FACTORS AFFECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARGUMENT IN THE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE CLASSROOM

Factors Affecting the Implementation of Argument in the Elementary Science Classroom. A Longitudinal Case Study

Anita M. Mart= in, University of Iowa

Brian Hand, <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">University of Iowa

Abstract

This longitudinal case st= udy describes the factors that affect an experienced teacher’s attempt to shift her pedagogical practices in order to implement embedded elements of argument into her science classroom. Research data was accumulated over two years through video recording= s of science classes. The Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP) is an instrument designed to quantify changes in classroom environments as relate= d to reform as defined by the National Science Education Standards (1996) and the National Research Council (1990) and was used to analyze videotaped science lessons. Analysis of the data= shows that there was a significant shift in the areas of teacher questioning, and student voice. Several levels= of subsequent analysis were completed related to teacher questioning and stude= nt voice. The data suggests a relationship between these areas and the implementation of scientific argument. Results indicate th= at the teacher moved from a traditional, teacher-centered, didactic teaching style= to instructional practices that allowed the focus and direction of the lesson = to be affected by student voice. This was accomplished by a change in teacher questioning that included a shift f= rom factual recall to more divergent questioning patterns allowing for increased student voice. As stude= nt voice increased, students began to investigate ideas, make statements or cl= aims and to support these claims with strong evidence. Finally, students were observed re= futing claims in the form of rebuttals. This study informs professional development related to experienced teachers in that it highlights pedagogical issues involved in implementing embedded elements of argument in the elementary classroom.

Introduction

Clearly the arrival of the National Science Education Standards (NRC,1996) and the recommendations by the National Research Council (NRC,1990) have impacted science teaching. These stand= ards have shifted the central focus of science instruction to include a teaching methodology that requires students to be more active participants in their learning (Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, Heck, 2003; Zady, Portes, & Ochs, 2003) and thus more involved in scientific thinking and process skills (NRC, 1990; Duschl, Ellenbogen, & Erduran, 1999). To achieve this focus an inquiry-b= ased approach to teaching science has been recommended by the National Science Teacher’s Association and NRC as a way to improve students’ abilities to think like scientists (Handelsman, Ebert-May, Beichner, Bruns, Chang, & DeHaan, 2004; Kuhn, 2005).&nb= sp; A shift to inquiry-based approaches is thought to more closely mirror the actions undertaken by scientists in their own community. This requires a shift away from mo= re traditional transmission of content teaching (Abel, Anderson, & Chezem, 2000), toward teaching strate= gies that require students to develop skills of argument such as making claims, using evidence, and requiring peers to evaluate claims based on the strengt= h of evidence (Osborne, Erduran, Simon, & Monk, 2001; Naylor, Keogh & Downing, 2007).

Theoretical Background

Reform efforts in science education

&= nbsp; With the adoption of the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), new demands are being placed on the science teacher. No longer are traditional methodol= ogies, such as the simple transmission of facts, valued and thus environments where “experts discover, teachers tell, and students remember facts, theori= es, or procedures” have been labeled inefficient in promoting student learning (Lapadat, 2000, p.1) Instead, science teaching is now viewed as a place where science classrooms are centered on engaging students in investigating scientific id= eas as active individuals who bring past experiences and prior knowledge to the learning task (NRC, 1990). According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) scientific inquiry can be defined as an attempt to develop explanati= ons about the natural world by using evidence and logic. While inquiry teaching is being recommended, a major dilemma that has arisen is the lack of clear definition for classroom teachers (Newman, Abell, Hubbard, McDonald, Otaala, & Mar= tini 2004; Beck, Czeniak & Lumpe, 2000; Fu & Shelton, 2002). What constitutes inquiry-based instruction for teachers is clouded by previous initiatives such as “discovery learning” and “hands-on science.” Newman et al (2004) report that the teaching of inquiry to pre-service teachers created several challenges including the students’ lack of exposure to learning science through inquiry, and the breadth of meaning for the term “inquiry.” They found it difficult to provide sufficient opportunities for both modeling inquiry science and teaching inq= uiry as a pedagogical strategy. Is= sues are similar for elementary teachers, with researchers reporting a lack of understanding of inquiry and insufficient skills or experiences to effectiv= ely teach science through inquiry (Crawford, 2000; Lederman & Niess, 2000). This is supported by B= right and Yore (2002), who reported that educators have not overcome the barriers= to effective science instruction of which a major component, then, is scientif= ic literacy. Research continues to focus on the changes necessary to teach sci= ence in ways that are consistent with reform efforts that call for the developme= nt of inquiry classrooms.

