The Impact of Professional Development on Dialogic Teaching for Science Teachers in Saudi Arabia
Science Journal of Education
Volume 8, Issue 1, February 2020, Pages: 8-13
Received: Jan. 6, 2020; Accepted: Jan. 27, 2020; Published: Feb. 11, 2020
Views 265      Downloads 117
Author
Saeed Almuntasheri, Faculty of Eduaction, Albaha University, Albah, Saudi Arabia
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of a professional development that embed interactive/dialogic strategies on the enactment of these strategies to teach science-based inquiry in Saudi Arabia. Seventeen science teachers attended the professional development that embed dialogic conversation into teaching science-based inquiry. The instrument developed by previous reserachers was adapted to explore the science teachers’ use of the dialogic inquiry strategies prior and after their participations. This instrument consisted of 18 items with a Likert scale (alpha Cronbach = 0.79) and observe the strategies used in the stages of receiving information, and how teachers recognize and use the information collected about students’ thinking to develop dialogic inquiry. The overall results indicated that science teachers became more capable to develop dialogic inquiry strategies to interact with their students. Some strategies were highly developed at the receiving phase such as, writes down observations (M= 3.67), and interprets data (M=3.52), at the recognising phase (provide neutral responses M=3.41). However, strategies that indicate the use of students’ ideas to develop further inquiry did not exceed the moderate level (asking how/why questions (M=2.90). Science teachers also met with some difficulties to develop some strategies such as help the learners to come to an agreement upon an explanation (M=2.52). The study underlines the significance of incorporating dialogic conversation strategies into the professional development programs to help science teachers to enact scientific inquiry.
Keywords
Dialogic Taching, Scientific Inquiry, Professional Development
To cite this article
Saeed Almuntasheri, The Impact of Professional Development on Dialogic Teaching for Science Teachers in Saudi Arabia, Science Journal of Education. Vol. 8, No. 1, 2020, pp. 8-13. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20200801.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. City, State: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
[2]
Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review.
[3]
Alexander, R. (2005, July). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology, University of Durham.
[4]
Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogers, J., & Sequeira, L. (2012). Examining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37 (4), 288-306.
[5]
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 994-1020.
[6]
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72 (7), 30-33.
[7]
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94 (4), 577-616.
[8]
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23 (6), 42-44.
[9]
Harlen, W. (2009). Teaching and learning science for a better future. School Science Review, 90 (333), 33-42.
[10]
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (6), 815-843.
[11]
Gillies, R. M., Nichols, K., Burgh, G., & Haynes, M. (2012). The effects of two strategic and meta-cognitive questioning approaches on children's explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and learning during cooperative, inquiry-based science. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 93-106.
[12]
Deboer, G. E. (2006). Historical perspectives on inquiry teaching in schools. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 17-35). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
[13]
NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
[14]
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2007). Incorporating Scientific Argumentation into Inquiry-Based Activities with Online Personally Seeded Discussions. Science Scope, 30 (6), 43.
[15]
Crawford, B. A. (2012). Moving the essence of inquiry into the classroom: Engaging teachers and students in authentic science Issues and challenges in science education research (pp. 25-42): Springer.
[16]
Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The world café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
[17]
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631-645.
[18]
Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 1-15). London: Sage.
[19]
Wolfe, S., & Alexander, R. J. (2008). Argumentation and dialogic teaching: Alternative pedagogies for a changing world. Retrieved from http://www.robinalexander.org.uk/publications/
[20]
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27 (4), 283-297.
[21]
Van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6 (2), 227-269.
[22]
Duschl, R., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4 (1), 37-73.
[23]
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[24]
Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90 (3), 453-467.
[25]
Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (4), 422-453.
[26]
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19 (2), 230-284.
[27]
Almuntasheri, S., Gillies, R. M., & Wright, T. (2016). The effectiveness of a guided inquiry-based, teachers’ professional development programme on Saudi students’ understanding of density. Science Education International, 27 (1), 16-39.
[28]
Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning about system renewal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36 (2), 289-303.
[29]
Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (pp. 128-144). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
[30]
Kim, S. Y., & Hamdan Alghamdi, A. K. (2019). Female secondary students’ and their teachers’ perceptions of science learning environments within the context of science education reform in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-09946-z
[31]
Alghamdi, A. K., & Al-Salouli, M. (2013). Saudi elementary school science teachers’ beliefs: Teaching science in the new millennium. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11 (2), 501-525.
[32]
Skamp, K. (2012). Teaching primary science constructively (Vol. 4). South Melbourne: Cengage Learning.
[33]
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6 (4), 359-377.
[34]
Al-Abdulkareem, R., & Hentschke, G. C. (2014). Textbooks and constructivist pedagogy in Saudi Arabian school classrooms. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 3 (2), 13.
[35]
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38 (1), 39-72.
[36]
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 53-78.
[37]
Hackling, M., Smith, P., & Murcia, K. (2010). Talking science: Developing a discourse of inquiry. Teaching Science, 56 (1), 17-22.
[38]
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. District of Columbia: Oxford University Press.
[39]
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M.. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11 (3-4), 205-235.
[40]
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21 (1), 5-31.
[41]
Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In D. Preiss & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163-194). New York, NY: Springer.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186