Learning-to-Talk Science and
Talking-to-Learn Science
Larry D. Yore
University of Victoria
Kaohsiung, Taiwan
February 22, 2005
Contemporary Science Literacy:
Interacting Components (Yore, 2000)
Abilities, Thinking, and Habits of Mind to
Construct Disciplinary Understanding
Communications to Inform and Persuade
Big Ideas/Unifying Concepts
Students need to orally present and to follow oral
directions, state purpose for the stepwise
procedures, and produce compelling arguments,
sound causal explanations, or clear descriptions
2
Oral Language in Science
(Lemke in Saul, 2004; Yore in Saul, 2004)
Oral language in science is different than everyday
language — The 3–Language Problem: ‘theory’ has a
specific meaning at home, at school, and in science.
Oral language is necessary, but not sufficient, to do
science that:
Stresses abstract concepts, models, and theories
Requires accurate descriptions, complex procedures, causeeffect explanations, and compelling arguments
Promotes ownership, documents intellectual properties, and
communicates across distance and time
Supplies permanent records
3
Modern View of Science:
Naïve Realist Ontology and
Evaluativist Epistemology
(Yore in Saul, 2004; Yore, Hand, & Florence, 2004)
Science knowledge is a temporary
explanation that best fits the existing
evidence, established knowledge, and
current thinking about reality as we
know it.
4
Modern View of Science (continued)
Science knowledge claims are open to
repeated public evaluation.
Language is not a exact transcription of scientific
inquiry — Science reports are not records of actual
actions.
Language shapes as well as reports science ideas —
Scientists use metaphors to capture their mental
images and the metaphor starts to influence their
thinking.
Language must reflect the tentative and temporary
nature of science claims — Science does not ‘prove’; it
only rejects or supports hypotheses.
5
Most Students are Science
Language Learners (SSL)
The 3–Language Problem: Home language
(L1), school language (L2), and science
language (L3) frequently do not match. (Gee in
Saul, 2004)
Instruction needs to associate experience and
language.
Instruction must start with the student’s
home language and move toward the
languages of instruction and science.
6
SSL & 3L (continued)
Anchoring science ideas in students’ home
language terms engages students and respects
their backgrounds.
Instruction must not leave students believing their
home language terms are representative of
scientific terminology.
As students acquire science language they may
lose their home language.
7
Oral Discourse in the
Constructivist Approach: Learning
Cycle (Shymansky, Yore, & Anderson, 2004)
Engage — Access, assess, and challenge learners’
prior knowledge
Explore — Allow opportunities for learners to
investigate the target concepts with hands-on, visual,
and language experiences
Consolidate — Scaffold the learners’ interpretations
of the experiences and connect to the established
understandings
Assess — Document learners’ ideas in all parts of the
cycle to facilitate and evaluate learning
8
Learning Matrix
Meaningful
Level of
Learning
Rote
Drill
Debate
Process of Learning
9
Oral Language Promotes Cognitive
Symbiosis Between Fundamental and
Derived Senses of Science Literacy (1)
Learning to talk/argue and
talking/arguing to learn
Little meaningful oral discourse occurs
in most science classrooms:
Most oral discourse in classrooms does not
reflect scientific discourse
It is social, not focused and purposeful
10
Oral Language Promotes Cognitive
Symbiosis Between Fundamental and
Derived Senses of Science Literacy (2)
Patterns of Verbal Interactions
1964; Shymansky, 1978)
(Flanders,
Traditional Science Lesson
• One-way: lecture
• Two-way and uni-directional: teacher to
student (t-s)
Inquiry Science Lesson
• Two-way and multi-directional: t-s, s-t, s-s
11
Talking Science: Oral Discourse
and Concrete Experiences
(Wellington & Osborne, 2001)
Student talk must be associated with sensory
experiences to ensure vocabulary development.
Rich oral discussions within and between student
groups encourage consideration of alternative
interpretations and causality.
