TALK IN SCIENCE: FORGOTTEN CORNER OF THE CONSTRUCTIVIST CLASSROOM?

Martin Braund

Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT), Cape Town, South Africa and the University of York, England.

Faculty of Education and Social Sciences, CPUT, Symphony Way, Bellville, PO Box 1906, Bellville 7535, Cape Town, South Africa

Centre for Science Education, Department of Educational Studies, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. Email: mb40@york.ac.uk

1

TALK IN SCIENCE: FORGOTTEN CORNER OF THE CONSTRUCTIVIST CLASSROOM?

2

ABSTRACT

Constructivism has been dominant in the psychology of learning

science for over 30 years. However, the sociolcultural aspects

of constructivist learning, that require talk between learners

to rehearse their different ways of thinking and test new

ideas and theories against those of science, have been, at

best, downplayed or, at worst, ignored in favour of written or

book tasks. In this paper research on collaborative group talk

is used to make a case for what represents ‘quality’ in

collaborative group talk experiences. Three examples of how

this quality can be achieved, from the Discussions in Primary

Science (DiPS) project in England, are discussed. The case is

made for more talk in science lessons as it is essential to

equip learners to take part in an increasingly science based

3

world as well as for them to construct enough understanding of

science to do this effectively.

KEYWORDS

Collaborative group work, talk, primary science

1.1. INTRODUCTION

For the school student, learning science has been compared to

learning a foreign language. Science uses everyday words (in

4

English) such as ‘force’, ‘energy’ and ‘cell’, in unique,

specific ways that do not often draw on or correspond to their

common accepted meanings in everyday parlance. Even in the

subject domain, one word ‘cell’ can have different meanings in

different sub-disciplines; a structural unit of organisms in

life sciences and the electrochemical unit of generating

electricity in the physical sciences. Coupled with this

science uses semiotic and symbolic language to communicate,

such as through stylised non-realistic 2-D diagrams, alpha-

numeric formulae in chemistry and algebraic mathematical

formulae in physics. In learning a foreign language, fluency

requires practice at speaking as well as thinking and writing

(Bleicher et al, 2003). Unfortunately, according to large scale

reviews of science teaching, it seems the last of these

(writing) dominates the experiences of most pupils and

opportunities for talk between learners in groups are rarely

part of schools’ agendas (House of Lords, 2006; Rennie et al.,

2001). In the last thirty years science teaching has moved

away from behaviourist-inductive methods, where science ideas

and theories were presented as immutable and largely

unchallenged facts, to a more learner-centred approach taking

account of existing ideas. Thus ‘construction’ rather than

‘receipt’ of knowledge is valued. However, evidence for

success of what has come to be known as ‘constructivist

learning’, where conceptual change is brought about by

identifying and challenging learners’ ideas, establishing

science ideas and ultimately extending newly constructed

meanings to explain phenomena, is said to be limited (Duit &

5

Treagust, 1998; Tytler, 2007). In his review of science

education in Australia, Tytler suggests that the lack of

distinctive success (for constructivist approaches) must

‘alert us to the fact that this focus on conceptual change has

been … a false lead’ (Tytler 2007, p. 33). He goes on to

promote a wider view of learning science that takes account of

research and scholarship in the sociocultural tradition,

paying attention to the ways in which a teacher promotes

discourse in which groups of learners negotiate meaning in

shared tasks. This paper strengthens this case, presenting

three examples of quality collaborative group talk in science

classes. The emphasis is on talk between learners for co-

construction of scientific knowledge, which I contend is a

forgotten corner of the ‘constructivist classroom’. The paper

draws on the work of a large scale project in England, the

Discussions in Primary Science (DiPS project), aimed at

improving the classroom climate for and quality of

collaborative group talk in science lessons in primary

schools.

DiPS worked with 1,500 pupils in 36 primary schools in a city

with one of the highest levels of social deprivation and

lowest levels of educational achievement in England. In the

first year of the project a team of expert researchers and

curriculum developers from the University of York worked with

teachers from twelve schools to develop, research and test

classroom strategies and collaborative group talk activities.

In the second year of the project the team was expanded to

include expert teachers from the first wave of twelve schools

6

and DiPS approaches were rolled out to a further 24 schools.

