QUESTIONING


 * =ASCD (TT) WORKSHOP ON QUESTIONING:=


 * This Workshop was Presented by Laila N. Boisselle and Thalia La-Guerre Ramdhial (equal **


 * authors/presenters) at the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) **


 * Trinidad and Tobago arm (TTASCD). ** || [[file:QUESTIONING WORKSHOP.pptx]] ||


 * 1. View the Materials and Use them to help you to construct a reflective journal entry about how you use questioning in your teaching. Remember to address the following points in your journal entry: **

Over the course of the next week you should reflect on your questioning as you teach.

Decide on what type of class you want to create.

Discuss the kinds of questions that you would ask, and how you need to use questioning in general, to create your vision of the ideal class. 

= =
 * 2. THE AFFECTIVE SIDE OF QUESTIONING: **


 * Watch the video and write down one thing that you have learnt about the importance of questioning in general **

media type="youtube" key="Ro9vDEZdQLk" width="583" height="364" align="center"

= = **3. BEGINNING TO LOOK AT OUR OWN QUESTIONING: **

Read the article and note some changes that you would like to begin to make in your teaching this week. Click the link: Questioning our Questioning

= = = = = = = 4. WHAT DO WE REALLY HOPE TO ACHIEVE WITH OUR QUESTIONING? =

** a. .. Let's see what Grover says.. ** media type="youtube" key="29QqgBVln-I" width="560" height="315"

**b. ..Let's check out some literature..**

The reference for the entire research article is: http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/urbanscience/papers/Teacher%20and%20Student%20Talk.htm and you can go ahead and read the whole thing if you're so inclined. I've pasted only the parts that are mandatory reading below:

**Findings** In my findings, I do three things. First I describe the major forms of talk observed in my study. Second, I analyze those forms of talk for messages about what science is in terms of: science and science learning, roles in the science classroom, and science literacy. Lastly, I discuss the aspects of talk that the students valued.