Oral language should inform, persuade, and help
construct science knowledge:
Argument and Debate
Discuss Alternatives and Promote Learning
Reveal Relationships among Experiences
Consolidate and Integrate Learning
12
Oral Discourse and Classroom
Questioning
Teacher questioning needs to reflect the
phase and purpose of inquiry
Wait-time: 3 seconds among question, response,
and further questions (Rowe, 1996)
Use specific types of questions for specific
purposes
Chained Questions: Response and rationale
Debating Science, Technology, Society, and
Environment Issues
Argumentation: The process of argument
13
Classroom Questioning:
Matching Strategic Purpose (1)
Engage Phase: Question sequence accesses prior
knowledge, motivates, challenges existing ideas, and
establishes problem focus for investigation (Gilbert,
1992)
Lower-level: Recall, translation, elaboration
Questions that relate to students’ interest and lives
Higher-level: Application, synthesis, evaluation
• These questions focus on how, where, and epistemic
justification
• One or more questions will not be ‘answerable’ at this time
• One or more questions need to be researchable
• One or more questions will serve as the focus for the inquiry
• An investigation will be planned to investigate one or more of
these questions
14
Classroom Questioning:
Matching Strategic Purpose (2)
Explore Phase: Use ‘productive questions’ that match
the small groups’ actions, concerns, and inquiry
(Martens, 1999)
Attention-Focusing: Draw students’ attention to significant
details
Measuring and Counting: Encourage students to be more
precise about their observations
Comparison: Encourage students to analyze and classify
Action: Encourage students to make predictions or
observations based on events
Problem-Posing: Assist students to plan and implement
solutions to problems
Reasoning Questions: Encourage students to think about
experiences and help them make sense of these experiences
15
Attention-Focusing Questions (2a)
Draw students’ attention to significant
details
Have you seen … ?
What have you noticed about … ?
What are they doing?
What does it feel/smell/look like?
16
Measuring and Counting
Questions (2b)
Encourage students to be more precise
about their observations
How
How
How
How
many … ?
often … ?
long … ?
much … ?
17
Comparison Questions (2c)
Encourage students to analyze and
classify: Compare and contrast
reflections
How are these the same or different … ?
How do they go together … ?
18
Action Questions (2d)
Encourage students to make predictions
or observations based on events
What do you expect to happen?
What would happen if you changed this?
What if … ?
19
Problem-Posing Questions (2e)
Assist students to find problems, state
researchable questions, and plan and
implement solutions to problems
What is a central problem in this issue?
Can this question be tested?
What would you manipulate, and what would you
observe?
Can you find a way to … ?
Can you figure out how to … ?
20
Reasoning Questions (2f)
Encourage students to think about
experiences and help them make sense
of these experiences and potential
causality.
Why do you think … ?
What is your reason for … ?
Can you invent a rule for … ?
What have you noticed about … when you
do this?
21
Classroom Questioning:
Matching Strategic Purpose (3)
Consolidation Phase: Chained series of teacher’s/
students’ questions should promote knowledge
construction, justification of claims with evidence,
explanation based on theoretical foundations, etc.
(Penick, Crow, & Bonnstetter, 1996)
Questioning and question sequence should consider:
Sharing experiences and data
Organizing and interpreting data
Alternative interpretations
Chained interpretation, rationales, and justification for
interpretations between two or more students
Application of new ideas to relevant issues
Integration of new ideas into prior conceptual networks
(conceptual growth or conceptual change)
22
References for Oral Discourse
and Classroom Questioning (1)
Flanders, N. A. (1964). Some relationships among
teacher influence, pupil attitudes, and achievement.
In B. J. Biddle & W. J. Ellons (Eds.), Contemporary
research on teacher effectiveness (pp. 196-231). New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gilbert, S. W. (1992). Systematic questioning. Science
Teacher, 59(December), 41-46.
Latham, A. (1997). Asking students the right
questions. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 84-85.
Martens, M. L. (1999). Productive questions: Tools for
supporting constructivist learning. Science and
Children, 36(8), 24-27 & 53.
23
References for Oral Discourse
and Classroom Questioning (2)
Maxim, G. (1997). When to answer the question
‘why?’. Science and Children, 35(3), 41-45.
Otto, P. B. (1991). Finding an answer in questioning
strategies. Science and Children, 28(7), 44-47.
Penick, J. E., Crow, L. W., & Bonnstetter, R. J. (1996).
Questions are the answers. Science Teacher, 63(1),
26-29.
Rowe, M. B. (1996). Science, silence, and sanctions.
Science and Children, 34(1), 35-38.
24
References for Oral Discourse
and Classroom Questioning (3)
Schielack, J. F., Chancellor, D., & Childs, K. (2000).
Designing questions to encourage children’s
mathematical thinking. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 6, 398-402.
Shymansky, J. A. (1978). Assessing teacher
performance in the classroom: Pattern analysis
applied to interaction data. Studies in Education
Evaluation, 4, 99-106.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and
literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open
University Press.