Research on the project involved surveys of the frequency and

efficacy of group talk tasks experienced before and after the

second year of teaching (Braund and Leigh, 2011 forthcoming),

teachers use and perceptions of successful collaborative group

talk in science lessons (Braund, 2006a) and modelling of

discourse about contextualised science topics from local

industry (Braund, 2009). The materials and approaches from the

project were produced as training materials for a professional

development website and have been disseminated and used in

over eight countries outside the UK.

http://www.azteachscience.co.uk/resources/cpd/discussions-in-

primary-science/view-online.aspx

1.2. THEORETICAL AND RESEARCH BACKGROUND

Before discussing examples of DiPS teaching to show how talk

contributes to and underpins constructivist teaching and

learning in science, it is necessary to provide a brief

justification for talk in general learning and particularly in

science. Research findings from DiPS and elsewhere help

identify what are quality markers for collaborative group

talk. It should be pointed out that in this paper the

concentration is on talk between pupils (but often with

teacher support and intervention) rather than the other, but

no less important aspects of teacher-pupil discourse, or what

has sometimes been called ‘dialogic’ teaching (Alexander,

2004).

7

1.2.1. A rationale for talk

Talk between pupils and its role in cognitive and social

learning has been given some attention over a number of years.

Vygotsky, for example, proposed that close inter-mental (social

and interactional) activity stimulates intra-mental (individual

and cognitive) capabilities (Vygotsky, 1962; 1978). The

seminal work of Barnes and Todd (1995), Edwards and Mercer

(1987), Des Fountain and Howe (1992) and Palinscar and Brown

(1984) points to the importance of classroom talk in

providing, ‘…worthwhile opportunities [for children] to work

together in small groups, making meaning through talk’, (Des

Fountain & Howe, 1992, p. 146). These claims can be made for

many subjects in primary schools, but in science lessons

learners’ talk has particular importance for because:

A: Talk in science helps pupils to construct knowledge

and improve their understanding

Talking together improves critical thinking and helps

learners think about their ideas and compare them to the

ideas of others including scientists. Talk rather than

writing allows learners to rehearse their thinking in a

collaborative and safe learning environment because, as

Barnes points out, ‘the flexibility of speech makes it

easier for us to try out new ways of arranging what we

8

know’ (Barnes, 1992, p. 125). Rivard (2004) found that

talk rather than writing is particularly important for

low achievers for them to develop better understanding

and comprehension of concepts (in ecology). Bruffee

(1984) takes this relationship between talk and writing

further suggesting that talk mediates between writing and

thinking and so peer groups engaged in discussion shape

language that is then applied and developed further

through their writing.

B: Talk in science promotes an authentic view of science

Science knowledge and ideas are constructed and can be

challenged and changed as new evidence is produced. This

is the basis of much scientific endeavour through which

scientists, in Neil Mercer’s words, ‘use the process of

argument … to establish which “truths” we agree on’

(Mercer, 2000, p. 13). In contrast, research has shown

that many learners in primary schools think all

scientists do is put on white coats and work alone in

laboratories (Newton & Newton, 1998). In fact scientists

collaborate and talk in communities as much as they work

at laboratory benches (Braund & Reiss, 2006). Doing science

therefore requires talking science.

C: The 21st Century requires scientifically literate

citizens

9

Since learners today live in a world whose existence

depends increasingly on understanding some science, they

will probably be required, as adults, to take many

decisions based on science. These decisions could involve

their health, their living standards, their leisure and

ultimately what kind of world they want to live in.

Science education in (secondary) schools in England is

changing rapidly to reflect these needs (Millar, 2006;

Roberts & Gott, 2006). Since discussion and argument

about evidence and issues can advance scientific thinking

(Kuhn, 1992) and are now increasingly advocated and

practised in secondary school science (Osborne et al.,

2004) learners in primary schools ought to be ready for

consequent changing styles of teaching and learning that

might use more learner-learner talk activity and that

they will probably encounter in secondary schools.

This paper concentrates on examples for the first of these

reasons.

