Indicators of Productive Classroom Talk and Supporting Discourse Moves: A Systematic Review for Effective Science Teaching

Abstract

This study intended to delve into productive classroom talk (PCT) typologies and sets of teacher discursive moves (TDMs) or talk moves supporting yielding dialogues in the context of teaching science. For this purpose, 67 studies were selected from a larger research pool and examined in a fine-grained manner. Five themes or indicators of the PCT were extracted. These are “clarity and intelligibility of the talks”, “critiques in the talk”, “accountability-justification-authority”, “intense discursively-oriented metacognitive activity” and “teacher as the discursive role model”. In addition, six sets of TDMs were extracted from the literature that are thought as supporting for the actualisation of a PCT indicator. These are communicating, challenging, evaluating-judging-critiquing, monitoring-framing, seeking for evidence and modelling-rehearsing aspects of processes of science. The relations between indicators of the PCT and supporting TDMs were reinterpreted by making concrete combinations and presenting in-class instances. Several recommendations were offered for science teachers and science teacher educator.      

Keywords

• productive classroom talk,teacher discourse move

Üretken Sınıf Söyleminin Göstergeleri ve Destekleyici Söylemsel Hamleler: Etkili Fen Eğitimi için Sistematik Bir Derleme

Öz

Bu çalışma üretken sınıf söylemi (ÜSS) türlerini ve öğretmenin söylemsel hamlelerini (ÖSH) ya da fen öğretimi bağlamında üretken diyalogları destekleyen öğretmen konuşma hamlelerini derinlemesine araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla 67 çalışma geniş bir araştırmalar havuzundan seçilmiş ve derinlemesine incelenmiştir. ÜSS adına beş tematik gösterge ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Bunlar “sınıf içi konuşmalardaki netlik ve anlaşılırlık”, “sınıf içi konuşmalardaki meydan okumalar”, “sınıf içi konuşmalarda hesap verilebilirlk-gerekçelendirme-otorite”, “yoğun söylem-yönelimli üst-bilişsel aktivite” ve “rol model olarak öğretmendir”. Bununla birlikte, ÜSS’nin herhangi bir göstergesinin sınıf içinde var edilmesini desteklediği düşünülen altı ÖSH seti ilgili literatürden elde edilmiştir. Bunlar “iletişmsel hamleler”, “çeldirici hamleler”, “değerlendirmeci-eleştirici-yargılayıcı hamleler”, “izleme-çerçeveleme hamleleri”, “kanıt için arayışta olmak hamleleri” ve “bilimsel süreçleri modelleme hamleleridir”. ÜSS göstergeleri ve destekleyici ÖSH’ler arasındaki ilişkiler maddi birleştirmeler yapılarak ve sınıf içi örnekler sunularak yeniden yorumlanmıştır. Fen öğretmenleri ve fen eğitimcileri için birçok öneride bulunulmuştur.   

Anahtar Kelimeler

• üretken sınıf söylemi,öğretmenin söylemsel hamlesi

References

1. Abrami, P. C., Cohen, P. A., & d’Apollonia, S. (1988). Implementation problems in meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 58, 151-179.
2. Alexander, R.J. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell.
3. Alexander, R.J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. New York, NY: Dialogos.
4. Alexander, R. (2008). Culture, Dialogue and Learning: Notes on an Emerging Pedagogy. In Exploring Talk in Schools, edited by N. Mercer and S. Hodgkinson, pp. 91-114. London: Sage.
5. Anderson, R. C., C. Chinn, M. Waggoner, & K. Nguyen (1998). Intellectually Stimulating Story Discussions. In Literacy for All: Issues in Teaching and Learning, edited by J. O. F. Lehr, pp. 170-186. New York: Guilford.
6. Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891-1912.
7. Barnes, D. (1976). From Communication to Curriculum. Hammondsworth: Penguin.
8. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.

9. Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: a function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 141-169.
10. Brown, R., & P. D. Renshaw (2000). Collective Argumentation: A Sociocultural Approach to Reframing Classroom Teaching and Learning. In Social Interaction in Learning and Instruction: The Meaning of Discourse for the Construction of Knowledge, edited by H. Cowie and G. van der Aalsvoort, pp. 52-66. Oxford: Pergamon.
11. Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010a). The evidence-based reasoning framework: assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15, 123-141.
12. Brown, N. J. S., Nagashima, S. O., Fu, A., Timms, M., & Wilson, M. (2010b). A framework for analyzing scientific reasoning in assessments. Educational Assessment, 15, 142-174.
13. Candela, A. (2005). Students’ participation as co-authoring of school institutional practices. Culture & Psychology, 11, 321-337.
14. Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 432-463). New York: Macmillan.
15. Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.
16. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315-1346.
17. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.
18. 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.
19. Conner, A., L. M. Singletary, R. C. Smith, P. A. Wagner, & R. T. Francisco (2014a). Teacher Support for Collective Argumentation: A Framework for Examining How Teachers Support Students’ Engagement in Mathematical Activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(3), 401-429.
20. Conner, A., L. M. Singletary, R. C. Smith, P. A. Wagner, & R. T. Francisco (2014b). Identifying Kinds of Reasoning in Collective Argumentation. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(3), 181-200.
21. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
22. Dempsey, N. P. (2010). Stimulated recall interviews in Ethnography. Qualitative Sociology, 33, 349-367.
23. diSessa, A., Greeno, J. G., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2016). Knowledge and interaction in clinical interviewing: Revoicing. In A. A. diSessa, M. Levin, & N. J. S.
24. Brown (Eds.). Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
25. Edwards-Groves, C., M. Anstey, G. Bull, & A Primary English Teaching Association (2014). Classroom Talk: Understanding Dialogue, Pedagogy and Practice. Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association Australia (PETAA).
26. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-484.
27. Erickson, F. (2011). On noticing teacher noticing. In M. Sherin, V. Jacobs, & R. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes (pp. 17-34).New York, NY: Routledge.
28. Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 175–196.
29. Gadamer, H. (2004). Truth and method. New York: Continuum publishing group.
30. 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.
31. Gillies, R. M. (2013). Productive Academic Talk during Inquiry-based Science. Pedagogies: An International Journal 8(2), 126-142.
32. 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, 92-122.
33. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391.
34. Hardy, I., Kloetzer, B.,Moeller, K., & Sodian, B. (2010). The analysis of classroom discourse: elementary school science curricula advancing reasoning with evidence. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 197–221.
35. Haw, K. & Hadfield, M. (2011). Video in social science research. Great Britain: Routledge.
36. Herrenkohl, L., Tasker, T., & White, B. (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 1–44.
37. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.
38. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
39. Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325-356.
40. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524.
41. Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Janiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I. H., Kuo, L. J. (2011). Influence of a teacher's scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussion. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230.
42. Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers' questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004-2027.
43. Khong, T. D. H., Saito, E., & Gillies, R. M. (2019). Key issues in productive classroom talk and interventions. Educational Review, 71(3), 334-349.
44. Kiemer, K., A. Gröschner, A.-K. Pehmer, and T. Seidel (2015).Effects of a Classroom Discourse Intervention on Teachers' Practice and Students' Motivation to Learn Mathematics and Science. Learning and Instruction, 35, 94–103.
45. 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, 75–86.
46. Kyriacou, C., and J. Issitt (2008). What Characterizes Effective Teacher–Pupil Dialogue to Promote Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics Lessons in England in Key Stages 2 and 3? EPPI-Centre Report No. 1604R. London: Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
47. Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-142.
48. Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. (2012). Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use. Instructional Science, 40(6), 857–874.
49. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwoord, NJ: Ablex.
50. Lin, T.C., Lin, T.J. & Tsai, C.C. (2014). Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346-1372.
51. Littleton, K., and N. Mercer. (2013). Educational Dialogues. In International Handbook of Research on Children’s Literacy, Learning, and Culture, edited by T. C. K. Hall, B. Comber, and L. C. Moll, pp. 291–303. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
52. Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tzialli, D. (2012) Identification, interpretation-evaluation, response: An alternative framework for analyzing teacher discourse in science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1823-1856.
53. Mameli, C., & Molinari, L. (2013). Interactive micro-processes in classroom discourse: turning points and emergent meanings. Research Papers in Education, 28(2), 196-211.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. Michaels, S., C. O’Connor, and L. Resnick (2008). Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.
57. 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.
58. Mercer, N. 1995. The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
59. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: how we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
