in elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 35(16), 2752–2783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, K. (2012). Case studies of interactive whole-class teaching in primary science: Communicative approach and pedagogic purposes. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1687–1708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). Computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts: Effects on help-seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 257–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S. (2005). Discursive roles of the teacher during class sessions for students presenting their science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1825–1851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S. (2010). How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in abductive inquiry activities of earth science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives in physics laboratory experimentation. In Topics and trends in current science education (pp. 419–433). Springer, Dordrecht.

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘Ideas-about-Science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, K. A., & Germann, P. J. (2002). The inquiry ‘I’: A tool for learning scientific inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 64(7), 512–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picón, R. O., Sevian, H., & Mortimer, E. F. (2020). Conceptual profile of substance. Science & Education, 29(5), 1317–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouw, W. T., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rea-Ramirez, M. A., Nunez-Oviedo, M. C., & Clement, J. (2009). Role of discrepant questioning leading to model element modification. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(2), 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rea-Ramirez, M. A., & Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2002, January). Discrepant questioning as a tool to build complex mental models of respiration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.

  • Renken, M. D., & Nunez, N. (2013). Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding. Learning and Instruction, 23, 10–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2003). Assessment of biology investigations. Journal of Biological Education, 37(3), 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground–A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffhauer, S., Gößling, J., Wirth, J., Bergs, M., Walpuski, M., & Sumfleth, E. (2012). Fostering experimental skills by a combination of hands-on and computer-based learning-environments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Vancouver, BC, Canada.

  • Sherin, M., Jacobs, V., & Philipp, R. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes. New York: Routledge.

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soysal, Y. (2020). Investigating discursive functions and potential cognitive demands of teacher questioning in the science classroom. Learning: Research and Practice, 6(2), 167–194.

  • Soysal, Y. (2021). Teacher talk and teacher discursive moves: A systematic review fromVygotskian Perspective. Elementary Education Online, 20(1), 228–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, S., Gnesdilow, D., Puntambekar, S., & Kim, J. S. (2017). Middle school students’ learning of mechanics concepts through engagement in different sequences of physical and virtual experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1573–1600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., & Aranda, G. (2015). Expert teachers’ discursive moves in science classroom interactive talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 425–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Riesen, S. A., Gijlers, H., Anjewierden, A., & de Jong, T. (2018). The influence of prior knowledge on experiment design guidance in a science inquiry context. International Journal of Science Education, 40(11), 1327–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorholzer, A., Von Aufschnaiter, C., & Boone, W. J. (2020). Fostering upper secondary students’ ability to engage in practices of scientific investigation: a comparative analysis of an explicit and an implicit instructional approach. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 333–359.

  • Vosniadou, S. (2012). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: Preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In Second international handbook of science education (pp. 119–130). Springer, Dordrecht.

  • Watson, R., Goldsworthy, A., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1999). What is not fair with investigations? School Science Review, 80(292), 101–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellnitz, N., & Mayer, J. (2011). Modelling and assessing scientific methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Olandor, FL.

  • Zacharia, Z. C., & De Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), 101–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., De Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, S. A., ... & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science: A literature review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 257-302.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Yilmaz Soysal

Authors
  1. Yilmaz Soysal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yilmaz Soysal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soysal, Y. Middle School Science Teachers’ Discursive Purposes and Talk Moves in Supporting Students’ Experiments. Sci & Educ 31, 739–785 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00266-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00266-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation