AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Tobias E.L. Irish for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Science Education presented on August 30, 2012. Title: Argumentation and Equity in Inquiry-­‐Based Science Instruction: Reasoning Patterns of Teachers and Students Abstract approved: ____________________________________________________________ Nam-­‐Hwa Kang This multiple case study explores issues of equity in science education through an examination of how teachers’ reasoning patterns compare with students’ reasoning patterns during inquiry-­‐based lessons. It also examines the ways in which teachers utilize students’ cultural and linguistic resources, or funds of knowledge, during inquiry-­‐based lessons and the ways in which students utilize their funds of knowledge, during inquiry-­‐based lessons. Three middle school teachers and a total of 57 middle school students participated in this study. The data collection involved classroom observations and multiple interviews with each of the teachers individually and with small groups of students. The findings indicate that the students are capable of far more complex reasoning than what was elicited by the lessons observed or what was modeled and expected by the teachers, but that during the inquiry-­‐based lessons they conformed to the more simplistic reasoning patterns they perceived as the expected norm of classroom dialogue. The findings also indicate that the students possess funds of knowledge that are relevant to science topics, but very seldom use these funds in the context of their inquiry-­‐based lessons. In addition, the teachers in this study very seldom worked to elicit students’ use of their funds in these contexts. The few attempts they did make involved the use of analogies, examples, or questions. The findings from this study have implications for both teachers and teacher educators in that they highlight similarities and differences in reasoning that can help teachers establish instructional congruence and facilitate more equitable science instruction. They also provide insight into how students’ cultural and linguistic resources are utilized during inquiry-­‐based science lessons. ©Copyright by Tobias E.L. Irish August 30, 2012 All Rights Reserved Argumentation and Equity in Inquiry-­‐Based Science Instruction: Reasoning Patterns of Teachers and Students by Tobias E.L. Irish A DISSERTATION Submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Presented August 30, 2012 Commencement June 2013 Doctor of Philosophy dissertation of Tobias E.L. Irish presented on August 30, 2012. APPROVED: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Major Professor, representing Science Education _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics Education _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dean of the Graduate School I understand that my dissertation will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my dissertation to any reader upon request. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Tobias E.L. Irish, Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe a deep debt of gratitude to all of the professional colleagues, graduate students, personal friends, and family members who supported this study. Because of these individuals, this experience has been as rich as it has been rewarding. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Nam-­‐Hwa Kang, my advisor and mentor, for her insights and patience throughout this process. Through her guidance I have grown both personally and professionally. A special thanks is also due to Dr. Lynn Dierking, who not only provided crucial guidance at key parts of the study, but has also made me feel supported and appreciated since the moment we met. My other committee members, Dr. SueAnn Bottoms, Dr. Bill Hogsett, Dr. Greg Thompson, and for a time, Dr. Larry Flick, have also been overwhelmingly supportive over the last four years. I hope that I can someday live up to the examples they have provided both personally and professionally. I would also like to recognize the rest of the SMED community for their kindness, openness, and insights during my time as a graduate student at OSU. In particular I would like to thank Dr. Emily vanZee, Dr. Larry Enochs, Dr. John Falk, Dr. Rebecca Elliot, Dr. Shawn Rowe, and of course Paula Dungjen. Each of you have helped me aspire to new heights academically and have introduced me to a whole new world of possibilities in my career. I would also like to express my appreciation for my colleagues Michael, Chi-­‐
Chang Lui, Mike Furuto, Kristen Lessig, Matt Campbell, Nancy Staus, Henry Gillow-­‐
Wiles, Sissi Li, Jennifer Bachman, Becka Morgan, Teresa Wolfe, Laura Dover, Kathryn Stofer, Grant Smith, and Shawn Anderson. Without these amazing individuals, the last four years would not have been nearly as much fun. I hope to stay in touch with all of them for years to come. The teachers and students who participated in this study are also due some serious appreciation. Not only did they agree to work with me extensively, they stayed consistently engaged throughout the entire study. The students seemed to always have a positive attitude and were willing to answer any questions I had honestly and participate in any activities earnestly. The value of this to the study cannot be appreciated enough. The teachers that participated were each remarkable individuals. Not only do they do a very difficult job with amazing impact, they are also seriously committed to constantly improving their own practice. The value of these efforts in the contribution they provide to society is priceless, and at times, seemingly thankless. However, amidst the demands of this work, they were still willing to open their classrooms to me and to the examination of my research. Without this willingness, this study would not have been possible. My family and friends have also been indescribably supportive throughout this process. I love them and appreciate them, and I know they know this. Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, I would like to thank my wife, Amanda. She amazes me every day, and it is from her that I draw inspiration and strength. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................... 6 Sociocultural Perspective ............................................................................................ 6 The Social Nature of Learning and Development.............................................. 7 Social Artifacts.................................................................................................................. 10 Learning as a Cultural Process ................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review ............................................................................................... 17 Inquiry ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Inquiry and Argumentation .................................................................................................. 20 Equity in Science Education .................................................................................................. 23 Argumentation and Equity .................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER THREE: Materials and Methods ................................................................................ 36 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 36 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................ 38 Data on Students ........................................................................................................................ 39 Teacher 1: Alma .......................................................................................................................... 44 Teacher 2: Ben ............................................................................................................................. 46 Teacher 3: Cathy ......................................................................................................................... 48 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 49 Analysis of Argument Structures ......................................................................................... 51 Analysis of Argumentation Schemes ................................................................................. 54 Analysis of Funds of Knowledge .......................................................................................... 58 Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................................... 60
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER FOUR: Results ................................................................................................................... 62 Context-­‐Dependent Reasoning of Students .................................................................... 62 Similarities in Reasoning of Teachers and Students ................................................... 69 Common Appreciation for the Importance of Evidence ............................................ 72 Comparison of Argumentation Schemes Used .............................................................. 75 Differences in Reasoning ......................................................................................................... 78 Funds of Knowledge .................................................................................................................. 82 Teachers’ Attempts to Elicit Students’ Use of Funds .................................................. 83 Teachers’ Appreciation for the Importance of Eliciting Students’ Funds .......... 88 Students’ Use of Their Funds During the Lesson-­‐based Interviews ................... 91 Students’ Use of Their Funds During the Card Game Interviews .......................... 95 Factors Affecting Students’ Explicit Use of Their Funds ......................................... 100 Students’ Insights Into Their Use of Funds ................................................................... 104 Students’ Insights Into Their Teachers’ Attempts to Elicit Their Use of Funds ............................................................................................................................................. 107 CHAPTER FIVE: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 111 Similarities in Reasoning Patterns ................................................................................... 111 Differences in Reasoning Patterns ................................................................................... 115 Teachers’ Attempts to Elicit Students’ Use of Their Funds ................................... 121 Students’ Use of Their Funds of Knowledge ................................................................ 124 CHAPTER SIX: Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 130 Implications for Supporting Student Argumentation .............................................. 131 Implications For Use of Funds of Knowledge in Learning ..................................... 134
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 139 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... 148 Appendix A: Teacher Interview Protocol ...................................................................... 149 Appendix B: Student Interview Protocol ....................................................................... 151 Appendix C: Card Game Statements and Illustrations ............................................. 152 Appendix D: Funds of Knowledge Interview Protocol ............................................ 155 Appendix E: Coding Notes .................................................................................................... 156 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Schwarz et al.’s Framework (2003) ........................................................................................ 53 2. Case comparisons of the structure of student reasoning patterns during the lesson-­‐based interviews ............................................................................................................. 66 3. Case comparisons of the structure of student reasoning patterns during the Card game interviews ............................................................................................................................. 66 4. Combined case comparison of the structure of student reasoning patterns across interview contexts .............................................................................................................................. 68 5. Combined case comparison of the argumentation schemes used in each interview context ................................................................................................................................................ 69 6. Case comparisons of the structure of teacher reasoning patterns during the inquiry-­‐based lessons .................................................................................................................. 70 7. Combined case comparison of the structure of teachers’ reasoning patterns and the structure of the student’s reasoning patterns during the lesson-­‐based interviews ......................................................................................................................................... 71 8. Case comparisons of the argumentation schemes of the teachers’ reasoning patterns ............................................................................................................................................. 77 9. Combined case comparison of the structure of teachers’ reasoning patterns and the structure of the student’s reasoning patterns during the card game interviews ........................................................................................................................................ 78 10. Comparison of the number of times the students made reference to their funds of knowledge in the different interview contexts ........................................................ 96 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Student demographics from each of the two participating schools ........................ 38 2. Card game statements ................................................................................................................. 42 3. Duschl’s Original Adaptation of Walton’s Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning (Duschl, 2008) ............................................................................................................................... 55 4. Duschl’s Condensed Adaptation of Walton’s Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning (Duschl, 2008) ........................................................................................................ 57 5. Examples of the types of funds of knowledge possessed by students .................. 59 Argumentation and Equity in Inquiry-­‐Based Science Instruction: Reasoning Patterns of Teachers and Students Chapter One: Introduction The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993) present a vision of learning and teaching science in which all students have the opportunity to become scientifically literate. They assert, under principles of equity and excellence, that all students, regardless of age, sex, cultural or ethnic background, disabilities, aspirations, or interest and motivation in science, should have the opportunity to attain high levels of scientific literacy and experience high academic achievement in science. These same documents have been calling for reforms in K-­‐12 science teaching that include the use of scientific inquiry as the central strategy for teaching science. They emphasize the importance of creating and sustaining classroom conditions that provide all students with opportunities for learning science through inquiry. The goal of K-­‐12 science educators then, is to increase the scientific literacy of all students through the use of inquiry-­‐based activities. As ideas about inquiry-­‐based instruction continue to be refined, science educators have increasingly argued for the need to shift science instruction toward a vision of inquiry where the building of scientific arguments is seen as an essential aspect of the learning process (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Duschl & Ellenbogen, 2002; Luykx & Lee, 2007; Sampson & Clark, 2008). One of the notions 2
driving this increased emphasis involves the idea that a large part of being scientifically literate involves understanding the ways in which knowledge is generated, evaluated, and validated within the field. This involves the ability to evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it, as well as develop the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately (NRC, 1996). The Standards assume the inclusion of all students in challenging science inquiry-­‐based learning opportunities (NRC, 1996). They also emphatically reject any situation in science education where some people—for example, members of certain populations—are discouraged from pursuing science and excluded from opportunities to learn science. Yet despite this emphasis on science for all students, there continues to be persistent gaps between the achievement of mainstream students and students from diverse backgrounds in K-­‐12 science classrooms (NCES, 1996; 2000; 2005). One of the prevailing schools of thought on why this problem persists is that negotiating the sometimes subtle transitions between everyday thinking and the thinking valued in domains like science may be particularly difficult for students who have had less experience with the forms of reasoning and talk that are privileged in American middle-­‐class schools (NRC, 2007). The idea is that these students have complex ways of reasoning which are supported by the out-­‐of-­‐school contexts in which they operate, but are difficult to reconcile with those presented by their science teachers. Mainstream students, on the other hand (those 3
who are white, middle-­‐ or upper-­‐class, and native speakers of standard English), are more likely to encounter ways of talking, thinking, and interacting in schools that are in alignment with the practices and the expectations that they bring from home (NRC, 2007). From this perspective, equitable science instruction involves engaging students in science learning opportunities that account for and value alternative views and ways of knowing in their everyday worlds, while also providing access to science as practiced in the established scientific community (Aikenhead, 1996; Cobern and Aikenhead, 1998; Costa, 1995; Gallard, 1993; Maddock, 1981; Pomeroy, 1994). This approach centers on making science accessible, meaningful, and relevant for diverse students by connecting their home and community cultures to science (Lee, 1999). When viewed in this way, the challenge of equitable science instruction involves more than just making new ideas obvious or relevant to the lives of individuals. It also involves understanding the ways in which they reason in different contexts and making explicit the connections and divergences between these ways of thinking and applying knowledge and those of science. With the school-­‐aged population in the United States continuing to grow more racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and linguistically diverse (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005; NCES, 2008), the inability to provide equitable science instruction becomes an increasing concern. Inquiry-­‐based science instruction that emphasizes aspects of argumentation can provide a way to bridge these current achievement gaps and foster greater levels of scientific literacy for all students by focusing on science as a way of knowing that is in some ways similar to their own. As stated in 4
the National Research Council's 2007 publication Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits, the two most important principles for supporting learning for all students are to clarify the norms and thinking patterns characteristic of science and to capitalize on the continuities between students’ everyday thinking, knowledge, and resources and those of practicing scientists (pg. 193). Unfortunately, there is little research focused directly on how cultural norms and values may either affect or be capitalized on for the learning of disciplinary knowledge, such as science (Lee & Luykx, 2006), or on how inquiry experiences in science classrooms are structured to make the practices of science more accessible to learners of all kinds. Research on student diversity and research on science learning have, for the most part, been separate bodies of work that seldom inform each other. Similarly, instruction for English language learners typically focuses primarily on English language and literacy development and does not give as much attention to instruction in content domains, such as science (NRC, 1996; 2007). As a result, there is very little understanding of the effects of specific science instruction practices on the learning of individuals with different probabilities of success. In specific, what is lacking are studies that examine the ways in which teachers use argumentation within the context of inquiry-­‐based lessons to make explicit these connections and divergences in efforts to facilitate greater levels of science literacy in diverse student populations. 5
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore issues of equity in science education through an examination of how teachers’ reasoning patterns during inquiry-­‐based lessons compare with student reasoning patterns. It also examines the ways in which teachers utilize students’ linguistic and cultural resources, or funds of knowledge, during inquiry-­‐based science lessons and the ways in which students utilize their funds of knowledge during inquiry-­‐based science lessons. It operates on the premise that students’ reasoning patterns are initially developed as a result of their experiences, and that insights into ways of facilitating more equitable science instruction can be gained by focusing on the similarities and differences between the reasoning patterns modeled and expected by science teachers and those used by their students. Identifying the types of similarities and differences that exist between the teachers' and students' ways of reasoning and how they play out in the context of inquiry-­‐based science instruction is a first step towards designing inquiry instruction that makes explicit the connections and divergences between the reasoning strategies employed by students of diverse backgrounds and those of science. In conjunction with this, it would also be useful to examine the ways in which students utilize their linguistic and cultural resources during inquiry-­‐
based activities and the practices teachers use to encourage students’ use of these resources. Together, this combination of a comparison between the reasoning patterns utilized by teachers and students and an examination of the ways in which students and teachers take advantage of students’ linguistic and cultural resources 6
in these contexts can help provide insights into ways of designing more equitable science instruction. Three questions are addressed in this study; (1) What are the similarities and differences between the reasoning patterns modeled and expected by science teachers during inquiry-­‐based science lessons and the reasoning patterns exhibited by their students? (2) In what ways do teachers utilize students’ linguistic and cultural resources during inquiry-­‐based science lessons? (3) In what ways do students utilize their linguistic and cultural resources during inquiry-­‐based science lessons? Theoretical Framework Sociocultural Perspective This study operates from a sociocultural perspective on learning and development that has its roots in the works of Lev Vygotsky (1896-­‐1934), but has since been further developed by a host of other researchers. This perspective is based on the idea that human knowledge is produced by and shared among the members of communities and that the structure and development of human psychological processes emerge through participation in culturally-­‐mediated, historically developing, practical activity involving cultural practices and tools (Cole, 1996; Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003). Sociocultural perspectives focus on how cultural beliefs and attitudes impact how instruction and learning take place. In doing so, this theory stresses the interaction between developing people and the cultures in 7
which they live and learn as being central to the learning process. It also describes individual mental functioning as mediated by cultural, institutional, and historical contexts. In particular, there are three aspects of a sociocultural perspective on learning that are pertinent to this study. The first is the idea that individual development, including higher mental functioning, has its origins in social sources. Second is the idea that social artifacts such as language and symbol systems mediate individual thinking and participation in social environments. Lastly, is that from a sociocultural perspective, learning and development are seen as cultural processes. The Social Nature of Learning and Development In Vygotsky’s view, individual learning and development, including the internalization of higher mental functions, involves the transfer from the inter-­‐
psychological to the intra-­‐psychological, or, in other words, from socially supported to individually controlled performance (Au, 1998). From this perspective, individual learning comes as a result of social interactions with people who are more knowledgeable in a particular context. The learning that results from these social interactions, termed development, is then manifested through an individual’s increased level of social participation. In this way, learning and development, though involving individuals, both originate from, and reside in, social contexts. To explain how higher mental functions might be achieved through this process, Vygotsky formulated the idea of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). He defined the ZPD as the difference between students’ actual level of development and 8
the level of performance that they might potentially achieve in collaboration with the guidance of a more knowledgeable other, such as an adult or another more capable person (Vygotsky, 1987). Essentially, it includes all of the knowledge and skills that a person cannot yet understand or perform on their own, but is capable of learning with guidance. There are two main features that highlight Vygotsky’s conceptions of a ZPD. The first involves the idea of intersubjectivity. This term describes the process of how two individuals who begin a task with different understandings can eventually arrive at a shared understanding. From a sociocultural perspective, learners and the more knowledgeable others providing guidance, must come to share some amount of intersubjectivity in order to effectively communicate and move the learner through the ZPD. This intersubjectivity involves shared understandings among individuals whose interactions are based on common interests and assumptions that form the grounds for their communication (Rogoff, 1990). When viewed from an intersubjective standpoint, social meanings and knowledge are seen to evolve and be shaped through negotiation within communicating groups (Gredler, 1997; Prawat & Floden, 1994). As a result, any personal meanings shaped through these experiences are seen to be affected by the agreed-­‐upon meanings of the community to which the people belong. Because of this intersubjectivity, individual thought and communication that occurs socially are portrayed as intimately related. The other main feature of Vygotsky’s conceptions of a ZPD involves the idea of interactional support. Although Vygotsky never used the term, interactional 9
support and the process by which adults mediate a child’s attempts to take on new learning have come to be termed “scaffolding”. Scaffolding, as it relates to Vygotsky’s ideas, represents the helpful interactions between adult and child that enable the child to do something beyond his or her independent efforts (Wertsch & Stone, 1984). Instruction that provides scaffolding involves a more knowledgeable other providing scaffolds or supports to facilitate the learner’s development. The scaffolds facilitate a student’s ability to build on prior knowledge and process new information. The activities provided in scaffolding instruction are just beyond the level of what the learner can do alone (Olson & Pratt, 2000). The more capable other provides the scaffolds so that the learner can accomplish (with assistance) the tasks that he or she could otherwise not complete, thus helping the learner through the ZPD (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). One of the important aspects of scaffolding instruction is that the scaffolds are intentionally designed to be temporary. As the learner’s abilities increase, the scaffolding provided by the more knowledgeable other is progressively withdrawn. Therefor the goal is for the learner to eventually be able to complete the task or master the concepts independently (Chang, Chen, & Sung, 2002). In research on literacy learning, social constructivists have used the ideas of intersubjectivity and scaffolding highlighted in Vygotsky’s conceptions of a ZPD to examine the role of teachers, peers, and family members in mediating learning, on the dynamics of classroom instruction, and on the organization of systems within which children learn or fail to learn (Moll, 1990). These features of a sociocultural 10
perspective are useful to this study because they provide a framework for viewing the ways in which teachers work to help their students make sense of new information during learning activities. They also illustrate the impact social contexts and the level of support provided can have on learning and development. Social Artifacts A second aspect of a sociocultural perspective pertinent to this study is the idea that culturally developed tools and signs such as language and symbol systems mediate individual thinking and participation in social environments. From this perspective, the very terms by which people perceive and describe the world, including language, are social artifacts that mediate learning and development (Schwandt, 1994). The key to this view is to understand that human mental functioning is tied to cultural, institutional and historical settings. These settings shape and provide the cultural tools that enable individuals to master this functioning (Wertsch, 1984). From this view, the world in which we live is humanized, full of material and symbolic artifacts that are culturally constructed, historical in origin, and social in content. Since all human actions, including acts of thought, involve the mediation of these social artifacts, they are, on this score alone, social in essence (Scribner, 1990). In this way, social artifacts are seen to not only facilitate activity, but also shape and define it in fundamental ways. The significance of this aspect of a sociocultural perspective is that it not only recognizes the mediating effects of people in social contexts, but also of artifacts 11
such as, language, numeration, algebraic symbolism, writing, and conventional symbols and signs (Cole, 1996). Because language is the most pervasive modality for social interaction, it follows that language is also the social artifact that is viewed as having the most mediating effect on learning and development. Working from this perspective, Mikhail Bakhtin (1986) described the passage between personal and social planes as a language-­‐mediated process. His idea was that specific communities of people use different social languages for particular purposes. According to Bakhtin, a social language is a discourse peculiar to a specific stratum of society within a given system at a given time (Bakhtin, 1981). From this perspective, learning science involves learning the social language of the scientific community, which must be introduced to the learner by a teacher or some other more knowledgeable person. This account of mediation by social artifacts, especially linguistic signs, plays a fundamental role in sociocultural perspectives because it provides an explanation of the mechanism which allows intersubjectivity to be reached and thus for communication to occur (Wertsch, 1984). In the context of this study, this aspect of a sociocultural perspective was useful because it places in the foreground the fundamental relationship between mental functions and linguistic discourse within social activity. In this way, it provides a rationale for observing discourse as a means of investigating the thinking that occurs in science classrooms. 12