1.2.2. Efforts towards successful collaborative talk

There have been a number of efforts to develop learners’ talk

in primary classrooms. For example, in the early 1990s the

work of the National Oracy Project (NOP) in England translated

theoretical considerations and research findings on talk and

discourse into practical classroom actions (see Norman, 1992

10

for a succinct review of the NOP). In Australia the PEEL

(Project for Enhancing Effective Learning) has promoted the

use of what Barnes and Todd called ‘exploratory talk’ (Barnes

& Todd, 1995) where knowledge is made more publicly

accountable and reasoning more visible and a number of cases

of success have been reported (Mitchell, 2010). Studies in

primary classrooms have shown that good quality discourse and

the ability of groups of learners to sustain discussion in

science depends on being able to listen to others so that

lines of argument are followed coherently and discussions kept

on track (Dawes, 2004; Maloney, 2007). However, in DiPS

research even after a period of eight months using a high

frequency of group talk tasks, learners still reported a

tendency to value talk about their own ideas over and above

the value of listening to others and so this aspect needs more

effort to overcome young learners’ natural egocentrism,

particularly amongst boys (Braund and Leigh, forthcoming). In

the case of learners reluctant to engage in group discussions,

puppets have been used to encourage learners to contribute and

benefits of using this approach are claimed for improving the

quality of discussions particularly in science lessons (Keogh

et al., 2006; Simon et al., 2008).

Research in Scotland has shown that cognitive gains from

collaborative group work in science depend on how groups are

constructed (Baines et al., 2003). Howe et al. (1992) have found

that groups constructed on the basis of learners’ different

ideas about science concepts or their predictions about

outcomes of experimentation produce larger learning gains than

11

other (social or behavioural) methods. In DiPS, these

cognitive rather than organisational justifications for

grouping were largely unknown to teachers but by the end of

the project there was some evidence that teachers were at

least more aware of the advantages of structuring groups in

these ways (Braund, 2006a).

Kutnick and Rogers (1994) have pointed out that productive

collaborative talk requires time for learners to develop and

practise the necessary group skills before they are able to

use what Alexander has called ‘the right kind of talk’

(Alexander, 2004). In a review of PEEL, Mitchell shows that

numbers of learners believing they could learn from

interaction with comments, questions and ideas of others was

four times higher than in non-PEEL classes (Mitchell, 2010).

In this case learners had assimilated and applied talk rules

through being ‘encultured’ into classroom talk. It appears

that being taught basic ground rules for collaborative group

work has a bearing on the extent to which learners engage in

talk productively (Mercer and Littleton, 2007).

1.2.3. ‘Quality’ in collaborative group talk

These findings and a number of other studies led the DiPS team

at York to identify a number of aspects of successful

collaborative talk that were regularly communicated to

teachers. Thus we promoted the ground rules for talk and

‘quality’ of outcomes they would apply in teaching and that

their learners should aspire to. This was published as a table

12

of ‘do’s and don’ts’ in resources for teacher professional

development (see Table 1):

Table 1. Some Do’s and Don’ts for collaborative group talk in

science (extracted from Braund, 2006b, p.5)

Do … Don’t …

share with children what successful discussion will look/ sound like

establish routines for paired and group work

agree whole school approachto vocabulary for talk strategies

model successful discussion encourage children to

challenge each other’s ideas and to express their own ideas

focus on the process ratherthan outcome

highlight relevant points made by individual childrenand ask class to discuss these points

provide a wide variety of resources

let children carry out an investigation that is not fair and then get them or

give out materials and expect children to know how to discuss

always position yourself as part of a group (unless intense help or monitoring or assessment is planned)

avoid telling children the answer or that they are wrong, facilitate children to find their own answers.

limit resources too much intervene too early let misconceptions go

without addressing them. Useother children’s ideas, steer discussion or incorporate into later planning.

13

others to discuss improvements

1.3. METHODS FOR CO-CONSTRUCTION OF MEANING THROUGH GROUP TALK

Researchers in the DiPS project found it was crucially

important for teachers to understand how to organise and

structure the classroom for effective group talk outcomes.

This meant knowing about the social and cognitive gains of

group talk discussed above and how best to facilitate these.

Often it was a case of providing start stimuli acting as

frameworks to support learners’ discussions and the second and

third examples described here show this. In the first example,

a group structuring device ‘talk cards’ was used to support

discussion amongst quite young learners (age 8).

