Teacher discourse strategies used in kindergarten inquiry-based science learning

Research Questions

This study addresses two research questions:

Do the categories of teacher discourse strategies vary by teacher?
What kinds of discourse strategies do teacher employ in classroom discourse during inquiry-based science learning?

Research Design

This study was carried out as part of the Scientific Literacy Project (SLP) (Mantzicopoulos et al., 2005). The purpose of this study was to investigate teacher discourse strategies during classroom science learning. Data were collected from four kindergarten classrooms at a Midwestern elementary school taught by three teachers while they were working on the unit on butterfly and living things. All four classrooms used the 5-week butterfly life cycle unit that was developed by Samarapungavan, Mantzicopoulos, and Patrick (2008).

The unit was made up of inquiry activities which varied in length of approximately 30-40 minutes per session that occurred twice per week. The main data source for this study was derived from videotapes from classroom science lessons. The method of quantitative content analysis was employed to determine the kinds and frequency of teacher discourse strategies produced during classroom science discourse (Samarapungavan, Westby & Bodner, 2006; Samarapungavan & Wiers, 1997; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). Quantitative content analysis procedure is used for data analysis of teachers’ discourses strategies during science learning (Chi, 1997). Quantitative content analysis maybe defined as a research method that involves the systematic placement of communications content into groups which are based on statistical principles in order to identify the relationship within those groups (Riffe, Lacy & Fico, 2005). A detail description of each of the components is provided below as well as the instructional context.

Instructional Context

Year 1 data from the Scientific Literacy Project (SLP) were used. This research project was a partnership between Purdue University and one Midwestern elementary school in order to teach science using a guided-inquiry approach (Mantzicopoulos et al., 2005). Samarapungavan et al., (2008) provided detailed information of the learning outcomes and implementation of the first year of the SLP. The SLP inquiry curriculum designs and promotes the exploration of science by children in context that are interactive and discourse rich that is centered on reading activities and integrated inquiry.

The curriculum was checked to ensure its consistency with the academic standards of Indiana for kindergarten science classrooms (Indiana Department of Education, 2006). The following are the major concepts that were of interest:

Scientific Inquiry Processes: a) Understand that science involve asking questions and make predictions regarding the natural world; b) Understand the empirical foundations of science: scientific information are evaluated based on their consistency with empirical evidence; and c) Understand basic tools that are used to collect, record, analyze and distribute data (Samarapungavan et al., 2008).
Life Science: a) Understand living things and their characteristics. For example, living things need air, food and water. They reproduce and they can respond to their environment.; b) Functions and Structure: Understand the structure and characteristics of plants and animals that help them to grow and develop.(e.g., physical and behavioral characteristics) and c) Understand the live cycles of living things: which include birth, growth, reproduction and death (Samarapungavan et al., 2008).

Each unit was made up of three groups of activities. These include Pre-inquiry, inquiry, and post inquiry activities. Pre-inquiry activities are whole class activities used to activate prior knowledge, layout the objectives for the investigation and provide the children with the framework of the task. During this phase teachers introduced important ideas in regards to the nature of science to the children. The Inquiry activities consisted of task which involved children’s investigation of the life cycle of the butterfly. While the activity was carried out children asked questions and made predictions about the outcomes. They discussed how the investigation could provide data that are relevant to science learning. In addition, they made notes in their science notebooks, and reached conclusions.

At the beginning of the inquiry phase, there was an introduction about the live monarch larvae that was placed on the plant of the milkweeds. The children were asked to make prediction about the growth of the larvae and its development into adult stage. After observing the larva the children asked and answered questions that were related to what they observed (Samarapungavan et al., 2008). The children wrote, drew, and pasted pictures of the monarch butterfly growth and development into their science notebooks.

The Post inquiry activities consisted of activitieswhere children were allowed to communicate their findings. The children were engaged in a discussion about the results from their investigation. The teacher guided the classroom discourse on science by modeling and scaffolding the dialogue and thinking of the children (Samarapungavan et al., 2008).

Participants

This study consisted of three female teachers that are Caucasians who taught the kindergarten classes in the SLP. There were four classrooms that operated for half day during the implementation of the inquiry unit. Of the three teachers, two were veteran teachers who had more than ten years experience in teaching while the other teacher was a second year teacher. The three teachers taught three of the kindergarten classroom in the morning and one of the teachers also taught an afternoon kindergarten classroom.

Coding and Analysis of Teacher Discourse Strategies

Teacher discourse strategies data were taken from inquiry lessons that were videotaped during the implementation of year1 of the SLP. The data were transcribed based on the techniques that were developed by (Psathas, 1995). “Top down” and “bottom up” quantitative content analysis procedures were used to analyze the data as well as assess and refine the categorization process where necessary (Samarapungavan, Westby & Bodner, 2006; Samarapungavan & Wiers, 1997; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992).

In order to code the teacher discourse strategies from the transcripts, a name search for each teacher was carried out from the lesson transcript of each class. This was done by identifying Turn Construction Units (TCUs) in the transcripts for each teacher (Sacks et al., 1978). TCU maybe defined as a unit of conversation that is semantically complete which represents a social action that is identifiable (e.g., carrying out an observation) (Sacks et al., 1978).

