On Attitude and Language in Students’ Talk and Their Impact on Students’ Texts

Mats Gunnar Lindahl; Anne-Mari Folkesson

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1247a

Full Text (PDF)

Mats Gunnar Lindahl ¹ ^* , Anne-Mari Folkesson ¹

More Detail

¹ Linnaeus University, SWEDEN^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Background:
Students’ learning is assumed to be promoted through peer-group discussion. Most studies show the presence of qualitative improvements in either oral or written reasoning as a result of such interactions. However, knowledge on the relationship between talk qualities and text qualities is scarce.

Material and methods:
We adopt an explorative design using statistical analyses of students’ talk and texts to estimate the relationships between theoretically-based concepts of attitude and sociolinguistic code.

Results:
The operationalized concepts can be validated using statistical analyses. Linear regression shows that Elaborated code in students’ talk has no impact on students’ texts. Furthermore, Restricted code in talk is detrimental to students’ use of Elaborated code in texts. This relationship is also found at the group level.

Conclusions:
Students’ expression of open-mindedness in their texts depends on their use of Elaborated code. Teachers must support students in using Elaborated code in their texts and avoiding Restricted code in their talk.

Keywords

group discussion
open-minded
elaborated code
Socio-Scientific Issues
writing

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 12, Issue 8, August 2016, 2199-2221

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1247a

Publication date: 02 Jul 2016

Article Views: 2451

Article Downloads: 1185

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114.
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.
Balgopal, M., & Wallace, A. (2013). Writing-to-learn, writing-to-communicate, and scientific literacy. The American Biology Teacher, 75(3), 170-175.
Bernstein, B. (2nd edn)(1974). Class, codes and control (Vol. 1). Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge.
Chen, C. -H., Chung, M. -Y., & Wu, W. V. (2013). The effects of faded prompts and feedback on college students’ reflective writing skills. Asia-Pacific Educational Research, 22(4), 571– 583.
Cheong, C. M., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Online discussion and critical thinking skills: A casestudy in a Singapore secondary school. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 556-573.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284.
Covill, A. E. (2010). Comparing peer review and self-review as ways to improve college students’ writing. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 199–226.
Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., McLain Sullivan, S. T. & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282–311.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health and Company.
Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Kim, I. -H., & Li, Y. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China & Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 400–424.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Duschl, R. A. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran and M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Academic Publishers.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915– 933.
Evagorou, M., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). ‘Should we kill the grey squirrels?’ A study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401-428.
Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237.
Ferrari, M., Bouffard, T., & Rainville, L. (1998). What makes a good writer? Differences in good and poor writers’ self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science, 26, 473–488.
Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279–296.
Fung, D., & Howe, C. (2012). Liberal studies in Hong Kong: A new perspective on critical thinking through group work. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 101– 111.
Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision‐Making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570.
Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1157-1169.
Gustafsson, B., & Öhman, J. (2013). DEQUAL: A tool for investigating deliberative qualities in students’ socioscientific conversations. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 8(2), 319-338.
Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43, 325–356.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodrígez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Kallos, D. & Lundgren, U. P. (1976). Lessons from a comprehensive school system for theory and research on curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, April 19-23.
Kellog, R. T. & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250-266.
Kim, I. -H. (2014). Development of reasoning skills through participation in collaborative synchronous online discussions. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 467-484.
Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017 - 1043.
Knudson, R. E. (1998). College students' writing: An assessment of competence. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 13-19.
Kolstø, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 645-664.
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education 28, 1689-1716.
Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: an uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69 - 119.
Lewis, J. & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287.
Lauer, T., & Hendrix, J. (2009). A model for quantifying student learning via repeated writing assignments and discussions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20,(3), 425-437.
Liu, C. -J., & Yang, S. C. (2012). Applying the practical inquiry model to investigate the quality of students’ online discourse in an information ethics course based on Bloom’s teaching goal and Bird’s 3C model. Computers & Education, 59, 466–480.
Lindahl, M. G., & Folkesson, A-. M. (2016). Attitudes and language use in groupdiscussions on socio-scientific issues. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(2), 283-301.
Linton, D. L., Pangle, W. M, Wyatt, K. H., Powell, K. H., & Sherwood, R. E. (2014). Identifying key features of effective active learning: The effects of writing and peer discussion. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13, 469–477.
Lord, T., & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in science laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342-345.
Lubben, F., Sadeck, M., Scholtz, Z., & Braund, M. (2010). Gauging students’ untutored ability in argumentation about experimental data: A South African case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2143–2166.
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-178.
Minner, D. D., Jurist Levy, A., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction – what is it and does it matter? Results from research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
Morais, A. M., Fontinhas, F. & Neves, I. P. (1992). Recognition and realisation rules in acquiring school science: contribution of pedagogy and social background of pupils. British Journal of the Sociology of Education, 13(2), 247–270.
Naber, J. & Wyatt, T. H. (2013). The effect of reflective writing interventions on the critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Education Today 34, 67–72.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.
Perin, D., Keselman, A., & Monopoli, M. (2003). The academic writing of community college remedial students: Text and learner variables. Higher Education, 45, 19–42.
Pessoa, S., Miller, R. T., & Kaufer, D. (2014). Students’ challenges and development in the transition to academic writing at an English-medium university in Qatar. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 127-156.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.
Rickles, M. L., Zimmer Schneider, R., Slusser, S. R., Williams, D. M., & Zipp, J. F. (2013). Assessing change in student critical thinking for introduction to sociology classes. Teaching Sociology, 41(3) 271–281.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353–376.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004) The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 85, 71–93.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448-484.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of Problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1).
Schalk, H. H., van der Schee, J. A., & Boersma, K. T. (2013). The development of understanding of evidence in pre-university biology education in the Netherlands. Journal of Research in Science Education, 43, 551–578.
Schen, M. (2013). A comparison of biology majors’ written arguments across the curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 47(4), 224-231.
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122-124.
Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: Knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 431–444.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1).
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yeh, K. H., & She, H. -C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students' argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education 55, 586-602.
Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1997). A Dialogical Framework for Researching Peer Talk. In R. Wegerif and P. Scrimshaw (Eds), Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom (pp 49- 65). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Wu, Y. -T., & Tsai, C. -C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A. & Lin, S. -S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research of Science Teaching 50(3), 251-283.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran and M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201-216). The Netherlands: Springer Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A Researchbased framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.

How to cite this article

APA

Lindahl, M. G., & Folkesson, A.-M. (2016). On Attitude and Language in Students’ Talk and Their Impact on Students’ Texts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(8), 2199-2221. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1247a

Vancouver

Lindahl MG, Folkesson AM. On Attitude and Language in Students’ Talk and Their Impact on Students’ Texts. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(8):2199-221. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1247a

AMA

Lindahl MG, Folkesson AM. On Attitude and Language in Students’ Talk and Their Impact on Students’ Texts. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(8), 2199-2221. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1247a

Chicago

Lindahl, Mats Gunnar, and Anne-Mari Folkesson. "On Attitude and Language in Students’ Talk and Their Impact on Students’ Texts". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2016 12 no. 8 (2016): 2199-2221. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1247a

Harvard

Lindahl, M. G., and Folkesson, A.-M. (2016). On Attitude and Language in Students’ Talk and Their Impact on Students’ Texts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(8), pp. 2199-2221. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1247a

MLA

Lindahl, Mats Gunnar et al. "On Attitude and Language in Students’ Talk and Their Impact on Students’ Texts". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 12, no. 8, 2016, pp. 2199-2221. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1247a