Learning as a Cultural Process A third aspect of a sociocultural perspective that is pertinent to this study is that learning and development are seen as cultural processes. When viewed as cultural processes, learning and development are seen as the acquisition of diverse repertoires of overlapping, complementary, or even conflicting cultural practices (Nasir, Rosebery, Warren, & Lee, 2006; Lee, Hart, Cuevas, & Enders, 2004). Cultural repertoires of practices, in this view, refer to the “constellations of practices historically developed and dynamically shaped by communities in order to accomplish the purposes they value” (Nasir et al., 2006). The view of learning and development as cultural processes involves the idea that people operate within a variety of social contexts during their lives and therefore engage in a variety of repertoires of cultural practice that are particular to those different social contexts. Each context encountered includes the kinds of knowledge, patterns of experience, and other social artifacts that are relevant to a particular activity. Discussions of learning as a cultural process illustrate that how learning occurs, and what is learned, are influenced by personal and contextual factors from early childhood through adulthood. Fundamental to this perspective is that alternative ways of knowing are recognized and valued. This differs greatly from previous perspectives on equity that are based on deficit-­‐model thinking, in which cultural ways that differ from the practices of dominant groups are judged to be less adequate. Instead, cultural differences are capitalized on as resources to help facilitate learning (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003). 13
When viewed as cultural processes, learning and development in science contexts involves increasing proficiency with the variety of repertoires of practice associated with science, while at the same time maintaining the repertoires of students’ cultural practices so that they can behave competently across social contexts (Lee, 2003). This balanced orientation emphasizes that achievement in science does not have to result in a loss of cultural identity. Gutiérrez and Rogoff (2003) argue that from this perspective, individual development and disposition in science must be understood in (not separate from) cultural and historical context. The idea is that all people engage in sophisticated learning, but this learning is shaped by the cultural and contextual conditions in which they live. In this sense, all people learn, but a given group may learn different knowledge and practices and may organize its learning differently (NRC, 2009). The goal of science educators then, is to take advantage of the variety of knowledge and practices students are familiar with to facilitate their learning of the knowledge and practices of science. For researchers, the goal is to examine the ways in which school learning activities can be restructured to allow students to acquire concepts by building on the foundation of personal experiences that contribute to their everyday concepts (Moll, 1990). Members of the scientific community share what Gee (1991) refer to as a Discourse. A Discourse is a socially accepted association among ways of using language, thinking, and acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or social network. According to Gee, this Discourse serves 14
as an identity kit, which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act and talk so as to take a particular role that others will recognize. Thus, from a sociocultural perspective, acquiring functional scientific literacy is not simply a matter of mastering and using information, it requires appropriating scientific Discourse, or learning to use language, think, and act in ways that identify one as a member of the community of scientifically literate people and able to participate in the activities of that community (Anderson, Holland, & Palincsar, 1997). From this perspective, learning science is an inherently social and cultural process that requires mastery of specialized forms of discourse and comfort with norms of participation in the scientific community of the classroom (NRC, 2007). Working from this perspective, researchers examining issues of equity in education have described a process of “border crossing” during which students are able to shift between different cultural contexts (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Moje et al., 2004; Nasir & Hand, 2006). This work recognizes science as a cultural entity with values and practices that are in some ways continuous with students’ home and community cultures, while discontinuous in others. From this view, equity in science learning occurs when individuals from diverse backgrounds participate in science through opportunities that account for and value alternative views and ways of knowing in their everyday worlds while also providing access to science as practiced in the established scientific community (Aikenhead, 1996; Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998). This approach focuses on making science accessible, meaningful, and relevant for diverse students by connecting their home and community cultures 15
to science. Lee (1999) likens this perspective to biliteracy or biculturalism, whereby an individual can successfully bridge the cultural borders between social contexts. Finally, it is necessary to address the dangers involved in interpreting general patterns within homogenous student groups. From the perspective of this study, essential in any discussion of perspectives relating to issues of diversity and equity in education is the need to include the dangers of characterizing student background variables as traits. Addressing background variables as traits has been a common way to prepare teachers to make the link to diversity (Guild, 1994; Matthews, 1991). This perspective involves teaching to a difference that can be labeled. While this sounds appealing to teachers who have limited resources, support, or training to meet the challenges of new student populations, treating cultural differences as individual traits encourages overgeneralization (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003). Because of this, researchers in the area of equity operating from a sociocultural perspective assert that caution should be kept in mind when interpreting general patterns with diverse student groups (Lee, 2003; Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003). This perspective resists overemphasizing differences between groups on the grounds that it tends to mask variations within a group or among individuals. Although knowledge about group patterns can offer important insights about what is typical, there is a danger of reinforcing stereotypes based on group membership (Eisenhart, 2001). For example, because of the view that Asian students are good at mathematics, there may be greater pressure placed on Asian students to excel in mathematics. Such stereotypes can impact the self-­‐esteem of 16
children who do not excel in the manner that the statement claims. For this reason, researchers have asserted that knowledge of group patterns should serve as guidelines, not as prescriptions, and should be adjusted by considering sub-­‐group or individual differences within or outside the boundaries of the general group patterns (Lee, 2003). This study utilizes a sociocultural perspective that views learning as a cultural process as a framework for gaining insights into how the reasoning patterns of K-­‐12 science teachers compare with student reasoning patterns during inquiry-­‐based lessons. This perspective also provides a rationale for the analysis of the language teachers and students use in these contexts as a basis for these insights. Lastly, in light of the dangers inherent in interpreting general patterns within homogenous groups, this study utilizes this perspective to examine the reasoning patterns of student participants in the context of the diverse groups in which they work during the course of their inquiries. The objective therefore, was not to characterize the reasoning patterns of group of students sharing similar cultural historical backgrounds, but to characterize the ways in which students of all kinds, reason within the diverse classroom communities in which they learn science. 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review The achievement gaps that persist between demographic groups in K-­‐12 science education settings in the United States represent significant shortcomings in efforts to provide all students with opportunities to experience high achievement in science. As student populations in U.S. public schools become more linguistically and culturally diverse (Garcia, 1999; National Center for Education Statistics, 1999), it becomes increasingly essential to address these shortcomings and establish a knowledge base to promote scientific literacy for all students. Scientific literacy, as described by the National Science Education Standards, involves the ability to evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it, as well as develop the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately (NRC, 1996). This description of science literacy presents science not only as a body of knowledge, but also as a way of knowing. This implies that learning science involves more than just accumulating facts and information and extends to understanding the process by which knowledge is developed and applied. The literature that has accumulated on what can be done to facilitate greater levels of science literacy for all students through the teaching and learning of science as a process has been characterized by an emphasis on inquiry-­‐based instructional approaches, particularly those emphasizing aspects of scientific argumentation, on better characterizing the role students’ culturally-­‐based previous experiences play in their learning, and on the importance of using students’ 18
intellectual resources to establish instructional congruence. This review examines literature related to each of these areas and ends with a discussion about how a focus on the ways in which teachers’ reasoning patterns during inquiry-­‐based lessons interact with student reasoning patterns can lead to insights into ways of facilitating more equitable science instruction. Inquiry Research on diversity and equity in science education is a new and developing field. Though somewhat limited, the research that has emerged from this field focuses on understanding and promoting science inquiry with students from diverse backgrounds as a means of promoting scientific literacy. Scientific inquiry, within the scientific community, refers to the multitude of diverse ways in which scientists study the natural and physical world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. In the context of science education, scientific inquiry refers to the activities of learners as they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural and physical world. Making the authentic practices of science more accessible to students through the use of inquiry-­‐based instructional strategies has been a recurrent theme in recommendations for improving science literacy. Policy documents like the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996; 2000; 2007) and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) have been calling for reforms in K-­‐12 science teaching that include the use of scientific 19
inquiry as the central strategy for teaching science. These influential documents emphasize the importance of creating and sustaining classroom conditions that provide all students with opportunities for learning science through inquiry. Studies have shown inquiry-­‐based instructional approaches to be linked with many positive student outcomes, including growth in conceptual understanding, increased nature of science knowledge, building relationships between the student and the teacher, reducing errant learning, and development of research skills (Benford & Lawson, 2001; Holliday, 2001; Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, Fishman, Soloway, & Geier, 2004; Metz, 2004; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993; Wallace, Tsoi, Calkin, & Darley, 2003). Research specifically focused on the science learning of students from diverse backgrounds also supports the benefits of inquiry-­‐based instruction (Lee, 2002; Lee & Fradd, 1998; Rosebery et al., 1992). These studies indicate that inquiry activities based on natural and physical phenomena make science concepts more accessible to students with limited science experience than do approaches based on decontextualized textbook knowledge. They have also shown that collaborative work during inquiry-­‐based activities can provide structured opportunities for developing English proficiency in the context of authentic communication about science knowledge. As a result of these features, inquiry-­‐based activities present countless opportunities for students to strengthen their skills in both science and the English language (Thier & Daviss, 2001; Thier & Daviss, 2002), and can serve as a catalyst to promote students’ communication of their understanding in a variety of formats, including written, oral, gestural, and 20
graphic (Lee & Fradd, 1998). Inquiry and Argumentation In the scientific community, inquiry is often described as a knowledge-­‐building process in which explanations are developed to make sense of data and then presented to a community of peers for critique, debate, and revision (Driver et al., 2000; Duschl, 2000; Passmore & Stewart, 2002; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004; Stewart, Cartier, & Passmore, 2005; Vellom & Anderson, 1999). The idea behind this view is that the generation and acceptance of new scientific knowledge comes as a result of the rigorous testing of claims. As scientists attempt to reach consensus, they engage in a process of argumentation whereby they attempt to persuade others of the validity of their findings and conclusions. Argumentation in this context is not viewed as a heated exchange between conflicting individuals that results in winners and losers or an effort to reach a mutually beneficial compromise, but rather as a form of logical discourse whose goal is to tease out the relationship between ideas and evidence (Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007). Scientific argumentation, as a result, plays a central role in the development, evaluation, and validation of scientific knowledge and is an important practice in science that makes science different from other ways of knowing (Driver et al., 2000; Duschl & Osborne, 2002). Importantly then, argumentation is seen as a tool that is utilized by the scientific community in order to establish canonical knowledge through inquiry processes, and without such discourse scientists would be unable to judge the strength of 21
claims and evidence in order to produce new knowledge that is accurate (Kuhn, 1993). From this perspective, the ability to generate a persuasive and convincing argument that coordinates evidence and theory to support or refute an explanation is a crucial component of the inquiry process (Driver et al., 2000; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Jimenez-­‐Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000; Kuhn, 1993; Kuhn, 1970; Latour, 1987; Siegel, 1989). As a result, argumentation has often been called the language of science (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994; Duschl, Ellenbogan, & Erduran, 1999; Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004; Nussbaum & Sinatra, 2003). In the context of education, researchers have argued for the need to shift science instruction toward a vision of inquiry where the building of scientific arguments is seen as critical (Driver et al., 2000; Duschl & Ellenbogen 2002; Luykx & Lee 2007; Sampson & Clark, 2008). Perhaps as a result, the creation of learning environments that develop students’ abilities to reason from evidence and participate in scientific argumentation has developed as a major priority in science education reform initiatives (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996; 2001; 2007). Scientific argumentation, a subset of scientific reasoning, is defined as the coordination of evidence and theory to support or refute an explanation, model, or prediction (Osborne, Simon, & Erduran, 2004). Students engage in scientific argumentation as they provide support for the claims they make during the course of their inquiries. The broader construct, scientific reasoning, is a more complete process of reconciling theory with experience of the natural world by collecting data and 22
noticing patterns in that data (inductive reasoning), formulating theories and hypotheses about the natural world, and then conducting experiments and tests to confirm or reject those hypotheses (Lawson, 2005). Reasoning, as a process, works to explain how the evidence supports the claim and why the evidence should count as support. Previous visions of inquiry in science education had similar goals in regards to engaging students in the authentic practices of science; however, the focus of these early visions was on a variety of aspects of scientific practice other than argumentation. These included problem solving and the development of process skills associated with the collection and manipulation of data. The result of this focus was an image of inquiry that promoted the development of process skills through student engagement in hands-­‐on, discovery, or experiential activities (Martin & Hand, 2009). Inquiry-­‐based approaches that emphasize aspects of scientific argumentation differ from these previous visions of inquiry in that they require a focus on how evidence is used to construct explanations, on examining the data and warrants that form the substantive basis of belief in scientific ideas and theories, and on understanding the criteria used in science to evaluate evidence (Osborne et al., 2004). Examples of these criteria include (a) the need to provide evidentiary backing or rationales for knowledge claims and proposed tests of claims (Hogan & Maglienti, 2001), (b) the need for coherence between theoretical frameworks and observations of phenomena (Passmore & Stewart, 2002), (c) the importance of establishing the credibility of evidence (Driver et al., 2000), (d) the 23
value of parsimony (Sandoval & Reiser, 2004), and (e) the importance of basing arguments on reasoning that is logically valid (Zeidler, 1997). For students, this means learning what constitutes evidence that will support or refute their predictions and arguments and learning how to construct and articulate their claims in ways that will build credibility and validity. In this vision of inquiry, students would seek evidence and reach collaborative decisions instead of focusing on procedural issues (Doig, 1997; Lemke, 1990; Vellom & Anderson, 1999; Warren & Rosebery, 1996). Activities designed in this manner can help students understand difficult science concepts and have been identified as a possible mechanism for conceptual growth and change (Driver et al., 1994; Mercer et al., 2004; Nussbaum & Sinatra, 2003; Tippett, 2009). They can also promote science literacy by helping students develop complex reasoning and critical thinking skills, understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge, and improve their communication skills (Duschl & Osborne, 2002). Equity in Science Education Early efforts to provide equitable science instruction stemmed from the perspective that the gaps in achievement between demographic groups were a result of students of diverse backgrounds not having sufficient access to science learning experiences. As a result, science educators attempted to deliver the same kinds of learning experiences to students of diverse backgrounds as those that have served mainstream students. Thus, equitable science instruction often resulted in 24
attempts to provide equal access to opportunities already available to mainstream students, without consideration of cultural or contextual issues (NRC, 2009). This view of science equity has been called the assimilationist view of science equity (Lee, 1999). The problem many current equity researchers have with this perspective is its failure to recognize any real value in the experiences of students from diverse backgrounds. Instead, it is assumed that a deficit of experience is at the root of the achievement gaps in science, and that equitable science instruction would result from simply providing students from diverse backgrounds with the same experiences that have served mainstream students. However, research has shown that the act of exposing all individuals to the same learning experiences does not result in science equity, because the experiences themselves are designed in a manner that might restrict access or hinder individuals from diverse backgrounds from engaging and identifying with science (Secada, 1989; 1994). More recently, researchers have begun to advocate for perspectives on science learning that are more consistent with the sociocultural perspective that learning is a cultural process. These perspectives account for and value alternative views and ways of knowing in the everyday worlds of students from diverse backgrounds. Research conducted from this perspective view differences in students' linguistic and cultural experiences as being at times continuous with those of science disciplines and therefore view these experiences as intellectual resources to be capitalized on during instruction (Warren et al., 2001; Warren & Rosebery, 1996). These efforts arose from researchers attempting to leave behind deficit-­‐model 25
thinking, in which cultural ways that differ from the practices of dominant groups are judged to be less adequate without examining them from the perspective of the community’s participants (Cole & Bruner, 1971; Hilliard & Vaughn-­‐Scott, 1982; McLoyd & Randolph, 1985; McShane & Berry, 1986). Science education research conducted from this perspective examines the ways in which school literacy learning activities can be restructured to allow students to acquire scientific concepts by building on the foundation of personal experiences that contribute to their everyday concepts (Moll, 1990). One of the influential ideas to come out of this area of research is that of instructional congruence. Lee and Fradd (1998) describe instructional congruence as the mediation of the nature of academic disciplines with students’ linguistic and cultural experiences to make such content accessible, meaningful, and relevant. This notion emphasizes the need to develop congruence not only between students’ cultural expectations and norms of classroom interaction, but also between academic disciplines and the knowledge students bring from their own cultural environments (Lee, 2002). Pedagogies addressing linguistic and cultural diversity in this way have various designations, including culturally relevant, culturally appropriate, culturally responsive, culturally compatible, and culturally congruent (Gay, 2002; Ladson-­‐Billings, 1995; Osborne, 1996; Villegas & Lucas, 2002), but conceptually, they all share the same emphasis on pedagogical orientations that empower students by linking curricular content to students’ issues and concerns rather than taking a remedial, “deficit” view. In doing so, the concept of 26
instructional congruence underscores the role of instruction (or instructional interventions) as teachers explore the relationship between academic disciplines and students’ knowledge, devising ways to link the two (Lampert, 2008). The research in this area asserts that instructional congruence can serve as a conceptual and practical guideline for curricular design, teachers’ professional development, classroom practices, and student assessment (Fradd, Lee, Sutman, & Saxton, 2002; Lee, 2002, 2003; Luykx & Lee, 2007). In general, the research on establishing instructional congruence indicates that there are two main principles to consider in relation to supporting learning for all students. These are to clarify the norms and thinking patterns characteristic of science, rather than leaving them implicit, and to capitalize on the continuities between students’ everyday thinking, knowledge, and resources and those of practicing scientists (NRC, 2009). In regards to clarifying the norms and thinking patterns characteristic of science, researchers assert that there are dangers to leaving students to figure out what is valued because they are ultimately held accountable for this knowledge, whether they have been taught or not. This idea is based on multicultural education research asserting that school knowledge represents the culture of power of the dominant society (Banks, 1993a; 1993b; Cochran-­‐Smith, 1995; Delpit, 1988, 1995; Ladson-­‐Billings, 1994; 1995). This research suggests that students who are not from the culture of power need explicit instruction about the dominant culture's rules and norms, because without explicit instruction, they lack opportunities to acquire them. For example, using the 27
National Science Education Standards as the guidelines for science inquiry, Lee and Fradd (1998) examined students’ cultural values and practices relative to those of Western modern science. Their research indicates that despite similarities that may exist, students’ experiences are at times discontinuous with those of science disciplines as traditionally defined in Western modern science and that the challenge facing these students involves the disconnection between their own cultural knowledge and science disciplines, and between the discourse in the home and community and the discourse of science. This research asserts that the areas of discontinuity between these two sets of values and practices necessitate transitions between the students’ home culture and the culture of science and illustrates the need for teachers to make these cultural discontinuities explicit or visible to students as they attempt these transitions. Because of this, Lee and Fradd (1996; 1998) suggest that when introducing disciplinary forms of activity, such as scientific inquiry, that may be unfamiliar to students, teachers should begin with explicit, structured, direct instruction. Their idea is that over time, as students’ grasp of the objectives and procedures develops, teachers can concede increasing control and initiative to them. A second principle of instructional congruence involves capitalizing on students’ cultural resources. This principle recognizes that while there may be differences between students norms and thinking patterns and those of science that need to be made explicit, the values and practices that students of diverse backgrounds bring with them into the classroom can also be valuable resources that 28
can be capitalized on for new learning. While connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge is a fundamental part of learning for all students, the linguistic and cultural resources that mainstream students bring to school are more likely to be closely aligned with typical classroom practices. As a result, students of diverse backgrounds often find themselves disadvantaged by a school culture that seems to devalue the linguistic and cultural resources that are valued in their home and community (Banks & McGee, 2001; Lee & Buxton 2010). Efforts to provide science instruction congruent with the linguistic and cultural experiences of students of diverse backgrounds indicate that when linguistic and cultural experiences are used as intellectual resources, students are able to engage in scientific practices and show significant achievement gains (Driver et al., 1994; Lee, 2003). This research demonstrates that all students have developed ways of understanding the natural world based on personal experiences and environments, and that for students from diverse backgrounds, learning is enhanced-­‐indeed, made possible-­‐when it occurs in contexts that are linguistically and culturally meaningful and relevant to them. Studies such as these provide evidence that pedagogical approaches grounded in student’ cultural backgrounds and everyday knowledge can make a positive difference in learning. A central tenant to this line of work is the stressed importance of acknowledging that students from a diverse range of backgrounds have knowledge gained from their out-­‐of-­‐school experiences that is at times relevant to science topics and can therefor be used as a resource for learning science. The knowledge gained from out-­‐of-­‐school experiences, i.e., so called 29
cultural and linguistic resources, or funds of knowledge, are grounded in students’ membership and experiences in the out-­‐of-­‐school worlds that they inhabit. The literature in this area asserts that valuing diverse funds of knowledge and discourse as legitimate science classroom resources positions students of diverse backgrounds as rightful experts of certain knowledge directly related and applicable to school science (Gonzalez & Moll, 2001; Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2009). Establishing instructional congruence then, involves first understanding students' linguistic and cultural resources, or funds of knowledge, and then developing instruction that supports student learning and development by taking advantage of these funds as resources. Basu and Calabrese Barton (2007), assert that viewing these funds of knowledge as valuable resources that can be recruited for school science not only allows a smoother transition between students’ life worlds and the science classroom, but more importantly, also challenges the tight boundaries of school science funds and discourse to be more fluid and porous to nontraditional student resources. For example, in working with Haitian students in bilingual classrooms, Ballenger (1997) found that teachers were able to use their Haitian students’ knowledge of traditional Haitian discourse patterns to support science learning. These traditional Haitian discourse patterns, or bay odyans, take a number of forms, but often involve animated discussions of different points of view. By helping their students make connections between bay odyans and the type of discourse expected in science, the teachers were able to support their students’ learning. In particular, these connections helped the students specify meaning for 30
crucial terms, explore potential explanatory models, and develop norms of scientific discourse and accountability. While the discourse practices of bay odyans are not necessarily those traditionally valued in school science, they clearly connect with discourse practices commonly used in scientific communities. Research such as this demonstrates the usefulness of making connections between students’ funds of knowledge and the learning expected in school as a means of facilitating science learning. Argumentation and Equity Inquiry-­‐based approaches that focus on aspects of argumentation are designed to help students become more scientifically literate by engaging them in aspects of the authentic practices of scientists. However, the achievement gaps that persist in K-­‐12 science education contexts indicate that more must be done to understand how to facilitate this type of science learning for students from diverse backgrounds. Although there is a distinct focus on aspects of scientific argumentation in inquiry-­‐
based instruction in K-­‐12 science as a means of facilitating science literacy, there is little understanding of how instructional congruence might be established in these contexts. Researchers have asserted that inquiry based approaches that emphasize aspects of scientific argumentation can not only engage students in the process of evidence-­‐based reasoning and the social facet of science, but can also make students’ reasoning processes public which expose students to alternative explanations (Duschl, 2003; Furtak et al., 2010). Despite these assertions, there is 31
little research on how this emphasis on scientific argumentation during inquiry-­‐
based lessons might be used to make the nature of science fields explicit or on how it can be used to build on students’ cultural resources. Related lines of research indicate that learning how to engage in productive scientific argumentation to propose and justify an explanation through argument is difficult and that students often need support or explicit guidance to learn scientific norms for interacting with peers as they argue about evidence and clarify their own emerging understanding of science and scientific ideas (Kelly & Chen, 1999; Osborne, 2002; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). For some students, inquiry-­‐based approaches that focus on argumentation can present additional challenges because their out of school cultures may not encourage them to engage in the types of discourse practices representative of scientific argumentation. These out of school cultures may prioritize respect for teachers and other adults as authoritative sources of knowledge, rather than the development of theories and arguments based on evidence and reasoning (Lee, 2003). Such discontinuities between cultural expectations and scientific practices make it difficult for students to shift between the different types of knowledge, practices, and discourse required in school science without abandoning their home culture. In addition, the classroom discussions themselves may not be supportive of scientific argumentation. Although most discussions can involve a variety of interactional structures, the discussions that occur in secondary classrooms tend to be dominated by patterns of teacher initiation of ideas, followed by student 32
response and teacher evaluation (Alozie, Moje, & Krajcik, 2009). This IRE practice (Mehan, 1979) is also sometimes referred to as triadic dialogue (Lemke, 1990). Lemke claimed that using this type of discourse structure places teachers in a position of power in which they can control the topic and direction of the discussion and that as a result, students have little control directing the discussion or contesting teacher prerogatives. During these types of discussions the goal of science is presented not as dialogic interaction or persuasion, but rather as sense-­‐
making and coming up with the “right answer” (Berland & Reiser, 2009). These types of discussions focus on ensuring that students have received and can replicate knowledge given to them by the teacher as well as allowing the teacher to maintain control of the classroom environment (Macbeth, 2003; Mehan 1979). While these types of discussions serve teachers well in lecture-­‐dominated lessons where whole group instruction is the norm and the purpose is to present students with information, they are inconsistent with an inquiry-­‐learning philosophy, and have been shown to shut down classroom conversation (Carlsen, 1997). To make discussions during inquiry-­‐based lessons more dialogic, Nassaji and Wells (2000) argued for altering the evaluative portion of the IRE dialogue to include nonjudgmental evaluations such as follow-­‐up questions (IRF). Their argument was that this would better represent science by moving classroom discussions toward dialogic conversations that value multiple perspectives. In another study, Martin and Hand (2007) described how more divergent questioning patterns allowed for increased student dialogical interactions, or “voice”. They found that as student 33
voice increased, students began to investigate ideas, make statements or claims and to support these claims with strong evidence, and were eventually observed refuting claims in the form of rebuttals. Other researchers have argued that a key to increasing student voice during inquiry-­‐based lessons involves shifting the role of the teacher to allow for an increase in the amount of student-­‐to-­‐student dialogical interactions (Kelly & Chen 1999; McNeill & Pimentel, 2009; Schwarz et al. 2003). These studies assert that increasing the opportunity for peer interactions increases student voice, and that students are more likely to engage discourse representative of scientific argumentation as a result. While research on the discontinuities between student’s culturally based ways of thinking and those of science highlight the importance of explicit guidance, research in other areas indicate that there are also continuities between students’ culturally-­‐based ways of thinking and those of science. This line of research stresses the importance of using these continuities as resources for learning science. The Chèche Konnen Project provides an example of some of the work that has been done to examine the complex, interactive, and complementary relationships between scientific practices and the everyday sense-­‐making of children from diverse languages and cultures (Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992; Ballenger, 1997; Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery, & Hudicourt-­‐Barnes, 2001). This long line of programmatic research has conducted case studies of low-­‐income students from African American, Haitian, and Latino backgrounds in bilingual and regular classrooms since the late 1980’s. The goal of this project is the promotion of 34
collaborative scientific inquiry among students of diverse backgrounds as they learn to use language, think, and act as members of a science learning community. In one of the studies conducted during this project, researchers reported that they were able to accomplish this goal by identifying connections between Haitian students’ skills in story-­‐telling and argumentation and science inquiry, and then using those connections to support their learning of both the content and the practices of science (Rosebery et al., 1992). This line of research highlights the continuity between the forms of reasoning and argumentation characteristic of students of diverse backgrounds and those that are characteristic of scientific communities. It also highlights how students draw upon their everyday knowledge when engaged in scientific inquiry, reasoning, and argumentation. The lines of literature covered by this review illustrate the pertinence of this study. The overarching goals of science instruction in K-­‐12 classrooms include the promotion of scientific literacy for all students through inquiry-­‐based activities that emphasize scientific argumentation. However, as yet, there is very little research focusing specifically on how an emphasis on argumentation as an aspect of inquiry-­‐
based instruction can be used to facilitate more equitable science instruction. Research on equity in science education sheds some light on this issue through its emphasis on the importance of establishing instructional congruence, but even less is understood about how to establish instructional congruence in these contexts. In particular, what is lacking are studies that examine the ways in which teachers use argumentation within the context of inquiry-­‐based lessons to make explicit the 35
connections and divergences in efforts to facilitate more equitable science instruction. Also lacking are studies that examine the ways in which teachers utilize students’ cultural resources during inquiry-­‐based lessons. This study is designed to gain insights into these issues. 36
Chapter Three: Materials and Methods This qualitative study uses a multiple case study methodology to gain insights into the similarities and differences between the ways in which teachers and students reason during inquiry-­‐based lessons. Also explored were the ways in which teachers utilize student’s linguistic and cultural resources, or funds of knowledge, during inquiry-­‐based lessons, and the ways in which students utilize their funds of knowledge during inquiry-­‐based lessons. Multiple case study methodologies are designed to help researchers develop complex and highly detailed understandings of an issue as it occurs in natural settings through detailed, in-­‐depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (Creswell, 2007). This was a useful approach for this study because of the desire to explore how the issues examined occur naturally in science classrooms. The data collected for this study included classroom observations, teacher and student interviews, curriculum documents, and student work. Participants The sampling for this study was both purposeful and convenient. In qualitative research, purposeful sampling is utilized to obtain information rich cases from which researchers can gather in-­‐depth information about issues relevant to the purpose of the research (Patton, 1990). In light of this, three middle school science teachers from two different schools in one school district were selected and recruited to participate. These participants were chosen because they; (1) teach in 37
culturally, linguistically, or economically, diverse classrooms; (2) incorporate aspects of inquiry in their instruction. The sampling was convenient in that the teachers worked in schools that were easily accessed by the researchers due to proximity. In addition, the teachers had worked with the researchers previously in other professional capacities. All three teacher participants were Caucasians of European decent. One of the teachers was a male and the other two were female. They were also all between the ages of 35 and 55 and each hold a Master of Science degree in the field of science education. Each of the teachers is also a long-­‐term resident of the community in which the schools are located. The two schools that participated in this study are located approximately two miles from each other in a small city in the Northwestern United States. Despite their close regional proximity, the two schools serve slightly different populations. School A has a slightly larger student population, has a higher percentage of students who are eligible for a free or reduced lunch programs, and has a higher percentage of Hispanic and Native American students. School B on the other hand has a higher percentage of their students enrolled in their Talented and Gifted (TAG) program, and a higher percentage of White and Asian students. A more detailed portrayal of the demographics for each of the two schools involved is displayed in Table 1. The student participants for this study were enrolled in a science class of the participating teachers. Two classes per participating teacher were selected for student recruitment. These classes were selected based on the teacher's schedule 38
and the diversity criteria of the student population. In total there were 57 student participants. Though there was no demographic data collected for the specific students participating, the school populations sampled from match the diversity criteria of this study in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, language, and socioeconomic status. Demographic School A School B Total Students 698 543 Free or reduced lunch program eligible 43% 32% Talented and Gifted Program (TAG) 26% 36% Individualized Education Program (IEP) 15% 12% Hispanic (ethnicity) 19% 6% White 73% 80% Black 2% 1% Asian 4% 10% Pacific Islander 1% 1% American Indian 13% 2% Multi-­‐racial 7% 6% Table 1. Student demographics from each of the two participating schools. Data Collection Case study methodologies generally require multiple sources of data including, observations, interviews, documents, and audiovisual materials (Creswell, 2007). This study collected data in each of these forms. The data collection began with videotaping and observing lessons that the teachers identified as being inquiry-­‐
based and having a focus on argumentation. In all but one instance these lessons were deliberately designed by the teacher to last multiple days. While some may consider a single class period to be a lesson, the lessons observed in this study were clearly designed to last longer than a single class period. When a particular lesson 39
began and ended was determined in part through consultation with the teacher and in part by identifying the instruction and activities that were distinctly related to a particular topic or point. The lessons included were also each part of much larger instructional units that consisted of several such multiple day lessons all designed to work together to meet much more broad learning objectives. In total, two lessons were identified for each participating teacher to be included in this study. These lessons lasted between one and five days and were observed and video recorded. The teachers were also interviewed after each of these lessons to better understand the reasoning they exhibited during the lessons, to gain insights into the student reasoning they expected during the lessons, and how they worked to utilize their students’ funds of knowledge as instructional resources during the lessons. These interviews were audiotaped, lasted up to 45 minutes, and were semi structured in which the teacher was asked predetermined questions and then sub-­‐questions were generated in a conversation manner to elicit more detailed or elaborate responses. The interview guide can be found in Appendix A. Data on Students The student participants were each interviewed up to five times during the study. Before the first of these interviews their teacher randomly organized the student participants into groups of three or four. These groups remained the same throughout each of the rounds of interviews. In a couple of select cases, a student was absent during one of the interviews, but the effects of their absence appeared to 40
be minimal and so the data from these interviews were included in the study. Two of these rounds of interviews were based on the lessons observed (Interviews 1 & 3), two of the rounds of interviews were based on an activity designed to elicit student reasoning (Interviews 2 & 4), and the fifth round of interviews was conducted with select student groups to gain further insights into students’ use of their funds of knowledge. Interviews in each of the five rounds were video-­‐taped and lasted up to 20 minutes. The original intention was to capture the students’ reasoning during their actual lessons, but very early in the study it became apparent that the data collected in these contexts would not be sufficient to answer the questions posed. The reasons for this included the lack of explicit reasoning demonstrated by students, the noise level in the classroom for video-­‐recording of student voices, and the difficulty of omitting non-­‐participants from the data collection. The talk that was captured was seldom lesson-­‐related and if it was, it often regarded logistical considerations and clarification questions. The noise level during the class activities also made it difficult to distinguish what the students were saying. In addition, it was not uncommon for non-­‐participants to wander in and out of participating groups, thus limiting the usefulness of the data. As a result of these difficulties, the lesson-­‐based interviews were conducted using a stimulated recall approach that involved recreating key aspects of the inquiry-­‐based lessons. These interviews occurred within a week or two after the original lessons. At the discretion of the teacher, the students were taken out of their regular classroom into a conference 41
room, empty classroom, or quiet hallway, and certain aspects of their lessons were reenacted with the researcher acting in a role similar to that of a teacher. During these interviews students were asked questions that were the same or similar to those asked by the teacher during the lessons. They were also asked additional questions designed to elicit responses that provided insight into their thinking during the lessons (see Appendix B). Some of these questions were predetermined and then sub-­‐questions were generated conversationally to elicit more detailed or elaborate responses. In addition to the two lesson-­‐based interviews, the students also participated in two rounds of interviews conducted using a set of illustrated cards with science statements on them. The statements on the cards were chosen from a variety of websites featuring “fun science facts”. The illustrations on the cards were simple pictures related to the content of the statements. For instance the cards with statements referring in some way to the moon, each have a picture of the moon. In consultation with a senior science education researcher, three sets of cards were selected. The criteria for selection included statements that: 1) were explicitly tied to a scientific concept; 2) would be comprehensible for middle school students; 3) involved concepts or ideas that middle school students might have experience with; and, 4) might spark debate among students. In each set of three cards, two contained scientific statements that were accurate and one contained a scientific statement that was inaccurate. To begin the interviews, it was explained to the students that the object of the activity was for the group to identify which one 42
contained the inaccurate statement. Students were instructed to explain their thinking as they discussed the three cards so that they could work to reach a consensus about which one contained the inaccurate, or “false” statement. This interview strategy was originally referred to as the “Two truths and a lie activity”. However, the students clearly enjoyed debating with each other and in each school the students quickly began to enthusiastically refer to these interviews as “card games”. The researchers subsequently adopted this name as well, and so the interviews based on the illustrated cards with scientific statements on them are referred to as the card game interviews. In the first card game interview the students discussed two sets of cards, and in the second card game they discussed one set. These card game interviews were conducted in an attempt to capture more of the students’ reasoning than was captured during the lesson-­‐based interviews. The statements included in each of these sets can be found in Table 2 and examples of the cards with their illustrations can be found in Appendix C. Set 1 2 Statement Volcanic Rocks can float in water Due to gravitational effects, you weigh slightly less when the moon is directly overhead Sound travels about 4 times faster in air than in water More germs can be transferred through shaking hands than kissing NASA has found proof that the moon once sustained life and was very much like earth Some metal can be a liquid at room temperature 43
3 A ball of pure glass will bounce higher than a ball of pure rubber if dropped from the same height Scientists are not sure what color dinosaurs were Most of the dust in your home is actually dead bugs Table 2. Card game statements In each of the cases included in this study, the student reasoning exhibited during the lesson-­‐based interviews was distinctly different than what was exhibited during the card game interviews. Part of the intent of the study was to characterize the ways in which students reason during their inquiry-­‐based science lessons. The lesson-­‐based stimulated recall interviews were conducted in an attempt to gain insights into students’ thinking during these types of lessons. During the first round of these interviews it became apparent that the reasoning demonstrated by the students was somewhat limited. The first card game interviews were subsequently conducted as a means of eliciting more of the students’ reasoning than was captured during the lesson-­‐based interviews. The extent of the differences that emerged between the two interview contexts was somewhat surprising. Because of this, a second round of each of the types of interviews were conducted as a means of verifying the originally observed differences. The results of this second round of interviews proved to be very consistent with those of the first round. Additionally, there was also a considerable amount of consistency in the reasoning exhibited across groups in each of the three cases, particularly in regards to the structure of the arguments exhibited (see Figures 2 & 3). These consistencies across groups, 44
interview rounds, and cases provides strong support for attributing the differences in reasoning exhibited in the different contexts to something other than chance. They also provide justification for discussing some of the findings in terms of combined results from across the cases. A fifth round of interviews was conducted with select student groups from each case to gain insights into students’ use of their funds of knowledge. This final round of interviews involved questions designed to elicit students’ insights into their own tendencies to use, or not use, their out-­‐of-­‐school experiences to help make sense of science lessons. Also discussed were their teachers’ attempts to elicit their use of these funds of knowledge during science lessons. Examples of the questions used during these funds of knowledge interviews can be found in Appendix D. Other types of data that were utilized in this study include documents such as teachers’ curriculum materials, instructional materials, and examples of student work. A brief description of the lessons that these artifacts are related to is provided below. These descriptions are designed to provide a more richly contextualized description of the contexts in which the data were collected. Provided at the end of each lesson description is a description of how the stimulated recall interview was conducted. For purposes of confidentiality the names used for each of the teachers are pseudonyms. Teacher 1: Alma Case 1 involved Alma, a female eighth grade Earth Science teacher from School 45
A and 20 of her students. The two lessons observed for this case include a Discovering Plate Boundaries lesson that lasted three instructional days and a Modeling Seismic Activity lesson that lasted two instructional days. The Discovering Plate Boundaries lesson was designed to get students to reason about the types of evidence that have helped scientists develop current theories about the location of tectonic plate boundaries. The primary focus of this lesson involved a series of specialty maps from the fields of geology, volcanology, seismology, and geochronology. Over the course of the three days the students worked through a variety of learning activities involving these specialty maps and the observations students made based on the data they displayed. The stimulated recall interview based on this lesson involved distributing copies of the specialty maps to students and having them talk through the different activities they did that involved the maps and what they were thinking during these activities. The second lesson included in this case was a Modeling Seismic Activity lesson that lasted two days. This lesson involved a data collection activity during which students modeled the occurrence and magnitude relationships that are characteristic of seismic activity along faults. For this activity students used the steady pull of a rubber band to represent the build-­‐up of force as two plates move past each other. The plates were represented by two sandpaper-­‐covered surfaces, one a block of wood and the other the desk it was sitting on. Using the rubber band, students pulled the sandpaper-­‐covered block across a strip of sandpaper taped to the desk. Students collected data on how often and how far the block moved as they 46
slowly pulled it using the rubber band. This data was then used in subsequent learning activities the next day. The purpose of this lesson was to engage students in reasoning about the data collected as well as the models they used to collect it. The stimulated recall interview based on this lesson involved a re-­‐creation of the original data collection activity. During this re-­‐creation, students were asked to talk through the activity and explain what they were thinking about at different points. Teacher 2: Ben Case 2 involved Ben, a male seventh grade Physical Science teacher from School A and 13 of his students. The two lessons observed for this case include a Fractional Distillation lesson that lasted four days and a Potential Energy lesson that lasted one day. During the Fractional Distillation lesson students were tasked with determining two unknown substances combined in a solution. The students separated the liquids using a fractional distillation technique and then worked to identify the resulting substances using two separate tests. The first was a flame and smell test during which students recorded their observations as they tested flammability and used wafting techniques to smell the fumes of the liquids. The second test involved calculating the density of each liquid and then comparing the results to a chart of the known densities of common substances. Using the data and observations from these tests, the students then wrote up conclusion statements articulating what they thought the two liquids were, based on the evidence they obtained. The purpose of this lesson was to engage students in the construction of 47
defensible explanations based on the evidence they obtained. The stimulated recall interview based on this lesson involved a re-­‐creation of the original fractional distillation activity. During this re-­‐creation, students were asked to talk through the activity and explain what they were thinking at different points. They were also asked about their results and how they arrived at their final conclusions about the identity of the unknown substances. The second lesson included in this case was a lesson on Potential Energy that lasted a single day. During this lesson students built models of roller coasters using marbles and foam tracks. The objective of the activity was to release the marble from a height that would allow it to reach a target point and then stop. During this lesson students used a trial and error approach to determine heights from which to drop the marble so that it would reach the desired target but go no further. The purpose of this lesson was to get the students to reason about how to best build the track, how to adjust the placement of the marble after each failed attempt, and how the potential and kinetic energy changes with each adjustment. The stimulated recall interview based on this lesson involved a re-­‐creation of the original roller coaster activity. During this re-­‐creation, students were asked to talk through the activity and explain what they were thinking at different points. They were also asked about their results and how they arrived at their final conclusions about the changes in potential and kinetic energy. 48
Teacher 3: Cathy Case 3 involved Cathy, a female eighth grade Earth Science teacher from School B and 24 of her students. The two units of instruction chosen for this case include a Continental Drift lesson that lasted two days and an Axial Seamount lesson that lasted three days. Both of these lessons were part of a much larger model-­‐
based inquiry unit designed to help students understand the theory of plate tectonics and the mechanisms involved plate movement. During the continental drift unit student groups used fossil evidence and the fit of continents to create a model of what Pangaea may have looked like. The purpose of this unit was to engage students in an activity that required them to consider multiple pieces of evidence in the formulation of their theories. In this case, there were some discrepancies between the fit of the continent in terms of shape and the location of the fossil evidence. These discrepancies required students to reason about which type of evidence should be privileged in instances of contradiction. The stimulated recall interview based on this lesson involved a re-­‐creation of the original Continental Drift activity. During this re-­‐creation, students were asked to talk through the activity and explain what they were thinking at different points. They were also asked about their results and how they arrived at their final conclusions about how the current continents could have fit together as Pangaea. The second lesson included in this case lasted three days and was based on an exploration of the axial seamount that is located off the coast of the area. During this Axial Seamount lesson student groups were assigned to one of four different 49
activities. Each of these activities was organized around a modeling activity designed to represent the search for a scientific data-­‐gathering instrument called the rumbleometer. The premise of the unit was that a group of scientists lost the rumbleometer while investigating the seamount. The activities completed were designed to engage students in activities that model what the scientists might have done to recover the rumbleometer, make sense of the data it gathered, and discover what might have happened to it. Upon completion of the projects, each group made a presentation to the rest of the class based on the findings from their activity. In this way, all the students in the class were exposed to the evidence provided by each of the activities. The overall purpose of the lesson was not to learn about the rumbleometer but rather to use the rumbleometer activities as a way to facilitate learning related to current theories about plate tectonics and the evidence used to develop those theories. The stimulated recall interview based on this lesson involved a small-­‐scale re-­‐creation of the original rumbleometer activities. During this re-­‐creation, students were asked to talk through the activities they were involved in and explain what they were thinking at different points. They were also asked about their results, how these results helped them understand concepts related to plate tectonic and what they thought the point of the lesson was. Data Analysis The primary unit of analysis for this study involved reasoning sequences. A reasoning sequence is the conversation that takes place between group members 50
when debating or arguing for or against, a specific course of action or when evaluating a particular claim (Duschl, 2008). There can be multiple reasoning sequences in any given group discourse, therefore part of the analysis of the data obtained in this study involved separating the discourse observed into components involving individual claims and the elements of the discourse that relate to each individual claim. In order to be included in the analysis as a reasoning sequence, the dialogue had to include a definitive claim. For the purposes of this analysis, a claim is defined as any statement of assertion for an action or choice. The analysis of the discourse observed in this study began with the identification of the claims made and the elements of the discourse that related to each claim. Each element of these reasoning sequences were then categorized using a set of frameworks designed to characterize both the structure and the content of the statements made. As part of the analysis of this data, these reasoning sequences were also examined to identify instances in which students demonstrated the use of their linguistic or cultural resources and instances in which the teachers encouraged student’s use of their linguistic and cultural resources. Each of these frameworks is described in further detail in the following sections. A central feature of this data analysis involved a comparison between the reasoning patterns modeled and expected by science teachers and those used by their students. This comparison was designed to provide insights into where divergences and convergences in reasoning patterns exist, thus highlighting divergent features that need to be made more explicit as well as highlighting areas 51
