Discourse forms in a classroom transitioning to student-centred scientific inquiry through co-teaching

Abstract

Teacher-student discourse continues to be teacher-centred even though researchers and reform documents have recommended changes toward increased levels of student-centred discourse. In science education this situation is paralleled by effort to make scientific inquiry more student-centred. The purpose of this study was to investigate how discourse forms changed over time in a classroom where the regular teacher and his students were scaffolded in the transitioning to student-centred scientific inquiry. Video-recordings were collected at intervals over one academic year. Three prominent forms of discourse were identified: two teacher-authoritative forms and one more interactive, dialogic form. As the lessons increasingly turned into student-centred scientific inquiry, a shift to the dialogic discourse form was found. Co-teaching provided for (a) guidance towards an organisation of events in the classroom that included regular teacher-student dialogue (b) modelling of the more dialogic form of discourse.

Interest in Dialogic and Non-Dialogic Teacher Talk Situations in Middle School Science Classroom

“…Despite the preliminary nature of the study, the research has nonetheless shown that interest in dialogic teacher talk situations is likely higher than interest in non-dialogic teacher talk situations. It is known that dialogic talk is rare (Lehesvuori et al, 2013), but change towards more dialogic forms of classroom talk is possible (Rees & Roth, 2019). Therefore, this paper provides additional support for teachers to emphasise dialogic teaching because it may develop student interest in science lessons.…”

Considering discussion types to support collective sensemaking during a storyline unit

“…Although the goal of collective sensemaking has been accepted for quite a while, multiple studies over time continue to show that IRE and other similar closed, teacher-centered discourse forms remain the most common in science classrooms (e.g. Nassaji & Wells, 2000;Pimentel & McNeill, 2013;Rees & Roth, 2019;Scott et al, 2006;Wells & Mejia Arauz, 2006). Nevertheless, researchers have observed and characterized other discussion patterns in science classrooms.…”

“…This pattern can either be a repeated sequence with one student or a more interactive sequence in which multiple different students respond to the teachers' feedback (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Similarly, Rees and Roth (2019) characterized the I-R-Q-R-A form of classroom discourse, in which the teacher initiates a conversation (I), a student responds (R), and the teacher and student(s) proceed through rounds of clarifying questions (Q), responses, and non-evaluative acknowledgement of the responses (A). Taken together, these studies show that classroom talk can be much more complex than the well-known IRE structure.…”

“…Past work has shown that the canonical IRE talk sequence can be more complex than initially thought and support multiple types of idea work in the classroom (Nassaji & Wells, 2000;Rees & Roth, 2019;Wells & Mejia Arauz, 2006). Scholars have identified a range of talk patterns that build on IRE, such as I-R-F-R-F-and I-R-Q-R-A (Mortimer & Scott, 2003;Rees & Roth, 2019).…”

“…Past work has shown that the canonical IRE talk sequence can be more complex than initially thought and support multiple types of idea work in the classroom (Nassaji & Wells, 2000;Rees & Roth, 2019;Wells & Mejia Arauz, 2006). Scholars have identified a range of talk patterns that build on IRE, such as I-R-F-R-F-and I-R-Q-R-A (Mortimer & Scott, 2003;Rees & Roth, 2019). Building on this past work in identifying talk patterns, we have identified and characterized a novel talk pattern that is characteristic of surfacing and clarifying ideas: the PPCR sequence.…”