SpringerLink
Log in

Secondary Science Student Teachers’ Use of Verbal Discourse to Communicate Scientific Ideas in Their Field Placement Classrooms

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Student teachers struggle to identify themselves as teachers in their field placement during their student teaching year, and some of the difficulty can be attributed to the change they encounter when they must communicate scientific ideas to students in a language that differs from how they recently learned science at the university level. Using developmental levels of student teaching (Drafall and Grant in Music Educators Journal, 81(1), 35−38, 1995), we explore how three cases differ in their use of verbal classroom discourse over the course of their student teaching year. We use data from six observations, post-observation debriefs, reflections associated with the observations, and responses to assignments from the student teachers’ teaching classes as data to demonstrate how the cases differ in the proficiency of their verbal communication in their classroom placement. We find that when student teachers have difficulty communicating science to their students, they struggle to use lectures effectively or engage students in meaningful conversation or questioning. This work suggests a need for more study as to the causes of different communication proficiencies and how methods instructors can help teachers develop awareness of the value of their verbal discourse interactions with students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27(1), 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: negotiating personal and professional spaces. Urbana: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aydeniz, M., & Kirbulut, Z. D. (2014). Exploring challenges of assessing pre-service science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.890696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahktin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Britzman, D. P. (2006). Foreword. In J. Alsup (Ed.), Teacher identity discourses (pp. ix–xii). Urbana: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. A. (2011). Isn’t that just good teaching? Disaggregate instruction and the language identity dilemma. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(8), 679–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9256-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M. M. H., Cheng, A. Y. N., & Tang, S. Y. F. (2010). Closing the gap between the theory and practice of teaching: implications for teacher education programmes in Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470903462222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., & **ks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970009600650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, M., Michell, M., & Ellis, N. J. (2017). Dialectics of development: teacher identity formation in the interplay of ideal ego and ego ideal. Teaching Education, 28(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2016.1211631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. L. (2010). Getting recognised: teachers negotiating professional identities as learners through talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Knowledge for teaching. What do we know? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 1316–1323). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drafall, L. E., & Grant, J. W. (1995). Improving communication with student teachers. Music Educators Journal, 81(1), 35–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/3398796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(3), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M., & Khan, A. (2008). The effects of teacher discourse on students’ discourse, problem-solving and reasoning during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2008.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. (2011). Framework for teaching practice: a brief history of an idea. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2836–2843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, J., Greene, B., & Lowery, J. (2017). Multiple dimensions of teacher identity development from pre-service to early years of teaching: a longitudinal study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1251111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P. L., & Roth, W. M. (2009). An analysis of teacher discourse that introduces real science activities to high school students. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9094-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. (2014). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 321–336). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, S., Borowski, A., Fischer, H. E., Gess-Newsome, J., & von Aufschnaiter, C. (2016). Develo** and evaluating a paper-and-pencil test to assess components of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 38(8), 1343–1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korthagen, F. A. J. (2010). How teacher education can make a difference. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(4), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2010.513854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. New York: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, E., Baker, D., Watts, N. B., & Lang, M. (2014). A professional learning community activity for science teachers: how to incorporate discourse-rich instructional strategies into science lessons. Science Educator, 23(1), 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. C. (2009). The creation, validation, and reliability associated with the EQUIP (Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol): a measure of inquiry-based instruction. In National Association of Researchers of Science Teaching (NARST) Conference. Orange County, CA.

  • Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: the value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B. (1995). Talking about science: an interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 349–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morge, L. (2005). Teacher-pupil interaction: a study of hidden beliefs in conclusion phases. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 935–956. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500068600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, P., & Vikström, A. (2015). Making PCK explicit—capturing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2836–2857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Hamre, B. K. (2010). The role of psychological and developmental science in efforts to improve teacher quality. Teachers College Record, 112(12), 2988–3023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M. (2005). Talking science: language and learning in science classrooms. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, L., Howard, S., & Markauskaite, L. (2010). Professional identity creation: examining the development of beginning preservice teachers’ understanding of their work as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., de Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572–590. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2008). Using the curriculum emphasis concept to investigate teachers’ curricular beliefs in the context of educational reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<159::AID-TEA1002>3.0.CO;2-J.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viiri, J., & Saari, H. (2006). Teacher talk patterns in science lessons: use in teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9028-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiland, I. S., Hudson, R. A., & Amador, J. M. (2014). Preservice formative assessment interviews: the development of competent questioning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9402-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: what can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed., vol. 5). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, R., & Burns, A. (2017). Teacher identity development through action research: a Chinese experience. Teachers and Teaching, 23(6), 729–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clemson University, 102 Tillman Hall, Clemson, SC, USA

    Heidi Cian & Michelle Cook

Authors
  1. Heidi Cian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heidi Cian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cian, H., Cook, M. Secondary Science Student Teachers’ Use of Verbal Discourse to Communicate Scientific Ideas in Their Field Placement Classrooms. Res Sci Educ 50, 1389–1416 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9737-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9737-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation