Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Instructional Practices and the Teaching Science as Argument Framework

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The research reported in this study examines the very first time the participants planned for and enacted science instruction within a “best-case scenario” teacher preparation program. Evidence from this study indicates that, within this context, preservice teachers are capable of implementing several of the discursive practices of science called for in standards documents including engaging students in science investigations and constructing evidence-based explanations. The participants designed experiences that allowed their students to interact with natural phenomena, gather evidence, and craft explanations of natural phenomenon. The study contends that the participants were able to achieve such successes due to their participation in a teacher education program and field placement, which were designed using a comprehensive, conceptual framework. Video of the participant’s teaching and annotated self-analysis videos served as the primary data for this study. Implications for future research and elementary science teacher education are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: a tool for curriculum reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. K. (2006). Challenges and opportunities for field experiences in elementary science teacher preparation. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: international perspectives on contemporary issues and practices (pp. 73–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: a case study of a science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76(6), 581–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education, 82(4), 491–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V., Morrison, J. A., & Roth-McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K. J. B. (2012). Science education and test-based accountability: reviewing their relationship and exploring implications for future policy. Science Education, 96(1), 104–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arievitch, I. M. (2008). Exploring the links between external and internal activity from a cultural-historical perspective. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. Van Der Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning: advances in cultural-historical activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avraamidou, L. (2014). Tracing a beginning elementary teacher’s development of identity for science teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(3), 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: a first year elementary teacher’s specialized practices and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 965–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2010). In search of well-started beginning science teachers: insights from two first-year elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 661–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badiali, B., Nolan, J., Zembal-Saul, C., & Manno, J. (2011). Affirmation and change: assessing the impact of the professional development school on mentors’ classroom practice. In J. L. Nath, I. N. Guadarrama, & J. Ramsy (Eds.), Investigating University-School Partnerships (pp. 321–346). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. 

  • Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 1–12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barreto-Espino, R., Zembal-Saul, C., & Avraamidou, L. (2014). Prospective elementary teachers’ knowledge of teaching science as argument: a case study. School Science and Mathematics, 114(2), 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benus, M. J., Yarker, M. B., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2013). Analysis of discourse practices in elementary science classrooms using argument-based inquiry during whole-class dialogue. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Approaches and strategies in next generation science learning (pp. 224–245). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2008). Fostering second graders’ scientific explanations: a beginning elementary teacher’s knowledge, beliefs and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 381–414.

  • Biggers, M., Forbes, C. T., & Zangori, L. (2013). Elementary teachers’ curriculum design and pedagogical reasoning for supporting students’ comparison and evaluation of evidence-based explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 48–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, K. (2004). Science in the trenches: an exploration of four pre-service teachers' first attempts at teaching science in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Eleven common questions about qualitative research Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods (Vol. 4, pp. 32–42). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: a function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. (2012). Preservice elementary teachers’ use of a discursive model of meaning making in the co-construction of science understanding. (PhD). University Park, PA: Penn State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Derry, S., Berliner, D., & Hammerness, K. (2005). Theories of Learning and Their Roles in Teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do (pp. 40–87). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt, I. (2016). Why the difference between explanation and argument matters to science education. Science & Education, 25, 251–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Derry, S., Berliner, D., & Hammerness, K. (2005). Theories of Learning and Their Roles in Teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do (pp. 40–87). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. (2008). Grading (2 ed.) ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

  • Brown, B. A., & Spang, E. (2008). Double talk: synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom. Science Education, 92(4), 708–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler Songer, N., & Wenk Gotwals, A. (2012). Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry point of learning progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 141–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 471–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. R., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., & Gee, J. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9–38). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2016). Teacher roles of questions in early elementary science classrooms: a framework promoting student cognitive complexities in argumentation. Research in Science Education.

  • Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.

    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 

  • Choi, A., Klein, V., & Hershberger, S. (2015). Success, difficulty, and instructional strategy to enact an argument-based inquiry approach: experiences of elementary teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 991–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. S. (2003). “Change is hard”: what science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90(2), 348–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 93(4), 745–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorph, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Hartry, A., & McCaffrey, T. (2011). High hopes-few opportunities: the status of elementary science education in California. Retrieved from https://www.wested.org/resources/high-hopes-mdash-few-opportunities-full-report-the-status-of-elementary-science-education-in-california/

  • Driver, R. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbers, M., & Rowell, P. (2002). Description is not enough: scaffolding children’s explanations. Primary Science Review, 74, 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elstgeest, J. (2001). The right question at the right time. In W. Harlen (Ed.), Primary science: taking the plunge (2 ed., pp. 36–46). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition & Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classrooms facilitated with differing levels of constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1891–1914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. J. (2006). Representations of science within children's trade books. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 214–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichsen, P. M., Munford, D., & Orgill, M. (2006). Brokering at the boundary: a prospective science teacher engages students in inquiry. Science Education, 90(3), 522–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 13–31). Newark, DE: International Reading Association & NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: a toolkit. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P., Kelly, G. J., Roth, W. M., & Yerrick, R. K. (2005). Situating identity and science discourse. In R. K. Yerrick & W. M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific discourse communities: multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 39–44). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1994). Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. In M. Martin & L. C. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science. Science Education, 16(2), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, G. (2008). Initial impacts of no child left behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers’ developing understanding of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Wallace, C. S., & Yang, E. M. (2004). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science: a prospective elementary teacher’s journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 933–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, M. T. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers' struggle to define inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershberger, K., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2015). KLEWS to Explanation-Building in Science: an update to the KLEW chart adds a tool for explanation building. Science & Children, 52(6), 66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (Vol. 35, p. 3). Dordrecth: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (2008). Learning science: discursive practices. In A. M. de Mejia & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 2, pp. 329–340). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., & Hand, B. (2015). An analysis of argumentation discourse patterns in elementary teachers’ science classroom discussions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 221–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubli, F. (2005). Science teaching as a dialogue—Bakhtin, Vygotsky and some applications in the classroom. Science & Education, 14(6), 501–534.

