The aim of this paper is to illuminate how teachers offer meaningful learning in science. Teaching practices in 6 ninth grade Norwegian science classrooms is videotaped and discussed. As a first step of analyses we have coded video observations of teachers’ activities and instructional repertoires. This revealed that in science education whole class instruction is the single most frequent activity. Practical scientific work occurred less than expected.  Further analyses focused on how whole class instruction is used in science with special emphasis on the use of scientific language. This disclosed that there is not much emphasis on scientific language and scientific modes of speaking; like seeking explanations with the help of models and theory. The findings are discussed in light of trends in the international science education research community where there is an emphasis on inquiry based learning and learning to talk science

Aim

The aim of this paper is to illuminate how teachers offer meaningful learning in science. Teaching practices in 6 ninth grade Norwegian science classrooms is videotaped and discussed. The analyses will focus on how whole class instruction is used in science with special emphasis on the use of scientific language.

Methodology/ research design

The research design is a classroom video study supported with ethnographic observations and interviews of students and teachers. A significant research characteristic of this study is its documentation of sequences of lessons, rather than just single lessons (i.e. the TIMSS video study, see Stigler and Hebert 1999). In addition the same classrooms are videotaped in math and language art lessons. This makes it possible to compare sequences of lessons across disciplinary subjects such as language arts, math and science (see PISA+ http://www.pfi.uio.no/forskning/forskningsprosjekter/pisa+/index.html). The study is done in ninth grade (students are 14-15 years old), in six schools differing in demography and organization. The classrooms are filmed with three cameras. One camera follows the teacher, one camera films the whole class, and one camera focuses on a pair of students. Based on video sequences from the prior lesson, the two (pair) students are interviewed short after the lesson. Different students are in focus for each lesson. The teachers are interviewed before, during and after the observation period of three weeks. In addition copies of students’ work and assignments were assembled after each lesson. As a first step of analyses we have elaborated a coding scheme (Klette et al. 2005) for coding video observations of teachers’ activities and instructional repertoires across sites and schools subjects.  The coding has been made in Videograph – a software tool which makes it possible to see frequencies and patterns of activities across classrooms, teachers and disciplines. In addition science specific analyses are done. The science lessons are coded using a scheme based on works of Lemke (1990) and Mortimer and Scott (2003). We focus on teaching and learning activities in science and the use of language such as everyday and scientific language, and whether the scientific focus is on descriptions, explanations or generalisations.

Findings

In science education whole class instruction is the single most frequent activity. Whereas language art education for example demonstrates a broader repertoire of practices (a mixture of whole class instruction, individual seat work and group work) (see Klette 2007). The two main activities connected to whole class instruction in science are dialogical instruction and task management. In a closer analysis we see that the dialogical instruction mostly involves developing new content, with a small percentage of focusing on reviewing already known subject matter.  However, there is hardly any emphasis on summing up the lesson or the students’ work. The students participate by listening, engaging orally or taking notes. All though the teacher orchestras most of the classroom dialogue, she or he is attentive to student initiatives, and quite a few times the movement of classroom talk is heavily influenced by student engagement. Teachers’ use of task management is connected to either giving procedural instructions about practical work, or giving instructions about students’ work plan assignments. In the science lessons we observed, only about 10 percent of the time was used on practical science exercises.

In-depth analyses of the language used in science lessons, show that scientific language, defined as the use of scientific concepts (Mortimer and Scott, 2003), occurs usually in only a small part of a whole lesson. Likewise our analyses show that less than one forth of the time the scientific focus is on giving either a scientific description, explanation or generalization (Mortimer and Scott, 2003). Further our analyses reveal that there is great emphasis on descriptions of scientific phenomenon. Focusing on explanations using a model or a theory, or on generalisations, occurs more seldom.

In our material we hardly find situations where the students focus on talking science with each other to elaborate their scientific understanding. Although we do have some hands-on science situations suitable for science talk, the conversation seems to focus on practical issues rather than substantial and conceptual topics. This assumption is verified when we look at the scientific language coding.

Theoretical /educational significance

The general analysis revealed less group work and individual work than expected in science. Historically science has an image of being a practical, hands-on subject, where students work most of the time in groups or pairs involved in science experiments. Our material does not confirm this picture. Is Norwegian science education becoming less practical? Our analyses also disclose that there is not much emphasis on scientific language and scientific modes of speaking; like seeking explanations with the help of models and theory.  Whilst the international science education community embraces learning activities as inquiry-based learning (Driver et al, 2000; Crawford, 2000), and has a perspective of learning to talk science (Mortimer and Scott 2003; Lemke 1990), Norwegian science classrooms do not seem to have this focus.

References

Crawford, B. (2000) Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science

       teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37, pp. 916-937

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (2000). Young people’s images of science.

       Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Klette, K., Lie, S., Anmarkrud, Ø., Arnesen, N., Bergem, O.K., Ødegaard, M. & Zachariassen, J.R., (2005) Categories for video analysis of classroom activities with a focus on the teacher. Oslo: University of Oslo.

Klette K. (2007). Instructional Practices across Sites and Subjects. Video analyses from maths, science and reading classrooms. (working paper)

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science. Language, learning, and values. Norwood, New Jersey: ABLEX Publishing Cooperation.

Mortimer, E.& Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classroms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching gap. New York: Free Press.