Developing science teachers’ language awareness to enhance the teaching of disciplinary literacy: A study of teachers’ lesson enactments through the lens of adaptive expertise
Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Developing scientific argumentation skills in pre-service chemistry teachers
The discipline of science is characterized by the evaluation of knowledge claims that are supported by available evidences. As such, one of the key attributes of a scientist is the ability to discern relevant and orthodoxy evidence from those that are irrelevant and outdated, and use these evidences to construct coherent arguments (Osborne, 2010). Translating this characteristic practice of science into science teaching in schools means that a learner of science must also be able to construct plausible and relevant arguments from available evidences in learning science concepts. This has important implications for science teacher educators as there is now a need to teach and equip pre-service teachers with skills, knowledge and strategies to teach their prospective students in schools how to make sense of evidences and how to construct coherent arguments and at the same time, learn the contents of science (Newton, Driver,& Osborne, 1999).
The nature of science and paradigm shift in science teacher education asserts that argumentation should be central in science education. The paradigm shift referred to here is the need to move our attention from focusing on acquisition of content knowledge to understanding and appreciating the process by which scientific knowledge is formed. As such, we argue here that argumentation is one of the key scientific practices to enable this change to take place and hence, to enable learners of science to learn science in an authentic manner, science teachers need to know how to position the content that they are teaching in a manner that will open up a space for students to discuss and argue. Yet, in reality, the opportunity for students to engage in argumentation discourse is rarely seen in science classroom practice (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Roth, et al., 2006). Thus, we argue that if cultivating students’ involvement in the practice of argumentation is a goal to achieve, then the current culture of science classrooms, which is largely dominated by didactic monologues from the teacher, must be altered. Current research indicates that the teacher plays a fundamental role in any reform effort because curriculum implementation and classroom instruction are often shaped by them (Bybee, 1993; Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner, 2007; Sampson & Blanchard, 2012). As such, one of the key platforms to advocate and promote this kind of curricular and pedagogical reform is through initial teacher education programs.
To facilitate the change process, we need to understand what pre-service teachers know about scientific argumentation and to what extent they value its role in the teaching and learning of science. Current research that focusses on pre-service teachers’ perceptions and ideas about science as a form of inquiry highlighted the difficulties they faced in enacting science as inquiry in classroom (e.g., Biggers & Forbes, 2012; Crawford, 2007; Davis, Petish, & Smithey, 2006; Haefner & Zembal-Saul, 2004). The similarity between practice of science as inquiry and argumentation is likely to be due to the fact that argumentation is a prerequisite skill for learners of science to be engaged in science as inquiry. Despite the wealth of research into practices of science as inquiry, few studies in inquiry classroom examine the embedded argumentation explicitly. By embedded argumentation, we refer to the nature of the tasks that inherently has tenets that are debatable. These would generally be scientific theories and ideas that scientists are still seeking evidences for. The only difference between embedded argumentation and argumentation that stems from socioscientific issues is the reliance of embedded argumentation on empirical evidence rather than affective perspective. There is hence limited research on how pre-service teachers participate in argumentation as well as explore on their knowledge and views of the use of argumentation (Kaya, 2013; Ozdem, Ertepinar, Cakiroglu, & Erduran, 2013; Sadler, 2006). As early as the late 1990s, researchers such as Newton, Driver, and Osborne (1999) were already arguing that argumentation should form part of the pedagogical repertoire of science teachers and hence their knowledge in this area should be developed. McNeil and Knight (2013), in their study of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in argumentation highlighted that in-service teachers faced challenges with understanding the structural and dialogic characteristics of argumentation. They also struggled with designing tasks that are argumentation-centric. As such, research into the development of argumentation skills is important not only for students learning science in schools, but also for teachers, both in-service as well as pre-service, engaged in teaching science.