  • Lee, O. (2002). Promoting Scientific Inquiry for elementary students from diverse cultures and languages. In W. Seneca (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 23–69). Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. A., & Houseal, A. (2003). Self-efficacy, standards, and benchmarks as factors in teaching elementary school science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(1), 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. D., & Smagorinsky, P. (2000). Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectivers on literacy research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in the elementary grades. In T. A. Rombert, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S. J., Krajcik, J. S., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Ledermen (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (p. 95). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition & Instruction, 22(2), 219–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school science classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 138–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, Set, Science! Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner, A. R., Sondergeld, T. A., Demir, A., Johnson, C. C., & Czerniak, C. M. (2012). Elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching science and classroom practice: an examination of pre/post NCLB testing in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Retrieved from Washington, DC.

  • Next Generation Science Standards, L. S. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. National Academies Press.

  • Nolan, J., Badiali, B., Zembal-Saul, C., Burns, R., Edmondson, J., Bauer, D., et al. (2009). The Penn State-State College elementary professional development school collaborative: a profile. School-University Partnerships, 3(2), 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: a guide for teaching and learning (p. 202). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades k-8. National Research Council: Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2012). In N. R. Council (Ed.), A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A Teaching Model That Develops Active Reading of Expository Text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks-Rogers, M. A. (2009). Elementary preservice teachers' experience with inquiry: connecting evidence to explanation. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penny, K., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Clark, G. (2003). The anatomy of junior high school science textbooks: an analysis of textual characteristics and a comparison to media reports of science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(4), 415–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, S. M., & French, L. (2008). Supporting young children’s explanations through inquiry science in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(3), 395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts, A. (2014). Preservice elementary teachers’ ideas about scientific practices. Science & Education, 23(10), 2119–2135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K. J. (2014). Elementary science teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. 2, pp. 361–394). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., Kittleson, J., & Hutner, T. (2013). Understanding the induction of a science teacher: the interaction of identity and context. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1221–1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sander, J. (2011). Implementing science conversations with young learners. In B. Hand & L. Norton-Meier (Eds.), Voices from the classroom: elementary teachers’ experience with argument-based inquiry (pp. 73–86). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schechter, C., & Michalsky, T. (2014). Juggling our mindsets: learning from success as a complementary instructional framework in teacher education. Teachers College Record, 116(2), 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seah, L. H. (2016). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of language issues in science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(6), 1059–1078.

  • Settlage, J., & Sutherland, S. A. (2012). Teaching science to every child: using culture as a starting point (2 ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siry, C., Ziegler, G., & Max, C. (2012). “Doing science” through discourse-in-interaction: young children’s science investigations at the early childhood level. Science Education, 96(2), 311–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srikantaiah, D. (2009). How state and federal accountability policies have influenced curriculum and instruction in three states: common findings from Rhode Island, Illinois, and Washington. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=217

  • Tippett, C. (2009). Argumentation: the language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(1), 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tippins, D., Tobin, K., & Nichols, S. (1995). A constructivist approach to change in elementary science teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 25(2), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trygstad, P. J. (2013). 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: status of elementary science. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

  • Varelas, M., & Pineda, E. (1999). Intermingling and bumpiness: exploring meaning making in the discourse of a science classroom. Research in Science Education, 29(1), 25–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92(1), 65–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and Society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

  • Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together: classrooms as centers of inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zangori, L., & Forbes, C. T. (2013). Preservice elementary teachers and explanation construction: knowledge-for-practice and knowledge-in-practice. Science Education, 97(2), 310–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zangori, L., & Forbes, C. (2014). Scientific practices in elementary classrooms: third-grade students’ scientific explanations for seed structure and function. Science Education, 98(4), 614–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarnowski, M., & Turkel, S. (2013). How nonfiction reveals the nature of science. Children’s Literature in Education, 44(4), 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C., McNeill, K. L., & Hershberger, K. (2013). What’s your evidence? Engaging k-5 students in constructing explanations in science. New York, NY: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, M., Passalacqua, S., Lundeberg, M., Koeler, M. J., Eberhardt, J., Parker, J., et al. (2010). “Science talks” in kindergarten classrooms: improving classroom practice through collaborative action research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Dr. Carla Zembal-Saul, Professor, Science Education at Penn State University. I thank her for her insightful comments on draft manuscripts, significant technical help, and support framing the direction of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Ohio State University, 237C Morrill Hall, Marion, OH, 43302, USA

    Elisebeth Boyer

Authors
  1. Elisebeth Boyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisebeth Boyer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author certifies there is no conflict of interest, actual or potential, in relation to this article.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Code book
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boyer, E. Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Instructional Practices and the Teaching Science as Argument Framework. Sci & Educ 25, 1011–1047 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9864-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9864-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation