Learning-to-Talk Science and Talking-to-Learn Science

Larry D. YoreUniversity of VictoriaKaohsiung, TaiwanFebruary 22, 2005

2

Contemporary Science Literacy: Interacting Components (Yore, 2000)

Abilities, Thinking, and Habits of Mind to Construct Disciplinary UnderstandingCommunications to Inform and PersuadeBig Ideas/Unifying Concepts

Students need to orally present and to follow oral directions, state purpose for the stepwise procedures, and produce compelling arguments, sound causal explanations, or clear descriptions

3

Oral Language in Science(Lemke in Saul, 2004; Yore in Saul, 2004)

Oral language in science is different than everyday language — The 3–Language Problem: ‘theory’ has a specific meaning at home, at school, and in science.Oral language is necessary, but not sufficient, to do science that:

Stresses abstract concepts, models, and theories

Requires accurate descriptions, complex procedures, cause-effect explanations, and compelling arguments

Promotes ownership, documents intellectual properties, and communicates across distance and time

Supplies permanent records

4

Modern View of Science:Naïve Realist Ontology and Evaluativist Epistemology(Yore in Saul, 2004; Yore, Hand, & Florence, 2004)

Science knowledge is a temporary explanation that best fits the existing evidence, established knowledge, and current thinking about reality as we know it.

5

Modern View of Science (continued)

Science knowledge claims are open to repeated public evaluation.

Language is not a exact transcription of scientific inquiry — Science reports are not records of actual actions.Language shapes as well as reports science ideas — Scientists use metaphors to capture their mental images and the metaphor starts to influence their thinking.Language must reflect the tentative and temporary nature of science claims — Science does not ‘prove’; it only rejects or supports hypotheses.

6

Most Students are Science Language Learners (SSL)

The 3–Language Problem: Home language (L1), school language (L2), and science language (L3) frequently do not match. (Gee in Saul, 2004)

Instruction needs to associate experience and language.Instruction must start with the student’s home language and move toward the languages of instruction and science.

7

SSL & 3L (continued)

Anchoring science ideas in students’ home language terms engages students and respects their backgrounds.Instruction must not leave students believing their home language terms are representative of scientific terminology.As students acquire science language they may lose their home language.

8

Oral Discourse in the Constructivist Approach: Learning Cycle (Shymansky, Yore, & Anderson, 2004)

Engage — Access, assess, and challenge learners’ prior knowledgeExplore — Allow opportunities for learners to investigate the target concepts with hands-on, visual, and language experiencesConsolidate — Scaffold the learners’ interpretations of the experiences and connect to the established understandingsAssess — Document learners’ ideas in all parts of the cycle to facilitate and evaluate learning

9

Learning Matrix

Meaningful

Level ofLearning

Rote Drill Debate

Process of Learning

10

Oral Language Promotes Cognitive Symbiosis Between Fundamental and Derived Senses of Science Literacy (1)

Learning to talk/argue and talking/arguing to learnLittle meaningful oral discourse occurs in most science classrooms:

Most oral discourse in classrooms does not reflect scientific discourseIt is social, not focused and purposeful

11

Oral Language Promotes Cognitive Symbiosis Between Fundamental and Derived Senses of Science Literacy (2)

Patterns of Verbal Interactions (Flanders, 1964; Shymansky, 1978)

Traditional Science Lesson• One-way: lecture• Two-way and uni-directional: teacher to

student (t-s)

Inquiry Science Lesson• Two-way and multi-directional: t-s, s-t, s-s

12

Talking Science: Oral Discourse and Concrete Experiences(Wellington & Osborne, 2001)

Student talk must be associated with sensory experiences to ensure vocabulary development.Rich oral discussions within and between student groups encourage consideration of alternative interpretations and causality.Oral language should inform, persuade, and help construct science knowledge:

Argument and DebateDiscuss Alternatives and Promote LearningReveal Relationships among ExperiencesConsolidate and Integrate Learning

13

Oral Discourse and Classroom Questioning

Teacher questioning needs to reflect the phase and purpose of inquiry

Wait-time: 3 seconds among question, response, and further questions (Rowe, 1996)