Components that are characteristic of inquiry-bas= ed classrooms include such aspects as: active investigations, dialogical interactions, and collaborative work among students. The National Science Education Sta= ndards report that effective investigations are ones that allow students to active= ly search for answers to their questions (NRC, 1996; Lew, 2001). Research on dialogical interactions acknowledge the importance of classroom talk as a means for extending conceptual understanding (Lemke, 1990; Abell, Anderson, & Chezem, 2000; Carlsen, 1997; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000). When students are provided opportu= nities to work collaboratively to solve problems and discuss alternative views, advancements in understanding are reported (Pollman, 2004; Duschl, 2003). Inquiry classrooms are environments where:

Students describe objects and events, ask questions, construct explanations, test those explanations agai= nst current scientific knowledge, and communicate their ideas to others. They identify their assumptions, u= se critical and logical thinking, and consider alternative explanations. In this way, students actively dev= elop their understanding of science by combining scientific knowledge with reaso= ning and thinking skills (NRC, 1996).

Consequently, students shou= ld have opportunities to explore and think about how their previous ideas fit with = the new ideas generated as a consequence of these inquiry activities. Researchers have suggested that th= e link between students previous knowledge and these new ideas can create construc= tion of meaning when they question new information, share their thinking in soci= al contexts, and make public their newly synthesized views with the class (Goodnough, 2006; Van Zee, 2000, Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scot= t, 1994). Significant, then, is dialogical interactions among students.&nb= sp; Unfortunately, previous studies have found very little dialogue or classroom talk in the school setting and the dialogue that is occurring is generally credited to teacher talk (Susskind, 1979; Wragg, 1993; Newton et = al. 1999). In Susskind’s st= udy, he found that while teachers ask 2 questions per minute, the student questioning rate was 2 questions per hour.= In addition, Wragg (1993) found that in analyzing student questioning, 38% of the questions we= re related to procedural issues, not subject matter understanding. These class= room findings demonstrate a lack of opportunity for students to engage in dialog= ue in school settings across content areas and with diverse student populations. More recen= tly, in science classes, Newton found that dialogic interactions that included discussions based on claims = and evidence was still uncommon, even though science research supports the noti= on that learning occurs as a result of classroom dialogical interaction (1999). Wallace & Narayan (2002, p.4) suggest a core component of the science classroom is one where students are, “ learning to use language, think and act in ways that enable one to be identified as a member of the scientific literate community and participate in activities of that community” that is, engaged in dialogical pro= cesses scientists use.

The integration of inqui= ry and argumentation

Researchers such as Driver, Newton and Osborne (2000), have argued = for the need to shift science away from just a set of accumulated facts toward science inquiry where the building of argument is seen as critical. Science instruction therefore is s= een as being focused on efforts to allow students to construct explanations about their world, and to make them public by sharing them in small groups and wh= ole class situations. These autho= rs and others (Duschl & Ellenbogen, 2002, Luykx & Lee, 2007, Lew, 2001) vi= ew the classroom as a place for students to be enculturated into the ways of t= he scientific community.

&= nbsp; Bereiter, Scardamalia, Cassells, & Hewitt, assert that “any group could potentially function as a scientific community, and this includes elementary classrooms" (1997, p. 333). By participating in such a community, students must make claims, provide evide= nce for such claims, and be prepared for challenges from other students. These processes are seen as critical in the promotion of argumentation and its un= ique discourse patterns (Kuhn, 1992; Andrews, Costello & Clarke, 1993).