of convergence that might be capitalized on as a means of establishing instructional congruence. In an effort to characterize both the structure and the content of these reasoning patterns, a combination of analytic frameworks was used. The structure was characterized using parts of Schwarz, Neuman, Gil, & Ilya’s (2003) framework and the content was characterized using Duschl’s (2008) adaptation of Walton’s (1996) argumentation schemes. Each of these is described in more detail in the following sections along with explanations of why they were chosen. Analysis of Argument Structures One of the most widely used and influential frameworks for characterizing the structure of an argument was introduced by Stephen Toulmin in his book titled, The Uses of Argument (1958). In this work, Toulmin describes the components of an argument as claims, data, warrants, backings, qualifiers, and rebuttals. This argumentation pattern has been used by a wide range of fields, including the field of science education. Researchers in this area have used Toulmin’s work to provide insight into the ways students structure their arguments and the nature of the justifications they use to support their ideas. However, they have also acknowledged some limitations to using it as an analytic framework in science education contexts. In particular, researchers have encountered complications in reliably distinguishing between claims, data, warrants, and backings because the comments made by students can often be classified into multiple categories (Sampson & Clark, 2008). Another issue with Toulmin’s framework involves the actual ways in which students 52
construct their arguments during classroom dialogue. While Toulmin’s framework is useful for characterizing how students argumentation patterns compare to those accepted in science, research in this area has shown that students rarely use what can be accurately classified as data, warrants, and backings to support their claims. Instead, students tend to use language that is ambiguous, fragmentary, or even contradictory, especially in heated conversation, so the content and structure of their arguments can be difficult to follow and even more difficult to classify (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Kelly & Chen, 1999; Duschl et al., 1999; Kelly & Takao, 2002). As a result, much of what is said in these contexts cannot be accurately classified using Toulmin’s pattern. In light of the difficulties encountered with using Toulmin’s framework, the structural analysis was conducted using a framework similar to that developed by Schwarz et al. In this framework, all statements made in support of a particular claim are grouped together so that the structure of the reasoning patterns are characterized by claims, the number of reasons used to support these claims, as well as the consideration of alternative explanations and the number of reasons used in their support. As a result of these combined groupings, Schwarz and colleagues’ hierarchy of argument structure is fairly simple. It ranges from a simple assertion to compound arguments (see Figure 1). Simple assertions consist of a conclusion that is not supported by any type of justification. One-­‐sided arguments include only a conclusion and one or more reasons. Two-­‐sided arguments include reasons that both support and challenge the conclusion but are not explicit about the conditions 53
under which the alternative might apply. Compound arguments, on the other hand, are explicit about when the alternative might apply by including qualifying phrases such as “it depends. . . , if. . . , but only if. . . ,” (p. 229). Schwarz et al. also provide a framework to examine factors related to the soundness and quality of reasons used in support of claims. However, they reported that the coding schemes used were only suitable when students produce written arguments and were not suitable for analyzing verbal discourse (pg. 229). Because of this, these analyses are not included in this study. Instead another domain specific means of characterizing the content of the arguments was used because it better characterizes the nature of the dialogue exhibited in middle school science classroom. A A A OR R R R Assertion Only One-­‐sided Argument A A R R A R R Q A R R R Two-­‐sided Argument Compound Argument Figure 1. Schwarz et al.’s Framework (2003) (Note: A=Assertions; R=Reasons; Q=Qualifiers) While Schwarz et al.’s structural framework is somewhat limited in its depth 54
of analysis, it does provide several advantages. First of all, it avoids the issues that other researchers have faced in regards to the ambiguous nature of many statements made during student discourse as well as the difficulties involved in classifying them in the various parts of more complex frameworks. Instead, by grouping all supports for a claim into a single category, issues of interpretation are less intricate, and therefor the analysis more credible. Secondly, it allowed for the consideration of a variety of other types of reasons commonly used by students to support their claims. While unspecific about the nature of these other types of supports, it allowed for their inclusion structurally, where other frameworks may not. This framework also allowed for a structural comparison of the patterns that characterize the ways in which students and teachers provide support for the claims they make by focusing on two characteristics essential to scientific argumentation practices. These include the need to provide multiple justifications for claims and the consideration of alternative explanations. Analysis of Argumentation Schemes The framework described above provides a domain general means of characterizing the structure of the reasoning patterns used by science teachers and students in terms of their component parts. While this framework may be useful in this regard, it needs to be complimented by an analysis of the types of justifications used during dialogue that occurs in middle school science contexts beyond the presence or absence reasons. Because of this, another level of analysis is needed to 55
characterize patterns in the types of reasons provided in support of the claims made during dialogue in secondary science classrooms. For this reason Duschl’s (2008) adaptation of Walton’s (1996) presumptive reasoning framework for characterizing the various types of reasons, or argumentation schemes, people provide when supporting their claims will be used to characterize the content of the reasoning patterns. Walton defines presumptive reasoning as reasoning that occurs during a dialogue when a course of action must be taken and all the needed evidence is not available. This type of reasoning involves shifting the burden of proof onto the other dialogue participants. Walton’s presumptive reasoning schemes include 26 different types of reasons people generally supply in support of their claims. Duschl originally reduced this list by identifying nine of these schemes that are particularly relevant to features of middle school science classroom discourse (see Table 3). Argument From Sign Commitment Position to Know Expert Opinion Definition Coding Clues… References to spoken or written claims References to are used to infer the existence of a the project. “look property or event. at this”“it shows” Suggests action should be taken. A Look for a claim that B is, or should be, committed request for to some particular position on an issue, action. “should” and then claims that B should also be “could” committed to an action. There is insufficient information to make a judgment. Involves a request Look for for more information. A has reason to opposition presume that B has knowledge of, or statements. access to, information that A does not have. Reference to an expert source (person “we did this text, group, consensus, etc.) external to before…” “the the given information. Supports a book says” 56
Evidence to Hypothesis Correlation to Cause Cause to Effect Consequence Analogy personal inference or point of view. Reference to premises followed by conclusion. Includes a hypothesis-­‐a conjecture of generalizable prediction capable of being tested. (The hypothesis can come as part of the “if” or the “then” part of the argument.) Infer a causal connection between two events. Characterized by an inferential leap, based on a natural law, but devoid of any reference to observational evidence. Reference to premises that are causally linked to a noncontroversial effect. Effect is an observable outcome, with no need for testing. Practical reasoning in which a policy or action is supported/rejected on the grounds that the consequences will be good/bad. A statement about the value of the conclusion without any expressed concerns for the properties or the events that comprise the full argument. Used to argue from one case that is said to be similar to another. “I think…” “it looks like…” “it probably would…” “if it had…” “then it would” Often based on plausibility rather than probability. “it will…” “then it would be better” “it’s basically good” “like” or use of a metaphor. Table 3. Duschl’s Original Adaptation of Walton’s Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning (Duschl, 2008) This domain specific framework provides a means of characterizing the wide range of presumptive reasoning schemes employed by both students and teachers during the construction of their arguments. However, during his own study, Duschl eventually condensed these nine schemes into four as a result of the difficulties encountered in regards to categorizing various reasons (see Table 4). The resulting categories include request for information, expert opinion, inference, and analogy. Sign, commitment, and position to know were included in the request for 57
information category because they all in some way assume the need for more information. Evidence to hypothesis, correlation to cause, cause to effect, and consequence are all included in the inference category because they are each based on inferential insights. The expert opinion and analogy categories remain unchanged. This condensed framework, while more broad in its analysis, provides a similar benefit to that of the Schwarz et al. framework in that it facilitates more reliable categorization while still providing a basis upon which to make comparisons. Both of Duschl’s adaptations were utilized in this study in an effort to capture as much detail as possible in the content of the reasoning patterns utilized by students and teachers during inquiry-­‐based activities, while at the same time providing a general, yet more reliable, depiction of the content of these patterns. However, the data analysis process revealed similar issues to those encountered by Duschl in regards to the difficulty of categorizing the various reasons used by students. As a result, the findings from this study report on the more condensed framework only. Condensed Category Request for Information Expert Opinion Inference Analogy Schemes Included Sign, Commitment, Position to Know Expert Opinion Evidence to Hypothesis, Correlation to Cause, Cause to Effect, Consequence Analogy 58
Table 4. Duschl’s Condensed Adaptation of Walton’s Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning (Duschl, 2008) When combined, the Schwarz et al. framework and Duschl’s adaptation of Walton’s framework provided a means of characterizing both the structure and the argumentation schemes of the reasoning patterns. This study utilized these frameworks to better understand the similarities and differences between the reasoning patterns modeled and expected by teachers and those exhibited by their students. A description of some of the decisions made in regards to how different types of statements were coded using these frameworks can be found in Appendix E. Analysis of Funds of Knowledge The analysis of the structure and the argumentation schemes of the reasoning sequences were designed to help address the first question posed in this study. The second and third questions posed in this study were addressed through an analysis of the ways in which the students utilize their linguistic and cultural resources, or funds of knowledge, during inquiry-­‐based science lessons, and the ways in which science teachers encouraged the use of these funds during the inquiry-­‐based lessons. This analysis involved identifying instances in which the students made explicit use of their funds of knowledge as well as instances in which the teachers explicitly worked to elicit their students’ use of their funds. Previous research 59
indicates that students draw upon a diversity of resources to learn science, many of which are not traditionally viewed as scientific (Lee & Fradd, 1998; Moje et al., 2001). Adapting and expanding Moje et al.’s (2004) framework characterizing student funds of knowledge in science, Calabrese Barton & Tan (2009) identified potential sources of these student funds as including their family, community, peers, and popular culture. While some studies have shown some initial promise in how these nontraditional resources can be used to promote student learning in science (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Seiler, 2001), little is known about how students utilize these funds during inquiry-­‐based activities that emphasize aspects of argumentation or the actual teacher practices that facilitate learning in this way (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2009). The analysis performed during this study worked to identify students’ use, and teachers’ attempts to encourage students’ use, of these various funds of knowledge. Examples of these types of funds can be found in Table 5. Source of Funds Family Examples Food-­‐related family practices; parents’ and relatives’ work; gardening; automotive repair and maintenance; budgeting; house maintenance; religion. Community Community gatherings like religious activities and celebrations; experiences in local restaurants and shops; sports and performance events. Peer Interactions with friends; peer talk; collaborative efforts toward a common goal (working together); engaging in common interests (playing together). Popular Culture Music; magazines; television; movies; news media; the internet. 60
Table 5. Examples of the types of funds of knowledge possessed by students Trustworthiness The trustworthiness, or credibility, of the findings in this study was established using a number of techniques commonly used in qualitative research. These include member checks, data triangulation, and transparency of methods. Member checking is an approach that provides participants with the opportunity to review, assess, and offer corrections or further insight into how the information they provided was interpreted (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This strategy was utilized during each of the interviews conducted to ensure that the participants’ meanings had been correctly interpreted. This was accomplished by asking for clarifications, rephrasing responses, and at times, asking for further insights. In addition, most of the participants were provided with the opportunity to review the findings from this study and offer clarifications or further insights. Using this strategy ensured that the participants’ contributions to the study were accurately represented. The use of multiple sources of data, or data triangulation, was also used as a means of establishing the credibility of the findings. This technique involves the use of multiple sources of data to confirm or support findings (Creswell, 2007). Not only did this study involve multiple cases, it also involved multiple interviews of individuals and groups in each case. In fact, many of the participants were interviewed as many as five times over the course of the study. This type of data 61
triangulation helped establish credibility because the behaviors described were observed in multiple instances and from a number of perspectives. For example, the data collected on teachers involved lesson observations as well as post-­‐lesson interviews. By asking the teachers about what was observed in the lesson, a more complete, or triangulated, view of their behaviors was achieved. Similarly, observing multiple lessons and conducting multiple interviews made a more accurate view of patterns in behavior possible. Another means of establishing credibility involved efforts to be transparent about how the data was gathered and interpreted. Because of the interpretive nature of qualitative data, findings are at times highly subjective. To reduce some of this subjectivity in the findings, attempts were made to be as clear as possible about what was done, what was found, and how it was interpreted. This level of transparency is designed to establish credibility by making clear exactly how the findings were achieved and interpreted. 62
Chapter Four: Results The first question addressed in this study involves an inquiry into how the reasoning patterns modeled and expected by science teachers during inquiry-­‐based science lessons compare with the reasoning patterns exhibited by their students. In regards to this question, there are three main findings that emerged from the data. To begin with, the reasoning patterns exhibited by the student participants were different in the different interview contexts. Because of this, the comparison made between the reasoning of the teachers and the students was dependent on the context. Secondly, there were distinct similarities between what was modeled and expected by the teachers and what the students exhibited during the inquiry-­‐based lesson contexts. Lastly, in regards to differences, there was clear evidence that the student participants possessed reasoning abilities that were not explicitly elicited in the context of the inquiry-­‐based lessons. They were also not modeled or expected by the teachers. The findings pertaining to each of these claims are presented in more detail in the following sections. Context-­‐Dependent Reasoning of Students The first pattern to emerge involved the differences between the reasoning exhibited by the students during the lesson-­‐based interviews and the reasoning they exhibited during the card game interviews. In each of the three cases, the reasoning exhibited during the card game interviews was far more dynamic than what was exhibited during the lesson-­‐based interviews. During the lesson-­‐based interviews I 63
tried to elicit students’ thinking about their lessons by re-­‐creating aspects of the lessons that seemed most likely to elicit their reasoning. The intent was to have students re-­‐enact aspects of the lesson, get them to narrate their thinking, and then ask questions to further elicit their thinking if it was not explicit. However, students did very little unsolicited talking during these lesson re-­‐enactments, and as a result I had to ask far more questions than originally anticipated. Consequently, most of the dialogue that occurred during these interviews involved the students providing responses to direct questions with very little elaboration. During these interactions it was also very rare for students to engage in extended dialogue with each other. Perhaps most importantly, it was not uncommon for one or two students in the group to assert themselves far more than the other participants. These individuals assumed a dominant role within the student group and were often the first to respond to a question. The following exchange from an interview with a group of Ben’s students provides an example of how both of these tendencies were manifested in the lesson-­‐based interview contexts. Interviewer: What did you do during this [Potential Energy] activity and what you were thinking while you did it? Joe: We made a track that had two bumps in it and we rolled a marble down it and you had to get it barely over each bump. You had to stop it on the first bump and the second bump. Interviewer: So how did you get it to do that? Joe: We dropped it from different spots on the first ramp until we got it. Interviewer: And if it went too far? 64
Joe: We dropped it from lower. Interviewer: And if it did not go far enough? Joe: We dropped it from higher. The dialogue that occurred during the card games stood in stark contrast to what was exhibited by the students during the lesson-­‐based interviews. During the card games, the students were responsible for most of the dialogue and the interviews occurred with very little input on my part. For the first round of card game interviews I began by explaining the objective of the activity and then provided the students with the cards. From that point on, the students did almost all the talking during the interview. There was little, if any, need for me to interject or try to elicit more detailed responses because the students were already engaged in trying to reason about which cards were “true” and which ones were “false”. As shown in the following example with the same group of Ben’s students, during these discussions students primarily addressed each other instead of me, and the participation among group members was far more equal. Joe: That moon one is a lie. Lisa: I think I have heard this before. Sam: No, that is when you are on the moon. Joe: But your weight can’t change. Like I don’t get this. Sam: It can change if you are on the moon. Joe: But we are not on the moon. Lisa: It is because there is like zero gravity up there and you are like 65
floating. Sam: But this is not on the moon, this is on the earth. Lisa: We are heavier on earth than we are on the moon. Joe: Oh my gosh! Student read the card. It says… so if the moon is directly overhead and we are standing right under the moon we would not weigh less. Lisa: But how do you know? Joe: It is just common sense. During the lesson-­‐based interviews, the number of utterances that were coded as part of a reasoning sequence totaled 236 for Alma’s students, 306 for Ben’s students and 168 for Cathy’s students. In each of these cases the distribution between coding categories was remarkably similar in terms of percentage of utterances (see Figure 2). During the card game interviews, the number of utterances that were coded as part of a reasoning sequence totaled 205 for Alma’s students, 143 for Ben’s students, and 138 for Cathy’s students. As was the case with the lesson-­‐based interviews, the distribution between coding categories was remarkably similar in terms of percentage of utterances across each of the three cases (see Figure 3). 66
Lesson-­‐based Structure Comparison by Case 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Assertions One-­‐sided One-­‐sided only single reason multiple reasons Two-­‐sided Compound Figure 2. Case comparisons of the structure of student reasoning patterns during the lesson-­‐based interviews Card Game Structure Comparison by Case 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Assertions One-­‐sided One-­‐sided only single reason multiple reasons Two-­‐sided Compound Figure 3. Case comparisons of the structure of student reasoning patterns during the Card game interviews The analysis of the utterances made as part of reasoning sequences showed that in the lesson-­‐based interview contexts, the structure of the students’ reasoning 67
patterns were dominated by unsupported assertions. In each of the three cases, over 70% of the reasoning-­‐related utterances made by students were coded as Assertions Only. The students occasionally supported their assertions with a single reason (<18%), or gave multiple reasons to support their assertions (<8%), and only very rarely considered alternative explanations (<4%). Least in evidence were the more complex Compound arguments. These patterns in reasoning are described as limited because they lack the structural complexity associated with more detailed arguments and are instead primarily characterized by assertions made with little or no support. There was also a distinct lack of consideration of alternative explanations or the use of qualifiers to strengthen the credibility of the claims made by the students in these contexts. In contrast to this, the structure of the reasoning patterns exhibited by the students during the card game interviews was far more dynamic (see Figure 4). The biggest difference was that in each of the three cases, more than 40% of the reasoning-­‐related utterances were supported assertions. This means that they were quite a bit more likely to provide some means of support for their assertions in the context of the card games. Furthermore, 6-­‐11% of the utterances were supported by more than one reason. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, during the card games students were far more likely to consider alternative explanations and to provide qualifying statements describing the conditions under which the alternatives might apply in attempts to strengthen the credibility of their claims. These differences in reasoning between contexts were evident across all student 68
groups regardless of their teachers. Lesson-­‐based vs. Card Game 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Lesson-­‐based Card Game Assertions One-­‐sided One-­‐sided Two-­‐sided Compound only single multiple reason reasons Figure 4. Combined case comparison of the structure of student reasoning patterns across interview contexts In addition to the differences in the structure of the reasoning patterns exhibited by the students in the different interview contexts, there were also differences in the argumentation schemes used. As shown in Figure 5, the largest percentage difference between the two interview contexts involved the use of arguments from Expert Opinion. In the lesson-­‐based interview contexts students were slightly more likely to give reasons that sounded like they were speaking from authority. They were also slightly less likely to provide reasons from the Request for Information and Inference categories. In both contexts the use of Analogies to support assertions was very rare. These differences in argumentation schemes, though apparent, are far less dramatic than those found in regards to the structure of students’ reasoning. However, when these results are considered in conjunction 69
with one another, it becomes clear that the two different interview contexts elicited distinct differences in the reasoning patterns exhibited by the students. As a result, the comparisons that are made between the reasoning patterns modeled and expected by the science teachers and those exhibited by the students are discussed separately according to each context. Lesson-­‐based vs. Card Game Argumentation Schemes 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Lesson-­‐based Card Game Expert Opinion Request for Information Analogy Inference Figure 5. Combined case comparison of the argumentation schemes used in each interview context Similarities in Reasoning of Teachers and Students The findings from this study indicate a great deal of similarity between the structure of the reasoning patterns modeled and expected by the teachers and those exhibited by the students during the lesson-­‐based interviews. As shown in Figure 6, the three teachers were very similar to each other in regards to the structure of their reasoning patterns. Because of this, the data displayed in Figure 7 consists of the aggregated data from all three teachers. This data is compared with the 70
aggregated data from the students in each of the three cases. Through this comparison the remarkable similarities between the teachers’ and students’ ways of reasoning in this context become clear. These similarities include the regular use of Assertions Only (about 75% of the reasoning-­‐related utterances), the moderate use of One-­‐sided arguments with a single reason given in support (about 17%), the occasional use of One-­‐sided arguments with multiple reasons given in support (about 6%), and the minimal use of both Two-­‐sided and Compound arguments. Teacher Structure Comparisons by Case 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Alma Ben Cathy Assertions One-­‐sided One-­‐sided only single reason multiple reasons Two-­‐sided Compound Figure 6. Case comparisons of the structure of teacher reasoning patterns during the inquiry-­‐based lessons 71
Teachers vs. Students: Lesson-­‐based 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Teachers Students Assertions One-­‐sided One-­‐sided Two-­‐sided Compound only single reason multiple reasons Figure 7. Combined case comparison of the structure of teachers’ reasoning patterns and the structure of the student’s reasoning patterns during the lesson-­‐
based interviews These striking similarities seem to indicate a great deal of congruence between what is modeled and expected by the science teachers and what their students exhibit during the inquiry-­‐based lessons. While this may seem encouraging, the reasoning patterns demonstrated do not involve any substantial use of the more complex structures. Both teachers’ and students’ dialogue in these contexts were dominated by unsupported assertions. They also both demonstrated the occasional use of a single reason to support their assertions but it was very rare for either to engage in dialogue of a more complex nature in the context of the lessons included in this study. The limited nature of this dialogue is representative of the IRE discourse patterns described by other researchers (Alozie et al., 2009; Mehan, 1979). This type of discourse is characterized by teacher-­‐led discussions that primarily involve authoritative assertions with very little or no backing provided. 72
So despite the similarities that exist in terms of the structure of the arguments used in the context of the lessons, the reasoning was quite simplistic and therefore not necessarily ideal in terms of promoting scientific reasoning. Common Appreciation for the Importance of Evidence One encouraging sign is that during their interviews both teachers and students made reference to the importance of making claims based on evidence. They also made the occasional reference to the use of more evidence as a means of establishing greater levels of certainty or credibility for claims. Even though this did not necessarily translate into the way they reasoned in the context of the inquiry-­‐
based lessons, it is clearly a point of emphasis in the minds of both the teachers and the students. For example, during the interview based on the Discovering Plate Boundaries lesson Alma was asked to describe her goals for the students in regards to this lesson. I think I wanted them to explore and recognize patterns and put information together based on evidence. The evidence they see it is not that they just draw up these hair-­‐brained ideas and say I just think this. It is all based on some evidence. If they were able to make those connections on their own before I reconfirmed what they were already thinking about, that is what I want. They have looked at the evidence and they are basing it on their own interpretation of the evidence. This emphasis on evidence was also mentioned by Ben during the interview based on the Fractional Distillation lesson. The following quote is Ben’s response to the question of what the overall point of the lesson was, and what he wanted the students to learn from the distillation activity. 73
I would like them to master at least, when they have a thought about I know I have this, then they draw another breath, and put the word in because, I know or I have proof that this is what I have. In elementary they have gotten to the point where they say this is what I have, they give the answer. It does not go beyond that and I want them to take that next step and say I know I have this because or this is my reasoning. This is what I found. Whatever it is that gets them to take a second look at it and support their claim. That is my overall goal for the 7th grade level. To provide reasons for why they say what they say. For now just to support why they are thinking what they are thinking. During the post-­‐lesson interviews on the Continental Drift and Axial Seamount lessons, Cathy was even more explicit about the use of more evidence as a means of establishing greater levels of credibility for claims. During each interview, I asked her about the overall purpose of the lesson. The first quote is her response during the Continental Drift lesson and the second is her response during the Axial Seamount lesson. The big point that I had in mind was that more evidence is more powerful for an explanation. So it is not just the continental fit or the fossils, it is both of them together. _____________________ We introduced this activity to again show them the different types of evidence that we have supporting that the axial volcano is down there. And how scientist learned about it and its eruptions. The point for us doing this was to get them to believe that axial volcano is down there and it is down there based on these four different types of evidence that we looked at in our activities. And tagged on to that point would be that this is often how science works. The more evidence that supports something the more believable it is and the stronger the argument for it is. Student participants in each of the three cases exhibited a similar appreciation for the importance of evidence and the use of more evidence as a means of increasing credibility. For example, during the first round of lesson-­‐based 74