Use specific types of questions for specific purposesChained Questions: Response and rationale

Debating Science, Technology, Society, and Environment IssuesArgumentation: The process of argument

14

Classroom Questioning: Matching Strategic Purpose (1)

Engage Phase: Question sequence accesses prior knowledge, motivates, challenges existing ideas, and establishes problem focus for investigation (Gilbert, 1992)

Lower-level: Recall, translation, elaborationQuestions that relate to students’ interest and livesHigher-level: Application, synthesis, evaluation

• These questions focus on how, where, and epistemic justification

• One or more questions will not be ‘answerable’ at this time• One or more questions need to be researchable• One or more questions will serve as the focus for the inquiry• An investigation will be planned to investigate one or more

of these questions

15

Classroom Questioning: Matching Strategic Purpose (2)

Explore Phase: Use ‘productive questions’ that match the small groups’ actions, concerns, and inquiry (Martens, 1999)

Attention-Focusing: Draw students’ attention to significant detailsMeasuring and Counting: Encourage students to be more precise about their observationsComparison: Encourage students to analyze and classifyAction: Encourage students to make predictions or observations based on eventsProblem-Posing: Assist students to plan and implement solutions to problemsReasoning Questions: Encourage students to think about experiences and help them make sense of these experiences

16

Attention-Focusing Questions (2a)

Draw students’ attention to significant details

Have you seen … ? What have you noticed about … ?What are they doing?What does it feel/smell/look like?

17

Measuring and Counting Questions (2b)

Encourage students to be more precise about their observations

How many … ?How often … ?How long … ?How much … ?

18

Comparison Questions (2c)

Encourage students to analyze and classify: Compare and contrast reflections

How are these the same or different … ?How do they go together … ?

19

Action Questions (2d)

Encourage students to make predictions or observations based on events

What do you expect to happen?What would happen if you changed this?What if … ?

20

Problem-Posing Questions (2e)

Assist students to find problems, state researchable questions, and plan and implement solutions to problems

What is a central problem in this issue?Can this question be tested?What would you manipulate, and what would you observe?Can you find a way to … ?Can you figure out how to … ?

21

Reasoning Questions (2f)

Encourage students to think about experiences and help them make sense of these experiences and potential causality.

Why do you think … ?What is your reason for … ?Can you invent a rule for … ? What have you noticed about … when you do this?

22

Classroom Questioning: Matching Strategic Purpose (3)

Consolidation Phase: Chained series of teacher’s/ students’ questions should promote knowledge construction, justification of claims with evidence, explanation based on theoretical foundations, etc. (Penick, Crow, & Bonnstetter, 1996)

Questioning and question sequence should consider:Sharing experiences and data Organizing and interpreting dataAlternative interpretationsChained interpretation, rationales, and justification for interpretations between two or more studentsApplication of new ideas to relevant issuesIntegration of new ideas into prior conceptual networks (conceptual growth or conceptual change)

23

References for Oral Discourse and Classroom Questioning (1)

Flanders, N. A. (1964). Some relationships among teacher influence, pupil attitudes, and achievement. In B. J. Biddle & W. J. Ellons (Eds.), Contemporary research on teacher effectiveness (pp. 196-231). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Gilbert, S. W. (1992). Systematic questioning. Science Teacher, 59(December), 41-46.Latham, A. (1997). Asking students the right questions. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 84-85.Martens, M. L. (1999). Productive questions: Tools for supporting constructivist learning. Science and Children, 36(8), 24-27 & 53.

24

References for Oral Discourse and Classroom Questioning (2)

Maxim, G. (1997). When to answer the question ‘why?’. Science and Children, 35(3), 41-45.Otto, P. B. (1991). Finding an answer in questioning strategies. Science and Children, 28(7), 44-47.Penick, J. E., Crow, L. W., & Bonnstetter, R. J. (1996). Questions are the answers. Science Teacher, 63(1), 26-29.Rowe, M. B. (1996). Science, silence, and sanctions. Science and Children, 34(1), 35-38.

