The Use of Discussion As a Means of Learning Is of Acknowledged Theoretical and Educational

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association New Researchers/Student Conference, University of Warwick, 6 September 2006

Research Student Symposium, Individual paper

Farhana Zaman, NottinghamTrentUniversity

The Use of Discussion as a Means of Learning in Science

ABSTRACT

The use of discussion as a means of learning is of acknowledged theoretical and educational importance, however, within the primary sector and particularly within primary science it is presently under-researched. Given the current ‘creativity’ agenda within primary school education in England, the use of talk is not only timely but as presented here, is an innovative means of developing children’s understanding of scientific concepts. This research is set against a backdrop of the recent shift in educational thinking which places the child back at the centre. The adoption of talk, in particular, within small peer discussions, and its potential power in helping children to come to a joint understanding of primary science concepts and perhaps more generally concepts across all areas of learning is considered here. A social constructive theoretical framework is adopted as the basis of this paper.

The main findings of a research project ( in its pilot study phase ), which was designed to help children to use discussion as a means of developing their joint understanding within a primary science context are reported within this paper which closely examines what strategies children appeared to be using to develop their conceptual understanding within their discussions and whether there were any patterns emerging in the nature of the discussions undertaken across a number of groups. How children drew upon their life world and school knowledge is demonstrated through their oral exchanges which show how these children “legitimate the world picture” (Martin et al. 1976), they are constructing through the use of their discussions.

Problems and issues of setting up the pupil discussions are considered and suggestions are given for how the primary school teacher may facilitate for such discussion within primary science. The teachers’ role in helping children to develop their scientific understanding is examined and suggestions are made concerning the feasibility of adopting such discussion groups within the current climate in primary education.

Background and Literature Review Considerations

Background

This paper reports on a pilot study which arose from my belief that both teachers and learners will benefit if discussion as a strategy for teaching and as a tool for learning is used within primary science lessons. My own personal experiences both as a teacher and as a learner have demonstratedthat I am better at conversing with people than writing my ideas down. I believe that through engaging in discussions, I am able to formulate, crystallise and refine my ideas. I think through my talk and develop my thinking through discussions with others.

As a subject leader for science in schools, part of my responsibility was to monitor science teaching. Anecdotal evidence gathered through discussions in the staffroom concerning the type of teaching strategies employed for the teaching of science suggested that although teachers understanding of the nature and value of discussion varied, as one would expect, there was an interesting commonality to be observed in practice which was that all teachers conducted the same type of discussions.

Observations of practice revealed three main points:

• that all teachers who were observed using discussion as a strategy for the teaching of science were involved in a form of interaction that involved both the teacher and pupils, that is , the discussion was exchange between teachers and pupils and never between pupils themselves.

• that a particular form of interaction, which is well documented by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), Lemke (1990), called the IRE sequence was seen to occur in a number of classrooms. In this sequence, it was seen that teachers initiate a topic of conversation, they talk about something (Initiation phase). Pupils respond to this (Response phase) and then the teacher evaluates what the pupil has said and gives feedback (Evaluation phase).

• that interaction in the science classroom, consisted mostly of brief discussions between teacher and pupils as well as teacher exposition and teacher questioning. There appeared to be few instances when pupils themselves had a chance to discus their own ideas with their peers independently of their teachers.

Literature Review Considerations

A review of literature in this area is broad ranging and shows the multitudinous nature of aspects of this study. There are many areas which have informed the construction of this pilot study ( reported here), and the main study which followed and which is currently being completed. For the purposes of brevity of this paper it is not possible to give a complete review of the literature that has informed the content of this study and the subsequent research project that resulted from it. Reviews by their very nature in research projects of this kind are neither definitive nor exhaustive but rather an initial attempt to show some of the key texts that have guided the thinking behind this study thus far. A full list of texts drawn upon has been provided and readers may wish to contact me for a literature review if they so wish. In completing an initial review, however, the impression the author has been left with is that, the specific use of peer group discussions in science at the primary phase of schooling has not been researched fully. There are studies about use of discussion in group work, however, these are not always in the primary sector nor are they necessarily in science. Thus it seemed that a research project such as that undertaken and being currently completed was warranted because it aimed to investigate an area which is of acknowledged theoretical importance, of relevance to current education policy goals, but is presently under-researched: the dynamics of small group peer discussion and its role in science learning at Key Stage two, the development of a method for enabling pupils to engage in discussions with a science focus, and the educational effects of different patterns of interaction for the development of pupils’ powers of comprehension about a topic.

