Secondary science teachers’ use of discourse moves to work with student ideas in classroom discussions

Abstract

We investigated 10 secondary science teachers' facilitation of classroom discussions to examine how they went beyond eliciting student ideas to working with student ideas to support sensemaking. We qualitatively analysed video records of instruction and focussed our analysis on discussions stemming from formative assessments embedded in learning progressionbased curricular units. We found that discussions could be placed on a quality continuum from recitation, to emergent, to transitional, to productive based on the degree to which teachers went beyond eliciting student ideas. We also found that discussion quality reflected the type and distribution of discourse moves teachers employed. In the highest quality (or productive) discussions, teachers used a concerted array of discourse moves to elicit, mark, and build on student ideas, including pressing students for reasoning, highlighting similarities and differences among the ideas and reasonings presented, and connecting student ideas to the learning progression. Teachers used these discourse moves relatively evenly throughout productive discussions. This study contributes to the growing body of literature on ways teachers can effectively support student sensemaking. It illustrates how science teachers' use of discourse moves can shape the quality of discussions and points to the potential of learning progressions as a tool to facilitate productive discussions.

Eliciting and working with student thinking: Preservice science teachers' enactment of core practices when orchestrating collaborative group work

“…By eliciting students' thinking, we mean that teachers probe students' initial ideas, partial understandings, and everyday experiences (Windschitl et al, 2020) using various methods, such as formal written tasks or verbal questions formulated during the lesson (Ruiz‐Primo, 2011), to make their thinking visible in some form. Teachers work with student thinking to advance it by further probing, developing, reshaping, and responding to it (Carpenter et al, 2020; Chan & Yau, 2021; Lam & Chan, 2020; Windschitl et al, 2011). To achieve this goal, in this article, we first review the existing literature along two lines of research—studies on collaborative group work and studies related to teachers' elicitation and use of student thinking.…”

“…This emphasis parallels the increasing number of studies that analyze student–teacher interactions in situ to identify the distinctive teaching or talk moves that experienced science teachers use in the moments of teaching as they elicit and work with student thinking. These studies have been in the context of classroom discourse (e.g., Bansal, 2018; Benedict‐Chambers et al, 2017; Chin, 2006; Tytler & Aranda, 2015), ambitious/responsive science teaching (e.g., Colley & Windschitl, 2016; Lineback, 2015; Tekkumru‐Kisa, Stein, & Coker, 2018), or formative assessment (e.g., Carpenter et al, 2020; Dini et al, 2020; Furtak et al, 2018). For example, Carpenter et al (2020) analyzed 22 whole‐class discussion episodes to investigate how 10 science teachers worked with student ideas.…”

“…These studies have been in the context of classroom discourse (e.g., Bansal, 2018; Benedict‐Chambers et al, 2017; Chin, 2006; Tytler & Aranda, 2015), ambitious/responsive science teaching (e.g., Colley & Windschitl, 2016; Lineback, 2015; Tekkumru‐Kisa, Stein, & Coker, 2018), or formative assessment (e.g., Carpenter et al, 2020; Dini et al, 2020; Furtak et al, 2018). For example, Carpenter et al (2020) analyzed 22 whole‐class discussion episodes to investigate how 10 science teachers worked with student ideas. They reported that the discussions were of varying quality in terms of going beyond eliciting student thinking.…”

“…When enacting this core practice, teachers purposefully elicit and make visible their students' content‐specific thinking and they use that information to direct instruction on a moment‐to‐moment basis (Chan & Yau, 2021; Gotwals & Birmingham, 2016; Kloser, 2014; Lam & Chan, 2020; Robertson et al, 2015). Though not explicitly identified as such, many recent studies have investigated how preservice/in‐service science teachers enact this core practice by analyzing teacher–student interactions during the teachers' orchestration of classroom discourse (e.g., Bansal, 2018; Carpenter et al, 2020; Chin, 2006; Colley & Windschitl, 2016; Gotwals & Birmingham, 2016; Lineback, 2015). These studies are valuable because they delineate several teaching practices (e.g., teaching moves and talk moves) that science teachers may use to elicit and work with student thinking in their moment‐to‐moment classroom interactions.…”

Opportunities for sensemaking in science for students with disabilities and students experiencing difficulty: a mixed methods study

“…Research suggests that the type of instruction where students are solicited to participate, high-level solicitations are used, and student ideas are responded to in a nonevaluative way that further pushes thinking is taking place in science classrooms with students (see Carpenter et al, 2020). However, what is unknown is whether SWD&D are receiving opportunities to participate equitably in this type of instruction in the general education science classroom.…”