Tools for Promoting Conceptually Productive Discussion and Argumentation in Science Education

Teachers often have difficulty facilitating whole-class science discussions that are not teacher-centric. In this study, we explore the use of a planning/reflection form (PRF) to support these discussions in three middle-school science classrooms. The PRF was based on three instructional frameworks: Ian J. Dove and E. Michael Nussbaum’s Critical Questions Model of Argument Assessment, talk moves as described in Sarah Michaels and Catherine O’Connor’s Academically Productive Talk, and an elicit-explore-consensus instructional cycle. The frameworks also provided a basis for identifying both deficiencies and successes in the teachers’ discourse practices. Data included recordings of discussions and teacher reflection meetings, analyzed for thematic discursive patterns. We found the curriculum (Amplify Science) incorporated some critical questions for evaluating arguments, but provided limited scaffolding for facilitating whole-class discussions or probing student reasoning. Teachers viewed the PRF as helping them focus on student contributions and formative assessment data. One teacher also implemented a student science seminar led by student moderators. This was a form of whole-class discussion that was not teacher-centric but still conceptually productive. We argue that current conceptions of argumentation in science education should be broadened to place greater emphasis on learning to participate in conceptually productive discussions.