&= nbsp; Importantly, argument is seen as a = tool that is utilized by the scientific community in order to establish canonical knowledge through inquiry processes, and that without such discourse scient= ists would be unable to judge the strength of claims and evidence in order to produce new knowledge that is accurate (Kuhn, 1993). Therefore, Driver et al stress the importance of dialogue in building scientific arguments because "scientific understandings are constructed when individuals engage socially in talk and activities about shared problems or tasks. Making meaning is thus a dialogic process involving persons-in-conversation" (1994, p. 7). Other researchers such as Duschl &= amp; Ellenbogen, have described argumentation as “a genre of discourse and= an epistemological framework central to doing science” (2002, p.2). Science education, then, is beginn= ing to demand a closer link between science as it is taught and science as it is practiced (Kuhn, 1970; NSES, 1996; Quinn, 1997; Hogan & Maglienti, 2001). Students need to be en= gaged in making claims, building evidence and reporting findings as part of the argumentation process of science (Millar & Osborne, 1998). Using these tools of argument, stu= dents are able to become actively involved in the making of scientific knowledge (Siegel, 1995) by reflective thinking that involves the comparison of the n= ew information to their prior knowledge and then assessing the validity of the differences between them (Toulmin, 1958; Vygotsky, 1978; Wallace & Nara= yan, 2002). Adopting such a learni= ng environment provides students opportunities to understand the true nature of the scientific community and to become active members by modeling the pract= ices of scientists in their own communities within the elementary science classr= oom (Quinn, 1997; Lew, 2001).

Researchers looking at the implementation of argument within school environments, such = as Driver, Newton and Osborne, have suggested that a critical component in promoting argument= is the need for more dialogical interaction (2000). Support for this finding is echoed= in Mercer, Wegerif, and Dawes’ study (1999) on dialogic interaction where they found infrequent classroom talk. Yip (2001) also supports this notion = by claiming that many teachers feel pressured into teaching a set curriculum i= n a prescribed amount of time, thereby thwarting their attempts at debate that = may interfere with the goal of the daily lesson plan. However, Solomon (1998) suggests t= hat teachers lack the skills necessary to promote classroom debate and others a= re not convinced of its value.

As researchers attempt to consider= the components of scientific argument for better understanding, Toulmin’s model of argument (1958) has become foundational. In this model, argument consists o= f a framework of claims, warrants and backings, and rebuttals. Argument based on this model is supported by NSES (1996) and NRC (1990). Importantly, scientific argu= ment is seen as dialogical in nature where participants are required to make cla= ims based on sound evidence and to present those claims to peers who either acc= ept or refute them. Thus dialogic= al argument best occurs where multiple views are discussed and considered, so = as to arrive at classroom consensus (Erduran, Simon & Osborne, 2004).

Teacher’s role and dialogic interactions

Conditions= that promote dialogical interaction require a shift in the role of the teacher (Schwartz, Newman, Gil, & Ilya, 2003; Kelly & Chen 1999). Traditionally, within the science classroom, the teacher’s role has been viewed as teacher-centered wit= h an emphasis on transmission of the scientific idea. In this version of teaching, stude= nts were simply empty slates that took up new information. With reform efforts firmly centere= d on the active role of students, there is a growing dissatisfaction among educa= tors with traditional teaching modes and conventional discourse interactions. Traditional discourse patterns such as the initiate-reply-evaluate (IRE) have focused on ensuring that students have received and can replica= te knowledge given to them by the teacher as well as allowing the teacher to maintain control of the classroom environment (Mehan, 1979; Macbeth, 2003). While this pattern ser= ved the teacher well in the lecture-dominated classroom where whole group instruction was the norm and is “premised on known answers and teacher-driven activity,” it is inconsistent with an inquiry-learning philosophy (Polman & Pea, 2000). In fact, the choice of this type of teacher questioning pattern has = been shown to shut down classroom conversation (Carlsen, 1997). In a major review concerning components of high-quality instruction, researchers found that across the country teachers generally used low –level “fill-in-the-blank” type questions that were asked in “rapid-fire fashion” in order to evaluate students’ understanding instead of using questioning as a tool to further conceptual understanding (Weiss et al., 2003). While the content that teachers taught was generally not within their control, teachers reported that decisions about instructional strategies we= re their own and were based on factors such as their beliefs about the subject matter, pedagogy, and the students within their classrooms (Weiss & Pas= ley, 2004). Treagust (2007) in his synthesis of the research on instructional methods and strategies in science instruction, reports that the amount of classroom discourse is directly affected by teacher questioning and that hi= gher level questioning has been shown to improve the amount and the quality of t= alk that occurs in the science classroom. Therefore, the role of the teacher is critical in creating an environment where dialogical activities that encourage student voice are practiced (Lapadat, 2002). Driver et al. claim that it is the role of the teachers to make the tools of science available to students, allowing them to engage in socially constructed discourse (2000). As teachers create opportunities for students to use these tools in the classr= oom, increases in scientific reasoning skills have been observed (Kitchener & Fischer, 1990; Pera, 1994; Hogan & Maglienti, 2001).