interviews one of Alma’s students talked about the Discovering Plate Boundaries lesson: The more evidence you have, the better your project is going to be, the closer you are going to get to being right and you could convince people. Like a crime scene. Like you have evidence and then it is like I suspect these people and then with more evidence you can narrow it down into the final. This appreciation for the role of evidence was also mentioned by Ben’s students during the interview based on the Fractional Distillation lesson. The lesson had required students to collect data from the tests they conducted and then use their data to support their claims about what they thought the two “mystery” liquids were. They also had to write a short essay summarizing their conclusions. In the following example, a group of students explain the importance of using evidence to support the claims they made in their essay. Wynn: Here, I will read part of mine. ‘Firstly, the sample of our liquid 1 burned very quickly with a hint of blue in the center. The reason why this evidence supports my statement is because my control sample also burned with a little blue in the center.’ So that is how it goes if you are going to say what you think, you have to explain why you think that, and if you say I think it was water because you told us it was water then you would get a zero because that is not what he is looking for in this particular essay at this time. He is looking for you to explain why. Gill: You need to have proof and stuff to back up what you say. You need evidence. Sara: the more evidence you have the more conclusive your conclusion will be. So if you have a really large amount of evidence then you can increase the probability that you are correct. If you have a small amount of evidence then it is more and more likely, depending on the amount of evidence, the smaller the amount of evidence you have, the less conclusive your conclusion is. 75
Cathy’s students were slightly less explicit about the role of evidence in constructing explanations. However, they did seem to appreciate that the lessons were designed to highlight the evidence used in the construction of current theories about plate tectonics. For Example, during the Continental Drift lesson the students were asked the question, “What was the point of this activity?” In one instance a group offered the following response: Julie: Like it gives proof, like, I mean I think we all heard that we know about continental drift. This showed the evidence part of it, so I guess I learned that. Katrina: To learn where fossils are? I think. John: To show how the one scientist guy proved that all the continents were one super continent. How he put together fossils and shapes and they matched. Julie: And we need more information than just shapes and fossils. Maybe some different things, like maybe plants also, other things. Even though this emphasis on the importance of multiple pieces of evidence or reasons to support claims does not necessarily translate into the way they reason in the context the inquiry-­‐based lessons, it is clearly appreciated by both the teachers and the students. This shared appreciation as well as the correlation in reasoning patterns points to a strong base of similarities that can be used as a starting point for facilitating progression into the use of more complex reasoning skills. Comparison of Argumentation Schemes Used Aside from the similarities in structure, there were also some similarities 76
between the argumentation schemes modeled by the teachers and those exhibited by their students. However, there was also some amount of variety between the cases in terms of the argumentation schemes used by the teachers. In particular, the teachers each had their own characteristic styles in terms of the types of reasons they gave in support of their claims (see Figure 8). Out of a total of 33 reasons provided during the lessons, Alma used reasons based on Analogy more often than any other (40%). She also regularly made arguments from Expert opinion (about 36%) and occasionally made arguments using Requests for information (24%). In the context of the lessons included in this study, Alma made no arguments based on Inference. Out of a total of 29 reasons given, Ben very regularly made arguments from expert opinion (70%), occasionally made arguments using Request for information (14%), and from Inference (17%). Ben was also the only teacher to not make arguments from Analogy at any point during the lessons observed. Out of a total of 52 reasons provided over the course of the lessons observed, Cathy used arguments from Expert opinion most often (77%). She also occasionally made arguments using Requests for Information (11%), and from Analogy (10%) of the time. Lastly, she very seldom made arguments from Inference (2%). 77
Teacher Argumentation Schemes Comparisons by Case 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Alma Ben Cathy Expert Opinion Request for Information Analogy Inference Figure 8. Case comparisons of the argumentation schemes of the teachers’ reasoning patterns Despite these differences in the types of reasons the teachers used to support their assertions, and the differences between the types of reasons students used in the different contexts, there were a couple of general similarities between the argumentation schemes used by the teachers and those exhibited by the students. In particular, the use of arguments from Expert Opinion was quite common and the use of arguments from the Request for Information and inference categories were consistently in evidence, but far less frequently. That both teachers and students used arguments from each of these three categories on a consistent basis points to a similarity in the use of a variety argumentation schemes to support claims. This similarity is encouraging in that it indicates students’ ability to argue using a variety of types of supports. It also indicates that teachers are actively modeling the use of different types of reasons thereby encouraging more diverse reasoning. These 78
similarities suggest another potentially useful element in efforts to establish instructional congruence. Differences in Reasoning Perhaps one of the most significant findings in regards to the first question posed by this study involves the structure of the student arguments elicited during the card games. The structures of the arguments made in this context were quite different than anything modeled or expected by the teachers. As described earlier, the reasoning elicited by the card game interviews was also structurally different than the reasoning elicited during the inquiry-­‐based interviews. These differences provide strong evidence that the students have reasoning skills that were not elicited by the lessons observed and were not modeled or expected by the teachers (see Figure 9). Teachers vs. Students: Card Game 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Teachers Students Assertions One-­‐sided One-­‐sided Two-­‐sided Compound only single reason multiple reasons Figure 9. Combined case comparison of the structure of teachers’ reasoning 79
patterns and the structure of the student’s reasoning patterns during the card game interviews When compared with what was modeled and expected by the teachers, the reasoning that was exhibited by the students during the card game interviews was far more complex. Students were about 25% less likely to make unsupported assertions, about 7% more likely to use a single reason in support of their assertions, and about 3% more likely to provide multiple reasons in support of their claims. Perhaps most importantly however, they were also far more likely to exhibit Two-­‐sided and Compound arguments. This means that during the card games, the students more regularly considered alternative explanations and even provided contextual details about the conditions under which those alternatives might apply. While it is encouraging that the students are capable of engaging in dialogue of a more complex nature, it is interesting that this type of dialogue was rarely elicited by the inquiry-­‐based lessons, and was seldom, if ever, modeled or expected by the teachers. These findings suggest that the teachers were not entirely supportive of student’s complex reasoning abilities, both in terms of the lessons they designed and in terms of what they modeled during classroom dialogue. In regards to the design of the lessons, the content objectives of each of the activities included in this study were clear. This clarity may have discouraged students from considering alternative explanations because they had little reason to doubt the accuracy of the information provided. As a result, the reasoning patterns exhibited in these contexts were limited. In contrast to this, the card game interviews had no specific 80
learning objectives and may have encouraged debate as a result. The students knew that there was a correct answer, but it was up to them to decide what they thought that answer was. As a result, the reasoning patterns exhibited in these contexts were quite complex. Alma addressed this design issue during the interview based on the Modeling Seismic Activity lesson when she talked about factors she thought might have limited opportunities to engage in more complex reasoning. We did not really explore other avenues. I think because the unit was done when we were talking about earthquakes I don’t think we opened the door for opportunities for that type of thinking. Because they knew “ok we are doing this lab in this unit so it has to be related to this particular concept.” So it was understood that there was an answer for what was happening. We did not consider other possible explanations. Nothing even sticks out in my head about someone bringing up another point of view. During the interview based on the Fractional Distillation lesson, Ben expressed similar sentiments in regards to the influence of having specific learning objectives. He also he also mentioned the constraints of time as being a factor in this equation as well. Well hey if you just tell the kids what the answer is, then what? Teachers always want the students to end up knowing what the answer is so they feed them little hints along the way and I think that is kind of human nature. And to kind of step back and let the students struggle on their own and figure out on their own, it takes practice to get there, but it is useful to them. It’s that discovery or ah ha moment. I still wonder sometimes if I am giving the kids too much. But time is such a factor in the classroom you only have so much time so you have to manage because you only have so many days to get X amount of work done and to do this inquiry, as I have learned as I was taking my master’s class, time was a big factor. Because you have to let the kids think. A lot of teachers spoon-­‐feed them because it is quicker. Here is the answer or here is how you get the answer. So time is a really big factor. 81
Cathy provided similar insights into this issue during the interview based on the Axial Seamount lesson. In this case, she was expressing some amount of frustration with the lack of consideration of alternative explanations elicited by the lessons. The lessons had been designed with the explicit intention of engaging students in this type of reasoning, but had failed to do so. In the following quotes she is reflecting on why this may have occurred. I just think it has a lot to do with the fact that there is a right answer and they know that. It also has to do with the fact that the activities are not equal in length so groups finished and others had days of work left. So the distribution was off, which made me feel hurried. I think when a teacher feels hurried they chop, and they generally lose part of the lesson. And they just don’t explore it deeper. It has a lot to do with my execution. In regards to the reasoning patterns modeled by the teachers during classroom dialogue, the teachers themselves exhibited relatively simplistic reasoning patterns. This is in some ways surprising because it was expected that the teachers would perhaps model more complex reasoning than what was exhibited by the students and that the lessons would involve opportunities for students to challenge their reasoning abilities. Instead, the teachers’ reasoning matched what was exhibited by the students in the context of the lessons and was more simplistic in comparison to what was exhibited by the students in the context of the card games. Because the teachers did not engage in more complex reasoning, it is not surprising that the students did not do so either. While Cathy was reflecting on why her Axial Seamount lesson had failed to engage students in the consideration of 82
competing explanations, I asked her why she thought her discussions with the students did not involve more debates. She responded by stating: I guess there was more room for alternative explanations during the [Continental Drift] lesson because it seems a little more open. This [Axial Seamount] lesson is more of an answer; give me an answer, type lesson. It might have been more powerful to build in that piece of an alternative explanation and not just go around the room and taking a few ideas. The statements made by the teachers provide some amount of insight into the limited nature of the reasoning observed during the lessons and lesson-­‐based interviews. However, in terms of the complex reasoning exhibited during the card games, it is difficult to determine what it was about this context that elicited such distinctly different reasoning patterns than those modeled and expected by the teachers. Thought this study is not designed to gain insights into this important issue, it does highlight the distinct differences that exist between what is modeled and expected by the teachers and what their students are clearly capable of. In terms of establishing instructional congruence, these differences point to a resource that students may possess that can be used to help facilitate their progression into the use of more complex reasoning skills. Funds of Knowledge The second and third questions addressed in this study further address issues of equity in science education through an inquiry into the ways in which students utilize their linguistic and cultural resources, or funds of knowledge, during inquiry-­‐
83
based science lessons and the practices teachers use to encourage students’ use of these resources during inquiry-­‐based science lessons. The analysis of the data involved identifying instances in which the teachers made explicit attempts to elicit the students’ use of their funds of knowledge as well as instances in which the students made explicit use of their funds. The findings that pertain to each of these questions are addressed in separate sections below. Teachers’ Attempts to Elicit Students’ Use of Funds In each of the three cases included in this study, teachers’ attempts to elicit students’ use of their funds were seldom, but definitely in evidence. At some point in each of the lessons, the teacher made some kind of an attempt to connect the lesson to knowledge they thought the students might posses as a result of their experiences outside of the classroom. Over the course of 5 instructional days, Alma made these kinds of attempts 11 times, Ben 5 times, and Cathy 8 times. There were three types of attempts that were in evidence in this data: the use of analogies, examples, and questions. The teachers’ use of analogies as a means of supporting their claims was one of the most distinct ways in which they attempted to elicit students’ use of their funds of knowledge. In particular, Alma used analogies quite frequently. In fact, almost all of her attempts to elicit students’ funds came in the form of analogies. During the lessons observed she compared the science content to Oreo cookies, escalators, lava lamps, moving sidewalks, eggshells, conveyor belts, Slinkys, and snakes. Here are a 84
few examples of the analogies she used in her dialogue with the students: Well you know the escalator part is moving right? So what is going to happen to me if I am standing on it? I am going to move too. Right? So the convection currents are like the escalator. You are standing on the escalator and it is moving and the asthenosphere is moving and the lithosphere is standing on top so it will be moving also. _____________________ So has anybody ever been on an escalator or a moving sidewalk? When you step on it, what happens? Ya, you start moving up or down. So the escalator is moving, why are you moving? Ya, because you are standing on top of it. So the same idea applies to the asthenosphere. Because it is moving just like an escalator or moving sidewalk, the lithosphere is getting pushed or pulled. So the lithosphere moves because of the moving sidewalk or escalator underneath it. So the lithosphere is also broken into sections. This is what we are talking about with our plates. _____________________ Ya. Tectonic plates. So these tectonic plates are broken up almost like an eggshell. So if you crack an egg it breaks into pieces. So the earth has crack just like an eggshell and it gets pulled and pushed because of this conveyer belt Cathy also used analogies during the lessons observed. One instance occurred during the Continental Drift lesson when she compared the rate of tectonic plate movement to the rate of fingernail growth, “So tectonic plates move about as fast as your fingernails grow. And that is about 5 to 10 centimeters a year. So look here at my yardstick. See the top part? This is about how much they move per year.” The other instance occurred during the Axial Seamount lesson when she compared scientists to detectives, “Scientists are kind of like detectives. So being like a 85
detective you might look at some of the evidence and be a little skeptical about some of the evidence you see over the next couple of weeks.” Ben was a little more subtle in his use of analogies, but through his dialogue he twice tried to compare the tasks they were doing to things that the students might relate to as being fun, perhaps hoping that this would make the lessons more fun as a result. In one instance he refers to the Fractional Distillation lesson as being a puzzle, “We have a big puzzle on our hands. It is what are the two molecules that I am going to give to you today in a mixture that we are going to separate today.” In another he refers to it is as a game, “I want to know what you think you have. That is what the game was. The game was to see what you had in your mixture. I want to know what you have to say.” While each of the teachers’ use of analogies represent clear attempts to elicit students’ funds of knowledge, they did not occur with any great regularity and were seldom explicitly developed to make the details of the analogy clear. The lack of explanation surrounding the analogies indicate that the teachers are in some ways assuming that the students understand how the analogy applies and how it doesn’t and take for granted that it helps them understand the concept better. While this may hold true in some cases, it is likely not necessarily true for all students. It is possible that this kind of approach can lead to subtle inequities by privileging the students who are more familiar with the analogy and are therefore more likely to grasp it’s implied correlation with the topic of discussion. 86
In addition to using analogies, two of the teachers also occasionally used a strategy that involved the use of examples that they thought the students might be familiar with. Ben used this strategy 8 times during the lessons observed, and Cathy used this strategy twice. The use of these examples represent clear attempts to make the material more relevant and meaningful by connecting the concepts with what they thought the students might be familiar with or interested in. For instance, during the Fractional Distillation lesson, Ben was trying to impress upon his students the importance of using multiple pieces of evidence to support your claims when he used the example of a criminal case to make his point; “I mean you would be kicking and screaming if you were dragged to jail based on just saying oh your fingerprints matched. They need more.” Cathy also tried to use examples that she thought her students could relate to. During the Axial Seamount lesson she tried to use a local area in one of her examples in the hopes that it would increase the students’ interest; “We live here in [this state]. We might go to [this town] and stay on the beach with friends. Across the ocean is Japan, but all we see is a big expanse of water.” A third strategy the teachers used to elicit their students’ funds of knowledge involved the use of questions. The use of this strategy, like the use of examples, was quite rare but definitely in evidence. In terms of establishing instructional congruence, this strategy seems very promising because it is designed to get students to provide their own ideas. For example, during the Modeling Seismic Activity lesson, Alma was describing tectonic plate movements when she asked her 87
students, “So what would we give as an example of how this works?” Cathy also used this strategy. During the introduction to the Axial Seamount lesson she asked her students two different questions that were designed to elicit their use of their funds of knowledge. The first one was in response to a comment by one of her students; “So are we saying that we know the Hawaiian Islands are volcanoes?” In this instance she was trying to take advantage of what the students indicated they know about the Hawaiian Islands. In the other instance she is trying to get students to relate the speed of tectonic plate movements to something they are familiar with. “So write in your notes, tectonic plates move as fast as… What do they move as fast as? This strategy of questioning differs from the other two strategies described in this study in that it is the only one designed to elicit students’ funds by asking them to make connections based on their own ideas. In the case of analogies and examples, the teachers take it upon themselves to provide the connections that they think are most relevant and useful. These strategies are perhaps helpful, but they assume that the connections made are relevant to the students and this may not necessarily be the case. The question asking strategy may increase the opportunity for the incorporation of actual relevant funds of knowledge because it encourages students to make connections that are meaningful to them. It may also help facilitate the development of classroom cultures in which students understand that the use of these resources is not only acceptable during science lessons, but also encouraged. 88
Teachers’ Appreciation for the Importance of Eliciting Students’ Funds In addition to these explicit attempts to elicit students’ funds during the lessons, the teachers also mentioned the importance of this practice during the post-­‐
lesson interviews. Through the comments they made during these interviews it is clear that the teachers understand that students possess these types of resources and that they can benefit from opportunities to incorporate them into science lessons. Ben for example, made several statements to this effect after being asked how he draws on students’ previous experiences to help them make sense of concepts in his class. Well it seemed like I tried to find ways to make it more relevant to them. A lot of these kids have seen TV shows with CSI and who done it kind of thing. Which is again making that connection with their experiences in the classroom and things they have dealt with at home on a real life basis in one way or another. _____________________ Ask them how many people have had family members with radiation treatment or x-­‐rays. Everyone in the room has had some type of medical treatment that deals with radiation in their lifetime. _____________________ Some were still trying to figure out what it was, but a lot knew it was some type of alcohol. And those two liquids are things they have dealt with before in their lives. They have rubbing alcohol in their homes and water obviously. So they have experience with these chemicals in their lives. Which is again making that connection with their experiences in the classroom and things they have dealt with at home on a real life basis in one way or another. Cathy especially seemed to appreciate that some of her lessons could either privilege or marginalize students depending on their background experiences. For 89
example, during the post-­‐lesson interview based on the Continental Drift lesson she was discussing the reasoning she expected the students to engage in during the activity around which the lesson was designed. This activity required students to place fossils on different parts of a world map based on a description of the location where they were originally found. The students were then supposed to use this information along with the shape of the continents to create what they thought Pangaea might have looked like. While discussing this part of the lesson, she mentioned her surprise at the difficulty some students had with determining where the fossils should be placed and reflected on why they may have struggled. I think those judgment calls are a little biased in the background knowledge that the students have about the geography of the world. There are those who have heard of Pangaea and seen pictures of it, so it depends on their background knowledge. Even brief exposures to this could predispose them to be more successful, however you define success. Together, the attempts during the lessons and the responses during the interviews indicate the teachers’ clear appreciation for the importance of connecting the content from science lessons with students’ funds of knowledge. Each of the three teachers clearly made attempts to elicit students’ use of their funds. However, the use of these strategies was infrequent and it is unclear how effective they were. This was particularly true in the case of teachers’ use of analogies and examples because the connections made were based on ideas provided by the teachers and not the students. Ideally, the students would be the ones providing the connections, thus increasing the chance that the connections will help them make sense of the 90
new concepts. The connections provided by the teachers, while perhaps useful for some students, are likely not useful for all. In addition to the teachers’ attempts to elicit their students’ out-­‐of-­‐school funds, each of the teachers also occasionally made references to previous lessons. These references were clearly designed as a means of connecting new information to students’ background knowledge. For example, during the Discovering Plate Boundaries lesson, Alma was trying to help her students understand how the different layers of the earth contribute to tectonic plate movement. Convection currents. I know you spent two weeks talking about convection currents. They happen in the asthenosphere. And because they are happening we get these hot plastic flowing substances. Remember the Oreo cookies activity where the creamy filling was like the asthenosphere? And because that part is moving, it is pushing and pulling something else. This reference to a previous class activity is an attempt to elicit the student’s previous knowledge on the current topic. While this strategy may be an important means of eliciting students’ background knowledge, instances such as this one were not included as attempts to elicit students’ use of their funds. The primary reason for this is because they reference in-­‐school experiences. If these in-­‐school experiences themselves restricted access or hindered individuals from diverse backgrounds from engaging and identifying with them, it is likely that references to these lessons had the same effect. Because of this, the funds of knowledge this study are concerned with are those that result from students’ out-­‐of-­‐school experiences. The important distinction here is that the funds that result from out-­‐of-­‐school 91
experiences are more likely to be linguistically and culturally relevant to the lives of the students than school experiences and are thus ultimately more likely to help make school learning meaningful. Because of this, they are also more likely to be useful in terms of helping students create meaningful connections that help them understand new concepts. Students’ Use of Their Funds During the Lesson-­‐based Interviews Students’ use of their funds of knowledge during the lesson-­‐based interviews was, for the most part, extremely limited. There were instances in each case in which the students referenced their out of school funds, but due to the lack of prolific use of these resources, it is difficult to describe any patterns or trends that emerged in their use. Although this makes it somewhat difficult to provide much insight into the ways in which the students from these cases used their funds in this context, the lack of findings alone is quite interesting. Alma’s students for instance, only exhibited the use of their funds twice during the lesson-­‐based interviews. In one of these instances a student used the example of a crime scene to explain the importance of gathering multiple pieces of evidence to strengthen a claim. In the other case, a student is clearly making a connection between the earthquake data displayed on one of the Discovering Plate Boundaries maps and the real life consequences of major earthquakes. Ya like a crime scene. Like evidence and then it is like I suspect these people and then with more evidence you can narrow it down into the final. 92
_____________________ To me, it kind of disturbed me knowing that some people might have lost their lives there. Knowing how big and when it happened the consequences that they had to go through like I don’t know its like they are dots on the paper and then once you read the blue things (refers to the chart in his hands) and knew what it meant that is when I started getting down. Cathy’s students also exhibited very limited use of their funds during the lesson-­‐based interviews. The few instances in which her students’ funds were elicited primarily involved references to television shows, particularly those aired on the Discovery channel. For example, during the interview based on the Continental Drift lesson the students were asked if the activity they did helped them understand anything better. Their responses varied in terms of whether it helped or not, but in three different instances students mentioned their previous experiences with television shows as being influential in their thinking. Ummm, no. I had already seen this on Discovery Channel sometime in elementary school. _________________ Well, I thought it was interesting because I saw lots of stuff we learned in school and Discovery when I was younger. But never really listened to any of the facts or anything when they didn’t actually have it on TV. And so I find it interesting to see the actual proof behind it. _________________ Um, hum. And more understanding how it works because when I watched it on TV I was like, oh, that’s so cool, but now I’m like, oh, I actually understand that now. For the most part, Ben’s students were also very limited in their use of their funds during the lesson-­‐based interviews. The lone exception to this trend occurred 93
in relation to one particular question asked during the interview based on the Fractional Distillation lesson. During this interview the students were asked a question very similar to what the teachers had asked them during the lesson, and had emphasized as a major part of the lesson. This question had to do with justifying their claim as to the identity of one of the mystery liquids. Students had almost universally determined that one of the substances involved was alcohol. Of the fifteen instances in which Ben’s students exhibited the use of their funds, almost all of them came in relation to the question of why they thought the substance was alcohol. The lesson involved a density calculation and a flammability test as a means of identifying the substances. While there seemed to be ample opportunity to refer to the data from these tests, many students chose instead to reference knowledge gained from their out of school lives. Nail polish remover. _____________________ It smelled like nail polish remover. _____________________ Lots of things. My parents. Geez is that bad? _____________________ We have some in our cabinets where we keep all our medicine. _____________________ When we first separated our liquids we kind of had an idea because it smelled like the doctor’s office _____________________ My brother uses it on his face for his acne. _____________________ 94