Each TCU was assigned into the coding categories listed below:

Asks explanatory questions: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where students were asked by the teacher to provide an explanation. (e.g., how do you know that (a tulip bulb) is the skin? Or why do you think it is an onion). The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category. This category was one of those that were identified by (Graesser, Baggett & Williams, 1996) stating that questions which need deep explanation and reasoning are those questions which ask about how, why, as well as what in order to provide logical reasoning and causal chains.
Asks for description/ meaning: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where students were asked by the teacher to describe or give the meaning of concepts (e.g., what does it mean). The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category. This category was one of those that were identified (King, 1994) which suggested that teacher ask questions (e.g., what does it mean? Or give a description of the circulatory system in order to help students generate explanation.
Asks for examples of a concept: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where students were asked by the teacher to provide example of concepts and procedures (e.g., what else do you wonder about things). The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category. This category was one of those that were identified (Tabak & Reiser, 1999) which suggest words that teachers can use to help expound on their statements (e.g., what else and why).
Ask student to elaborate or clarify: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where students were asked questions to obtain more in-depth responses (e.g., tell me more). The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category. This category was one of those that were identified (Tabak & Reiser, 1999) which explains how teacher asked students to expound on their stories with the aid of prompts (e.g., tell me more, why and what else).
Sets or explains learning task: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where the teacher explains learning tasks (e.g., we are going to learn about something called tools). The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category. This category was one of those that were identified (Laurillard, 1979) which states that students must be informed of the learning task that they are going to do.
Describes / defines concept / models reasoning process: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where the teacher gave definitions for concepts or process (e.g., science is about the world around us). The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category. This category was one of those that were identified (Bielaczyc et al., 1995) which note that learning strategies encompasses the elaboration and identification of relationships among major points when using text, when identifying meaning and form in coding the LISP as well as making connection between concepts by means of examples and text.
Scaffolds understanding of concept / process: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where the teacher gave clues, prompts and hints to assist students in learning task (e.g., could you try to smell it?). The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category. This category was one of those that were identified (McNeill et al., 2006) which explain that students produce more as well as better explanations when continuous written scaffolding as well as instructional modeling is used in classroom. In contrast, students who were placed in faded scaffolding conditions (students that were given similarly instructional support from the beginning of the explanation and learning stage but the instructional support faded gradually) produced less explanation.
Clarifies or rephrases student response: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where the teacher rephrases students’ responses in order to add more clarity. The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category. This category was one of those that were identified (O’Connor & Michaels, 1993) which suggest that the teacher rephrase which results in clearer communication.
Repeats students' response: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where students’ responses are repeated by the teacher. The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category. This category was one of those that were identified (Tabak & Reiser, 1999) which indicate that students’ responses are reiterated by the teacher in order to assist them in understanding what they said.
Expresses agreement: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where students’ responses are confirmed by the teacher (e.g., yes, correct). The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category. This category was one of those that were identified (Brophy, 1981) which state that students receive feedback from their teacher (e.g., correct and ok).
Teacher praises / affirms student responses: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where the teacher uses (e.g., that’s great or good). The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category. This category was one of those that were identified (Brophy, 1981) which explain this category can lead to children academic performance.
Classroom management response: This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where teachers guide the behavior of students as well as maintain discipline (e.g. you need to stop hitting your head on the wall) (Marzano & Marzano, 2003). The top down coding procedure was used to develop this category.
Other: This category consisted of all TCUs that were articulated by the teachers which are indirectly related to science topics (e.g., the teacher talking to herself). The bottom down coding procedure was used to develop this category.

The teacher discourse strategies listed above were placed into second order categories. This includes, Asks explanatory questions, Asks for description / meaning, Asks for examples of a concept, Requests student to elaborate or clarify, were placed in groups to form Teacher Conceptual Questions.

Sets or explains learning task, Describes / defines concept / models reasoning process, Scaffolds understanding of concept / process, Clarifies or rephrases students’ response constituted the second order group Teacher Exposition of Concepts.

Repeats students' response, Expresses agreement and Teacher praises / affirms student responses constituted the group Teacher Affirmation Responses.

Classroom management response and other were placed in the same group to form Teacher Non- Conceptual discourse.

Teacher discourse strategies which are higher order categories were placed into two superordinate categories. This include, Total Teacher Conceptual Discourse (sum of basic categories 1 through 8,see Table 3 - Results)and Total Teacher Non-Conceptual Discourse (sum of basic categories 9 through 13, see Table 3- Results).

After coding the teacher discourse strategies an inter-rater reliability was carried out on the data using simple percentage agreement. Two raters were used and all of the data were scored by the researcher while a second rater coded 25% of the lesson. This rater was also a member on the SLP. There was a 95% strategiesinter-rater reliability agreement on the discourse strategies. Discussions were used to resolve the disagreement. In the following sections, results and discussions are provided.