 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 18, Issue 2, Article 2 (Dec., 2017) |
Several studies have examined instructional strategies but did not focus on kindergarten students (Gagnon & Bell, 2008; Kazempour & Amirshokoohi, 2013; King, 1994; McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik & Max, 2006; Tabak & Reiser, 1999). This current study examines several categories of teacher discourse strategies used in inquiry–based science learning that have not been examined thoroughly in a sole educational study.
First, this study showed that students can generate scientific explanations in a novel setting where inquiry-based learning is guided by the teacher as the teacher uses different kinds of discourse strategies. There are numerous studies that have investigated the impact and nature of teacher discourse strategies as it relates to explanations with older children (McNeil et al., 2008; Tabak & Reiser, 1999), while as it relates to kindergarten classrooms only few studies exist. This study shows that during inquiry-based science learning, teachers are capable of using different kinds of discourse strategies. The teachers in this study used 13 distinct types of discourse strategies for example, asks explanatory questions, asks for examples of a concept, sets or explains learning task, asks for description / meaning, repeats students' response (see Table 1 in results). Teachers in this study used discourse strategies for example, asks students for explanations, asks students to classify or elaborated on their responses that has been considered effective with older children to aid in the production of scientific explanation (Tabak & Reiser,1999).
Second, this study showed that students’ generation of explanations can be facilitated in an instructional setting by teachers where the teachers provided students with scaffolding (e.g., hints, modeling and prompts) in inquiry –based science learning. Other studies explore children’s explanation and focus on share book reading conservation between parent and children (Callanan et al., 1995; Callanan & Oakes, 1992). In theses studies the students instigate the explanatory conversation and ask questions that requires an explanation. However, the explanations given are provided by the children’s parents and not the children (Callanan et al., 1995; Callanan & Oakes, 1992).
Numerous studies have shown that the construction of scientific explanations by students is likely when scaffolding is provided by teachers (King, 1994; McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik & Max, 2006; Tabak & Reiser, 1999). However it is important to note that the instructional context used in the four classrooms studied was inform because all of the teachers in this study was trained to implement science teaching using a guided-inquiry approach that facilities science talk and scientific explanation. During the analysis, the basis level of teacher discourse strategies was grouped into conceptual and non-conceptual categories. The results indicate that twenty-one percentage of the total teacher discourse strategies was non-conceptual where as seventy-nine percentage was conceptual. Also Classroom 3 Teachers 3 used the most conceptual discourse while Classroom 2 Teacher 2 used the least conceptual discourse. It is important to note that a strong causal attribution cannot be made because an investigation on children’s explanations during non-inquiry-based science classroom was not conducted, although a significant sum of explanations discourse was generated by the students in the four classrooms studied.
Even though the classrooms investigated for this study received the same instructional dimensions in terms of instruction content, instructional materials and learning task there were different across the four classrooms in terms of teacher discourse that are not apparent. For instance, Classroom 3 Teacher 3 consists of the highest proportion of both teacher conceptual discourse and children’s explanatory discourse. In addition, Teacher 3 also taught Classroom 4 which did not show any statistical significant differences in terms of teacher conceptual discourse and children’s explanatory discourse among Teacher 1 Classrooms 1 and Teacher 2 Classroom 2.
There are several possible reasons why Classroom 3 Teacher 3 produced the highest proportion of both teacher conceptual discourse and children’s explanatory discourse. For example, Classroom 3 Teacher 3 produced the lowest percentage of conceptual questions in terms of proportion of the total teacher discourse. Also she had the highest affirmation of responses in terms of percentage than the other classrooms.
There could be other sources that are influencing our study that we did not examine. For example, peer talk and prior knowledge during inquiry-based science learning that we plan to explore in future study.
Two implications of this current study are that the sample was limited in number (3 teachers). Hence the results may not be generalized beyond the scope of the study. Further studies using larger sample of inquiry-based kindergarten science teachers are needed to confirm and clarify the patterns of teacher discourse strategies and their relation to children explanations during science learning. Another implication is that this study was conducted in the United States and did not focus specifically on preschooler’s inquiry-based science learning. Therefore the results should be interpreted with caution if it will be used by preschool teachers. However data that addressed preschooler’s inquiry- based learning would need to be collected. In the same senses it is important that teachers expose and help children understand science leaning early. Tillinger, (2013) highlighted the importance of providing science exploration and instructions in the early years. Amsel and Johnston (in press) noted that early science education is considered to be key competent for young children. According to Conezio and French (2002) “scientific exploration presents authentic opportunities to develop and use both receptive and expressive language skills” (p. 14).
Copyright (C) 2017 EdUHK APFSLT. Volume 18, Issue 2, Article 2 (Dec., 2017). All Rights Reserved.