1.3.1. EXAMPLE 1. Group talk about materials that are

conductors or insulators of electricity

This example was recorded by the independent external

evaluator for DIPS appointed by the funders of the project

(The AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust). The teacher wanted

her class of eight year olds to discuss their ideas about

objects of different materials through which they thought

electricity might flow (conductors or insulators, though at

this stage the learners were not expected to use these words).

First each child in the class was given a coloured ‘talk card’

14

(see Figure 1). The teacher used the colours of cards or

pictures of animals on them to assemble groups of four

learners from the whole class. An array of objects was

provided (copper and ‘silver’ coins, rubber gloves, a plastic

ruler, a metal coat hanger and so on) for each group and each

child in the group was asked to choose one object. The teacher

then used the phrase, “snap to” to attract learners’ attention

towards the teacher asking each child to spend one minute

silently thinking on their own, ‘whether or not their object

would let electricity through and WHY’. Teachers in the DiPS

project called this part of the process, Individual Think Time

(ITT). Next the teacher used the phrase, “snap back” to get

learners to face their ‘talk partner’. In these pairs children

told their ideas to each other according to some graphic or

letter on the talk cards. For example, a learner holding card

A would talk to a learner holding card B and then vice versa.

After this the teacher asked each pair to agree what they

would say to the other pair and then the group came together

as a four to discuss all objects on the table.

An example of talk between a pair of learners discussing

a metal coin, deciding what they would tell the others in the

group is revealing:

Child A: Yeah … sure (they will let electricity through) ‘cos

they metal

Child B: But they’re round

Child A: So …?

Child B: I mean the electricity just goes round and round

15

Child A: So …?

Child B: It can never ever get out

Child A: mmm …

Of course this snippet of conversation on its own doesn’t

prove a change in ideas has taken place. There is some

acceptance by child A that child B has a point, even though of

course there is a misconception here. What is important is

that the conversation provided a ‘dialogic space’ for putting

forward and testing out learners’ often different ideas and

explanations. It is the skill of the teacher in discussing,

whilst valuing different concepts from all groups and moving

learners towards more fruitful ways of thinking that is the

most important follow up to these discussions. In this way

group talk is just one example of a lesson’s possible learning

activities not an end in itself – something which DiPS

teachers were made very aware of.

Figure 1. Talk cards

1.3.2. EXAMPLE 2. Group talk about concepts in change of state

16

In the DiPS project researchers used a number of strategies to

facilitate group talk; collections of objects, photographs,

data from investigations and various sorting games and

activities. One sorting activity proved particularly useful in

getting learners into some heated debates. In Figure 2 we see

a grid, marked in each of its four quadrants with different

concept labels about changes of state; evaporation,

condensation, melting, freezing. Groups of learners were

presented with stacks of cards, each bearing an example of a

phenomenon or event in which one or more processes in changing

state were involved. For example, a card was selected by one

group reading: ‘When it’s cold, car windows get ice on the

outside’ – something which happens quite often in England

during winter. A group was asked to talk about where this card

might be placed on the grid. Does the example represent

condensation or freezing or evaporation or melting? – or is it

a mixture of two or more of these examples? The ground rules

are that a card can only be placed onto the grid when all of

the group have agreed where it can go. Here is part of a

discussion in a group of 10 year olds including their teacher:

Len: I think it’s freezing because it turns to ice.

Doug: And the glass of the windows start to freeze.

Teacher: Is it the glass that’s frozen?

Neil: No, it’s water.

[more than one voice] No it’s water.

Teacher: Where’s the water come from?

Laura: The air.

17

Neil: The air, so it’s freezing.

Teacher: So what’s the cold water in the air?

Neil: Water that’s in the air? Evap….

Here we see the teacher clearly supporting the talk helping

learners make links that progress the idea that it is water in

air (rather than the glass or air freezing) that condenses and

then freezes. In this case the teacher is sympathetic to the

ideas that learners have but her interventions are in ways

that do not dominate learners’ talk or ‘give the game away’.

This is a good example of Vygotsky’s concept of ‘scaffolding’

learning. This example also helps justify talk, as opposed to

writing, to create the learning space in which the logic and

cohesion of ideas can be tested. As Douglas Barnes put it:

“The readiest way of making an understanding is often through talk, because theflexibility of speech makes it easy for us to try out new ways of arranging what weknow…”

Douglas Barnes,1992

Figure 2. Sorting game grid for the, ‘Changes of state’ activity

1.3.3. EXAMPLE 3. Using a PMI (Positive, Minus and

Interesting) poster18

Evaporation

Condensation

Melting Freezing

These tasks encourage learners to think about the Positive,

Minus and Interesting features, e.g. of the use of materials.

PMI activities are often stimulated by ‘what if’ questions

challenging accepted and most commonly experienced examples of

the use of materials. For example, one PMI researched by the

DiPS team involved learners discussing, ‘what if umbrellas

were made of glass?’ An example of one group’s summary of

their discussions as a poster is shown as Table 2.

Table 2. A summary of PMI for the question, ‘what if umbrellas

were made of glass?’

Positive Minus Interesting

See the sky. Easy to break. Different designs.

Waterproof. Storing it athome.

Prisms – rainbow effects.

Still seeeverything fromunderneath it.

Expensive. Dome shaped - so couldyou fit windscreen

wipers?

Transparent. Wouldn’t be ableto collapse it

easily.

Can it be likesunglasses? UVprotection.

Differentcoloured glass.

Heavy.

Gets hot, stickyand wet

(condensation)underneath.

19

From the examples of PMIs shown in Table 2 it can be seen that

topics of discussion ranged much wider than would have been

the case if only the properties of the usual fabric or plastic

construction of umbrellas had been discussed. For example, the

method allowed for other scientific ideas of heat transfer,

condensation under glass, flexibility and light and vision to

feature as well as some creative thinking (on design of

windscreen wipers, possibilities for filtering UV light).

In DiPS, researchers found this was an excellent strategy for

stimulating scientific discussion. Learners can feed back

their group’s thoughts to other groups, by ‘envoying’, a

process in which one pair of learners travels from one group

to another to communicate their thoughts from the PMI

discussions and the envoys then listen to the ideas discussed by

the group they are visiting. This strategy can be organised

using the ‘Talk Cards’ (Figure 1) and avoids some of the

egocentric (non-listening) tendencies of collaborative group

work highlighted by research and discussed earlier. DiPS

researchers found that PMI activities are suited to all age

groups (5-11). Learners could be assigned roles to ensure

equal distribution of work, e.g. scribe, observer, presenter.

The outcomes of discussions can be recorded onto a poster.

Points raised by learners can then be used to inform planning

and to form the basis of future investigations that could be

carried out. However, DiPS teachers found that some examples

of PMI questions such as ‘what if wheels were square and not

round?’ did not work so well as there were few positive

20

attributes to support. Examples of PMIs can be found on the

DiPS web pages.

1.4. DISCUSSION

There is a popular belief, promulgated by the media in Europe

and the USA, that lifestyle changes in modern society mean

that children of school age today do not talk as much at home

as they used to and that this damages their chances of success

at school and hence in later life. The reduction of family

talk at meal times and increasingly lone activities carried

out by children, such as playing computer games and watching

television have been cited as causes of decline in social,

out-of-school talk (I CAN, 2008; Fort, 2003). Recently there

have been claims, in a national review of primary education in

England, that social class and relative poverty have a

significant affect on the quantity of talk experienced in the

home (Hart & Risley, 1995, cited in Goswani & Bryant, 2007,

p.10). According to Hart and Risley, children from homes in

the US with high economic status heard around 487 utterances

per hour compared to 178 utterances per hour for children from

families who received welfare assistance. There is evidence

that pupils from linguistically and socially deprived home

backgrounds perform less well in science (Atwater, 1996;

Hicks, 1995). I CAN, an organisation that supports parents of

children with speech, language and communication needs in

England, speculate that by the time children enter formal

21

schooling (at age 4 or 5 in England) half of them lack the

oral language skills necessary to cope with school and that

this increases their risk of academic failure and could lead

to them being more likely to be excluded as they progress

through the school system (I CAN, 2008). Whether these

worrying trends hold true for African countries, with their

stronger oral traditions and the likelihood that they have

better preserved family structures allowing more home talk,

would be worth researching and knowing, if the negative

effects of reduced opportunities for talk in developed

countries are not to be repeated.

