Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

From Words to Concepts: Focusing on Word Knowledge When Teaching for Conceptual Understanding Within an Inquiry-Based Science Setting

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

Abstract

This qualitative video study explores how two elementary school teachers taught for conceptual understanding throughout different phases of science inquiry. The teachers implemented teaching materials with a focus on learning science key concepts through the development of word knowledge. A framework for word knowledge was applied to examine the students’ level of word knowledge manifested in their talk. In this framework, highly developed knowledge of a word is conceptual knowledge. This includes understanding how the word is situated within a network of other words and ideas. The results suggest that students’ level of word knowledge develops toward conceptual knowledge when the students are required to apply the key concepts in their talk throughout all phases of inquiry. When the students become familiar with the key concepts through the initial inquiry activities, the students use the concepts as tools for furthering their conceptual understanding when they discuss their ideas and findings. However, conceptual understanding is not promoted when teachers do the talking for the students, rephrasing their responses into the correct answer or neglecting to address the students’ everyday perceptions of scientific phenomena.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: international perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • Bravo, M. A., Cervetti, G. N., Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, D. P. (2008). From passive to active control of science vocabulary. In The 56th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 122–135). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

  • Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. P. Klentchy, K. Worth, & W. Binder (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 221–244). Arlington: National Science Teacher Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, D., & Goldsmith, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. (in press, 2014). From inquiry to science practices in the science classroom. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II). New York: Routledge.

  • Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (2012). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1451–1469). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptions of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., & Alonzo, A. C. (2010). The role of content in inquiry-based elementary science lessons: an analysis of teacher beliefs and enactment. Research in Science Education, 40, 425–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glen, N. J., & Dotger, S. (2009). Elementary teachers’ use of language to label and interpret science concepts. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(4), 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (2003). Enhancing inquiry through formative assessment. San Francisco: Exploratorium, Institute for Inquiry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdiciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirchner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 4(12), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, F. T. (1981). The responsiveness classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students. In A. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming digest (pp. 109–113). College Park: University of Maryland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Learning from text designed to model scientific thinking in inquiry-based instruction. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and scientific instruction (pp. 316–339). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangold (2010). INTERACT quick start manual V2.4. Mangold International GmbH (Ed.). http://www.mangold-international.com. Accessed 15 September 2013.

  • 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., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984–2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching in the inquiry-based science classroom. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Myhill, D., & Brackley, M. (2004). Making connections: teachers’ use of children’s prior knowledge in whole class discourse. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(3), 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processing. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, D. P. Pearson, R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III; pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental change is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, M. C., & Micheals, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 63–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ødegaard, M., & Frøyland, M. (2009). Budding science and literacy. A longitudinal study of using inquiry-based science and literacy in comprehensive schooling. Oslo: Norwegian Centre for Science Education.

  • Ødegaard, M., Mork, S. M., Haug, B., & Sørvik, G. O. (2012). Categories for video analysis of science lessons. Oslo: Norwegian Centre for Science Education.

  • Poon, C. L., Lee, Y. J., Tan, A. L., & Li, S. S. L. (2012). Knowing inquiry as practice and theory. Developing a pedagogical framework with elementary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, S., & Hampson, B. (1996). Learning in-the-making: a case study of science and technology projects in a year six classroom. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 391–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocard, M. (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Lemke, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link-making: a fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R., Young, D., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., et al. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: a collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, S. A., & Stahl, K. A. (2004). Words wizards all! Teaching word meanings in preschool and primary education. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction (pp. 59–78). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, A. L., & Wong, H.-M. (2011). “Didn’t get expected answer, rectify it”: teaching science content in an elementary science classroom using hands-on activities. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 197–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (translation of Myshlenie i rech’). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minich, Trans). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected work of L. S. Vygotsky (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry.” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., et al. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347–352.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Norwegian Centre for Science Education, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1106, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway

    Berit S. Haug & Marianne Ødegaard

Authors
  1. Berit S. Haug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marianne Ødegaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Berit S. Haug.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haug, B.S., Ødegaard, M. From Words to Concepts: Focusing on Word Knowledge When Teaching for Conceptual Understanding Within an Inquiry-Based Science Setting. Res Sci Educ 44, 777–800 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9402-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9402-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation