Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-8
Impacts of a Practice-Based Professional Development Program on Elementary Teachers’ Facilitation of and Student Engagement With Scientific Argumentation
This article reports an investigation of a professional development program to enhance elementary teachers’ ability to engage their students in argument from evidence in science. Using a quasi-experimental approach, three versions were compared: Version A—a 1-week summer institute with a 2-week summer practicum experience and 8 follow-up days (four per year), Version B without the practicum experience, and Version C—a revision of Version A in Year 3. All teachers were videoed twice each year, and the videos were rated using an instrument to measure the quality of discourse. All versions led to a significant improvement in teachers’ facilitation of classroom discourse. Neither the practicum nor the revised program had an additional effect. Implications for the field are discussed.
AllenJ. P.PiantaR. C.GregoryA.MikamiA. Y.LunJ. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333(6045), 1034–1037. doi:10.1126/science.1207998
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8.
BellC. A.WilsonS. M.HigginsT.McCoachD. B. (2010). Measuring the effects of professional development on teacher knowledge: The case of developing mathematical ideas. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 479–512.
9.
BiggersM.ForbesC. T. (2012). Balancing teacher and student roles in elementary classrooms: Preservice elementary teachers’ learning about the inquiry continuum. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2205–2229.
10.
BlatchfordP.KutnickP.BainesE.GaltonM. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153–172.
11.
BlumenfeldP. C.KemplerT. M.KrajcikJ. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BondL.SmithT.BakerW. K.HattieJ. A. (2000). The certification system for the National Board for Professional Teaching standards: A construct and consequential validity study. Greensborough: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, University of North Carolina at Greensborough.
13.
BorkoH.JacobsJ.KoellnerK. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. In BakerE.McGawB.PetersonP. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 548–556). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
14.
BorkoH.JacobsJ.SeagoN.MangramC. (2014). Facilitating video-based professional development: Planning and orchestrating productive discussions. In LiY.SilverE. A.LiS. K. (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 259–281). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer International.
15.
CazdenC. B. (2001). Classroom discourse (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16.
ChiM. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.
ChinC.OsborneJ. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230–284.
19.
ClaxtonG. (1988). Live and learn: An introduction to the psychology of growth and change in everyday life. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
20.
CoburnC. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32, 3-12. doi:10.3102/0013189X032006003
21.
CrippenK. J. (2012). Argument as professional development: Impacting teacher knowledge and beliefs about science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 847–866.
22.
CrombieA. C. (1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition: The history of argument and explanation especially in the mathematical and biomedical sciences and arts (Vol. 1): London, England: Duckworth.
23.
CromerA. (1993). Uncommon sense: The heretical nature of science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.
25.
DillonJ. T. (1982). The effects of questions in education and other enterprises. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14, 127–152.
26.
DoiseW.MugnyG. (1979). Individual and collective conflicts of centrations in cognitive development. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 105–108.
27.
DriverR.GuesneE.TiberghienA. (1985). Children’s ideas and the learning of science. In DriverR.GuesneE.TiberghienA. (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 1–9). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
28.
DriverR.NewtonP.OsborneJ. F. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
29.
DuschlR.OsborneJ. F. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
30.
EdwardsD.MercerN. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London, England: Methuen.
31.
EngelmannK.NeuhausB.FischerF. (2016). Fostering scientific reasoning in education: Meta-analytic evidence from intervention studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22, 333–349. doi:10.1080/13803611.2016.1240089
32.
ErduranS.Jiménex-AleixandreM. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
33.
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.Tesch-RömerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
34.
FishmanE. J.BorkoH.OsborneJ.GomezF.RafanelliS.ReighE.. . .BersonE. (2017). A practice-based professional development program to support scientific argumentation from evidence in the elementary classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28, 222–249. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2017.1302727
35.
FordM. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423.
36.
FordM. J.FormanE. A. (2007). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32.
37.
FrankeM. L.TurrouA. C.WebbN. M.IngM.WongJ.ShinN.FernandezC. (2015). Student engagement with others’ mathematical ideas: The role of teacher invitation and support moves. The Elementary School Journal, 116, 126–148.
38.
GaretM. S.CronenS.EatonM.KurkiA.LudwigM.JonesW.. . .DoolittleF. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement (NCEE 2008-4030). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
39.
GilbertJ. K.WattsD. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspective in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61–98.
40.
GoldingC. (2012). Epistemic progress: A construct for understanding and evaluating inquiry. Educational Theory, 62, 677–693. doi:10.1111/edth.12004
41.
GrossmanP.ComptonC.IgraD.RonfeldtM.ShahanE.WilliamsonP. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. The Teachers College Record, 111, 2055–2100.
42.
HakeR. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.
43.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326–354.
44.
HatanoG.InagakiK. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In ResnickL.LevineJ. M.TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331–348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
45.
HellerJ. I.DaehlerK. R.WongN.ShinoharaM.MiratrixL. W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 333–362.
46.
HendersonB.OsborneJ.MacPhersonA.WildA. (2015). Beyond Construction: Five arguments for the role of critique in teaching science. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 1668–1697.
47.
HillH. C.CharalambousC. Y.KraftM. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41, 56–64.
48.
HoweC.MercerN. (2007). Children’s social development, peer interaction and classroom learning (Primary Review Research Survey 2/1b). Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education.
49.
KangH.WindschitlM.StroupeD.ThompsonJ. (2016). Designing, launching, and implementing high quality learning opportunities for students that advance scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 1316–1340. doi:10.1002/tea.21329
50.
KazemiE.StipekD. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 59–80.
51.
KiemerK.GröschnerA.PehmerA.-K.SeidelT. (2015). Effects of a classroom discourse intervention on teachers’ practice and students’ motivation to learn mathematics and science. Learning and Instruction, 35, 94–103.
52.
KingA. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal interaction. American Education Research Journal, 27, 664–687.
53.
KoellnerK.JacobsJ. (2015). Distinguishing models of professional development: The case of an adaptive model’s impact on teachers’ knowledge, instruction, and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 51–67.
54.
KuhnD. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810–824.
55.
KuhnD.CheneyR.WeinstockM. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309–328.
56.
KuhnD.WangY.LiH. (2011). Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentive discourse. Discourse Processes, 48, 26–49.
57.
LefsteinA.SnellJ. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing dialogic pedagogy. London, England: Routledge.
LotterC. R.MillerC. (2017). Improving inquiry teaching through reflection on practice. Research in Science Education, 47, 913–942.
60.
ManzE. (2015). Resistance and the development of scientific practice: Designing the mangle into science instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 33, 89–124. doi:10.1080/07370008.2014.1000490
61.
ManzE.SuárezE. (2018). Supporting teachers to negotiate uncertainty for science, students, and teaching. Science Education, 102, 771–795. doi:10.1002/sce.21343
62.
MartinA.HandB. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17–38.
63.
McNeillK. L.González-HowardM.Katsh-SingerR.LoperS. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high-quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 261–290. doi:10.1002/tea.21252
64.
McNeillK. L.KnightA. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97, 936–972. doi:10.1002/sce.21081
65.
McNeillK. L.KrajcikJ. (2012). Supporting Grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science. Boston, MA: Pearson.
66.
MercerN. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. New York, NY: Routledge.
67.
MercerN.HoweC. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 12–21.
68.
MercerN.LittletonK. (2007). Dialogue and development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London, England: Routledge.
69.
MercerN.WegerifR.DawesL. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111.
70.
MercierH.SperberD. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–74.
71.
MercierH.SperberD. (2017). The enigma of reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
MichaelsS.O’ConnorC.ResnickL. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 27, 283–297.
74.
NasirN. S.RoseberryA. S.WarrenB.LeeC. (2006). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In SawyerK. (Ed.), Handbook for the learning sciences (pp. 489–504). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
75.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
76.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NewtonP.DriverR.OsborneJ. F. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.
79.
NorrisS. P. (1997). Intellectual independence for nonscientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Science Education, 81, 239–258.
80.
NystrandM.GamoranA.KachurR.PrendegarstC. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
81.
OaksfordM.ChaterN. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
82.
OhlssonS. (1996). Learning to do and learning to understand? A lesson and a challenge for cognitive modelling. In ReimannP.SpadaH. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines (pp. 37–62). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
83.
OsborneJ. F. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.
84.
OsborneJ. F. (2011). Science teaching methods: A rationale for practices. School Science Review, 93(343), 93–103.
85.
OsborneJ. F.ErduranS.SimonS. (2004). The IDEAS project. London, England: King’s College London.
86.
OsborneJ. F.SimonS.ChristodoulouA.Howell-RichardsonC.RichardsonK. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 315–347.
87.
PenneyK.NorrisS. P.PhillipsL.ClarkG. (2003). The anatomy of high school science textbooks. Canadian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3/4, 415–436.
88.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.Haugan ChengB.SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40, 331–337.
89.
PimentelD. S.McNeillK. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97, 367–394.
90.
PraetoriousA.-K.PauliC.ReusserK.RakoczyK.KliemeE. (2014). One lesson is all you need? Stability of instructional quality across lessons. Learning and Instruction, 31, 2–12.
91.
PutnamR.BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 21(1), 4–15.
92.
RatcliffeM.HanleyP.OsborneJ. F. (2007). Evaluation of twenty first century science GCSE Strand 3: The teaching of twenty first century science GCSE, and teachers’ and students’ views of the course. Hampshire, England: University of Southampton.
93.
ResnickL.AsterhanC.ClarkeS. (Eds.). (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
94.
ResnickL.MichaelsS.O’ConnorC. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In SternbergJ. (Ed.), From genes to context: New discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications (pp. 163–194). New York, NY: Springer.
95.
ReznitskayaA.GregoryM. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48, 114–133. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.775898
96.
RothK. J.GarnierH. E.ChenC.LemmensM.SchwilleK.WicklerN. I. Z. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 117–148.
97.
RyanG.TooheyS.HughesC. (1996). The purpose, value and structure of the practicum in higher education: A literature review. Higher Education, 31, 355–377.
98.
SadlerP. M.SonnertG.CoyleH. P.Cook-SmithN.MillerJ. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1020–1049.
99.
SadlerT. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323–346.
100.
SchwabJ. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
101.
SeagoN.JacobsJ.DriscollM.NikulaJ.MatassaM.CallahanP. (2013). Developing teachers’ knowledge of a transformations-based approach to geometric similarity. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 2, 74–85.
102.
ShavelsonR. J.WebbN. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
103.
SimonS.ErduranS.OsborneJ. F. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235–260.
104.
SnellJ.LefsteinA. (2017). “Low ability,” participation, and identity in dialogic pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 55, 40–78. doi:10.3102/0002831217730010
105.
SzuE.OsborneJ. F. (2011). Scientific reasoning and argumentation from a Bayesian perspective. In KhineM. S. (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 55–71). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
106.
ThagardP. (2008). Explanatory coherence. In AdlerJ. E.RipsL. J. (Eds.), Reasoning (pp. 471–513). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
107.
van EsE. A.SherinM. G. (2010). The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 155–176.
108.
WayneA. J.YoonK. S.ZhuP.CronenS.GaretM. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37, 469–479.
109.
WebbN. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Education Research, 13, 21–39.
110.
WebbN. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.
111.
WeissI. R.PasleyJ. D.Sean SmithP.BanilowerE. R.HeckD. J. (2003). A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
112.
WillinghamD. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach?Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 21–32. doi:10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32
113.
WilsonS. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340(6130), 310–313. doi:10.1126/science.1230725
114.
WindschitlM.ThompsonJ.BraatenM.StroupeD. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96, 878–903.
115.
WolpertL. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. London, England: Faber & Faber.
116.
Zembal-SaulC. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687–719.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