The link between early development of spoken language and

learners’ later academic successes in reading and writing has

been known for some time (Snowling & Stackhouse, 1996). DiPS

researchers found that learners’ efficacy for talk was

strongly correlated with the frequency of collaborative group

talk experienced. Thus the more talk that was experienced, the

more they thought these activities helped them learn. Given

that the research took place in one of the most

socioeconomically deprived areas in England, there was hope

that as these learners expressed such positive views

(efficacies) for science talk this is likely to have a pay-off

for their, and their schools’, future academic successes. The

fact that the social background of schools, as determined by

relative measures of social deprivation of schools that DiPS

operated in, was not associated with frequencies or efficacies

for classroom talk or correlations between them, supports the

22

view that it is not social class that is a determining factor

in schools’ relative abilities to promote the use of science

talk in schools (Braund and Leigh, forthcoming).

DiPS researchers found a positive link between learners’

attitudes to school science and the frequency and efficacy of

science talk activity. Thus the more talk and collaborative

group work there was, the more positively disposed learners

were towards school science. This is particularly important in

the current climate of research revealing persistent and

declining learners’ attitudes to science per se and to school

science learning in particular (Bennett, 2003, Porter &

Parvin, 2008; Rennie et al, 2001). A recent survey of 4 000

pupils aged 9-14 in England showed the downward trend in

pupils’ liking for school science begins at age 10 as they

approach the end of primary school (Porter & Parvin, 2008).

DiPS was conceived and operated as a strategy for primary

schools but this does not mean the ideas cannot be adopted by

secondary schools. Continuity in pedagogical approaches

including use of collaborative group work in adjacent primary

and secondary classes has been suggested as a way to improve

transfer from primary to secondary schools, especially in

science, and to avoid dips in learners’ attitudes to science

and attainment that are claimed to be worse in science than

other subjects (Braund, 2008; Galton, 2009; Hargreaves &

Galton, 2002; Nicholls & Gardner, 1999). Recent research in

Scotland (Thurston et al., 2010) showed collaborative group work

23

was one of the most highly valued parts of being at primary

schools and that learners who engaged in more of this

performed better in science after entering the secondary

school. Thus improving pedagogical links and learners’

performance across transfer could be helped by more contiguous

experiences of group talk, though it seems that learners in

secondary schools have fewer opportunities for this in the

early years of secondary school than they had in primary

school (Pell et al, 2007; Rennie et al., 2001). In England and

many other countries it seems that teachers become more

reticent about using non-book based written activities as

terminal examinations, by which standards in schools and of

their learners are publically judged, approach.

1.5. CONCLUSION

The problem with the ways in which constructivist thinking has

attempted to deal with science learning is that, whilst it

seems a plausible and valid way to consider how knowledge

might be gained, methods have been traditional and too often

based on text or written tasks. This means that conceptual

change has been treated in a much more limited way than some

of the early writers on constructivist learning in science

envisaged. For example Rosalind Driver, one of the mainstays

of constructivism and an important influence on science

education in African countries, saw the need for research

paying attention to ways in which the teacher promotes a

discourse community within lessons so as to establish shared

24

meanings (Driver et al., 1994). The problem has been that too

often the ‘construction’ has been through lone or whole class

activity ignoring the power that talk between learners brings

to the formation, testing and change of thinking that is at

the real heart of conceptual development and change. When

learners are asked to commit their ideas to writing, the act

is rather final and unnerving for many. The knowledge has been

declared as a product, not so easy to change and adapt, even

if it is part of a first or rough draft. When learners use

talk to construct understanding we must expect oral ‘crossings

out’ that would occur when drafting a written product. Thus

learners may stumble, hesitate, retract and add words and

ideas in their discourse. This sort of talk is what Barnes

calls ‘exploratory’ and it is very different to the kinds of

polished ‘presentational’ talk we might hear when pupils give

a rehearsed feed back to another group or the whole class. It

is likely that teachers will need considerable support through

initial teacher training and professional development to

provide the types of classroom environments and tasks that

would allow and support productive exploratory talk.

For African countries there are clear messages from research

that collaborative talk in groups can promote the sorts of

‘border’ crossings between indigenous knowledge and scientific

ways of thinking that so often exercise the minds of

curriculum developers and researchers in countries and

cultures in and beyond Africa (Aikenhead, 2001, 2006).

Collaborative talk is part of the wider skills set applied in

25

critical thinking. In South Africa critical thinking is a

prominent outcome for all school subjects and is represented

in science subjects by requirements to argue about

contemporary and socio-economic applications of science (DoE,

2004). However, there have been criticisms of the readiness of

both teachers and learners to have the necessary skills and

experience of critical thinking themselves to lead this and

future generations of South African learners towards success

in these endeavours (Lombard and Grosser, 2008). Once again,

substantial efforts will clearly be needed in both initial and

in-service teacher education.

Whatever country they are from, it is obvious that today’s

learners in schools will have to cope with a world where

science plays an increasingly important part in decision

making about health, consumer choice and ultimately what kinds

of environments and world we are prepared to support and

sustain. Without some scientific knowledge, or at least the

ability to engage in talking about these issues with others,

it is likely that a whole generation will be disenfranchised.

Worse still, would be a blind acceptance amongst large

sections of the population that every expert scientist wheeled

out by the media can be trusted. After all, “they are the

experts and so they must know and will be telling the truth”.

There is hope that, if the value of talk, debate and

discussion of science can be better promoted in schools, not

only will learning of science be enhanced but also the life

skills and general and specific scientific literacy of pupils.

26

Without talk, civilisation and culture are under threat. As

the great thinker and writer Thomas Mann put it:

Speech is civilisation itself. The word, even the most contradictious word,

preserves contact - it is silence which isolates.

(Thomas Mann, 1924, cited in Tripp, R.T,

1973 p916)

1.6. REFERENCES

Aikenhead, G. (2001). Integrating western and aboriginal

sciences: Cross-cultural science teaching. Research in Science

Education, 31(3), 337-335.

Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence based

practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Atwater, M. (1996). Social constructivism: Infusion into the

multicultural science education research agenda. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 33, 821-838.

Alexander, A. (2004). Towards Dialogic Teaching. York: Dialogos.

Baines, E., Blatchford, P. & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in

grouping practices over primary and secondary school.

International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 9–34.

Barnes, D. (1992). The role of talk in learning. In K. Norman

(Ed), Thinking voices: the work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 123-8).

London: Hodder and Stoughton.

27

Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited.

London: Heinemann.

Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science: A guide to recent research

and its applications. London: Continuum.

Bleicher, R., Tobin, K. & McRobbie, C. D. (2003).

Opportunities to talk science in high school chemistry

classrooms, Research in Science Education, 33, 319-339

Braund, M. & Reiss, M. (2006). Validity and worth in the

science curriculum: learning school science outside the

laboratory. The Curriculum Journal, 17(3), 213-228.

Braund, M. (2006a). The Discussions in Primary Science (DiPS) Project. End of

year report to the trustees of the AstraZenaca Science Teaching Trust. York:

University of York Science Education Group.

Braund, M. (2006b). (Ed.). Talking Science in the Primary School. York:

University of York Science Education Group.

Braund, M. & Leigh, J. (2011, forthcoming). Frequency and

efficacy of talk-related tasks in primary science, Research in

Science Education.

Braund, M. (2009). Talk in primary science: a method to

promote productive and contextualised group discourse,

Education 3-13, 37(4), 385-397.

Braund, M. (2008). Starting Science …Again? London: Sage.

Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the

“conversation of mankind”. College English, 46, 635-652.

Dawes, L. (2004). Talk and learning in classroom science,

International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 677-695.

28

Dawes, L., Mercer, N. & Wegerif, R. (2000). Thinking together: a

programme of activities for developing thinking skills at KS2. Birmingham:

Questions Publishing Company.

Department of Education (DoE) (2004). Further Education and Training:

G10-12 (General):

Overview. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Des-Fountain, J., & Howe, A. (1992). Pupils working together

on understanding. In

K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project

(pp.146-158). London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P.

(1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.

Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Duit, R. & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science: From

behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B.

Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education

(pp. 3-16). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development

of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen/Routledge.