“But I have not started teaching!”: Knowledge building perils
Scardamalia (2002) discussed the knowledge building notion as one which is built on social cognitive principles of learning. She proposed 12 principles focusing on collaborative knowing among students gearing toward building a community of learners in classrooms. However, how teachers become the key mediator for fostering knowledge building in classrooms is not fully explored. This study aims to contribute to the knowledge building research in terms of teacher professional development. Set in Singapore, where the dominant pedagogy is teacher centred and routinised (Luke, Cazden, Lin & Freebody 2005), this paper examines the journey taken by two biology teachers trying to reform their classrooms by incorporating knowledge building principles. In one of our email exchanges with a teacher, she was exasperated with her attempt to bring knowledge building into her classroom. After a few sessions, she exclaimed “But I have not started teaching!” This prompted us to seek answers to the research question “What are the factors that will impact knowledge building efforts in a Singapore science classroom?” Interviews and transcript analysis of classroom lessons are used as data and interpretive methods of data analysis are used in this paper. The beliefs of the teachers are elicited through a semi-structured interview which takes the form of a post-lesson dialogue in this paper. The results of this study revealed three key areas of concern in adopting knowledge building principles, namely, renegotiation of institutional authority, changing beliefs about teaching, and learning and building students’ capacity for epistemic agency. In order for teachers to transform their practices in the classroom, there needs to be a structured and concerted understanding of these factors.
Assessing students’ learning of primary science in the multicultural context of Singapore: Considerations influencing task selection for formative assessment
This research reports the considerations influencing task selection for formative assessment among 30 primary school science teachers. Education and assessment are high stake enterprises in this multicultural city-state of Singapore. The 39 participants were chosen through random sampling from six primary schools located at different parts of Singapore. The participants responded to an instrument comprising of activities on the concepts of electrical circuits and conductors. The activities, set in different contexts but based on the same learning outcomes, were presented to the participants as possible tasks to assess students' learning. The participants’ responses to the questions were analysed. The findings revealed that the teachers prioritised students' abilities and their learning over and above other factors. The writers argued that the teachers' focus on students’ abilities may work against the current initiative of inquiry approach towards teaching and learning. While studies on teachers' conceptions on assessment have been undertaken, the contribution of this paper lies in illuminating influences on the implementation of formative assessment in Singapore primary science classrooms.
Transforming science practical pedagogy and practice through innovative departmental planning
"The study investigated the adoption and management of change relating to the teaching, learning and assessment of science practical skills within the science department of a secondary school in Singapore. The intended outcomes of the study featured the development of pedagogy and practices leading to the production of a departmental scheme of work incorporating Science Practical Assessment (SPA) skills. The research also supported a SPA-related professional development community that allowed teachers to share ideas and coach one another during an extensive intervention stage. The teachers involved in the project were also encouraged to reflect on and self-assess their learning as they taught in the laboratory." -- abstract.
Developing science teachers’ language awareness to enhance the teaching of disciplinary literacy: A study of teachers’ lesson enactments through the lens of adaptive expertise
Giving students a voice in science practical assessments
This paper examines Science Practical Assessment (SPA) in the Singaporean classroom. In contrast to teacher-centric task setting and evaluation, this paper reports findings from a study where a class of students were involved in their own assessments mediated by digital video. Students were recorded during practical work and were then asked to review and edit the footage. Next, they evaluated their own and their classmates’ practical skills. These evaluations, scaffolded with a template and facilitated by the teacher, aimed to give the students a voice in presenting what they thought made ‘good’ science practical skills and practices in the laboratory. They also served as a platform for peer learning and provided a means for the students to be involved in discussing science and science practical skills. Results of this study reveal that students’ awareness of acceptable laboratory practices is enhanced through this innovative method of evaluating science practical work.
Analyzing CSCL-mediated science argumentation: how different methods matter
Research on argumentation has increased our understanding of knowledge construction, group learning, and scaffolding structures in CSCL although analyses of argumentation pose many difficulties. This could be due to the many theoretical positions that can be taken when approaching discourse data. In this paper, we use three popular analytic methods (interactional, content-specific, and linguistic) to compare the same fragment of scientific argumentation by Grade 4 children in Singapore. We show the complementary emphases and strengths of each disciplinary position as well as their weaknesses. The results imply that analytic methods arising from different disciplinary positions can potentially broaden our overall understanding of using argumentation in CSCL.