The doctor’s office smells like that and I know they use alcohol. _____________________ In a video game you can take a bottle of alcohol and put a cloth in the opening, light it, and throw it like, like throw it at somebody. That this one particular part of a lesson and the line of questioning that went with it so clearly elicited students’ use of their funds, when so many others failed to do so, is quite interesting. The statements made by Ben’s students indicate that they have had experiences out of school that have familiarized them with the properties of alcohol and have equipped them with the ability to identify it when they come across it. In some ways it seems perfectly natural that they would reference these funds of knowledge when asked during the lesson-­‐based interviews how they knew the substance was alcohol. What makes this unusual however, is that the students so rarely referenced their funds during any other parts of the lesson-­‐based interviews. This limited use of funds was also evident during the lesson-­‐based interviews in the other cases as well. When combined, these findings indicate that something about these interviews, and therefore presumably the lessons themselves, were limited in their ability to elicit students’ use of their funds. The exception to this was the question about why the students knew it the mystery substance was alcohol. In terms of establishing instructional congruence, understanding what it was about this particular question or aspect of the lesson that was able to elicit students’ use of their funds while others were not is worth exploring further. Insights such as these could help expand our understanding of the ability of different questioning strategies and lesson designs to elicit students’ 95
use of their funds. Students’ Use of Their Funds During the Card Game Interviews Students’ use of their funds of knowledge during the card game interviews was far more prolific than what they exhibited during the lesson-­‐based interviews (see Figure 10). In each of the three cases students quite frequently utilized their funds of knowledge while reasoning about the accuracy of the scientific statements on the cards. While somewhat loosely appropriated, each of these instances were categorized as involving references to their experiences at home, in their community, or with some form of popular culture. It was originally expected that students might also utilize funds based on peer interactions, but these were not in evidence in the data. Regardless of the source, the funds exhibited by students during these interviews were primarily used as a means of providing some type of support for their claims. During the interviews students were asked to try to reach a consensus as to which of the three cards were true and which one was false. As a result, the discussions that occurred involved students reasoning with each other as they tried to work towards agreement. The students would try to convince each other by explaining why it was they were making a particular assertion. Although the statements they were reasoning about were scientific in nature, students almost never referred to relevant science concepts as explanations or reasons for their assertions. Instead they chose to reference their personal experiences or background knowledge as a means of establishing the credibility of their claims. For 96
example, Ben’s students were just starting to look over the cards from the first card set. One of the students picked up the card that states: Some volcanic rocks can float in water. As soon as he read the card, the student declared, “True. Pumice, I have it at my house.” As he placed the card down another student read it and backed up his assertion by saying, “I have some of that at my house too and it floats. It doesn’t feel like a rock it is super soft and powdery.” In this exchange the students are making reference to their experiences at home as a means of establishing the credibility of their common assertion that pumice can float. They are also working off the assumption that pumice is a volcanic rock. This assumption is eventually challenged later in the conversation, and the group determines that pumice is indeed a volcanic rock. However, the students did not explicitly reference their funds of knowledge during this exchange. Instead they reference a previous lesson as a means of settling the dispute. Card Game Vs Lesson-­‐based Funds of Knowledge Usage 40 35 30 25 20 Card game 15 Lesson-­‐based 10 5 0 Alma's Students Ben's Students Cathy's Students Figure 10. Comparison of the number of times the students made reference to their 97
funds of knowledge in the different interview contexts Another example of the ways in which the students used their funds of knowledge from home to support their claims involves one of Alma’s students. In this instance a group of students are discussing the card that states: A ball of pure glass will bounce higher than a ball of pure rubber if dropped from the same height. After a considerable amount of debate as to which one would bounce higher, one of the students attempted to provide the decisive argument by asserting that the pure rubber would bounce higher because, “my dad used to work in this factory and they had this stuff that was like pure rubber and they fabricated it into rubber things and it was super bouncy.” In this instance, this reference to an experience related to her father’s work is designed to increase the credibility of her claim that the rubber would bounce higher. Students’ use of funds related to their experiences in their community was also characterized by efforts to establish credibility or to provide support for their claims. In the following examples students make reference to experiences at National parks, State parks, and campgrounds. In each instance, the students are referencing these experiences as a means of establishing their authority on the subject, thus providing support for their assertions. The first examples are from three different groups of Alma’s students reasoning about the card that states: Some volcanic rocks can float in water. I’ve seen it float at Obsidian Falls. There was this stream and we were throwing floating rocks into the river. The falls were really cool there were like huge valleys of it. 98
_____________________ There is a national park that is like all volcanic rock and like the rock is really light and has air bubble in it and it would float. _____________________ I saw that kind of rock when I was camping in eastern Oregon. Cathy’s students also made regular references to funds from experiences in their community. In one example her students are discussing the card that states: Due to gravitational effects, you weigh slightly less when the moon is directly overhead. One student began the debate by making the assertion that the position of the moon does not have an effect on your weight. The other responded with, “I think you are wrong because last summer we went to Ripley’s Believe It or Not and you step on this scale that shows what you would weigh on all the planets and stuff.” While the student’s assertion is somewhat off topic, her attempt to support her “I think you are wrong” claim by referencing her experience at the exhibit is obvious. Ben’s students also made occasional references to funds from experiences in their community. In the following example his students are discussing the card that states: More germs can be transferred through shaking hands than kissing. One of the students makes her point about the types of things you touch with your hands as compared to things you touch with your mouth by stating, “Like going to the mall and getting on an escalator and putting your hand on the rail, like a billion people have touched it. And you don’t really put your lips to the railing that often unless you are weird.” 99
In addition to referencing their experiences at home and in their communities, the students also made quite a few references to their experiences with a variety of forms of pop culture. In the following examples students make references to Snapple, Facebook, a variety of TV shows, and a personal communication device. As was the case with the other use of funds described, the students seem to be making these references as a means of describing how it is they came to know what they are asserting they know. In this way, they are offering up their experiences as a means of establishing the credibility of their claims. More germs can be…. Yes that one is true. Snapple taught me this. Snapple. Facebook. You know like on the back of the bottle cap? _____________________ I was watching a show on planets because I am so cool, and I know it is not true. _____________________ Wait; doesn’t it travel 4 times faster in the water? I watch science TV shows because my mom likes to watch them and I have tried it. _____________________ I think this dead bugs one is false. I just remember reading it somewhere. Or like PBS kids. It was a long time ago. _____________________ Well I think it is dead skin because I have this app. on my I-­‐touch and it has this fact it is like 80% of the dust in your house is I think it says dead skin. _____________________ Well I don’t think it was very much like earth because when it went out it didn’t have, well I think it false because I don’t think they have proof it sustained life. They did for mars but not the moon. I watch a lot of NASA shows because we have the NASA channel. I could be wrong. _____________________ 100
This one is true because I have seen it somewhere where metal melts in your hand. It was in some science encyclopedia thing on TV. This pattern of referencing funds of knowledge as a means of supporting authoritative assertions was evident across all the cases and card sets involved. It was also evident in each of the different sources of funds referenced. The excerpts described are just a few examples of the instances in which the students used their funds in the context of these interviews. In each of these examples the students are referencing their funds either as support for a direct assertion about the accuracy of the scientific statement on the card (stating that it is true or false and then giving a reason why) or as a means of providing additional information that they feel is relevant to the discussion (“They did for mars but not the moon”). When considered as a whole, the wide variety of funds elicited in the context of the card game interviews demonstrates that students have a diverse repertoire of funds of knowledge that they potentially use as resources while reasoning. This prolific use of funds is in some ways encouraging because it indicates students readiness to use these funds while reasoning with their peers. However, most of the reasons given were from positions of authority. More complex arguments such as those involving inferences or analogies were not in evidence as often. The reasons provided were also not necessarily connected with any actual science concepts. Factors Affecting Students’ Explicit Use of Their Funds The differences in students’ use of their funds of knowledge in the different 101
interview contexts suggest that contextual factors may have influenced the ways in which the students utilized their funds. This study was not initially designed to examine, students’ use of their funds in different contexts. However, in light of the distinct differences that emerged, there was an interest in gaining some insight into what mediated the differences. In an attempt to gain further insight into this topic, a fifth round of interviews was conducted with select student groups. It had been obvious throughout the study that participation in the two different interview contexts was different and I wanted to gain insights into why. In particular, I wanted to gain insights into why they made more explicit references to their out-­‐of-­‐
school experiences during the card game interviews than they did during their inquiry-­‐based lessons. When asked about this, the students talked about several factors that could have contributed. To begin with, the students talked about how the understanding that the lessons had a “right answer” limited their willingness to offer their own ideas in these contexts. They also talked about how the card game interviews provided them with more opportunity to engage in discussions with their peers, and that they were more willing to offer their ideas as a result. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the students talked about their ability to make connections between their out-­‐of-­‐school experiences and the statements on the cards, but not with the topics in their science lessons. The understanding that the lessons had a right answer and the opportunity to engage in discussions with their peers were both mentioned by students as being factors that affected their willingness to offer their own ideas during the discussions 102
that occurred in each of the interview contexts. If students are more willing to offer their own ideas, it is perhaps also more likely that these ideas will come from out of school experiences. In this way, the student’s willingness to offer their own ideas may have affected the regularity with which they explicitly referenced their funds of knowledge. In regards to the understanding that the lessons had a right answer, the students talked about how they got to use their own ideas during the card game interviews, but during the lessons they knew there was a correct answer that would at some point be revealed. For example, during an interview with a group of Alma’s students, one of them explained, “in the card games we really got to debate our own ideas.” Another student immediately added, “The teacher does not really give us that opportunity [in the lessons]. She just tells us the right answer right away and she doesn’t let us think about it like you did with the card game.” A third student in this group echoed these sentiments by stating, “also like we had to figure the cards out ourselves and in the lessons the teacher is eventually going to tell you what the answer is.” From these statements it is clear that in the context of the card game interviews the students were encouraged to engage in the dialogue because they felt free to offer their own ideas. It is possible that this readiness to offer their own ideas may also have contributed to the increase in explicit use of their funds of knowledge in these contexts as well. The students also talked about the influence of opportunities to engage in discussions with their peers, and the feeling of equality that resulted, as a factor that 103
influenced their willingness to offer their own ideas. In the lesson-­‐based interviews the researcher essentially took on the role of teacher during the re-­‐creation of the lessons. As a result, the dialogue mostly involved back and forth exchanges between the interviewer and the students. In contrast to this, the dialogue that occurred during the card game interviews primarily involved peer-­‐to-­‐peer exchanges between and among students in the group. As they debated over the statements on the cards, the students addressed each other almost exclusively. One of Ben’s students provided some insight into how this might encourage students to engage in the conversation and offer their ideas when she said, “ … when we talk with other students we feel like we have more say in the conversation than when we talk with teachers. We are more equals.” These feelings of equality clearly contributed to students’ readiness to offer their ideas. As a result, they may also have contributed to the regularity with which the students’ explicitly referenced their funds of knowledge. Another factor that may have contributed to students’ more explicit use of their funds during the card game interviews involves students’ feelings about their ability to make connections between their out-­‐of-­‐school experiences and the statements on the cards, but not with the topics in their science lessons. For example, one of Cathy’s students explained, When you are in class you are just like talking about what your teacher said and there is not really a case outside of school that you can relate to what your teacher said. But stuff like the card game is not like stuff that we really talk about during class. It is stuff that we can relate to. 104
Bill’s students expressed similar sentiments in regards to why they did not talk about out-­‐of-­‐school experiences during their lessons, “Well generally when you are in class and you are asked about class you just talk more about class.” and “You don’t really reference the outside world because you are not in the outside world.” Statements such as these help provide some amount of insight into why the students’ explicit use of their funds were so different in the different interview contexts. They also verify the finding from the funds of knowledge analysis in regards to students’ infrequent use of their funds of knowledge in the context of the lesson-­‐based interviews. The card game interviews were different from the lesson-­‐
based interviews, in part, because the statements on the cards were not tied to a particular lesson so the students perhaps felt less restricted in the range of experiences they could draw upon as they engaged in discussions. As a result, they made more explicit references to their out of school experiences as a means of supporting their points. Students’ Insights Into Their Use of Funds The statements made by students in regards to why they don’t talk about their out of school experiences during their science lessons shed some light on why the students’ explicit use of their funds were so different in the different interview contexts. However, it was recognized that it was possible that the students were making connections with their out-­‐of-­‐school experiences to help make sense of new ideas during their science lessons, but they were not explicitly talking about them. 105
To gain further insights into how students were actually thinking in these contexts they were asked the question: “When you are doing your science lessons do you think about things from outside of school to help you make sense of new ideas?” An overwhelming majority of the responses to this question indicated that the students in each of the three cases felt like their in-­‐school and out-­‐of-­‐school lives were very separate. Their responses also indicated that they don’t really think about their out of school experiences during their lessons. In the following examples, Alma’s students are very explicit about not making these kinds of connections. Joseph: Inside of school and outside of school is like two different lives. _____________________ Leslie: I don’t really think about outside of school stuff when I am in school unless I am bored. Jordan: Our school life and our outside life is separate. Unless it is brought up. _____________________ Pat: …when you are inside school, you don’t really think about outside of school as much. Mica: Not many things I do outside of school really relate to what I do in lessons. Lauren: There is no connection. Ben’s students also talked about not making connections between their in-­‐school and out-­‐of-­‐school lives. For example, one of his students described how she “never really thought about relating stuff to outside of class.” In another instance a group of students describe how they “separate school and life”. 106
Bill: I don’t know. I separate school and life into two different categories. Like school is its own little bucket of knowledge and then there is the rest of life. Tara: I also separate school and life. I usually forget most of the things I use in school, especially over the summer time. Cathy’s students shared similar thoughts in regards to not being able to make relevant connections between school and the rest of life. Here are just a couple of examples of what her students said about using their out of school experiences to help them make sense of new ideas during their science lessons: Juan: I don’t really get how it helps you understand things during class. Sue: Ya, me too. It doesn’t seem relevant. Theresa: I don’t’ really put the things I learn in school to the things I learn in life. I am not just like oh this is kind of the same. I just don’t connect them that much. _____________________ Julian: Well it is like if you are at school you are talking about school, and if you are out in life, then you are talking about life. So when we were talking about lessons then that is what we are talking about. The statements made by students in each of the three cases verify the results of the funds of knowledge analysis in regard to students’ infrequent use of their funds in the context of the lesson-­‐based interviews. They also provide some insight into students’ thinking during their science lessons in general. As stated earlier, it was thought that it was possible the students were using their funds of knowledge, but were not being explicit about their use. The statements made by students during these interviews indicate that not only are they not being explicit about their use of funds, they are in fact not using them with any regularity. This seems to be 107
happening because the students are not making connections between the relevant funds of knowledge they have gained as a result of their out of school experiences and the topics in their science lessons. In their own words, they “just don’t connect them that much” because “it doesn’t seem relevant”. However, when the students were asked if it helps them understand science concepts better when they can relate them to things they learned from outside of class, some of the students indicated that they think it does. For example, one of Alma’s students described how, “It makes it a little bit easier to comprehend I guess because you have more things to base it off of. Like more things you know for sure.” In another instance a group of Ben’s students were talking about how we use science in real life everyday, but we don’t really think about it during science class. In response to this, one of the students in the group commented that, “it would help if we did though because then we would understand it better. But we don’t.” Based on statements such as these, it seems as if some students appreciate the usefulness of making relevant connections between their in-­‐school and out-­‐of-­‐school lives, but they just don’t think to do so during their lessons. Students’ Insights Into Their Teachers’ Attempts to Elicit Their Use of Funds During this final round of interviews students were also asked questions about their teachers’ attempts to elicit their use of relevant funds of knowledge during their science lessons. This line of questioning involved first determining whether or not the students even recognized their teacher’s attempts to help them make 108
connections between their out of school experiences and the concepts in the lessons. If they did recognize their teachers’ attempts, the students were also asked what they though about these attempts and if the attempts helped them learn the concepts in the lessons better. In each interview conducted, the students were quick to appreciate that their teachers tried to help them make these types of connections. Ben’s students, for example, picked up on his tendency to use examples as a means of helping them make connections. They talked about how “he tries to relate like everything to real life”. Alma’s students were also observant of her use of analogies during class, particularly those involving food. Blake: Ya, she compares things to stuff all the time. Roberto: A lot of food references. _____________________ Devon: Ya like she asks if we understand and if we don’t she goes over it again. She always relates things to food. It is terrible. Chris: She talked about chocolate cake and the center of the earth. Everything is food. When asked what they thought about these kinds of attempts a few of the students made comments about how, “It helps like 90% of the class.” “ It definitely puts a picture in your mind.” and “I can visualize it better”. However, most of the comments made in response to this question were about how they found it difficult to relate to their teacher’s attempts. For example, one of Ben’s students talked about how the examples used were somewhat out of date and therefore difficult to 109
relate to. Like 10 years ago he might have been the best teacher ever, but now kids don’t know what he is talking about. We can’t relate to his examples. He brings in like weird toys instead of like Lego’s or something we can relate to. Some of Alma’s students also found her attempts difficult to relate to. For example, one student expressed this by saying; “I kind of think about things differently so when she tries to compare stuff it does not really make that much sense, not for me anyway.” Another group of her students went on to talk about the difficulties involved in trying to relate to every student. They described how, “Everyone is a little different” and as a result, “everyone has different things that they have learned outside of school so I don’t think she could.” Some of Cathy’s students also seemed to appreciate how hard it is to connect with every student. In one instance a student described why she felt it might not be worth the effort. In another, one of her students indicates her appreciation for the difficulties involved and then proceeds to offer some insights into an approach that she thinks might be useful. I think she could try but it would be more trouble than it was worth because it would take so long to try to relate things to everybody at school’s lives outside of school. It would be boring. People would be getting bored and I don’t think it would work. _____________________ It would be easier if they like asked us about what we already know. Like science, I did not really know a lot of stuff back in elementary school. So she could have figured out first what we know and then explain it to us based on that. Comments such as these indicate that the students appreciate the difficulties 110
involved in helping them make relevant connections between their science lessons and their out of school experiences. From their previous comments in this interview it is also evident that the students themselves also have difficulties making these connections on their own. When considered together, this paints a somewhat daunting picture of the challenges involved in trying to incorporate students’ funds of knowledge as resources for learning science. Ideas about how we might use the findings from this study to improve the state of affairs are presented in the discussion section. 111
Chapter five: Discussion This study addressed three questions. These include; (1) What are the similarities and differences between the reasoning patterns modeled and expected by science teachers during inquiry-­‐based science lessons and the reasoning patterns exhibited by their students? (2) In what ways do teachers utilize students’ linguistic and cultural resources during inquiry-­‐based science lessons? (3) In what ways do students utilize their linguistic and cultural resources during inquiry-­‐based science lessons? The results that pertain to each of these questions are discussed separately. The first part of this study investigated issues of equity in science education through an examination of how teacher’s reasoning patterns during inquiry-­‐based lessons compare with student reasoning patterns. The intention was to identify the similarities and differences between the reasoning patterns modeled and expected by teachers and those exhibited by their students. Identifying these similarities and differences and how they play out in the context of inquiry-­‐based science instruction is a first step towards establishing instructional congruence in these contexts because it highlights convergences that can be used as resources to facilitate learning as well as divergences that need to be made explicit. Similarities in Reasoning Patterns In regards to the similarities, the findings from this study show a great deal of alignment between the structure of the reasoning patterns modeled and expected 112
by the teachers and those exhibited by the students during the lesson-­‐based interviews. From a sociocultural perspective, this alignment indicates that some amount of intersubjectivity has been achieved between the teachers and the students. While this may initially seem encouraging in terms of identifying areas of alignment that could potentially be used as a means of establishing instructional congruence, the reasoning patterns were very limited in terms of complexity. Both the teachers and the students were prone to making unsupported assertions or providing a single reason in support of their assertions. There was a common appreciation for the use of multiple reasons or more evidence to support claims, but this appreciation did not necessarily translate into the use of multiple reasons to support claims made during their lesson related dialogue. Ultimately, what was lacking was the complex dialogue that occurs when alternative explanations are considered and debated. Previous research has found that inquiry-­‐based approaches that emphasize aspects of scientific argumentation can not only engage students in the process of evidence-­‐based reasoning and the social facet of science, but they can also make students’ reasoning processes public so that the students may hear and consider alternative explanations to their own, and the teacher may take instructional action to move students toward more sophisticated scientific thinking and communicating (Duschl, 2003;Furtak et al., 2010). However, the benefits found by these studies resulted from inquiry-­‐based lessons that were carefully crafted by the researchers to accomplish these ends. With the many conceptions of inquiry, it is likely that the 113
expected benefits reported were only from the kinds of inquiry lessons used in these studies. In the inquiry-­‐based lessons observed in this study, more complex discourse did not occur. Instead, the dialogue that occurred during the lessons observed in each of the three cases was more representative of the initiate-­‐
response-­‐evaluate (IRE) discourse patterns that pervade traditional classroom instructional practices. In these IRE discourse patterns, the teacher is the main driver and knowledge authority during classroom discussions and students have little control directing the discussion or contesting teacher prerogatives (Mehan, 1979). The class discussions observed during this study were designed primarily to present information to the students or to provide them with procedures. As a result, the emphasis was on the transmission of ideas and information and not on engaging the students in a debate. In these whole class discussions there was also little to encourage the students to challenge claims made or engage in the more persuasive aspects of dialogue to support their own claims. These findings are similar to those of Berland and Reiser (2009) who found that students consistently use evidence to make sense of phenomenon but do not often work to persuade others of their understandings due to the inhibitions of traditional classroom discourse interactions. These inhibitions include the understanding that the primary purpose of the whole class discussions is to make some information clear. There is in essence a “right answer” to the questions asked. The findings from this study suggest that students are all too aware of this and are reluctant to engage in dialogue as a result. 114
It is also possible that the similarities in reasoning patterns resulted from the students learning to exhibit what their teachers are expecting. Whether it is purposeful or not, teachers model specific ways of reasoning during their lessons. Over time, these ways of reasoning become the expected norm in the classroom environment. The student’s reasoning patterns could have been similar to those of their teachers because they had essentially assimilated what they thought was the expected way of engaging in classroom discourse. In this way, the reasoning patterns exhibited by the students in the lesson-­‐based contexts could have been more representative of their ability to conform to the expectations of the classroom environment than they were of their actual reasoning abilities. Because the reasoning patterns that resulted from this type of discourse were so simplistic on the part of both the teachers and the students, there is very little to build on in terms of establishing instructional congruence despite the similarities that exist. It is encouraging, however, that the students expressed an appreciation for how multiple reasons or sources of evidence can strengthen the credibility of a claim. While they did not use this strategy in their dialogue in the context of the inquiry-­‐based lessons, this appreciation is in alignment with the purposes of many of the lessons observed for this study. What is encouraging about this is that it shows that the teachers’ emphasis on establishing the credibility of claims through the use of multiple sources of evidence is clearly appreciated by the students. 115
Differences in Reasoning Patterns In regards to the differences, the reasoning patterns exhibited by the students during the card game interviews were far more complex structurally than anything modeled or expected by the teachers during the inquiry-­‐based lessons. In discussing the cards, the students made far fewer unsupported assertions. They also quite regularly considered alternative explanations and occasionally even provided contextual details about the conditions under which those alternatives might apply. The design of the card game interviews required students to engage in discussions about which cards were scientifically accurate and which ones were not with the goal of reaching a consensus. Because there was often initial disagreement, the students were encouraged to articulate their reasoning in efforts to convince each other. In these exchanges students often offered competing ideas and weighed the merits of each as they attempted to achieve the goal of reaching a consensus. As described previously, the teacher led dialogue that was observed during the lessons included in this study very seldom involved this type of reasoning. These differences suggest that the students are capable of far more complex reasoning than what was elicited by the lessons observed or what was modeled and expected by the teachers. These findings support the emerging perspective that students possess the necessary reasoning abilities to conduct scientific inquiries, but require supportive learning environments to elicit the use of these abilities (Metz, 2004; Rosebery et al., 1992; Warren et al., 2001). They also support the perspective that students from a diverse range of backgrounds have valuable 116
knowledge and reasoning skills that they use to make sense of new ideas but that aspects of traditional classroom instruction can hinder their use of these resources during science lessons (Lee, 2003). Given the opportunity, the students in this study readily debated scientific concepts using their own ideas and supported those ideas using complex reasoning patterns, including the consideration of alternative explanations. The lessons observed did not elicit these more complex reasoning skills, but the fact that the students are capable of them is very encouraging. In terms of establishing instructional congruence, these differences point to a resource that students may possess that can be used to help facilitate their progression into the use of more complex reasoning skills during their science lessons. In particular, the findings from this study suggest that students from a diverse range of backgrounds are capable of engaging in the complex dialogue that accompanies reasoning over competing explanations. In science, this practice is of particular importance as it is seen as one of the critical elements of the knowledge building process (Driver et al., 2000). The question that remains is how to design inquiry-­‐based lessons to better take advantage of these resources to foster greater levels of scientific literacy. While this study was not intentionally designed to answer this question, some amount of insight was gained through a comparison of the two different interview contexts because the structure of the reasoning patterns exhibited were so different in each. The conclusions drawn from this type of comparison were based more on inference rather than direct data. Because of this it is difficult to prove causality. Nevertheless, the comparison provided a working 117
hypothesis on the possible cause of differences across contexts found in the data. In regards to the card game interviews, the complex nature of the reasoning patterns exhibited by the students suggests that there was something about this context that encouraged them to use a broader range of their reasoning related resources. The most obvious differences between this context and those of the lesson-­‐based interviews include the objectives of the activities observed and the amounts of peer-­‐
to-­‐peer talk that occurred. These differences may have contributed to the differences in the reasoning patterns exhibited by the students in the two different contexts. The objectives of the inquiry-­‐based activities could have contributed to student’s lack of consideration of alternative explanations because each of the activities observed were tied to lessons that had very specific learning goals. In attempts to re-­‐create these lessons for the purpose of the stimulated recall interviews, the interviewer essentially assumed the role of the teacher. As a result, the dialogue that occurred in these contexts was very similar to what was observed during the lessons. In these contexts, the students were aware that the activities were designed with specific learning objectives in mind and often knew the objectives before engaging in the activity. In this way, the work they did during the activities served to clarify or confirm concepts that were part of the objectives of the lesson. Because of this, the students may not have been encouraged to consider and debate alternative explanations. For example, Alma’s Discovering Plate Boundaries lesson required students to make assertions about where they thought the tectonic 118
plate boundaries are based on their observations of a series of specialty maps. The intention was for students to engage in debates about the implications of the data displayed on these maps. However, there was a map on the classroom wall that clearly displayed the tectonic plate boundaries. The students were aware of this map and instead of considering possible alternatives they worked to construct explanations that supported the current theories it represented. As another example, Ben’s Fractional Distillation lesson required students to separate two “mystery” liquids and then conduct a series of tests to determine what they were. During the lesson-­‐based interviews, most of the student groups indicated that they knew what the two liquids were before they even started the series of tests. Because they knew what the liquids were, the emphasis was on constructing a scientific explanation and not on actually determining the identity of the liquids. In each of these examples the students were discouraged from considering alternative explanations because the content objectives of the activities were clear. This clarity may be the result of the teachers’ attempts to ensure that the students meet the learning goals of the lesson. Teachers have been found to simplify cognitively demanding inquiry tasks, especially those involving aspects of argumentation, to make them simpler for students and align more closely with traditional authoritarian classroom practices (McNeill & Pimentel, 2009). The lessons included in this study were chosen because they were designed as inquiry-­‐
based lessons that focused on aspects of argumentation. However, in each case, significant portions of the lessons observed more closely resembled traditional 119
classroom practices such as teacher led dialogue and confirmation activities. The authoritarian nature of this type of instruction may have discouraged students from considering alternative explanations because they had little reason to doubt the accuracy of the information provided. In contrast to this, the card game interviews had no specific learning objectives and may have encouraged debate as a result. During these interviews, the students knew that two of the three cards in each set were scientifically accurate and that one was inaccurate, but they did not know which ones were which. When students were presented with the cards they were instructed to try to reach a consensus about which one contained the inaccurate statement. Because the students had such different ideas about the accuracy of the different cards, it was quite common for them to offer their ideas as well as challenge the ideas of other students. Part of what may have encouraged them to do this was that there was no emphasis on learning any particular material and the statements on the cards were not related to any particular lesson. They knew that there was a correct answer, but it was up to them to decide what they thought that answer was. Providing students with this opportunity to discuss their own ideas without the constraints of a clear lesson objective may have contributed to the dynamic nature of the reasoning patterns exhibited during the card game interviews. Another difference between the two interview contexts that may have contributed to the more complex reasoning patterns exhibited during the card game interview involves the amount of peer-­‐to-­‐peer dialogue that occurred. Because the 120
goal of the card game interviews was for students to come to a consensus, the students spent most of their time discussing the card sets with each other. Recent literature involving science argument asserts that increasing the opportunity for peer-­‐to-­‐peer interactions increases student voice, and that students are more likely to engage discourse representative of scientific argumentation as a result (Kelly & Chen, 1999; McNeill & Pimentel, 2009; Schwarz et al., 2003). The card game interviews may have elicited more complex reasoning in part because a majority of the dialogue that occurred was between the students in the groups. The students clearly enjoyed discussing the cards and very readily engaged in discussions with each other about which ones contained accurate statements and which ones did not. The students’ enthusiasm for debating with each other over the accuracy of the statements on the cards resulted in the researcher having to play a very small role in the discussions. Because they were discussing the cards with each other and not some more knowledgeable authority figure such as a teacher or a researcher, they may have been encouraged to offer and discuss competing ideas. As a result, the reasoning patterns exhibited in these contexts were very complex. In summary, this study was successful at identifying both similarities and differences between the reasoning patterns modeled and expected by teachers during inquiry-­‐based lessons and those exhibited by their students. In terms of using these findings to gain insight into how to provide more equitable science instruction through establishing instructional congruence, the similarities found were of limited use due to their simplistic nature. On the other hand, the differences 121
found provide some amount of insight. The complex reasoning patterns exhibited by the students during the card game interviews demonstrate that the students are capable of more than the teachers are expecting or the lessons are eliciting. Efforts to take advantage of these more complex reasoning abilities during inquiry-­‐based lessons may benefit from making it explicit that the consideration of alternative explanations is an acceptable practice. Furthermore, an inferential comparison of the two interview contexts suggest that if the objective is to increase the focus on argumentation during inquiry-­‐based science lessons, teachers may want to generate tasks that place less emphasis on specific answers. The analysis also suggests that these efforts may benefit from more opportunities for students to engage in dialogue with each other. In doing so, teachers may increase student voice during their lessons and encourage more complex reasoning in their classroom discourse as a result. Teachers’ Attempts to Elicit Students’ Use of Their Funds The second question in this study addressed the ways in which teachers attempt to elicit students’ use of their linguistic and cultural resources, or funds of knowledge, during inquiry-­‐based science lessons. Previous research has found that when linguistic and cultural experiences are used as intellectual resources, students from diverse backgrounds are able to engage in scientific practices and show significant achievement gains (Driver et al., 1994; Lee, 2003). This part of this study was designed to gain insights into ways of facilitating more equitable inquiry-­‐based 122
science instruction through an examination of how this occurs naturally in science classrooms. In particular, the goal was to better understand how teachers utilize students’ funds during inquiry-­‐based lessons that focus on aspects of argumentation. Current reform efforts in science education emphasize the importance of engaging students in argumentative discourse in which they engage in the social process of knowledge construction in which they support their claims with appropriate evidence and reasoning (Sampson & Clark, 2008). Research on equity in science education asserts that to be successful, this process needs to draw from and utilize students’ everyday knowledge and experiences (Lee, 2003). During interviews, the teachers in this study indicated an appreciation for the importance of helping students make connections between their out of school experiences and the concepts in the lessons, but they very seldom made attempts to elicit students’ use of their funds during the discussions that occurred in the lessons observed. The teachers’ lack of attempts to elicit student’s use of their funds indicates one significant area that might be improved upon in efforts to provide more equitable science instruction. The few instances in which the teachers did make these types of attempts during classroom discussions involved the use of three strategies. These included the use of analogies, examples, and questions. Of these three strategies, the use of questions seems by far the most promising in terms of establishing instructional congruence. While the use of analogies and examples are perhaps important means of helping students connect with the topics of a lesson, they are based on the 123
teachers’ ideas of the connections that might benefit students. Because of this, there is little assurance that the students will be able to relate to the analogies or examples provided. The students in this study addressed this issue when they talked about how they recognized their teachers’ attempts to help them make relevant connections but found the attempts difficult to relate to. The question asking strategy, on the other hand, may increase the opportunity for students to make actual relevant connections because it encourages them to make connections that are meaningful to them. Asking students questions such as, “Can you think of anything that this relates to?” and “So what would we give as an example of how this works?” places the responsibility of coming up with relevant connections directly on the students. In doing so, this strategy may increase the possibility that students will make connections that come from their out of school lives, thus creating stronger connections between the two contexts. The regular use of these types of questions may also help facilitate the development of classroom cultures in which students understand that the use of these resources is not only acceptable during science lessons, but also encouraged. The use of analogies and examples reinforces the traditional teacher centered nature of classroom discussions because the teacher is the one providing the information and the students are the recipients of it. Whether they can relate to the connections provided or not, the students in these instances are relieved of any responsibility for original thought and are instead expected to remember what the teacher has told them. In this way, the use of analogies and examples could restrict 124
some students from making relevant connections despite their attempts to facilitate them. The question asking strategy differs from this in that it encourages students to draw upon their own resources to make connections between the content in the lessons and their experiences. If used regularly, this strategy has the potential to facilitate more equitable science instruction by creating classroom cultures that appreciate and encourage the use of a diverse range of experiences as resources for learning. Lastly, this question asking strategy may also prove useful for teachers in terms of assessment. Asking students to provide relevant connections makes their thinking more public and therefore may provide teachers with opportunities to better assess students’ understandings of the concepts involved in their lessons. When teachers provide the connections themselves, as is the case with the use of analogies and examples, it is more difficult to assess student’s level of comprehension of the new material because their thinking is not made public. Students’ Use of Their Funds of Knowledge The third question in this study investigated ways of facilitating more equitable science instruction through an examination of the ways in which students utilize their funds of knowledge while reasoning during inquiry-­‐based science lessons. Gaining insights into the ways in which students utilize their funds in these contexts can facilitate more equitable instructional practices by highlighting natural tendencies that can be capitalized on to help students make more meaningful 125
connections between their science lesson and their out of school experiences. The findings from this study indicate that students possess funds of knowledge that are relevant to science topics, but very seldom use these funds in the context of their inquiry-­‐based lessons. This is evidenced by their frequent use of relevant funds from their experiences at home, in their community, and with a variety of forms of pop culture during the card game interviews, and very infrequent use of funds from any of these sources during the lesson-­‐based interviews. Their use of their funds during the card game interviews indicate that students are capable of making relevant connections between science topics and their out of school experiences. That they did not do this during their lessons or the lesson-­‐based interviews indicates that there is something about these contexts that inhibited students willingness or ability to make these connections. These findings are similar to those of Moje and her colleagues (2004), who found that the urban youth they followed in and out of the school setting rarely volunteered everyday knowledge in science classrooms, even when their prior experiences were relevant to the current science topic. From the perspective of the students involved in this study, this was the result of distinct feelings of separation between their in-­‐school and out-­‐of-­‐school lives. Insights into the contextual elements that might alleviate some of these feelings of separation and elicit students’ use of their funds can be beneficial to efforts to facilitate more equitable science instruction. Though this study was not intentionally designed to gain insight into what these contextual conditions are and the specific effects they have, the differences in students’ use of 126
their funds in the two interview contexts provides a basis for some amount of inferential insight. The conditions that seemed to contribute students’ increased use of their funds during the card game interviews are much the same as those suspected as contributing to more complex argumentation. These include lessons or activities that lack a strong emphasis on a specific learning objective, or “right answer”, opportunities for students to engage in peer-­‐to-­‐peer dialogue, and classroom cultures that support and encourage students’ use of their funds as resources for learning during inquiry-­‐based science lessons. Each of these contextual factors encourage students’ willingness to offer their own ideas, or student voice, and in doing so may also encourage their use of their funds. As described earlier, learning activities that place less emphasis on a right answer may encourage student voice because students are able to break out of more passive roles in which they defer to the authority of the teacher. In doing so, these types of activities may also encourage students to draw on the full spectrum of their experiences, including those that come from their out of school lives. As observed during the card game interviews, when the students took a more active role in the discourse, they were far more likely to make reference to knowledge gained from experiences that occurred outside of school. A key aspect of these card game interviews was that they were designed to encourage students to engage in dialogue with each other by having them try to convince each other of their ideas as they worked to reach a consensus. In these contexts, there was no specific learning objective, or right answer, that the students were accountable for, and so the 127
students felt free to offer their personal insights and ideas. In contrast, each of the lessons observed were designed with very specific learning objectives in mind. During the dialogue that occurred in the interviews that were based on these lessons, the students were far less likely to express their personal insights and ideas. They were also far less likely to make reference to experiences or knowledge from out of school contexts. This correlation between the presence or absence of a specific learning objective, students’ willingness to offer their own ideas, and the readiness with which students reference their funds of knowledge indicates that this contextual condition may have some amount of influence over students’ use of their funds. Another contextual condition that may also have contributed to the students’ willingness to offer their own ideas and more regular use of their funds during the card game interviews involves the increased opportunity to engage in peer-­‐to-­‐peer dialogue. Opportunities to engage in peer-­‐to-­‐peer dialogue may have a similar affects as the absence of a correct answer in that they can both increase student voice and in doing so, perhaps also increases the readiness with which students reference their funds. Engaging in peer-­‐to-­‐peer dialogue increases student voice by placing students in a position of relative equality during the discourse. In the case of the students involved in this study, this may also have contributed to students’ increased use of their funds during the card game interviews. Because they were sharing their own ideas in contexts where they felt like equals with the other members of their group, they were perhaps also more likely to draw from a wide 128
range of experiences, including those from outside of school. In terms of classroom cultures that support and encourage students use of their funds, other researchers have found that science learned in schools is often decontextualized from students’ everyday experiences (Aikenhead, 1996) and that encouraging students to draw from their everyday knowledge and experiences is important to help them connect their different ideas to develop more robust and usable scientific knowledge (McNeill & Pimentel, 2009). Similar studies suggest that students constantly engage in border crossing in which they need to navigate different cultures in the context of school, family, peers, and work with often very little assistance in navigating these transitions. The findings from each of these lines of research suggest that teachers should make clear that different types of knowledge and experiences are welcome in the science classroom. The findings from this study support this notion in that the students indicated that they have a difficult time making connections between their in-­‐school and out-­‐of-­‐school experiences during their science lessons. Clearly, teachers play a role in this because they model what is expected in classrooms and maintain the culture of the classroom environment. Thus, they can either encourage or discourage students’ use of their funds of knowledge through the types of behaviors they model and questions they ask. That the teachers in this study did not often model the use of funds or work to elicit students’ use of funds indicates one area that might be improved upon in efforts to provide more equitable inquiry-­‐based science instruction. 129
In summary, the differences found between the regularity with which students reference their funds of knowledge during the two different interview contexts suggests that students possess relevant funds of knowledge and are able to use them while reasoning about science concepts, but do so only under certain conditions. While some amount of insight was gained into what these conditions might be based on inference, efforts to facilitate more equitable instruction could benefit from further explorations into the specific effects of different contextual conditions on student’s use of their funds. 130
Chapter Six: Conclusion The findings from this study have implications for both teachers and teacher educators interested in improving practices in science education in ways that result in more equitable inquiry-­‐based instruction. Current goals in K-­‐12 science education include the use of scientific inquiry as the central strategy for teaching science. These goals emphasize the importance of creating and sustaining classroom conditions that provide all students with opportunities for learning science through inquiry. Even more specifically, science educators have placed an increased emphasis on argumentation as an aspect of the inquiry process. The goal of K-­‐12 science educators then, is to increase the scientific literacy of all students through the use of inquiry-­‐based activities that place an emphasis on aspects of argumentation. This emphasis stems from recognition that the persuasive aspects of science are fundamental to the knowledge building process and that students need to understand the generative aspects of science in order to make sound, evidence-­‐based decisions. However, the disparities in science achievement that exist between groups of students in K-­‐12 school with varying degrees of success indicate that efforts to provide this type of instruction are falling short in their ability to reach a wide range of individuals. This study addressed this issue in two related ways. The first involved a comparison of the ways in which teachers and students reason during inquiry-­‐based lessons. The second involved attempts to characterize the ways in which teachers utilize students’ funds of knowledge and the ways in which students use their funds 131
of knowledge, during inquiry-­‐based lessons. The findings from each of these aspects of this study have implications for both teachers and teacher educators. Implications for Supporting Student Argumentation In regards to the comparison of reasoning patterns, the intention was to identify similarities and differences between the reasoning patterns of the teachers and students as a means of gaining insights into how instructional congruence might be better achieved. The similarities identified were highlighted by distinctly limited reasoning patterns that are characteristic of traditional classroom discourse interactions in which alternative explanations are rarely considered. In terms of establishing instructional congruence, these similarities provide very little to draw from in terms resources that might be built upon. However, in a non lesson-­‐based context, the students in this study regularly exhibited reasoning patterns that were far more complex than what was modeled or expected by the teachers. These differences in reasoning patterns indicate that students are capable of far more complex reasoning than what their inquiry-­‐based lessons generally elicit. Based on an inferential analysis of the different interview contexts, the conditions that seemed to contribute to students’ use of these more complex reasoning abilities included reasoning activities that lacked a distinct focus on a right answer and the opportunity for students to engage in peer-­‐to-­‐peer dialogue. For teachers, these findings point to a number of practices that could be focused on as a means of providing more equitable instruction. To begin with, it is 132
important for teachers to model complex reasoning including the consideration of alternative explanations. By doing so teachers can make it clear to students that these practices are acceptable both in science and in science classrooms. Students are capable of these types of more complex reasoning in other contexts, so by modeling their use, teachers may encourage a broader range of students to utilize these abilities in their science lessons as well. In addition, knowing that students are capable of engaging in complex reasoning should encourage teachers to not only model these practices themselves, but also expect them of their students given the right circumstances. From a sociocultural perspective, these types of scaffolds are essential to helping students move through the zone of proximal development. While this study provided some amount of inferential insight into the kinds of scaffolds and contextual conditions that might better elicit students’ use of their more complex reasoning abilities, there is still much that is unknown in this regard. Better understanding the influence different scaffolds and contextual conditions have on students’ reasoning during inquiry-­‐based lessons would be an endeavor worthy of future research efforts. What the findings from this study do suggest is that activities that lack a distinct focus on a right answer and opportunities to engage in dialogue with their peers, in some way encourage students to engage in reasoning of a more complex nature. While this is by no means a complete list of factors affecting students’ reasoning in different contexts, these findings can be used to inform teachers on how to design inquiry-­‐based lessons so that they better elicit the more complex 133
reasoning abilities of a wider range of students. By designing lessons that involve these conditions, teachers can increase student voice, and in doing so, also better elicit their reasoning abilities, including the consideration of alternative explanations. While this may seem inefficient as a means of delivering science content, these types of discussions may prove useful when the goal involves engaging students in discourse that is representative of the discipline of science. These findings also have implications for teacher educators. As the goals of K-­‐
