Abstract
In this chapter we report and discuss inquiry-based science teaching/learning and more specifically dialogic inquiry, as a basis for a professional development programme for teachers. The pilot programme aimed at (1) considering teachers’ experience, (2) letting teachers develop their current lessons and (3) prompting teachers’ reflections on generic competencies coming from the theory about communicative approaches and writing in dialog. The intention was to make a long-term difference for science in schools due to teachers’ enhanced awareness of dialogic inquiry. We focus on the teachers’ experience of the research-informed professional development programme. The programme was designed with six meetings, when teachers met and reflected on different aspects of dialogic inquiry, based on video clips of good practice episodes from science lessons. Between the meetings, the teachers developed and analysed their own teaching by using instruments, developed by the researchers, to find out how they used their lesson time on different lesson activities, different communicative approaches and writing. We argue that the balance between dialogic inquiry as a deep meaning-making process and dialogic inquiry as a way to organise the lesson depends on the teacher’s experience, subject knowledge and their students’ interests and creativity. Findings show that teachers observed that too much time was spent on giving instructions, that the writing of hypotheses could be improved and that the teachers’ choice of lesson activities had an impact on learning opportunities. The difference between dialogic inquiry and inquiry is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adey, P. (2004). The professional development of teachers: Practice and theory. Dortdrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Alexander, R. J. (Ed.). (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. London: Dialogos.
Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138–162.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), The dialogic imagination. Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited: Making meaning through talk. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishing.
Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Brorsson, B., Engström, S., & Enghag, M. (2014). Muntlig kommunikation under en lektion om energikällor i årskurs 5 [Oral communication during a lesson on energy sources in year 5]. NorDiNa, 10(1), 46–62.
Constantinou, C. P., Tsivitanidou, O., & Rybska, E. (2018). Introduction: What is inquiry-based science teaching and learning? In O.E. Tsivitanidou, P. Gray, & E. Rybska (Eds.), Professional development for inquiry-based science teaching and learning (Contributions from Science Education Research 5). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Davis, A. M., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1999.9672075.
Engström, S. (2008). Fysiken spelar roll! Undervisning om hållbara energisystem, fokus på gymnasiekursen fysik A [Physics plays a role! Instruction on sustainable energy systems, focus on the upper secondary course physics A]. Licentiate Thesis. Eskilstuna: Mälardalen University Press.
Groenke, S. L., & Paulus, T. (2007). The role of teacher questioning in promoting dialogic literary inquiry in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 141–164.
Guisti, B. M. (2008). Comparison of guided and open inquiry instruction in a high school physics classroom. Brigham Young: School of Technology Brigham Young University.
Guskey, T. R. (2010). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512.
Gyllenpalm, J., Wickström, P.-O., & Holmberg, S.-O. (2010). Nordic. Studies in Science Education, 6(1), 44–60.
Hallgren, L. (2010). Kemibrickor i ständig utveckling [Chemistry trays in continuous development] http://slidegur.com/doc/4901655/lisbeth-hallgrens-m%C3%A5lformulering
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London/New York/Melbourne/Auckland: Edward Arnold.
Holmberg, P. (2010). Text, språk och lärande. Introduktion till genrepedagogik [Text, language and learning. Introduction to genre pedagogy]. In M. Olofsson (Ed.), Symposium 2009. Genrer och funktionellt språk i teori och praktik (pp. 13–27). Stockholm: Stockholm universitets förlag.
Kouns, M. (2014). Hur lärare utvecklar språkinriktad fysikundervisning: en designstudie på gymnasiet [How teachers develop a linguistically oriented physics instruction: A design study in upper secondary school]. Malmö Studies in Educational Sciences No. 73, ISBN 978-91-7104-587-4. ISSN 1651-4513.
Liepina, I., & Jutvik, G. (2009). Education for change. En handledning för undervisning och lärande för hållbar utveckling [A manual for the teaching and learning of sustainable development]. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Hämtad i mars, 2011 från www.balticuniv.uu.se
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaums Associated.
Martin, J. R. (1993). Literacy in Science: Learning to handle text as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. Martin (Eds.), Writing Science: literacy and discursive power (pp. 166–202). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge – Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Osborne, J. (2006). Towards a science education for all: The role of ideas, evidence and argument. In Proceedings of the ACER conference: Boosting science learning – What will it take? Camberwell, VIC: ACER.
Ottander, C., & Ekborg, M. (2012). Students’ experience of working with socioscientific issues – A quantitative study in secondary school. Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1147–1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9238-1.
Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.
Sellgren, G. (Ed.). (2007). Lärande på hållbar väg [Learning the sustainbable way] Solna: Världsnaturfonden WWF.
Swedish National School Agency. (2012). Greppa språket – Ämnesdidaktiska perspektiv på fler språklighet [Grab the language! Didactic perspective on multilingualism]. http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2573
Thaiss, C. (2012). Origins, aims, and uses of writing programs worldwide: Profiles of academic writing in many places. In Writing Programs Worldwide: Profiles of Academic Writing in Many Places (pp. 5–22). Perspectives on Writing. Fort Collins.
Tschaepe, M. (2014). Guessing and scientific discovery: Hypothesis-generation as a logical process. Retrieved 2016-02-06 http://www.hopos2014.ugent.be/node/351.
UNECE. (2005). United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Strategy for education for sustainable development. CEP/AC.13/2005/3/Rev.1. Retrieved June 2009 at http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2005/cep/ac.13/cep.ac.13.2005.3.rev.1.e.pdf
UNESCO. (2011). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Retrieved July 2011 at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic, education and technology. Expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G., & Ball, T. (2008). Exploratory talk and dialogic inquiry. Exploring Talk in School, 13(2), 167–184.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univerisity Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Enghag, M., Engström, S., Brorsson, B.N. (2018). A Teacher Professional Development Programme on Dialogic Inquiry. In: Tsivitanidou, O., Gray, P., Rybska, E., Louca, L., Constantinou, C. (eds) Professional Development for Inquiry-Based Science Teaching and Learning. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91406-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91406-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91405-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91406-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)