 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 18, Issue 2, Article 2 (Dec., 2017) |
In this section, the results of the study are presented below. This includes the teacher discourse strategies that are used in classroom science discourse (e.g., variation of discourse strategies by teachers). It is also important to examine teacher discourse strategies in order to see how the use of these strategies varies from one teacher to the other.
The 13 distinct types as well as the frequency of teacher discourse strategies are listed in Table 2. The descriptive data provided in Table 2 reveals that teachers produced a significant amount of discourse (1717 TCUs). Related to the first research question the teacher that generated the most discourse was Teacher 3 who taught Classroom 3 (709 TCUs). While Teacher 2 who taught Classroom 2 (245 TCUs) generated the least amount of discourse. The teachers used various discourse strategies during the basic level (see Table 2). In terms of frequency, Category 3 (Asks for examples of a concept), was used the most with 675 times (39% of the total discourse) and it was also the most common teacher discourse categories among the four classrooms. 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).
Teacher 3: “What else do you wonder about things?”
Student: “Wonder like something you are like a star how you make are some how you got made”.The second most commonly occurring category used was 5. Sets or explains learning task (5) which occurred 197 times (34% of the total discourse). This category represents the teacher discourse strategies where the teacher explains learning tasks (e.g., we are going to learn about something call tools).
Teacher 2: “We are going to look at these things (a capsule sponge) let’s make some
prediction, lets first think in our head”.
Student: “It could turn into an animal sponge”.It is important to note that categories three and five do not call for scaffold explanations from children and were ranked the highest of all the other categories.
The third most frequently occurring category used was 7. Scaffolds understanding of concept / process (7) which occurred 147 times (8% of the total discourse). This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where the teacher gave clues, prompts and hints to assist students in the learning task (e.g., could you try to smell it?).
Teacher 1: “It matches and what is that called, blended in?”
Student: “Camouflage”.The fourth most occurring category used was 8. Clarifies or rephrases student response (8) which occurred 124 times (7% of the total discourse). This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where the teacher rephrases student's responses in order to add more clarity.
Teacher 3: “Because it looks like it. So you are using your eyes to look at something, alright”.
Student: “Ummm because it looks like”.The fifth most commonly occurring category used was 1. Asks explanatory question (1) which occurred 119 times (7% of the total discourse). 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).
Teacher 2: “How can you we find out of if any of these predictions are right?”
Student: “Drop it”.The sixth most frequently occurring category used was 9. Repeats students' response (9) which occurred 114 times (7% of the total discourse). This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where students’ responses are repeated by the teacher.
Teacher 1: “Butterflies can go in a cocoon?”
Student: “Butterflies can go in cocoons”.The seventh most frequently occurring category used was 11. Teacher praises / affirms student responses (11) which occurred 106 times (6% of the total discourse). This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where the teacher uses (e.g., that’s great or good).
Teacher 3: “Wow. Good job”.
Student: “He is making into a cocoon”.The eighth category in order of frequency used was 12. Classroom management response (12) which occurred 98 times (6% of the total discourse). 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)
Teacher 2: “You guys pay attention”.
There were similar examples found in teacher 1 and 3 class:
Teacher 1: “Please sit down. Put your science notebook down now. I want you to pay attention”.
Teacher 3: “Turn around. Whoop, I need you right there. OK! Whoop, scoot back”. “Turn around, so that you are sitting up and looking at me”.The ninth category used was 4. Ask student to elaborate or clarify (4) and 6. Describes / defines concept / models reasoning process (6) which occurred 46 times (3% of the total discourse). This first category (4) represents the teacher discourse strategy where students were asked questions to obtain more in-depth responses (e.g., tell me more).
Teacher 3: “That what?”
Student: “Science someone”The other ninth category (6) teacher discourse strategy where the teacher gave definitions for concepts or process (e.g., science is about the world around us).
Teacher 3: “Try to guess. That is called making a pre::::diction. Can you say, ‘making a pre:::::diction?”
Student: “You could try to guess”.The eleventh category in order of frequency used was 10. Expresses agreement (10) which occurred 35 times (2% of the total discourse). This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where students’ responses are confirmed by the teacher (e.g., yes, correct).
Teacher 2: “Exactly, an ant is an insect too”.
Student: “Like an ant”.The rarest occurring category used was 2. Asks for description / meaning (2) which occurred 9 times (1% of the total discourse). This category represents the teacher discourse strategy where students were asked by the teacher to describe or give the meaning for concepts (e.g., what does it mean).
Teacher 1: “Can you tell me what camouflage means?” “What do you think camouflage means?”