Aims of the Pilot Study

For this pilot study, I was interested in finding ways of enhancing and encouraging small group discussion in the area of science. For this reason, the method I chose to use was the development and deployment of a series of focused scaffolds in the shape of science tasks and prompts that could be given to children to use.

The aims of this pilot study were therefore threefold:

1)to develop a series of scaffolds that could be used in setting up discussions(which are as naturalistic as possible )in science using ideas derived from personal experience of teaching science to primary school children.

2)to explore ways in which primary children could be helped to engage in discussions.

3) to derive useful ways of analysing the data, gathered through tape recordings of these discussions,in order to find out what seems to be the most effective ways of improving how children engage in discussions.

Methods

Primary science teaching and learning has in my experience (again practically and theoretically) been best when children are engaged in a combination of doing, thinking and talking so I set out to develop a method of setting up naturalistic discussions in science which would incorporate these elements.

For the Pilot study reported here my initial hypothesis consists of three parts. First, drawing on my reading and the experiences of teachers in primary schools I have worked in, I believe that if children are given the appropriate scaffolding, then they maybe capable of engaging effectively in discussions,so that they learn from these about a range of science topic areas. Second, that if children work in small groups, then there may be better opportunities for engagement in discussions as there might be greater interaction between children. Third, based on informal discussions with teachers, if children have little opportunity of engaging in pupil- pupil discussions in small groups, I feel that they might not be able to discuss science topics with ease and certainly not for any sustained length of time, nor would these discussions be centred around the given topic but may instead veer off the point rather quickly. I feel that the development of the scaffolds would show if my hypothesis could be proven or whether evidence could be found to refute it, if it was erroneous. As a natural progression in thinking about the work to be undertaken some questions arose which were subsequently used as guidance and which are outlined shortly.

Some questions to guide the exploration of whether or not this method could be useful in helping primary children to develop their ability to engage in discussions (Aim 2).

In this pilot study, therefore I wanted to observe:

1.What happened when discussion was encouraged in small groups between pupils?

Further to this I wanted to know

2.What are the conditions that make co-operative learning through discussion in science a success or failure in terms of benefits for the pupils?

3.Was it possible for children to use the scaffolds of a combination of tasks and associated prompts to discuss more effectively and could they use these prompts while working as a group on their own but with the researcher being present?

4.What did it mean to discuss more effectively?

Once the tasks and prompts were developed they would be trialled in the classroom. The children undertook such tasks and used the prompts automatically or as directed.

The development of the practical tasks used in this pilot study and their implementation.

A series of simple science tasks and prompts were developed in order to explore whether or not these would be useful in helping to promote discussions (Aim 2). These were used with 3 groups of three children whose discussions were tape recorded so that both qualitative and quantitative data could be derived,(more on choice and number of participants in groups can be found below in the section discussing The Selection of participants for this pilot study . As one of the original aims was to develop a series of scaffolds that may be used in setting up discussions in as naturalistic a way as possible it was important that the children were aware of the purposes and these were communicated to them at the outset of the research before any tape recording of discussions was undertaken.

Two out of the three tasks reported here required the children to carry out some simple practical work that they could do collaboratively, Table 1 below shows the nature of the practical tasks. This practical element to the tasks was included because I felt it was vital to have the children ‘do’ something so that this acted as a spur to mental stimulation and as a means of engaging children and focusing their attention on a particular area of science. It was also a format which the children would, I felt be familiar with as this was typical of the approach adopted in primary science lessons especially post National Curriculum which set science firmly on the agenda as a core subject within the structure of the National Curriculum. Practical work can be seen as one way of helping pupils to explore their own and others’ ideas and thus it was considered here to be useful in developing conceptual understanding when used as a stimulus for discussions

Table 1. Table to show Practical Tasks given to children as a stimulation for discussion