25

References for Oral Discourse and Classroom Questioning (3)

Schielack, J. F., Chancellor, D., & Childs, K. (2000). Designing questions to encourage children’s mathematical thinking. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6, 398-402.Shymansky, J. A. (1978). Assessing teacher performance in the classroom: Pattern analysis applied to interaction data. Studies in Education Evaluation, 4, 99-106.Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

26

Debates and Arguments Involving Science, Technology, Society and Environment Issues (STSE)(Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003)

STSE issues provide ill-structured problems, multiple solutions, and rich contemporary contextsSTSE issues involve trade-off among science, technology, and societal valuesApply authentic debating proceduresKing’s College London Project (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004)

27

Scientific Arguments(Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004)

Elements of ArgumentationClaimsEvidenceWarrantsBackingsCounter-claimsQualificationsRebuttals

28

Classic Pattern of Argumentation (Toulmin, 1958)

Evidence Claims

Warrants

Backings

29

Example of a Classic Argument(Yore, et al., 2004)

Examination of SARSSARS patients Caused byand healthy people a virus

Warrant 1: A unique virus (corona) was isolated by UVic and UBC scientists.Warrant 2: SARS patients’ blood and body fluids contain the virus.Backing 1: Established knowledge about respiratory diseasesBacking 2: Influenza is caused by a virus, not bacteria.

30

Extended Pattern of Argumentation (Toulmin, 1958)

Evidence Qualifiers and Claims Counter-claims

Warrants Rebuttal

Backings

31

Example of an Extended Argument (Yore, et al., 2004)

Examination of:AIDS and HIV in HIVhealthy some causespatients people AIDS

HIV was found Peoplein all AIDS with weakpatients and some immunehealthy patients systems

32

Other Oral Language Tasks

Group-Generated Concept Maps Structured Controversy: Debate, Evaluate, Debate, and Draw Consensus (Johnson & Johnson, 1985)

Jig-Saw Projects (Cooperative Learning): Distributed expertise

33

Concept Mapping (Novak & Gowin, 1984)

34

Group-Generated Concept MapsUse large (5 by 8) and small index cards (3 by 5), masking tape, and stringHave small groups of 3-4 students develop a concept map about a controversial topic

Nature of scienceGlobal warming

Write the concepts on the large cards and the connecting relationship words on the small cardsUse the string and masking tape to show connections to produce propositions (2 concepts connected with a relationship word) and cross-links between concept clusters

35

Group-Generated Concept Maps using ICT software

Use Kidspiration (kidspiration.com) or Inspiration (inspiration.com) to develop and share concept mapsThese software programs are available on free short-term trial.They allow elementary, secondary, and university students to create concept maps and other graphic organizers.

36

Structured Controversy of STSE Issues — Sequential Debates

Debate STSE issue: Pro (for) or Con (against) positionsAnalyze opponents’ presentationSwitch positionsDebate STSE issue again from the opposite positionDevelop a consensus or collective position for the class on the STSE issue

37

Jig-Saw Cooperative Learning Approach

Expert Groups

Home Groups

38

Jig-Saw Approach for Simple Harmonic Oscillators (1)

Class is divided into groups of 3 students (Home group)Students in each ‘Home’ group are assigned one of three investigations

Effect of pendulum length on frequencyEffect of pendulum mass on frequencyEffect of mass on the frequency of a spring oscillator

39

Jig-Saw Approach for Simple Harmonic Oscillators (2)

Three students doing the same investigation form into ‘Expert’ group to do the investigation and become knowledgeable about the procedures and outcomes‘Expert’ students return to their ‘Home’ group to demonstrate and explain their investigation to the other 3 non-expert students on that topic. The other ‘Experts’ do the same for their investigationThe ‘Home’ group discusses ideas and constructs a composite understanding about simple harmonic oscillators (pendulums and springs)

40

ReferencesJohnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1985). Using structured controversy in science classrooms. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), Science technology society: 1985 yearbook of the National Science Teachers Association (pp. 228-234), Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.Novak, J. D., & Gowin, B. D. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.

41

References (continued)

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). How to improve student learning: 30 practical ideas. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.Saul, E. W. (Ed.) (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association. Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Anderson, J. O. (2004). Impact of a school district’s science reform effort on the achievement and attitudes of third- and fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 771-790.Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.