“SCIENCE TALK”: A WINDOW INTO STUDENTS’ THINKING IN SCIENCE

1. “SCIENCE TALK”: A WINDOW INTO STUDENTS’ THINKING IN SCIENCE

2. FLOW OF PRESENTATION • Background • Rationale • Science Talk • Implementation • Results • Discussion • Conclusion • Recommendations • Q & A

3. BACKGROUND • Inquiry is adopted as the key pedagogy in the teaching and learning of science. • Teachers use the the Primary Science Inquiry Package (PSIP). • The BSCS 5E instructional model is used in facilitating the inquiry process. • The inquiry process is largely guided by the teacher.

4. RATIONALE • Pupils used colloquial language when communicating science concepts. • Pupils lacked answering skills and scientific language to explain concepts accurately and adequately.

5. RATIONALE “Increasingly, there has been an urge for more emphasis on ‘science as argument and explanation’ and less on ‘science as exploration and experiment” (Kawalkar A & Vijapurkar J, 2011; Abell, Anderson, & Chezem, 2000; National Research Council, 1996, 2000)

6. SCIENCE TALK • Provides opportunities for formative assessment. • Develops 21st century competencies, • Improves scientific literacy, and

7. SCIENCE TALK Talk Science + Dialogue Communicating in Scientific Language

8. MODEL OF GOOD EXPLANATION (Hartman, M 2007 & Wood, 1976)

9. PROCESS OF CONCEPTUAL CHANGE Critical Event: “A pivotal case is an example that teachers can use to pivot or shift students’ thinking from a less-productive idea to a more-productive one.” (Hartman, M 2007 & Wood, 1976)

10. PROCESS OF CONCEPTUAL CHANGE Critique Stage: Confronting Doubts “Once a dissatisfaction with previously held ideas is achieved, a new idea that is intelligible, plausible and fruitful must be available” Clough & Kruse 2010, Posner. (1983)

11. EFFECTIVE DEBUNKING Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook.

12. RESEARCH QUESTION “Does Science Talk with questioning technique and critical event improve pupils’ mean test score for the topic on heat?”

13. IMPLEMENTATION

14. IMPLEMENTATION • Primary 4 mixed ability pupils • (control group (N=36), experimental • group (N=33)) • Pre-test items were based on common misconceptions on Heat. • Same items were used for both pre- and post-test.

15. IMPLEMENTATION • Pupils’ conceptual understanding was reflected as the mean score of test obtained by the control group and experimental group.

16. IMPLEMENTATION • Lessons from PSIP (Heat) were adapted. * A questioning framework was provided for Science Talk.

17. RESULTS • Paired T-test Control Group Experimental Group

18. RESULTS • Independent T-test

19. RESULTS • Paired T-test showed both groups demonstrating significant difference in pre-and post-tests results. • Independent T-test showed that both methods were effective, hence no one method is better than the other.

20. DISCUSSION • Pupils have gained key concepts and skills on the topic, Heat, with both approaches, fundamentally delivered by the 5E Inquiry approach.

24. DISCUSSION • Teacher facilitation through “Science Talk” also provided a collaborative learning platform for pupils to use appropriate Science language in clarifying and answering the questions posed by the teacher.

25. DISCUSSION • Despite their different progressing levels, the majority of pupils were engaged in the lessons.

26. DISCUSSION • Teacher’s competency in both the control and experimental groups enabled lesson delivery to be effective. • Administering the same test items for both pre- and post-test minimised the variance in results.

27. DISCUSSION • “Science Talk” requires an open classroom culture where pupils are not inhibited to pose incorrect questions or answering incorrectly. • Teachers’ roles as facilitators in an inquiry-based learning classroom cannot be emphasised more.

28. DISCUSSION • Importance of effective facilitation and modelling of questioning and critiquing in a Science Talk inquiry-based lesson. • Pupil readiness for an open and inquiry-based lesson.

29. DISCUSSION • The questions structured into the lesson plans allowed for sufficient scaffolding in developing the key concepts. • However, the flow of the lesson was dynamic. It required a skilful teacher to bring the discussion back to focus and to constantly encourage pupils to use the correct science language.

30. CONCLUSION • Result did not show that Science Talk works better. • Time needed to cultivate a culture of Science Talk in the classroom.

31. RECOMMENDATIONS • Leveraging ICT to capture pupils’ conceptual understanding during Science Talk • Inclusion of an error analysis of pupils’ responses in both pre- and post-tests

32. RECOMMENDATIONS • Making the shift from a teacher-facilitated Science Talk to pupil-led Science Talk with the provision of a framework for pupils’ questioning and critiquing

33. REFERENCES • Hartman, M. (2007). Teacher Research Chapter 4 Understanding Condensation, Arlington, VA : NSTA Press. • Hewitt, E. (2012). Emerging Thoughts on an Approach to Engaging Pupils in Effective Group Talk in Science. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education,3–13.

34. REFERENCES • KawalkarA & Vijapurkar J, 2011; Abell, Anderson, & Chezem, 2000; National Research Council, 1996, 2000 . Scaffolding Science Talk: The role of teachers' questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35:12.

35. REFERENCES • Kruse, J. & Clough, M. P. (2010). Confronting Doubts about the Intelligibility, Plausibility and Fruitfulness of Inquiry-based Instruction. International Science Teacher Journal (ISTJ), 37 (3). • Yip, D. Y. (2010). Questioning Skills for Conceptual Change in Science Instruction. Journal of Biological Education, 38:2, 76–83.

36. ACKNOWLEGEMENTS • NZ Cluster Superintendents • Dr Ho Boon Tiong (Consultant) • School Leaders

37. Thank You