&n= bsp; The ability to think and write about science concepts can be achieved through reflective activities using such frameworks as the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach which provides a necessary structure for the teacher, while allowing the flexibility to meet the individual needs of the students (Greenbowe & Hand; 2005). Built into the SWH approach are teacher questioning strategies that seek to activate prior knowledge by eliciting student voice (Hand, Wallace, & Yang; 2004; Hand, Prain, & Wallace, 2002) as well as structures that allow students to have a stronger voice in= the classroom. In teacher-centered classrooms a high percentage of voice is teacher voice and student voice is heard for the sole purpose of reciting memorized pieces of information. As teachers implement the SWH appr= oach, student voice changes to incorporate their past experiences that frame their present level of understanding (Hand, Norton-Meier, Gunel, and Akkus; 2005). It is this voice that becomes stronger as teachers challenge students to debate their findings in= small groups where negotiations with peers occur.

As student= voice increases, teachers tend to give up control of discourse and begin to move = from a teacher-centered style of teaching to that of a student-centered learning environment (Cobb & Bauersfeld, 1995).= Progressive views in science education would support roles that focu= sed classroom interactions around student voice and that this creates an environment that engages students in active learning (Furman & Barton, 2006). Students become active participants by framing their own questions for study either individually, = in small groups or by consensus with the class as a whole. By allowing this type of student decision-making, the classroom becomes a place where richer understandings about science ideas are able to occur (NRC, 1990). Teachers then become facilitators = of student-generated inquiry discussions that promote embedded elements of argument to occur. Students b= ecome more comfortable making claims and supporting them with stronger evidence a= nd are more able to critically analyze the claims and evidence of their peers. This ability to reason scientifica= lly, using the tools of argument, is the primary focus of science education refo= rm (NRC, 1990; NSES, 1996).

The purpos= e of this study is to examine the barriers faced by an experienced teacher when implementing pedagogical changes in her science teaching in order that elem= ents of argument become characteri= stic of her elementary science classroom. In particular the researchers were interested in addressing two questions:

1.&n= bsp; = ; Are there particular elements of the teacher’s practice that needed to be addressed in promoting change to the SWH approac= h?

2.&n= bsp; = ; Are the elements of practice independent of each ot= her, that is, is teacher questioning a necessary criteria for promoting student voice?

While rese= arch on preservice teacher’s belief and attitudes about inquiry and science process skills is abundant, the number of studies which examine the issues = that experienced teachers face when promoting argument at the elementary level is limited.

Methods<= o:p>

Research Design

A qualitative study was designed to analyze video-taped science lessons of an experienced fifth grade teacher as she attempted to implement the SHW appro= ach in her science classroom. Thi= rteen video tapes were recorded over a two year period of time. The teacher was assisted by a reti= red teacher who acted in the role of a professional development liaison. Several levels of analysis were necessary in understanding the challenges that the teacher faced as she beg= an to use the SWH structure to embed elements of argument in the classroom. The video tapes were a sample of t= he teacher’s science lessons over two years.

Context

The school= in this study is located in a small rural Midwestern town with a population of 670. The ethnicity of the stu= dent population is 97% Caucasian with 27% of the student body having free and reduced lunch status. The school has a total population of 161 students.

Participants<= /u>

The teacher involved in this study = is an elementary teacher with 16 years experience and with a strong background in reading/ language arts and science. She has been involved in professional development activities in the = area of science for the past 4 years.

The profes= sional development liaison is a retired science teacher who taught middle school general science as well as high school environmental science. He was involved in a series of professional development initiatives with the second author over the last 5 years including previous research projects related to the implementation of writing-to-learn strategies such as the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. Every second = week he observed the teacher’= ;s science lessons in order to provide feedback to the teacher related to pedagogical practices needed for implementing the SWH approach. The primary focus of their discuss= ions, then, centered on skills related to shifts in instructional practices not on lesson planning.

