September/October 2017 – Vol. 30 No. 1

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate: Evaluating Negotiation in an Elementary Science Classroom

Posted: Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

by Mason Kuhn

Engaging students in negotiation with their peers is considered a central motivation for recent national policy recommendations (National Research Council, 2011) and has been a focus of much scholarship in science education (e.g. Bergland and Reiser, 2009 & Hand, 2008). In the Next Generation Science Standards under the heading “Science and Engineering Practices,” the term “Engaging in Argument From Evidence” appears in almost every standard. However, most literature on negotiation focuses on theory, where little focuses on the topic of negotiation as related to science teaching and learning. The purpose of this paper is to present an approach to enhancing authentic student negotiation in a 4th grade classroom.  The theoretical framework used by the teacher in this paper is the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH). The SWH is a writing-to-learn approach (Keys et al,1999) that helps a science classroom community to embed science negotiation as a core component of their inquiry experience.

Setting the Stage for Success

Many times the terms “argument” and “negotiation” are used as synonyms, but when you examine them more closely they are quite different. The meaning of the word argument can be confusing to students, especially younger children, because many times it carries a negative implication (Schoering & Hand, 2013). In an argument the goal is to win and opposing views are dismissed in fear that the other person will gain ground and be the victor. Negotiation does not have these negative connotations; in a negotiation people work together to shape and improve ideas (Schoering & Hand, 2013). An argument can be thought of as a divisive activity where a negotiation can be thought of as a collaborative event. It is important to differentiate between scientific negotiation and typical arguing that goes on between people, which is seldom based on empirical evidence and usually involves opinions, beliefs and emotion. The purpose of a dispute is for one person’s point of view to prevail over another’s. In scientific negotiation, however, explanations are generated, verified, communicated, debated, and modified. So, a critical first step in creating a classroom climate contusive to negotiation is to ensure to your students that all initial thoughts are valid and welcome.

Negotiation in the Classroom

According to the National Research Council (2009): “Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their understanding is not engaged, they may fail grasp new concepts and information presented in the classroom.” (p.2) Long gone is the belief that students come to the classroom as an empty vessel waiting patiently to be filled with knowledge by the teacher. But what do teachers do with these preconceptions that the students bring? Many teachers elect to have their students fill out a KWL chart, then simply move on to the next step in their unit plan. The SWH approach differs because it asks students to do something with those preconceptions. Typically, teachers prepare an activity to elicit big ideas and concepts from their students. There are a variety of different activities that could be used to start a unit (i.e. thought experiments, journal writing, mini-activities, PWIM, etc.). The type of activity is not important; the critical component of the activity is that it will expose the students’ ideas. An example I recently used was a mini-activity to observe the students’ conceptual understanding of Next Generation Science Standard 4-PS4-2.”Develop a model to describe that light reflecting from objects and entering the eye allows objects to be seen.” Students were asked to get in pairs and complete the “Shrinking Pupil” activity.

The students took turns putting a bag over their head and observing their partner as their pupil shrank as it adjusted to the light of the room.

The students took turns putting a bag over their head and observing their partner as their pupil shrank as it adjusted to the light of the room.

Each student filled out a worksheet asking them to try to explain what happened during the experiment, and how they believe the interaction between eye, light, and object are related. The teacher’s role during this part of the lesson was not to provide the correct answer; instead, after individual writing and small group discussions, the teacher asked students to find others in the classroom who had similar beliefs. Once the students found some “conceptual friends” the teacher set the stage for student-to-student negotiation.  Interestingly, in this experiment there was an almost 50/50 split of students who held the correct conception (light reflects off an object and then enters the eye) and a misconception (light enters the eye and then projects out to see the object). The students were then given a day to research their claims using a worksheet and access to the computer lab to search for evidence.

During the “Negotiation Day” this student pointed out that if the eye projected out light (like the group with the misconception believed) you would be able to see a small piece of paper with a letter written on it at the end of an enclosed tube. She even took apart a flashlight to prove her point. These moments of inquiry would not happen in a lecture-based classroom. This example served two roles: It helped the student negotiating for the correct concept because she took her prior knowledge and applied it in an authentic, new setting; and it helped the students who came in with a misconception because they saw a real example of how their conception does not follow the law of physics.

During the “Negotiation Day” this student pointed out that if the eye projected out light (like the group with the misconception believed) you would be able to see a small piece of paper with a letter written on it at the end of an enclosed tube. She even took apart a flashlight to prove her point. These moments of inquiry would not happen in a lecture-based classroom. This example served two roles: It helped the student negotiating for the correct concept because she took her prior knowledge and applied it in an authentic, new setting; and it helped the students who came in with a misconception because they saw a real example of how their conception does not follow the law of physics.

Someone not familiar with this approach of engaging learners may ask: “Why don’t you just tell the students which concept is correct?” Existing views in philosophy of science propose a more effective model of conceptual change. Posner et al. (1982) view conceptual change as the process whereby a learner’s existing beliefs change over the course of that person’s experience with established concepts. If the learner is adding new knowledge to the framework that is not radical but rather extends or strengthens the framework, then it is considered to be assimilated into the existing framework (Norton-Meier, Hand, Hockenberry, & Wise, 2008).  Accommodation is a process where students must replace or reorganize their central concepts (Posner et al., 1982). Once prior knowledge conflicts with existing conceptions, and then it cannot become credible or useful until the learner becomes dissatisfied with their old conceptions (Hewson, 1992). In the classroom example the two groups could be described as a group going through the process of assimilation and a group in need of accommodation. Simply telling the group in need of accommodation that they are wrong will not raise the new concept to a status that holds more weight than their current belief. In my experience having students research their claim and negotiating with their peers has been an effective way to promote accommodation. The teacher can facilitate the research day in a number of ways, for example, schedule a trip to the computer lab to search the internet, provide the students with a packet of information, or pick out books that highlight the correct concepts.  A “Check with the Experts” page is used in the experiment.
The public negotiation has the potential to raise the status of the new concept for the accommodation group and help the assimilation group generalize their understanding of the concept because it 1) Gives the students ownership of their learning 2) Lets them act like actual scientists (backing claims with evidence) 3) Negotiation with peers makes the outcome of the argument more plausible than simply being told by the teacher (Kuhn, 2010). The entire lesson plan for this unit and many others aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards can be found at www.waverlyshellrockswh.weebly.com.

Sample of a five day progression for the described unit (assuming approximately one hour for each lesson).

Sample of a five day progression for the described unit (assuming approximately one hour for each lesson).

References

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.

Hand, B. (2008). Introducing the science writing heuristic approach. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Hewson. P. W. (1992). Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at a meeting on “Research and Curriculum Development in Science Teaching,” under the auspices of the National Center for Educational Research, Documentation, and Assessment, Ministry for Education and Science, Madrid, Spain.

Keys, C., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065 – 1084.

Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5),1–15.

Posner, G., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982) Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education. 66(2), 211-27.

Schoering, E. & Hand, B. (2013). Using Language Positively. How to Encourage Negotiation in the Classroom. Science and Children. 50 (9) p. 52-57.

National Research Council. (2009). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Next Generation Science Standards (2013). For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children’s science writing. National Science Teacher Association Press.

Mason Kuhn is a 4th Grade Teacher at Shell Rock Elementary. Shell Rock, Iowa and is an EdD. Student at the University of Northern Iowa

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

Leave a Reply

LATEST POST

State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Announces 2017 Finalists for Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching

Posted: Wednesday, September 20th, 2017

SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson today nominated eight exceptional secondary mathematics and science teachers as California finalists for the 2017 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST).

“These teachers are dedicated and accomplished individuals whose innovative teaching styles prepare our students for 21st century careers and college and develop them into the designers and inventors of the future,” Torlakson said. “They rank among the finest in their profession and also serve as wonderful mentors and role models.”