25
Debates and Arguments Involving
Science, Technology, Society and
Environment Issues (STSE)
(Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003)
STSE issues provide ill-structured problems,
multiple solutions, and rich contemporary
contexts
STSE issues involve trade-off among science,
technology, and societal values
Apply authentic debating procedures
King’s College London Project (Osborne, Erduran, &
Simon, 2004)
26
Scientific Arguments
(Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004)
Elements of Argumentation
Claims
Evidence
Warrants
Backings
Counter-claims
Qualifications
Rebuttals
27
Classic Pattern of Argumentation
(Toulmin, 1958)
Evidence
Claims
Warrants
Backings
28
Example of a Classic Argument
(Yore, et al., 2004)
Examination of
SARS patients
and healthy people
SARS
Caused by
a virus
Warrant 1: A unique virus (corona) was isolated by UVic
and UBC scientists.
Warrant 2: SARS patients’ blood and body fluids contain
the virus.
Backing 1: Established knowledge about respiratory
diseases
Backing 2: Influenza is caused by a virus, not bacteria.
29
Extended Pattern of
Argumentation (Toulmin, 1958)
Evidence
Qualifiers and
Counter-claims
Warrants
Claims
Rebuttal
Backings
30
Example of an Extended
Argument (Yore, et al., 2004)
Examination of:
AIDS and
healthy
patients
HIV in
some
people
HIV was found
in all AIDS
patients and some
healthy patients
HIV
causes
AIDS
People
with weak
immune
systems
31
Other Oral Language Tasks
Group-Generated Concept Maps
Structured Controversy: Debate,
Evaluate, Debate, and Draw Consensus
(Johnson & Johnson, 1985)
Jig-Saw Projects (Cooperative
Learning): Distributed expertise
32
Concept Mapping (Novak & Gowin, 1984)
33
Group-Generated Concept Maps
Use large (5 by 8) and small index cards (3 by 5),
masking tape, and string
Have small groups of 3-4 students develop a concept
map about a controversial topic
Nature of science
Global warming
Write the concepts on the large cards and the
connecting relationship words on the small cards
Use the string and masking tape to show connections
to produce propositions (2 concepts connected with a
relationship word) and cross-links between concept
clusters
34
Group-Generated Concept Maps
using ICT software
Use Kidspiration (kidspiration.com) or
Inspiration (inspiration.com) to
develop and share concept maps
These software programs are available
on free short-term trial.
They allow elementary, secondary, and
university students to create concept
maps and other graphic organizers.
35
Structured Controversy of STSE
Issues — Sequential Debates
Debate STSE issue: Pro (for) or Con
(against) positions
Analyze opponents’ presentation
Switch positions
Debate STSE issue again from the
opposite position
Develop a consensus or collective
position for the class on the STSE issue
36
Jig-Saw Cooperative Learning
Approach
Home Groups
Expert Groups
37
Jig-Saw Approach for Simple
Harmonic Oscillators (1)
Class is divided into groups of 3
students (Home group)
Students in each ‘Home’ group are
assigned one of three investigations
Effect of pendulum length on frequency
Effect of pendulum mass on frequency
Effect of mass on the frequency of a spring
oscillator
38
Jig-Saw Approach for Simple
Harmonic Oscillators (2)
Three students doing the same investigation
form into ‘Expert’ group to do the investigation
and become knowledgeable about the
procedures and outcomes
‘Expert’ students return to their ‘Home’ group to
demonstrate and explain their investigation to
the other 3 non-expert students on that topic.
The other ‘Experts’ do the same for their
investigation
The ‘Home’ group discusses ideas and constructs
a composite understanding about simple
harmonic oscillators (pendulums and springs) 39
References
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1985). Using structured
controversy in science classrooms. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.),
Science technology society: 1985 yearbook of the National
Science Teachers Association (pp. 228-234), Washington,
DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its
fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science
Education, 87, 224-240.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, B. D. (1984). Learning how to
learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing
the quality of argumentation in school science, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
40
References (continued)
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). How to improve student
learning: 30 practical ideas. Dillon Beach, CA: The
Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Saul, E. W. (Ed.) (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and
science instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association/National Science Teachers Association.
Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Anderson, J. O. (2004).
Impact of a school district’s science reform effort on the
achievement and attitudes of third- and fourth-grade
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41,
771-790.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
41