Data Collection

Different types of data sources were collected. The primary data source was video-tapings of science lessons taught = by the teacher over a two-year period of time. A total of 13 science lessons w= ere tape recorded and analyzed for this study.= Additional data sources include interview data from the professional= development liaison and the teacher.

Data Analysis=

Videota= pe analysis

Alignment = between the Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP) and the SWH approach major skill areas formed the following four collapsed categories: teacher questioning, student voice, embedded elements of argument and teacher’= ;s role. Several levels of analy= sis that were completed are listed below and then further described:

1.&n= bsp; RTOP analysis-using the 4 collapsed categories

2.&n= bsp; Teacher questioning

a.&n= bsp; Initial analysis of total number of questions

b.&n= bsp; Analysis of number of factual recall and yes/no type questions

c.&n= bsp; Analysis of questions eliciting student voice

3.&n= bsp; Dialogical Interactions

a.&n= bsp; Analysis of percentage of class time devoted to tea= cher voice verses student voice

4.&n= bsp; Elements of Argument

a.&n= bsp; Student voice analysis to distinguish argument and non argument

b.&n= bsp; Analysis to determine observed use of terminology of claims and evidence

Video tapes were analyzed using the Reformed Teac= her Observation Protocol (RTOP). = The RTOP was developed by the Evaluation Facilitation Group of the Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (ACEPT) and designed to measure “reformed” teaching through observation (Pi= burn & Sawada, 1999). Previous= studies using the RTOP instrument have found a high correlation with these scores a= nd science and math achievement (MacIsaac & Falconer, 2001; Lawson, 2002). Estimated reliability = for the RTOP has been previously reported as r²=3D0.954 (Sawada et a= l., 2002)

The RTOP w= as used to analyze 13 video-taped science classes.= The RTOP instrument contains 25 likert- scale items that measure the extent to which reform has occurred. Specifically, 0 refers to a descriptor that is never observed and 4 represents one that is very characteristic of the classroom environment. The authors undertook an alignment task between the previously reported SWH categories and the RTOP’s 25 item descriptors. Importantly, the results from this alignment task indicated that 13 RTOP descriptors focused on related SWH ma= jor skills areas. As can be seen = in Table 1, four collapsed RTOP categories were created that matched the SWH. = They are: teacher questioning; student voice, elements of argument, and teacher’s role. Internal reliability estimates were calculated for these collapsed categories using = RTOP scores from video taped lessons (student voice r²=3D.982; elemen= ts of argument r²=3D .977 and teacher’s role r²=3D. 985). Three independent raters scored 3 randomly selected video tapes in order to confirm inter-rater reliability and a Pearson’s Coefficient of .822 was calculated. The R= TOP data meets Levine’s Test for Equality of Variances. Table 1 shows the comparison of RT= OP subscale indicators and corresponding SWH categories.

Table 1

Comparison of RTOP and SWH Categories
<= span style=3D'text-decoration:none'>	RTOP	<= span style=3D'text-decoration:none'>	SWH