60. Mercer, N., R. Wegerif, & L. Dawes. (1999). Children’s Talk and the Development of Reasoning in the Classroom. British Educational Research Journal 25(1), 95–111.
61. Michaels, S., & C. O’Connor (2002). Accountable Talk: Classroom Conversation that Works, CD-ROM. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
62. Michaels, S., C. O’Connor, & L. Resnick. 2008. Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.
63. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
64. Nystrand, M., L. L. Wu, A. Gamoran, S. Zeiser, and D. A. Long (2003). Questions in Time: Investigating the Structure and Dynamics of Unfolding Classroom Discourse. Discourse Processes 35(2), 135–198.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. Oh, P.S., & Campbell, T. (2013). Understanding of science classrooms in different countries through the analysis of discourse modes for building ‘classroom science knowledge’ (CSK). Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 597-625.
68. Pehmer, A-K., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2015). How teacher professional development regarding classroom dialogue affects students' higher-order learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 108-119.
69. Pimentel, D. S. & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394.
70. Rabel, S., & I. Wooldridge (2013). Exploratory Talk in Mathematics: What Are the Benefits? Education, 41(1), 15–22.
71. Reznitskaya, A., & M. Gregory (2013). Student Thought and Classroom Language: Examining the Mechanisms of Change in Dialogic Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133.
72. Reznitskaya, A., L.-J. Kuo, A.-M. Clark, B. Miller, M. Jadallah, R. C. Anderson, & K. Nguyen-Jahiel. (2009). Collaborative Reasoning: A Dialogic Approach to Group Discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29–48.
73. Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Language Use During Literature Discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446–456.
74. Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (2001). The principles of learning: Study tools for educators (version 2.0) [CD–ROM]. Pittsburgh, PA: Institute for Learning, LRDC, University of Pittsburgh.
75. Rojas-Drummond, S., O. Torreblanca, H. Pedraza, M. Vélez, & K. Guzmán (2013). Dialogic Scaffolding: Enhancing Learning and Understanding in Collaborative Contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 11–21.
76. Rojas-Drummond, S., & M. P. Zapata. (2004). Exploratory Talk, Argumentation and Reasoning in Mexican Primary School Children. Language and Education, 18(6), 539–557.
77. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and educational practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
78. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
79. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
80. Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal of Learning Sciences, 16(4), 565–613.
81. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. New York: Cambridge University Press.
82. Shemwell, J. T., & Furtak, E. R. (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation: a study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 222–250.
83. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 137-162.
84. Soysal, Y. (2018). Determining the Mechanics of Classroom Discourse in Vygotskian Sense: Teacher Discursive Moves Reconsidered. Research in Science Education, 1-25. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-018-9747-2.
85. Soysal, Y. (2019). Fen Öğretiminde Öğretmenin Söylemsel Hamlelerinin Öğrenenlerin Akıl Yürütme Kalitelerine Etkisi: Söylem Analizi Yaklaşımı. Egitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(3), 1-38.
86. Soysal, Y., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, Ö. (2019). Relationships Between Teacher Discursive Moves and Middle School Students’ Cognitive Contributions to Science Concepts. Research in Science Education, 1-43: DOI: 10.1007/s11165-019-09881-1.
87. Suri, H. & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research systhesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 395-430.
88. Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., Azmon, S., & Dreyfus, T. (2019). Following the Traces of Teachers’ Talk-Moves in Their Students’ Verbal and Written Responses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-20.
89. Tytler, R., & Aranda, G. (2015). Expert teachers’ discursive moves in science class room interactive talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 425-446.
90. Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: a review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551.
91. van der Veen, C., C. van Kruistum, & S. Michaels. (2015). Productive Classroom Dialogue as an Activity of Shared Thinking and Communicating: A Commentary on Marsal. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(4), 320–325.
92. *Waggoner, M., C. Chinn, H. Yi, & R. C. Anderson. (1995). Collaborative Reasoning about Stories. Language Arts, 72(8), 582-590.
93. Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. S. (1996). “This question is just too, too easy!” Students’ perspectives on accountability in science. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 97–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
94. van D. Booven, (2015). Revisiting the authoritative–dialogic tension in inquiry-based elementary science teacher questioning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1182-1201.
95. van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J. (1997a). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209-228.
96. van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J. (1997b). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 229-271.
97. van Zee, E., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversation about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.
98. Wegerif, R. (2008). Reason and dialogue in education. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. van der Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning. Advances in cultural-historical activity theory (pp. 273–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
99. Wolf, M., A. Crosson, and L. Resnick. (2006). Accountable Talk in Reading Comprehension Instruction (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 670). Pittsburgh, PA: Learning and Research Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
100. Zohar, A. & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(29), 121-169.