Fort, M. (2003). The family that eats together speaks together. The

Observer, Sunday, January 12th 2003, p 22

Galton, M. (2009). Moving to the secondary school: initial

encounters and their effects. Perspectives in Education, Issue

2. London: Wellcome Trust. Retrieved May 20th 2010, from

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/

Education/Perspectives/index.htm.

29

Goswani, U. & Bryant, P. (2007). Children’s Cognitive Development and

Learning Primary Review Research Survey 2/1a. Cambridge: University of

Cambridge Faulty of Education.

Hargreaves, L. & Galton, M. (2002). Transfer from the primary

classroom: 20 years on. London: Routledge and Falmer.

Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning and teaching. In M. W.

Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol, 21, pp 49-95)

Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

House of Lords. (2006). Science teaching in schools: 10th report of the science

and technology committee. London: The Stationery Office.

Howe, C. J., Tolmie, A. & Rodgers, C. (1992). The acquisition

of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children:

group interaction and the understanding of motion down an

inclined plane. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 113-130.

I CAN. (2008). The cost to the nation of children’s poor communication. I CAN

Talk Series – Issue 2. Retrieved October 31st 2009 from

http://www.ican.org.uk,.

Keogh, B., Naylor, S., Downing, B., Maloney, J. & Simon, S.

(2006). PUPPETS - bringing stories to life. Primary Science Review,

92,26-28.

Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review,

62, 155-178.

Kutnick, P. & Rogers, C. (Eds). (1994). Groups in Schools.

London: Cassell.

Lombard, K. & Grosser, M. (2008). Critical thinking: are the

ideals of OBE failing us or are we failing the ideals of OBE?

South African Journal of Education, 28, 561-579.

30

Maloney, J. (2007). Children’s roles and use of evidence in

science: an analysis of decision making in small groups.

British Journal of Educational Research, 33(3), 371-401

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds. London: Routledge.

Millar, R. (2006). Twenty First Century Science: Insights

from the design and

implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school

science. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (13), 1499-1522.

Mitchell, I. (2010). The relationship between teacher

behaviours and student talk in promoting quality learning in

science classrooms, Research in Science Education, 40, 171-186.

Newton, L. & Newton, D. (1998). Primary children’s conceptions

of science and the scientist: is the impact of a National

Curriculum breaking down the stereotype? International Journal of

Science Education, 20 (9) 1137-1149.

Nicholls, G. & Gardner, J. (1999). Pupils in transition: Moving between

Key Stages. London: Routledge.

Norman, K. (Ed). (1992). Thinking voices: the work of the National Oracy

Project. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas and Evidence and

Argument in Science (IDEAS PROJECT). London: Kings College, University

of London.

Palinscar, A.S. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of

comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring

activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-75.

Porter, C. & Parvin, P. (2008). Learning to Love Science: harnessing

children’s scientific imagination. York: Chemical Industry Education

Centre and Shell Education Service.

31

Rennie, L., Goodrum, D. & Hackling, M. (2001). Science

teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a

national survey. Research in Science Education, 31, 455-498.

Rivard, L. (2004). Are language-based activities in science

effective for all students including low achievers? Science

Education, 88, 420-44.

Roberts, R. & Gott, R. (2006). The role of evidence in the new

KS4 National Curriculum for England and the AQA

specifications, School Science Review, 87(321), 29-41.

Simon, S., Naylor, S., Keogh, B., Maloney, J. & Downing, B.

(2008). Puppets. Promoting Engagement and Talk in Science,

International Journal of Science Education, 30 (9) 1229 – 1248.

Snowling, M.J. & Stackhouse, J. (Eds). (1996). Dyslexia, Speech and

Language. A practitioners’ handbook. London: Whurr Publishers.

Thurston, A., Christie, D., Karagiannidou, E., Murray, P.,

Tolmie, A. & Topping, K. (2010). Improving outcomes in science

for pupils during school transition, Science Teacher Education, 57,

10-21.

Tripp, R.T. (1973) The international thesaurus of quotations,

Harmondsworth (Essex): Penguin Books, George Allen and Unwin.

Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in

science for Australia’s future. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian

Council for Educational Research.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

32

33