Student Voice	1. Instructional strate= gies respected students’ prior knowledge/ preconceptions.		Connections: The= re is an emphasis on determining student knowledge and building teacher plans base= d on this knowledge.
	5. Focus and direction of lesson determined by ideas from students.		Connections: Tea= cher builds or activates students’ prior knowledge with some evidence of using it to make instructional decisions.
16. Students communicated their idea= s to others.		Focus on Learning: Student sharing with argumentation/ connections in either small group, gr= oup to group or whole group.
		Connections: Lan= guage activities flow naturally throughout the SWH.
		Science Argument: Teacher promotes linkages to= big ideas and begins to promote debate on these ideas.
18. High proportion of student talk = and a significant amount was student to student.		Focus on Learning: Student sharing with argumentation/ connections in either small group, gr= oup to group or whole group.
		Dialogical Interacti= on: Communication effectively varies from teacher to student and from student to student according to the situation.
19. Students questions and comments determined focus and direction of classroom discourse.		Connections: Tea= cher effectively builds or activates student prior knowledge with evidence of using this to make instructional decisions.
		Dialogical Interacti= on: Teacher is not compelled to give "right answer shifting focus to the= big idea Teacher uses all levels of questioning, and adjusts levels to indivi= dual students.
Teacher Role	24. Teacher acted as resource person, supporting and enhancing student investigations.		Focus on Learning: Teacher effectively plans for te= acher and student instruction as needed and appropriate.
Science Argument	25. The metaphor "teacher as listener" was very characteristic of this classroom.		Dialogical Interacti= on: Teacher used questions to explore student thinking. Teacher’s respo= nse to student answers is probing, connects, and extends, questions.<= /o:p>
13. Students were actively engaged in thought provoking activities that involved critical assessment of procedu= res.		Connections: Sci= ence activities promote big ideas clearly and extend students learning Connect= ions can be seen from beginning to end and are articulated by students.
Questioning	14. Students were reflective about t= heir learning.		Science Argumentatio= n: Teacher demands connections between question, claims, evidence and reflection.
15. Intellectual rigor, constructive criticism, and the challenging of ideas was valued.		Focus on Learning: Student sharing with argumentation/connection in small groups, group to g= roup and whole group with few prompts. Science Argumentation: Teacher promotes linkage to big ideas and promotes debate on these ideas.
21. Active participatio= n was encouraged and valued.		Science Argument: Teacher requires students to link claims and evidence. Teacher scaffolds questions, claims, evidence and reflection. Promotes linkages to big idea= s, and promotes debate of these ideas.
22. Students were encou= raged to generate conjectures, alternative solution strategies, and ways of interpreting evidence.		Science Argumentatio= n: Teacher scaffolds questions, claims, evidence and reflection. Promotes reflection to big ideas= and promotes debate of these ideas.
17. Teacher Questioning triggered divergent modes of thinking.		Dialogical Interacti= on: Students are asked to explain and challenge each others responses rather = than the teacher passing judgment. Teacher asks many layered questions (i.e. Bloom's Taxonomy). Teacher = is not compelled to give "right" answer shifting focus to the big idea= .

Aside from the scoring analysis of the RTOP, descriptive statistics were used to analyze changes in teacher questioning patterns. All of the teacher’s questions were tallied and categorized by question type. The framework used for this classification is Bloom’= ;s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain., where questions can be categorized by their cognitive performance level (Bloom et al., 1956). This framework allowed the researchers to place teacher questions into categories based on the cogniti= ve demand placed on the student by the question. In this model, factual recall and = yes/no type questions are considered to have the lowest level of cognitive demand, placing them into the knowledge and comprehension levels of the taxonomy, w= hile questions demanding a higher level of thought are questions that require the student to use the processes of application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. When students bri= ng prior knowledge and past experiences to bear on the question or evaluate a peer’s claim, they are using a higher cognitive level than when responding to simple recall questions.&nbs= p; Teacher questions that elicit student voice can be categorized into = this higher cognitive domain as can questions that require elements of argument = such as claims and evidence.

Employing this framework, the researchers divided= the teacher’s questions into yes/no and factual recall questions and then questions that elicit student voice. Questioning that elicited student voice was divided further into tha= t of argument and non-argument categories. Each of these areas of questioning was again analyzed by a constant reviewing of the video-tapes for specificity of purpose. Data reflecting total percentages = of the teacher’s questioning was compared to the number of questions related= to factual recall and yes/no questions. Subsequent data analysis was completed by reviewing video-tapes and determining the percentages of “why” questions that encourage students to provide further evidence. Additional data analysis was completed by comparing the number of questions that elicit student voice across time. Next, an analysis of the percentag= e of class time devoted to student vs. teacher voice was completed. Further analysis was conducted loo= king at the percentage of student voice that could be classified as student voice related to elements of scientific argument. Lastly, an analysis of all 13 less= ons was completed revealing the level of argument that was observed in each les= son over the two years.

Transcr= iptional Analysis

Qualitativ= e data includes transcriptional analysis of dialogical interactions between the teacher and students. Classro= om discourse was reviewed and transcribed to determine the presence as well as= the amount of student voice that occurred during each video taped science lesson. This data was recorde= d in minutes of class time for teacher voice and student voice. Additional transcription using the= SWH framework that emphasizes question, claim, evidence and reflection as components of argument, allowed the researchers to further determine the presence of argument within student voice. Teacher-student dialogical interactions were coded as either: teacher voice, student voice-non argumen= t, or student voice-argument. Transcribed sections of classroom discourse were completed in order = to provide the reader with examples of typical dialogues across the two years = of this study.