12 science education change, so also must the ways in which we prepare teachers. With an increased emphasis on argumentation as an aspect of inquiry, new techniques and curriculum designs are needed to facilitate students’ learning and use of the knowledge and skills required to reason scientifically. The findings from this study can help inform teacher educators as they work to adapt the ways in which they prepare teachers to better align with the current goals in science education. In particular, teacher educators might want to work with their teacher candidates to develop lessons that increase student voice through opportunities to engage in discussions that lack a focus on a right answer as a means of engaging students in the types of complex reasoning that are representative of science. Also useful in these endeavors is the opportunity for students to engage in discussions with their peers. Lesson designs that include these contextual elements, while not useful for every situation, could prove useful in terms of facilitating current visions of science literacy. 134
Implications For Use of Funds of Knowledge In Learning The second part of this study examined the ways in which teachers utilize students’ funds and the ways in which students utilize their funds during inquiry-­‐
based science lessons. In regards to the ways in which teachers utilize students’ funds during inquiry-­‐based lessons, the findings from this study indicate that teachers use strategies such as analogies, examples, and questions to elicit students’ use of their funds. However, the use of each of these strategies is relatively infrequent. As obvious as it may seem, these findings suggest that teachers working to provide more equitable inquiry-­‐based science instruction could benefit from using these types of strategies more often. In particular, students might benefit from teachers’ use of questioning strategies. Strategies that use questions to elicit students’ use of their funds of knowledge seem particularly promising because they encourage students to provide connections between the content in their science lesson and their out of school experiences in ways that are most meaningful to them. In most classrooms, student populations are likely to have experienced a wide range of individual experiences. Given this diversity between student experiences, this strategy is of particular use because it provides teachers with a means of helping students make the kinds of relevant connections between the familiar and the unfamiliar that can facilitate learning. These findings also have implications for teacher educators. The historical gaps in science achievement that exist between demographic groups in K-­‐12 schools indicate that more could be done to provide equitable instruction. Teacher 135
educators interested in addressing these achievement issues could work with teacher candidates to develop instructional strategies that elicit and work with student ideas. Teachers equipped with strategies such as these could help a wider range of students make relevant connections between concepts in their science lessons and their out of school experiences, thus helping them make sense of science concepts. It is possible that these types of efforts could help address current inequities and help a more diverse range of students experience high achievement in science. In regards to the ways in which students utilize their funds of knowledge during inquiry-­‐based lessons, the findings from this study suggest that students possess funds that are relevant to concepts in their science lessons, but don’t generally reference these funds during inquiry-­‐based science lessons. An inferential analysis of the findings also indicate that eliciting students’ use of their funds in these contexts may be facilitated through lesson designs that are similar to those found to elicit complex reasoning. These designs include lessons that lack a strong emphasis on a right answer and opportunities to engage in peer-­‐to-­‐peer dialogue. Also influential in students’ use of their funds are classroom cultures that support and encourage students’ use of their funds as resources for learning during inquiry-­‐
based science lessons. Each of these contextual factors encourage students’ willingness to offer their own ideas, or student voice, and in doing so may also encourage their use of their funds. For teachers, these inferential findings indicate several areas that can be focused on in efforts to provide more equitable instruction. 136
To begin with, teachers may want to design lessons that provide students with opportunities to discuss their own ideas without the constraint of having to learn a specific right answer. Doing so may encourage students to draw from the full range of relevant experiences they have at their disposal, including those that occurred out of school. Opportunities to engage in dialogue with their peers may have similar effects on students. Because of feelings of relative equality during peer group discussions, students may feel freer to express their ideas and as a result, more readily draw from out of school experiences. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the findings from this study suggest that teachers interested in providing more equitable instruction should make it clear that different types of knowledge and experiences are welcome in the science classroom. Teachers can either encourage or discourage students’ use of their funds of knowledge through the types of behaviors they model and questions they ask. In light of this, efforts to encourage students’ use of their funds should work to make it clear that students’ out of school experiences are valued in science classrooms. Doing so may encourage students to draw upon their full range of resources as they try to make sense of new ideas in during their inquiry-­‐based science lessons. The findings from this part of the study also have implications for teacher educators. Because of the difficulties students experience in terms of making connections between their in-­‐school and out-­‐of-­‐school experiences, teachers educators might want to work with teacher candidates to develop strategies that better elicit students’ use of their funds during inquiry-­‐based lessons. Based on the 137
findings from this study, these lesson designs might focus on encouraging student voice by reducing the focus on a right answer and providing opportunities for students to engage in dialogue with their peers. The difficulties students experience in making connections between their funds of knowledge and relevant science content also highlight the importance of producing teachers that appreciate the value of encouraging students’ use of their funds, are prepared to implement strategies that elicit their use, and are well versed in current perspectives on equity, including the resources view of diversity. Equipping teachers with the skills associated with instructional practices that operate from this perspective can help bridge the various gaps in achievement between demographic groups by informing teachers on how to best provide instruction that is congruent with their students’ current understandings. In summary, this study was designed to address issues of equity in K-­‐12 science education through an examination of two related aspects of teachers’ and students’ social practices during inquiry-­‐based science lessons. These included their reasoning patterns and their explicit use of their cultural and linguistic resources. The findings from this study support the resources view of diversity in that they indicate that students are capable of both complex reasoning and the regular use of their funds of knowledge, but that they have difficulties doing each during their science lessons. While these findings have implications for both teachers and teacher educators, they provide insight into only a limited part of what is a very large and complex problem. The inequities that exist in science 138
achievement are tragedy of our school system and are worthy of far more attention. Future studies addressing issues of equity may consider taking a closer look at the effectiveness of the different strategies used by teachers to elicit both more complex reasoning and more regular use of funds of knowledge by their students. They may also consider examining the specific effects of different contextual conditions on students’ reasoning and use of their funds. Studies such as these could continue to further our understandings of how to design instruction that makes the new goals of science instruction more accessible for students from a wider range of backgrounds. As a last note, it is important to mention that the findings from this study do not indicate shortcomings or deficiencies on the part of the teachers involved in the study. The implications drawn from the findings are not intended to be critical of the teachers’ practices, but rather to highlight opportunities for the improvement of teacher practices. As the goals of K-­‐12 science education change, so must the practices of teachers. This study was designed to gain insight into the changes that might make the new goals of K-­‐12 science education more accessible to a wider range of individuals. 139
Bibliography Aikenhead, G.S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1-­‐52. Aikenhead, G.S., & Jegede, O.J. (1999). Cross-­‐cultural science education: A cognitive education of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269-­‐287. Alozie, N. M., Moje, E.B., & Krajcik, J.S. (2009). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project based science. Science Education, 94, 395-­‐427. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–829). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anderson CA, Holland D, Palincsar AS. (1997). Canonical and sociocultural approaches to research and reform in science education: the story of Juan and his group. Elementary School Journal, 97:357–81. Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 297–319. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.) Austin: University of Texas Press. Ballenger, C. (1997). Social identities, moral narratives, scientific argumentation: Science talk in a bilingual classroom. Language and Education, 11, 1–14. Barrow, L. H., (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 265-­‐278. Banks, J. A. (1993a). The canon debate, knowledge construction and multicultural education. Educational Researcher, 22, 4-­‐14. Banks, J. (1993b). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions and practice. In L. Darling-­‐Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 19, pp. 3-­‐49). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Banks, J. A., & McGee, C. A. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of research on multicultural education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-­‐Bass. Basu, S.J., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2007). Urban students’ sustained interest in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 466-­‐489. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797 – 818. Benford, R., & Lawson, A. (2001). Relationships between Effective Inquiry Use and the Development of Scientific Reasoning Skills in College Biology Labs. Retrieved from ERIC database. 140
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. Bouillion, L., & Gomez, L. (2001). Connecting school and community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 899-­‐917. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. Calabrese Barton, A. & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge, discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50-­‐73. Carlson, D. 1997. Making Progress: Education and Culture in New Times. New York: Teachers College Press. Chang, K., Chen, I., & Sung, Y. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1), 5-­‐23. Cobern, W.W., &Aikenhead, G. S. (1998). Cultural aspects of learning science. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part one (pp. 39-­‐52). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Cochran-­‐Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 493-­‐522. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cole, M., & Bruner, J. S. (1971). Cultural differences and inferences about psychological processes. American Psychologist, 26, 867–876. Costa, V. B. (1995). When science is “another world”: Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science. Science Education, 79, 313–333. Creswell, John W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New York University Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-­‐12. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-­‐312. Doig, B. (1997, March). What makes scientific dialogue possible in the classroom? A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413246) Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41–59). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & 141
M. Jimenez-­‐Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-­‐based research (pp. 159–175). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogan, E., & Erduran, S. (1999). Promoting argumentation in middle school classrooms: A project SEPIA evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA. Duschl, R.A., & Ellenbogen, K. (2002). Argumentation processes in science learning. Paper presented at the conference on Philosophical, Psychological, and Linguistic Foundations for Language and Science Literacy Research, University of Victoria, BC, Canada. Duschl, R.A., and J. Osborne. 2002. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education 38: 39–72. Duschl, R., Ellenbogan, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, March). Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms: A Project SEPIA evaluation. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453050) Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-­‐8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Eisenhart, M. (2001). Educational ethnography past, present, and future: Ideas to think with. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 16–27. Fradd, S.H., Lee, O., Sutman, F.X., & Saxton, M.K. (2002). Materials development promoting science inquiry with English language learners: A case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 479–501. Furtak, E., Hardy, C., Beinbrch, C., Shavelson, H. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-­‐based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3), 175-­‐196. Gallard, A. J. (1993). Learning science in multicultural environments. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. García, E. E. (1999). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-­‐116. Gee, J.P. (1991). A linguistic approach to narrative. Journal of Narrative and Life History 1,15-­‐39. Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-­‐Hall. Gonzalez, N., & Moll, L.C. (2001). Cruzando el Puente: Building bridges to funds of 142
knowledge. Educational Policy, 16(4), 623-­‐641. Guild, P. (1994). The culture/learning style connection. Educational Leadership, 51(8), 16–21. Gutierrez, K. D. & Rogoff, B (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-­‐25. Hilliard, A. G., III, & Vaughn-­‐Scott, M. (1982). The quest for the “minority” child. In S. G. Moore & C. R. Cooper (Eds.), The young child: Reviews of research, (3)175–189) Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663 – 687. Holliday, W. (2001). Modeling in Science. Science Scope, 25(2), 56,58-­‐59. Retrieved from ERIC database. Jimenez-­‐Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757 – 792. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883 – 915. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314 – 342. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning science. Science Education, 77(3), 319-­‐337. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ladson-­‐Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-­‐Bass. Ladson-­‐Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal. 32(3), 465-­‐491. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lawson, A. E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 716-­‐740. Lee, O. ( 1999).Equity implications based on the conceptions of science achievement in major reform documents. Review of Educational Research, 69(l), 83-­‐115. Lee, O. (2002). Science inquiry for elementary students from diverse backgrounds. In W.G. Secada (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 26, pp. 23–69). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Lee, O. (2003). Equity for culturally and linguistically diverse students in science education: A research agenda. Teachers College Record, 105, 465–489. Lee, O., & Buxton C. (2010). Diversity and Equity in Science Education: Research, 143
Policy, and Practice. Teachers College Press, New York. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1996). Interactional patterns of linguistically diverse students and teachers: Insights for promoting science learning. Linguistics and Education: An International Research Journal, 8, 269-­‐297. Bilingual ResearchJournal,25: 4 Fall Lee, O., & Fradd,S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-­‐English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27, l-­‐10. Lee, O., Hart, J., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-­‐ based science for elementary teachers of diverse students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Luykx, A., & Lee, O. (2007). Measuring instructional congruence in elementary science classrooms: Pedagogical and methodological components of a theoretical framework. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 44, 424–447. Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan's Learning Lessons reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal 40(1): 239-­‐ 280. Maddock, M. N. (1981). Science education: An anthropological viewpoint. Studies in Science Education, 8, 1-­‐26. Martin, A., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39,17-­‐38. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., (2004). Inquiry-­‐based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1063–
1080. Matthews, D. B. (1991). Learning styles research: Implications for in-­‐ creasing students in teacher education programs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 18, 228–236. McLoyd, V. C., & Randolph, S. M. (1985). Secular trends in the study of Afro-­‐ American children: A review of Child Development, 1936–1980. In A. B. Smuts & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), History and research in child development (pp. 78–92). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (Serial No. 211). McNeill, K. L. & Pimentel, D. (2009). Scientific Discourse in Three Urban Classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203-­‐229. McShane, D., & Berry, J. W. (1986). Native North Americans: Indian and Inuit abilities. In J. H. Irvine & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Human abilities in cultural context, 385–426. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 144
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359–377. Metz, K. E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 219–290. Moje, E.B., Tehani, C., Carillo, R., & Marx, R.W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-­‐based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-­‐498. Moje, E.B., Ciechanowski, K.M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-­‐70. Moll, L. C. (1990). Introduction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional 317 students of diverse backgrounds implications and applications of socio-­‐historical psychology (pp. 1–27). Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999b). The condition of education, 999.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. (2006). From the court to the classroom: Managing identities as learners in basketball and classroom mathematics. Manuscript submitted for publication, Stanford University. Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren B., & Lee, C. D. (2006). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Chapter 29 (pp.489-­‐504). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of triadic dialogue? An investigation of teacher-­‐student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 333-­‐363. National Center for Education Statistics (1996). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. eighth grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in international contet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educaiton, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Highlights from the trends in internationsl mathematics and science study (TIMMS( 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (2005). The nations’s report card: Science 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (2008). The condition of education 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008031 145
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council, (2000). National science education standards. Washington, DC. National Academy Press. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-­‐8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Nussbaum, E.M. & Sinatra, G.M., (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, v. 28, p. 384-­‐395. Olson, J. and Platt, J. (2000). The Instructional Cycle. Teaching Children and Adolescents with Special Needs (pp. 170-­‐197). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-­‐Hall, Inc. Osborne, A. B. (1996). Practice into theory into practice: Culturally relevant pedagogy for students we have marginalized and normalized. Anthropology and Education Quarterly,27(3), 285-­‐314. Osborne, J. F. (2002). Science without Literacy: a ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-­‐215. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Erduran, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-­‐1020. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 39(3), 185 – 204. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical Perspectives on Constructivist Views of Learning. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37-­‐48. Pomeroy, D. (1994). Science education and cultural diversity: Mapping the field. Studies in Science Education,24, 49-­‐73. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rosebery, A.S., Warren, B., & Conant, F.R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 61–94. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127 – 152. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447 – 472. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 146
88(3), 345 – 372. Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In the Teaching of Science, 1-­‐ 103. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press. Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage. Schwarz, B., B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219 – 256. Scribner, S. (1990). Reflections on a model. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 12, 90–94. Secada, W. G. (1989). Educational equity versus equality of education: An alternative conception. In W. G. Secada (Ed.) Equity in Education (pp. 86-­‐88). London: Framer Press. Seiler, G. (2001). Reversing the “standard” direction: Science emerging from the lives of African American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1000-­‐1014. Secada, W. (1994). Equity and the teaching of mathematics. In M. M. Atwater, K., Radzik-­‐Marsh, & M. Strutches (Eds.), Multicultural education: Inclusion of all .Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthesis, 80(1), 9–42. Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-­‐based inquiry. In National Research Council (Ed.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 515 – 566). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Thier, H. D., & Daviss, B. (2001). Developing inquiry-­‐based science materials: A guide for educators. New York: Teachers College Press. Thier, M., & Daviss, B. (2002). The new science literacy: Using language skills to help students learn science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Tippett, C., (2009). Argumentation: The language of Science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21 (1) 17-­‐25. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. U.S. Census Bureau (2008, August 14). Statistical abstract of the United States. http://www. Census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/pop.pdf Vellom, R., & Anderson, C. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 179-­‐199. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-­‐32. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum. (Original work published 1934) Wallace, C., Tsoi, M., Calkin, J., & Darley, M. (2003). Learning from Inquiry-­‐Base 147
Laboratories in Non-­‐major Biology: An Interpretive Study of the Relationships among Inquiry Experience, Epistemologies, and Conceptual Growth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 986-­‐1024. Retrieved from ERIC database. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Warren, B., & Rosebery, A.S. (1996). “This question is just too, too easy!” Perspectives from the classroom on accountability in science. (Report No. NCRCDSLL/CAL–RR–14). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 390658). Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A., & Hudicourt-­‐Barnes, J. (2001). Re-­‐thinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529–552. Wertsch, J. (1984). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of intemalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.),Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 162-­‐179). New York: Cambridge University Press. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483 – 496. 148
APPENDICES 149
Appendix A Teacher Interview Protocol Introductory statement: Hello. Thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview. The purpose of this interview is to better understand your instructional practices during inquiry-­‐based lessons. In particular, I am interested in understanding your expectations for students in regards to scientific reasoning patterns and the strategies you use to help students meet your expectations. You can skip any questions that you don’t want to answer, and you can end the interview any time you like. If you have any questions at any point during the interview feel free to ask them. This will take no more than 45 minutes. Would you like to get started? Initial interview questions: 1. How often do you use inquiry strategies in your teaching? 2. How often do you incorporate evidence based reasoning into your inquiry-­‐
based lessons? 3. How are opportunities for students to engage in evidence based reasoning incorporated into your inquiry-­‐based lessons? 4. What strategies do you use to teach students about evidence based reasoning during inquiry-­‐based lessons? 5. What aspects of evidence based reasoning do you emphasize? 6. What are your expectations for the students in regards to evidence based reasoning during inquiry-­‐based lessons? 7. What strategies do you use to help students meet these expectations? Interview questions after select lessons: 1. What was the purpose of this lesson? 2. What were your expectations for the students in regards to evidence based reasoning during this lesson? 150
3. What are some examples of the evidence based reasoning you wanted your students to develop in this lesson? 4. What strategies did you use to help students meet these expectations? 5. To what degree do you think your students achieved the goal? How do you know? 6. How important are students’ out of school experience to helping them understand this lesson? 7. In what ways did you help students utilize their outside of school experiences in this lesson? 8. What connections with out of school experiences did you expect students to make during this lesson? 151
Appendix B Student Interview Protocol Introductory statement: Hello. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. In this interview you will be shown a short video of you during one of your science lessons. You will also be asked questions about the recorded science lesson. We are conducting this interview because we would like to know more about how teachers' reasoning patterns interact with student reasoning patterns. You can skip any questions that you don’t want to answer, and you can end the interview any time you like. If you have any questions at any point during the interview feel free to ask them. This will take no more than 20 minutes. Would you like to get started? Interview questions: 1. Can you explain what this activity is about? 2. Could you outline what you did during this activity? 3. What do you think the purpose of this activity was? 4. Could you explain how you came up with that statement/answer? 5. Could you explain what you meant by that statement? 6. Could you explain that statement in more detail? 7. Could you explain why you made that statement? 8. Could you explain why you asked that question? 9. Could you explain the reasons you made that statement? 10. Was there anything that was difficult to do? 11. What was easy for you to do? 12. What did you learn from this activity? 152
Appendix C Card Game Statements and Illustrations Introductory statement: Hello. Thank you for participating in this interview. During this interview I would like you to discuss sets of cards with each other. Two of the cards in each set contain statements that are scientifically accurate, and one of the cards contains a statement that is scientifically inaccurate. The point of this activity is to discuss each of the card sets and attempt to reach a consensus about which card in each set contains the inaccurate statement. Set 1 Due to gravitational effects, you weigh slightly less when the moon is directly overhead. Some volcanic rocks can float in water Sound travels about 4 times faster in air than in water. 153
Set 2 More germs can be transferred through NASA has found proof that the moon shaking hands than kissing once sustained life and was very much like earth Some metal can be a liquid at room temperature 154
Set 3 A ball of pure glass will bounce higher than a ball of pure rubber if dropped from the same height Scientists are not sure what color dinosaurs were Most of the dust in your home is actually dead bugs 155
Appendix D Funds of Knowledge Interview Protocol Introductory Statement: Hello. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. The purpose of this interview is to gain some insight into how you use your experiences from outside of school help you make sense of concepts in your science lessons. Interview Questions: 1. Do you think about your out-­‐of-­‐school experiences during your science lessons? Why or why not? 2. If you do, does it help you make sense of the concepts in your science lessons? 3. If not, why do you think you don’t? 4. Do you feel like your science lessons relate to your experiences outside of school? 5. Does your teacher do anything to help you relate your science lessons you’re your experiences from outside of school? 6. If your teacher does, does it help? 7. If it does help, in what ways does it help? 8. If it does not help, is there anything your teacher could do differently that would help? 156
Appendix E Coding Notes This document contains a list of some of the decisions that were made during the coding process using the Schwarz et al framework. While this is not a completely comprehensive list, it does describe some of the more critical decisions that were made in regards to coding ambiguous statements and utterances. 1. Examples were coded as reasons. 2. Multiple observations were interpreted to mean multiple reasons 3. The mention of using multiple pieces of data was interpreted as an appreciation for the use of multiple reasons to support claims. 4. Observations were only considered reasons when they were explicitly used to support an assertion. Otherwise they were assertions only. 5. Statements of opposition were considered alternate explanations only if they provided at least one supportive reason. 6. If the opposition statements were not accompanied by at least one supportive reason, they were considered assertions only and not alternatives. 7. Questions were not coded as part of reasoning sequences unless they directly questioned another assertion and provided a reason in support of their opposition. 8. Some utterances were clarifying statements made in response to questions. These were not included as part of the reasoning sequences.