Task A
Ourselves / Task B
Materials / Task C
Electricity
Practical Tasks / Linked to Sc 2, Life Processes and Living Things.
Children were given a series of picture cards depicting stages in the development of human beings. They were asked to place these in order so that they showed the children’s thinking about the lifecycle of a human being. They then had to discuss with each other their choice of order and justify why they felt this to be appropriate. / Linked to Sc 3, Materials and Their Properties.
Children were given a range of materials and asked to observe them. They then had to put a sample of each material in the palm of their hand and cover it gently with the other hand. They were directed to hold their sample material and count to 30 slowly and observe any change which may have occurred. They were then asked to engage in a discussion of what they saw happening and why this happened in the way that it did. / Linked to Sc4, Physical Processes.
Children were provided with a cell, a piece of insulated wire and a light bulb. They were asked to make a simple circuit in order to get the bulb to light up. They then had to discuss why and how this arrangement of components worked to light up the bulb and what their understanding of electricity is.

The two practical tasks and one set of cards developed were derived from each of the three conceptual areas of science, that is, Sc 2, 3 and 4 in order to take into account the interests, experience and conceptual understandings of those undertaking the discussions. It was expected, as has already been mentioned above, that since these children were all Year 6 and had studied science as part of their science National Curriculum entitlement, they should between them, have knowledge, of some, if not hopefully, all of these chosen areas.

I was present throughout and gave children the resources with which they were to work. Prior to the onset of any discussions that were tape recorded, the groups of children considered with me what they felt should be rules for behaviour within these discussions and they drew up a set of protocols for behaviour which they agreed they would adhere to. These ‘rules’ were scribed by me onto some sugar paper, and kept for all the children to see and refer to throughout the discussions. An exemplar of such ‘rules’ from Group A, are given in Figure 1 below, and constituted the first form of data collected.

Figure 1- Ground Rules for discussion formulated by Group A

1.Don’t mess around, get on with what you are supposed to be discussing

2.Involve everyone. Let every one have a say.

3.Appoint a leader for the group who can report back to the teacher

4.Try to think about what people are saying before saying something yourself

5.Talk quietly, don’t shout.

6.Listen when someone is speaking and let them finish before you say anything

7.Take notes of points made to tell our teacher

8.Decide who will tell the teacher what we’ve done

I also gave children simple instructions as to how to proceed with each of the tasks. These were simply stating what I wanted children to do, see Table 1 above for a summary. Once such instructions were given, recording was started. I acted in the capacity of facilitator and provided reassurance and answered questions about procedures if there were any. Other than this I did not help the children or intervene in any other way with the completion of the tasks. The children were given as much time as they felt they needed to carry out the tasks. Most of the talk between the three children at this stage, of carrying out the practical tasks, was based around instructional/ procedural reassurances for each other as to whether what they were doing was appropriate and as stated above there were times when such assurances were also sought from me.

The necessity for the development of ‘directions for action’ for this pilot study and their implementation

Once children had carried out the tasks, I had to find some way for initiating the discussions without placing myself in the role of the teacher and actually verbally giving the children directions for what to do next. Since I wanted to remain as silent as possible, it seemed necessary to use sheets of paper which gave written ‘directions for action’ for the children. See Table 2 below for these ‘directions for action’ which are an abridged version of the prompt sheets, as noted below (in 4.15), the prompts were developed first and it was only when noticing the need for them, that these directions for action were produced.

Table 2. Table to show ‘directions for action’ for discussion

Prompt Sheet A
Ourselves / Prompt Sheet B
Materials / Prompt Sheet C
Electricity
Directions for action- What you need to do – / Once you are happy that you have arranged the set of cards in order from the youngest to the oldest, tell each other why you think your sequence might be reasonable.
Discuss everything you think you know about what these cards are showing you about the Life Cycle of a human being. / Discuss everything you know about the materials you are using
and why you think they change in the way that they do- giving as many reasons as you can for your thoughts / Once you have made the bulb light up using the equipment provided, talk about what you think is making the bulb light up
Discuss everything you can about your circuit.
Discuss what you think electricity is

The discussions in which these ‘directions..’ were used were tape recorded and are referred to as those without prompts. The researchers’ discussions with the class teacher led to allowing the children to undertake the same task one week later and it was interesting to note that children maintained interest as long as there was a different way to approach it. This meant that the same group of children did the same tasks a week later but the second time they did these using the prompts outlined in Table 3. These discussions, with the prompts were also tape recorded and are referred to as those with prompts.