The California Department of Education (CDE) partners annually with the California Science Teachers Association and the California Mathematics Council to recruit and select nominees for the PAEMST program—the highest recognition in the nation for a mathematics or science teacher. The Science Finalists will be recognized at the CSTA Awards Luncheon on Saturday, October 14, 2017. Learn More…

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

Thriving in a Time of Change

Posted: Wednesday, September 13th, 2017

by Jill Grace

By the time this message is posted online, most schools across California will have been in session for at least a month (if not longer, and hat tip to that bunch!). Long enough to get a good sense of who the kids in your classroom are and to get into that groove and momentum of the daily flow of teaching. It’s also very likely that for many of you who weren’t a part of a large grant initiative or in a district that set wheels in motion sooner, this is the first year you will really try to shift instruction to align to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). I’m not going to lie to you, it’s a challenging year – change is hard. Change is even harder when there’s not a playbook to go by.  But as someone who has had the very great privilege of walking alongside teachers going through that change for the past two years and being able to glimpse at what this looks like for different demographics across that state, there are three things I hope you will hold on to. These are things I have come to learn will overshadow the challenge: a growth mindset will get you far, one is a very powerful number, and it’s about the kids. Learn More…

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by Jill Grace

Jill Grace

Jill Grace is a Regional Director for the K-12 Alliance and is President of CSTA.

If You Are Not Teaching Science Then You Are Not Teaching Common Core

Posted: Thursday, August 31st, 2017

by Peter A’Hearn 

“Science and Social Studies can be taught for the last half hour of the day on Fridays”

– Elementary school principal

Anyone concerned with the teaching of science in elementary school is keenly aware of the problem of time. Kids need to learn to read, and learning to read takes time, nobody disputes that. So Common Core ELA can seem like the enemy of science. This was a big concern to me as I started looking at the curriculum that my district had adopted for Common Core ELA. I’ve been through those years where teachers are learning a new curriculum, and know first-hand how a new curriculum can become the focus of attention- sucking all the air out of the room. Learn More…

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by Peter AHearn

Peter AHearn

Peter A’Hearn is the Region 4 Director for CSTA.

Tools for Creating NGSS Standards Based Lessons

Posted: Tuesday, August 29th, 2017

by Elizabeth Cooke

Think back on your own experiences with learning science in school. Were you required to memorize disjointed facts without understanding the concepts?

Science Education Background

In the past, science education focused on rote memorization and learning disjointed ideas. Elementary and secondary students in today’s science classes are fortunate now that science instruction has shifted from students demonstrating what they know to students demonstrating how they are able to apply their knowledge. Science education that reflects the Next Generation Science Standards challenges students to conduct investigations. As students explore phenomena and discrepant events they engage in academic discourse guided by focus questions from their teachers or student generated questions of that arise from analyzing data and creating and revising models that explain natural phenomena. Learn More…

Written by Elizabeth Cooke

Elizabeth Cooke

Elizabeth Cooke teaches TK-5 science at Markham Elementary in the Oakland Unified School District, is an NGSS Early Implementer, and is CSTA’s Secretary.

News and Happenings in CSTA’s Region 1 – Fall 2017

Posted: Tuesday, August 29th, 2017

by Marian Murphy-Shaw

Cal

This month I was fortunate enough to hear about some new topics to share with our entire region. Some of you may access the online or newsletter options, others may attend events in person that are nearer to you. Long time CSTA member and environmental science educator Mike Roa is well known to North Bay Area teachers for his volunteer work sharing events and resources. In this month’s Region 1 updates I am happy to make a few of the options Mike offers available to our region. Learn More…

Written by Marian Murphy-Shaw

Marian Murphy-Shaw

Marian Murphy-Shaw is the student services director at Siskiyou County Office of Education and is CSTA’s Region 1 Director and chair of CSTA’s Policy Committee.