Student: “Keeps things safe”.A number of teacher discourse strategies (see Table1) and conceptual discourse categories were also utilized by teachers (categories 1-4, Table 2), for example asking conceptual questions and explaining concepts and learning tasks (categories 5-8, Table 2). The teachers also involved in student affirmation where they express agreement and praise students for their responses (categories 9-11, Table 2). Teacher discourse strategies were also directed toward classroom management (category 12, Table 2).
Table 1. Teacher Discourse Strategies
Teacher Discourse Strategies 1. Asks explanatory questions 2. Asks for description / meaning 3. Asks for examples of a concept 4. Asks student to elaborate, clarify 5. Sets or explains learning task 6. Describes / defines concept 7. Scaffolds understanding of concept/process 8. Clarifies/rephrases students responses 9. Repeats students' response 10. Expresses agreement 11. Praises / affirms child responses 12. Classroom management 13. Other
Table 2. Frequency of Teacher’s Basic Discourse Categories by Class
Basic Discourse CategoriesTeacher 1
Class 1Teacher 2
Class 2Teacher 3
Class 3Teacher 3
Class 4Total
Teacher Conceptual Questions
14. Asks explanatory questions
39
19
42
19
119
15. Asks for description / meaning
2
1
6
0
9
16. Asks for examples of a concept
200
130
216
129
675
17. Asks student to elaborate, clarify
8
11
19
8
46
Total Teacher Conceptual Questions
249 (55%)
161 (66%)
283 (40%)
156 (51%)
849
Teacher Exposition of Concepts
18. Sets or explains learning task
46
15
90
46
197
19. Describes / defines concept
8
10
17
11
46
20. Scaffolds understanding of concept /process
43
12
63
29
147
21. Clarifies / rephrases student response
35
15
60
14
124
Total Teacher Exposition of Concepts
132 (29%)
52 (21%)
230 (32%)
100 (32%)
514
Teacher Affirmation Responses
9. Repeats students' response
24
11
65
14
114
10. Expresses agreement
10
3
19
3
35
11. Praises / affirms child responses
20
3
66
17
106
Total Teacher Affirmation
54 (11%)
17 (17)
150 (21%)
34 (11%)
255
Teacher Non-Conceptual
12. Classroom management
19
15
46
18
98
13. Other
1
0
0
0
1
Total Teacher Non-Conceptual
20 (4%)
15 (6%)
46 (6%)
18 (6%)
99
Total Teacher Discourse
455
245
709
308
1717
One of the teacher responses was coded as other; this was in response to an interruption that was not expected by one of the school employee who had a request that was not related to this classroom instruction (category 13, Table 2).
Table 3. Frequency of Teacher’s Superordinate Discourse Categories by Class
Superordinate CategoriesTeacher 1
Class 1
(n = 14)Teacher 2
Class 2
(n = 18)Teacher 3
Class 3
(n = 20)Teacher 3
Class 4
(n = 11)Total
(n = 63)Total Teacher Conceptual Discourse (sum of categories 1-8, Table 2 )
381
213
513
256
1363
Total Teacher Non-Conceptual Discourse (sum of categories 9-13, Table 2)
74
32
196
52
354
Total Teacher Discourse
455
245
709
308
1717
% Conceptual Discourse
84%
87%
72%
83%
79%
In or to address research question number 2 the frequencies for superordinate coding are represented in Table 3 above. They were produced from an aggregate of the basic level categories and placed into two other higher level categories. Total Teacher Conceptual Discourse includes (sum of basic categories 1 through 8in Table 3) asks explanatory questions, asks for description / meaning, asks for examples of a concept, asks student to elaborate, clarify, sets or explains learning task, describes / defines concept, scaffolds understanding of concept /process, clarifies / rephrases student response and The Total Teacher Non-Conceptual Discourse includes (sum of basic categories 9 through 13 in Table 3) repeats students' response, expresses agreement, praises / affirms child responses, classroom management, and Other. A chi-square analysis was conducted and the results show 79% and 21% conceptual and non-conceptual teacher discourse respectively. A significant difference was shown in conceptual and non-conceptual discourse distribution by class χ2 (3, N = 1717) = 37.81, p <.001and by teacher χ2 (2, N = 1717) = 22.64, p <.001. Teacher 3 of Classroom 3 showed the highest Conceptual Teacher Discourse (513 TCUs). While Teacher 2 of Classroom 2 showed the lowest Conceptual Teacher Discourse (213 TCUs). The results show that the discourse strategies used across Classroom 3 and Classroom 4 taught by teacher 3 varied.