Results

Three clai= ms were generated from the data. As described in the methods section above, the data presented represent a combination of numerical analysis from the RTOP, quantitative and qualitati= ve analysis of video taped science lessons, and transcribed interview data from the teacher and the professional development liaison.

Thirteen 5= ^th grade science lessons were video-taped.&nb= sp; Approximately two-thirds of the way through the study, there appeare= d to be a major shift in the teacher’s pedagogical practices which resulte= d in a delineation into 2 major categories:&nbs= p; a first phase and a second phase. The first phase consists of video = tape recordings of 5 science classes while the second phase consists of data fro= m 8 video tapings during the last 6 months of the professional development proj= ect. The total number of minutes in eac= h of these phases was approximately equal, with the first phase totaling 306 min= utes and the second phase totaling 322 minutes The terms “first phase̶= 1; and “second phase” will be used to discuss our findings. Importantly, these two phases can = be seen as a transition from a teacher-centered classroom to a stronger focus = on student voice and embedded elements of argument.

Initially,= RTOP scores were calculated for all videos, and in all 25 subsets of the RTOP instrument. Thirteen subsets = were selected to support the claims that were generated and were then collapsed = into 4 major categories: teacher questioning; student voice, elements of argument and teacher’s role. At = approximately one and one-half years into the professional development by the teacher, changes were observed in several areas as supported by the RTOP score shifts across the two phases.

&n= bsp; The data presented in Table 2, represents the average score for the five lessons viewed in the first phase, while the data in the second phase represents averages of the 8 lessons from the second phase. These averages represent d= ata points on a likert scale ranging from 0 to 4, with 0 signifying behaviors t= hat never occurred and 4 representing behaviors that were very descriptive of t= he classroom. The table also inc= ludes the RTOP descriptors.

Table 2

Mean RTOP Scores during the First Phase and Second = Phase on a 0-4 Likert Scale

Collapsed Categories	RTOP Descriptors	First Phase	Second Phase
Questioning
#17	Teacher questioning triggered divergent modes of thi= nking.	0.4	2.8
Student Voice
#1	Instructional strategies respected students’ prior knowledge/preconceptions.	0.4	2.8
5	Focus and direction of lesson determined by ideas from students.	0.0	3.0
16	Students communicated their ideas to others.	0.0	3.0
18	High proportion of student talk and a significant amount was stude= nt to student.	0.2	2.4
19	Students’ questions and comments determined focus and direct= ion of classroom discourse.	0. 0	3.3
Science Argument
#13	Students were actively engaged in thought-provoking activities that involved critical assessment of procedures.	0.2	2.7
14	Students were reflective about their learning.	0. 0	3.5
15	Intellectual rigor, constructive criticism, and the challenging of ideas were valued.	0.4	3.4
21	Active participation was encouraged and valued.<= /p>	0.8	3.1
22	Students were encouraged to generate conjectures, alternative solu= tion strategies, and ways of interpreting evidence.	0.8	3.3
Teacher’s Role
24	Teacher acted as resource person, supporting and enhancing student investigations.	0.4	3.1
25	The metaphor “teacher as listener” was very characteri= stic of this classroom.	0.2	3.0

<= o:p>
<= o:p>	First Pha= se	&nbs= p;	Second Phase		t stat		p value
RTOP Collapsed Categories	M=	SD	<= span style=3D'text-decoration:none'>	M=	SD	&nbs= p;	&nbs= p;	&nbs= p;	&nbs= p;
	<= span style=3D'text-decoration:none'>	<= span style=3D'text-decoration:none'>	<= span style=3D'text-decoration:none'>	<= span style=3D'text-decoration:none'>	<= span style=3D'text-decoration:none'>
Questioning	0.40	0.55	&nbs= p;	2.75	0.89	&nbs= p;	5.282	&nbs= p;	<.001<= /p>
Student Voice	0.12	0.33	&nbs= p;	2.88	0.72	&nbs= p;	17.878	&nbs= p;	<.001<= /p>
Science Argument	0.44	0.65	&nbs= p;	3.20	0.91	&nbs= p;	13.171	&nbs= p;	<.001<= /p>
Teacher’s Role	0.30	0.68	&nbs= p;	3.06	0.57	&nbs= p;	11.168	&nbs= p;	<.001<= /p>