Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Scientific language is unique and like every other language it does not come without its challenges. It is full of complex terminology, semitechnical and dual meanings of words, logical connectives, passive voices, diagrams, pictures, mathematics, and of course not forgetting chemical symbols and formulae. This struggle with scientific language is a major issue that has become an important topic for review by education researchers. It clear that it is not just a difficulty experienced by students with a low socioeconomic status or for students of which English is another language (EAL), it is in fact an issue that strikes at the heart of science learning for all students. An important epistemological view of science is that it is the cognitive thinking of physical ideals in which the aim is to explain them through a state of exploratory talk – a language concept of asking and answering questions (Mercer & Dawes, 2008). To quote Albert Einstein the goal of education is in fact to produce independent thinking and acting individuals (Calaprice, 2013). Playing such a vital role in pupils learning, it is thus always a duty in teaching to think about utilising dialogic models in a science classroom to ensure it is a home in producing diversely skilled and motivated future scientists. The aim of this essay is to establish the link between theoretical frameworks of language presented by Mortimer & Scott (2006) and the communicative approaches undertaken by science teachers.
Reasoning and constructive argumentation is the basis of all science communication. Argued by many, this language barrier in the science classroom could potentially inhibit the development of scientific ideas (Ford & Peat, 1988). Many analogies of the modes of dialog used in science classroom and their effectiveness in helping students learn suggest that the pivotal role for the successful use of language in the science classroom is played by the teacher (Mortimer & Scott, 2006; Osborne, 2002; Michaels & OConnor, 2012). Hoffmann (1988) suggested that the choice of the language of instruction used in schools by the teachers was of the utmost importance, an ideal is also supported by Marlene Thier (2002), who suggested that the effective teaching is inextricably linked to strong language skills. As such teachers who struggle to create a range of communication approaches in their classrooms may not provide students with the skills to independently think and act as excelling scientists.
The complexity of the topic of the language used in science classrooms stems to the difficulty of categorising the dialogic interactions that occur and when to appropriately use different modes of communicative approach throughout the science curriculum. Mortimer & Scott (2006) have effectively defined a framework into four specific classes of communicative approach in which all dialogic interactions between teachers and students can be placed; interactive/dialogic, noninteractive/dialogic, interactive/authoritative and noninteractive/authoritative. The framework is based upon two key aspects, the interaction and persona. The interactive and noninteractive part of the classification determines the involvement of the number of participants in the discussion. For example, interactive involves more than one participant – the teacher and the students, and noninteractive involves only one participant usually the teacher. The dialogic/authoritative part of the classification determines the specificity of the answers the teacher is looking for and the nature in which is it sort after. Dialogic refers to the acquisition of information from and with others, focusing on exploring a range of ideas in an open-ended chain pattern. Authoritative is usually where the teacher is solely focused on one scientific point of view and delivers the information in a closed chain pattern, with any answers not related to this specific point of view ignored. Quite simply: interactive/dialogic occurs when both teachers and students participate to consider a range of ideas in an explorative manner; noninteractive/dialogic occurs when the teacher, as the only participant to the interaction, speaks about different points of view; interactive/authoritative occurs when a teacher focuses on one specific point of view and leads the students through a question and answer routine using very narrow probing questions with the aim of establishing and consolidating one point of view; and finally noninteractive/authoritative occurs when the teacher alone presents a specific point of view. Five linked aspects of teacher role and teaching focus help to clearly place dialogic interactions observed in the science classroom into these classifications. Mortimer & Scott (2006) show that teaching purpose, content, communicative approach, teacher interventions, and finally patterns of interaction, provide a perspective of how the teacher works with students to develop their own ideas in an explorative way as budding scientists in the classroom the key ideology from the views of Mercer (2008).
A datum, in the form of observations, was recorded as a sequence of episodes during a year 9 lesson on atom structure for subsequent analysis on the language used in a secondary science classroom.
This episode took place as an initial introductory activity to the topic being covered over the next few lessons. It involved a slide displaying different elements with their atomic numbers and masses and the big question, what do these numbers mean? . The purpose of the activity was for the teacher to assess what the students could remember of this new topic based on previous years of education by inviting all students into an open discussion about the topic of atom structure. Students were asked to think, pair and share based on the question (a talk-move expressed by Micheals & OConnor (2012)) before being randomly selected to initiate the first discourse in this science classroom (see appendix 1, episode 1).
