Enhancing dialogic argumentation in mathematics and science

Title: Enhancing dialogic argumentation in mathematics and science
Source document: Studia paedagogica. 2017, vol. 22, iss. 4, pp. [55]-76
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type: Article
License: Not specified license

Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.

This paper reports on a teacher professional development (PD) programme addressing dialogic argumentation in mathematics and science classrooms. While argumentation skills are becoming more and more important in an increasingly polarised society, the social aspect of argumentation is often neglected in secondary education. Moreover, it is agreed that genuine argumentation requires time and space in classroom dialogue. There have been calls for research delving into how teachers could be familiarised with dialogic argumentation so that they could foster such dialogue in students. The described PD programme features versatile and continuous cooperation between scholars and participating teachers. The scholars are offering educational science’s latest knowledge to schools while the teachers are ensuring that it is implemented in a successful and sensible manner. Monthly recorded lessons related to the programme take place in three phases: pre-active (planning), interactive (teaching), and post-active (evaluating and reflecting). Six teachers, teaching both mathematics and physics at lower-secondary schools, are involved in the two-year programme. In addition to discussing our PD programme, we present preliminary results on the initial status of all six teachers and the development of two case teachers. Analysis of lesson videos and teacher reflections has revealed varying starting points for teachers' PD and dialogic argumentation, especially when it comes to teacher awareness. The implications for pre- and in-service teacher education are also discussed.
This work has been funded by the Academy of Finland (project number 286576) and the Finnish Cultural Foundation (fund number 00160353).
[1] Abell, S. K. (Ed.). (2000). Science teacher education: An international perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

[2] Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students' questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174–193.

[3] Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching (3rd ed.). York: Dialogos.

[4] Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

[5] Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education: Introduction and review ZDM, 47(7), 1047–1065. | DOI 10.1007/s11858-015-0738-8

[6] Berland, L. (2011). Explaining variations in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 625–664. | DOI 10.1080/10508406.2011.591718

[7] Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20402

[8] Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436. | DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.012

[9] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–81. | DOI 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

[10] Carneiro, R. (2007). The big picture: Understanding learning and meta-learning challenges European Journal of Education, 42(2), 151–172. | DOI 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00303.x

[11] Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843. | DOI 10.1002/tea.20171

[12] Chval, K., Abell, S., Pareja, E., Musikul, K., & Ritzka, G. (2008). Science and mathematics teachers' experiences, needs, and expectations regarding professional development Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 31–43. | DOI 10.12973/ejmste/75304

[13] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

[14] Conner, A. M., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students' engagement in mathematical activities Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(3), 401–429. | DOI 10.1007/s10649-014-9532-8

[15] Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. | DOI 10.3102/0013189X08331140

[16] Essien, A. A. (2017). Dialogic and argumentation structures in one quadratic inequalities lesson. In J. Adler & A. Sfard (Eds.), Research for educational change: Transforming researchers' insights into improvement in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 82–99). London: Routledge.

[17] Helleve, I. (2009). Theoretical foundations of teachers' professional development. In J. O. Lindberg & A. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher professional development: Methods for improved education delivery (pp. 1–19). Hershey: IGI Global Information Science Reference.

[18] Kiemer, K., Gröshner, A., Pehmer, A.-K., & Seidel, T. (2015). Effects of a classroom discourse intervention on teachers' practice and students' motivation to learn mathematics and science Learning and Instruction, 35, 94–103. | DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.003

[19] Lehesvuori, S. (2013). Towards dialogic teaching in science: Challenging classroom realities through teacher education. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

[20] Lehesvuori, S., Ramnarain, U., & Viiri, J. (2017). Challenging transmission modes of teaching in science classrooms: Enhancing learner-centredness through dialogicity Research in Science Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9598-7 | DOI 10.1007/s11165-016-9598-7

[21] Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2011). Introducing dialogic teaching to science student teachers Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(8), 705–727. | DOI 10.1007/s10972-011-9253-0

[22] Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Moate, J., & Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher-led whole class discussions Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 912–939. | DOI 10.1002/tea.21100

[23] Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company.

[24] Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

[25] Loughran, J. J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370–391. | DOI 10.1002/tea.20007

[26] Marrades, R., & Gutiérrez, A. (2001). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–3), 87–125. | DOI 10.1023/A:1012785106627

[27] McNeill, K. L., Pimentel, D. S., & Strauss, E. G. (2013). The impact of high school science teachers' beliefs, curricular enactments, and experience on student learning during an inquiry-based urban ecology curriculum International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2608–2644. | DOI 10.1080/09500693.2011.618193

[28] Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.

[29] Mercer, N. (2009). Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 177–194). Berlin: Springer.

[30] Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369. | DOI 10.1080/09500780902954273

[31] Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297. | DOI 10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1

[32] Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in science classrooms. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

[33] O'Brien, J. (1993). Action research through stimulated recall Research in Science Education, 23(1), 214–221. | DOI 10.1007/BF02357063

[34] Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. | DOI 10.1002/tea.20035

[35] Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, C. (2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In R. Sternberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), From genes to context: New discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications (pp. 163–194). New York: Springer.

[36] Roth, W.-M. (2014). Science language Wanted Alive: Through the dialectical/dialogical lens of Vygotsky and the Bakhtin circle Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(8), 1049–1083. | DOI 10.1002/tea.21158

[37] Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: Striking a balance between 'opening up' and 'closing down' classroom talk. School Science Review, 88(324), 77–83.

[38] Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., & Svaricek, R. (2016). Teacher professional development as a means of transforming student classroom talk Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 14–25. | DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.005

[39] Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260. | DOI 10.1080/09500690500336957

[40] Smith, M. S. (2001). Practice-based professional development for teachers of mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

[41] Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[42] van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J. A., van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. C. (2012). Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: A review of design features and quality of research Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 129–160. | DOI 10.1080/03057267.2012.738020

[43] Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. | DOI 10.1080/00220272.2012.668938

[44] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[45] Watters, J. J. (2016). Engaging elementary students in learning science: An analysis of classroom dialogue Instructional Science, 44(1), 25–44. | DOI 10.1007/s11251-015-9364-7

[46] Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[47] Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 292–305. | DOI 10.1177/002248719104200407

[48] Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. | DOI 10.1002/tea.10008