During this first episode the teacher adopted a neutral stance, not offering any evaluative comments, only prompting students to present their own ideas allowing the students a window of free rein to think, elaborate and justify their own ideas as described by Mercer (2008). This freedom that the teacher provided, for a less experienced teacher may seem daunting without knowledge of what the students will suggest, but is essential to building students efficacy with this type of talk where there is no wrong answer only ideas that may be challenged the basis of scientific discoveries. The pattern of interaction from this teacher, followed a very open approach whereby the teacher initiates the scientific discourse to obtain a response and then follows on obtaining more responses from only prompting students with minor utterances to give her more information each time. This elicitation discussion is an example of interactive/dialogic discourse in the science classroom whereby the teacher has encouraged the full participation of all students in presenting their own wide range of views about the atom structure. Such dialogic teaching at the very start of a lesson has a key focus in raising students engagement in the topic by considering their own thoughts and ideas, an ideal supported by Calcagni & Lago (2018).
Another episode took place as the next activity. But this task involved the students thinking independently in order to problem solve which element this picture of an atom represented in the periodic table based only on what the students had identified and discussed previously (see appendix 1, episode 2).
This second episode shifted to an interactive/authoritative communicative approach. After capturing and inspiring the students to relate and intrinsically motivate themselves to understand topic through the initial open discourse, this shift provides students with the specific sense of direction to the accepted views of the scientific ideology of atom structure that they need to know. This episode becomes a teacher-centred whole group interaction where the participation from students occurs after questions are scaffolded to produce a specific desired scientific point of view. The teacher even aids students listening to one another through rephrasing prompts and gets students to think deeper through getting them to defend their answers (Micheals & OConnor, 2012). The pattern of interaction, question-answer-evaluation an example of the triadic IRE commonly found in authoritative approaches, creates the academic productive talk about atom structure the teacher desired in order to clarify and improve the students understanding through the evaluations of the students answers.
It is interesting to notice that these views are probably not limited to science learning and understanding but can be considered as an ideal in all classrooms. Such complexity in the language of instruction used in science classrooms shows that even for experienced teachers who master many communicative approaches, as shown above by this teacher, it still hard to reach a suitable balance between dialogic and authoritative discourse as suggested by Mortimer & Scott (2006). A particular important issue that was raised to me, and picked up on in episode 2, is the necessity to deal with words which science inherited from everyday language. When teachers are introducing new language they should strongly consider four questions; is the word important? does it add to the students understanding? does the student have to know the word now? would insisting on the word be useful? An example displayed well in episode 2 with regards to the scientific word shells in atom structure. Science curriculum, like that for any other subject area, should be designed for enabling all students to develop critical independent thinking and acting. As such, teachers should know the curriculum and be able to identify areas where certain communicative approaches could exemplify a child overcoming the language barriers science learning faces and inevitably improve their attainment.
References
- Calaprice, A. (2013). The Ultimate Quotable Einstein. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
- Calcagni, E., & Lago, L. (2018). The three domains for dialogue: A framework analysis dialogic approaches to teaching and learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1-12.
- Ford, A., & Peat, D. (1988). The role of language in science. Foundations of Physics, 1233-1242.
- Hoffman, E. (1988). Practical suggestions for oral language development. In J. Reyhner, Teaching the India Child: A biligual multicultural approach (pp. 86-96). Montanna: Eastern Montana College.
- Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The Value of Exploratory Talk. In N. Mercer, & S. Hodgkinson, Exploring Talk in School – Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes (pp. 55-71). London: SAGE Publications.
- Micheals, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk Science Primer. Cambridge, MA: Teacher Education Resource Centre (TERC).
- Osbourne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sale? Camrbidge Journal of Education, 203-218.
- Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental charteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Wiley Interscience, 605-631.
- Thier, M. (2002). The new science literacy: using language skills to help students learn science . Rethinking science technology education to meet the demands of future generations in a changing world. (pp. 422-432). Brazil: International Organisation for Science Technology Education (IOSTE).
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.