**(1) Major forms of talk** **//Direct questioning//** In whole class discussion, one of the patterns of talk that was observed and discussed by students is direct questioning. Direct questioning was centered on students’ understanding of the science content. With the use of props (whether it be the light switch, or a diagram on the board), Jonas poses a question to the students. He either calls on a student or the whole class replies. Jonas calls on both students who raise their hands and students who do not. If the response is answered correctly, Jonas praises the student, repeats the answer, or poses a following question. Jonas usually provides an explanation as to how or why the answer is appropriate. However if answer is incorrect, Jonas asks the student to rethink their answer and/or Jonas restates the question. When Jonas asks the student to reconsider his/her answer, he explains why the answer is incorrect or different from the answer that he is proposing. This pattern of talk can be found throughout the transcribed observation. For example, during discussion of switches, Mr. Jonas Linst had a diagram of a circuit on the board. Jonas asked, "What can I put in to turn the light bulb on and off. On and off. On and off. What will I put into the circuit ?, Amy.” Amy answered a switch. Jonas responded, “ a switch. Excellent Amy” and poses her another question, "Amy, where do you think I can put a switch? Can you put a switch in for me? Where show me? Draw a box where you want." Amy walked to the board and draws a switch close to the battery.   Another example of direct questioning was when Mr. Linst discussed with students the various things in the classroom that could be used to make a switch. Prior to this, Mr. Linst and I had planned for students to make a switch out of paper clips. Jonas asked the students, “What is something real common that I could give out to everybody?” Maurice replied, “ a penny.” Mr. Linst asked Maurice to reconsider his response as he explained, “Yah, would you be able to attach a wire to a penny? It might be really awkward to attach a wire to a penny.” Finally, Jonas called on “Tania.” Students proceeded to suggest the different things that might be used as a switch until one student finally suggested a paperclip. Mr. Linst proceeded to explain how a student might use a paperclip for a switch, “paperclips. If I had a paperclip and unwound it…” For the most part, direct questioning appears to be a talk pattern similar to the Triadic Dialogue discussed Lemke or the IRE/F pattern studied by Wells. Triadic Dialogue consists of Teacher Question, Teacher call for Bids, Student Bid to Answer, Teacher Nomination, Student Answer, Teacher evaluation, and Teacher Elaboration. (Lemke, 1990) Lemke (1990) proposes that the teachers’ repetition of the student’s answers, confirms that the answer is correct, thereby giving it a positive evaluation. Another form of positive evaluation is through the teacher responding with “Yes,” or “Good.” Lemke (1990) identifies the action of positive evaluation as the “most characteristic feature” of the Triadic Dialogue. He selects this characteristic, because it is unlike most ordinary conversations. For example, in a conversation, one might ask, “How old are you?” The conversational partner might reply, “45.” It would appear awkward for one to then reply, “Good” or “That’s right.” Similarly, direct questioning consists of students receiving a positive evaluation when they reply correctly. In the Triadic dialogue, the conversation continues until the students are able to achieve a positive response from the teacher. (Lemke, 1990) In the same way, direct questioning in Mr. Linst’s science class consists of the teacher attempting to elicit the correct response from the student. The dialogue in Mr. Linst’s classroom continues until students are able to present an accurate answer. The Triadic Dialogue pattern proposed by Lemke (1990) consists of the teacher remaining silent if the wrong response is given. Unless the teacher gives a positive response, students assume that the evaluation is negative. However unlike the Triadic Dialogue presented by Lemke, Jonas explains why the students’ answer is incorrect, ineffective, or different from the response that he was thinking of. One of the strengths of Mr. Linst’s classroom is that students are often given an explanation as to why the answer is accurate or inaccurate, allowing for logic and reasoning to be at the center of the class discussion. //Mr. Linst’s view of whole class talk:// When asked about the main science idea that he wanted to present to his students, Mr. Linst replied that he wanted to get his students “to be active in the process of inquiry. I want them to be able to think about a problem and how they can find the solution to that problem.” Mr. Linst was reflective of the whole class talk pattern in his classroom. He explained, “We do have whole class conversations. Obviously talking about science is central to learning about it... I think that’s just a little overwhelming for me, to have a conversation with thirty kids and try to remember where Janna was, or where Tanya was. To me that’s like too much. So the whole class conversations are directed, very directed almost fishing for an answer which is not necessarily the best way to teach but that’s where I’m at right now. Pose a question, take a bunch of answers, some of which are the right answer, some of which are the wrong answer, then sort through the answers with them, say, ‘Does this make sense?’” Mr. Linst is quite candid about his current teaching skills and sees learning to teach science as a process. **// Student sharing and planning //** Project time took place after a whole class discussion as students work with their group mates or partners. The talk patterns of student sharing and planning centered on the students’ engagement with the materials provided and their discussions with one another. Talk occurred between students, between groups, between the teacher and students, or between the teacher and the group. At the beginning of project time, Mr. Linst would present students with a challenge such as creating a switch. After doing this, students were able to investigate their own questions and try them out. Students were expected to negotiate with their partners and were given the opportunities to choose how they wanted to carry out the activity. For instance, Mr. Linst’s assessment for electricity consisted of students building a room with a partner. The groups were given the opportunity to choose what room of the house they wanted to build. They drew diagrams of the appliances in room and made lists of the materials that they would need. For example, Rachel was quite excited and adamant about having a tortilla maker in her kitchen. The students in her group were confused as to how they were going to illustrate it, but at the end were pleased with what they had decided on. Students also discussed with one another their plans for the project. At times it was as simple as one student suggesting to another ‘let’s do this.’ Other times the discussion was much more complex, such that students held a discussion at the beginning of project time as to what they want or plan to do. The group table then broke up into partner groups based on what the group members want to accomplish. This talk allowed students to present goals and expectations to one another. During this time, students also discussed their understanding, questions and ideas of the project or lesson. They talked about their observations, gave demonstrations to one another, and provided explanations about their projects to one another. Students were given the opportunity to walk around the classroom and hold discussions with other groups. For instance, when students worked on creating their switches, partners were given clay, batteries, wires, and paperclips. One group of students managed to get their switch to work by placing the two paperclips together. Students from other groups gathered around them to watch their switch. Another group made their switch by having the top wire press down on a bottom one. They called out to Mr. Linst, “I have a different one.” Over in another corner of the room, Grace and Crystal are working on Grace’s switch. Crystal has come over to help Grace. She explains to her, “yah because it needs to be touching the both of them.” During student sharing and planning, teachers walked to around the classroom and talked with students about their plans, accomplishments, and discoveries. Mr. Linst spent most of his time asking students questions about their circuit (how and why it worked in that particular way), listening to their explanations, encouraging students to work together, and assisting students in obtaining the necessary equipment. In a social studies lesson, Mr. Linst made it clear to students his expectations of student collaboration. He explained to students that the process of doing work together involved a dialogue with another student and that it was useless if they did not learn anything from the other person. During our class, Mr. Linst would remind students about the importance of working together, when it was clear that students working independently. // Mr. Linst’s view of student sharing and planning: // Mr. Linst believed that during project time, the talk allowed him to asses the students understanding. He suggests, “ if we feel that the child is understanding something, we can move on to the next question. If we feel the child is not showing us a good understanding of something, we can ask them to talk more about it, we can probe it, it’s a more dynamic way of assessing children, by talking to them. Much more fluid. This way each child can be assessed on their own strengths and weaknesses. Jonas explains that his role during project time was to allow them to explain what they were learning; “we just ask them questions and just get them to talk about it, what they know... And from what they’re talking about then we take our assessments based on where we take them further, and where they are, so its very student-directed conversations.” **(2) Analysis of science messages** **//Direct Questioning//** § // About science and science learning // //Answers:// Direct questioning in Mr. Linst’s classroom sends the message that science learning involves providing the right answers to the teacher. The teacher asks clear closed questions that often have only one correct answer. Whether the answer comes in the form of a vocabulary word (open/closed or series/parallel) or a reasoning, the focus of the class is centered on providing that particular response. For example, Jonas turned off the light and asked students “is it open or closed?” Students raised their hand and provided the correct response. Another example of this, was during a discussion about series and parallel circuits. Mr. Linst began the class with the question, “Last week in science we discussed two types of circuits… What are the names of the two types we discussed last week?” Mr. Linst called on Amy and she suggested, “ parallel .” By asking students to only provide an answer, the emphasis is placed on the students’ knowledge of the particular word or phrase. The message that is being sent to students is that science involves the “right answers” rather than a discussion of the process or reasoning. The conversation during direct questioning resembles more similarly an interview as opposed to a dialogue or discussion. Furthermore, the form of the talk pattern focuses on the students’ knowledge and presentation of the scientific answer as well as its adherence to the teacher’s idea of the answer. It conveys to students that scientific knowledge transpires through the passing of information. This may not allow the student to see how knowledge occurs within a specific context or that it does not emerge objectively. The teacher’s focus on the recitation of information also suggests to students that learning science takes place by being able to recall the information on demand. // Applicable: // During direct questioning, the questions Mr. Linst poses involve a particular situation or problem. By relating the questions and examples to situations, science appeared to be connected or applicable to the students’ environment or lives. In Mr. Linst’s class, science was not distant or abstract. For instance, one of the central questions in our study on electricity was the benefits and disadvantages to using a series and parallel circuits. We talked extensively about the different situations where they might be used. The tools we used in science were often found in the students’ classroom. When Mr. Linst wanted students to use a paperclip for their circuit’s switch, he proposed “Can someone think of something that we use commonly in the classroom that is made out of metal?” The students suggested different materials that could be used to make a switch. Mr. Linst replied to their ideas by giving reasons why that particular material was different from the one he was thinking of. Mr. Linst also used diagrams, tools, or props to convey his ideas or elicit a response. Through his use of diagrams and tools, students were able to see how science was tangible to their world or situation. One of lessons began with Mr. Linst switching the lights on and off, asking students if they believed the circuit was open or closed. When we discussed vocabulary words, Mr. Linst tried to give a clear definition that used examples of where students may have also heard that word. For instance, Mr. Linst asked students to name one of the kinds of circuits we had studied in our previous classes. One student suggested “series.” Mr. Linst then explained, “Series means in a row like the World Series is seven baseball games but the same teams in a row or the series of unfortunate events or I have the Harry Potter series or books that have 1, 2, 3, 4. Series are things that happen in a row…” (The students knew about Harry Potter and had been talking about it. ) The context upon which science was raised involved examples that were pertinent to the students’ lives. It conveyed to students that science involved making sense of the world them and was very much a part of their surrounds. This may also have portrayed science as constructive because it associated science with the happenings of every day life. § // About the roles in the science classroom // Students were asked to listen to questions or explanations and reiterate the correct responses that had been previously discussed. When called upon, they were to answer the teacher’s questions as students’ voices were limited to providing the answer. Students’ narrative authorities were underutilized as the emphasis was placed on the teacher’s positional authority and scientific authority. The teacher’s role during the class consisted of asking questions, selecting students, and providing feedback on students’ responses. It was assumed that the teacher knew the information, for he/she provided praise when students gave the correct response. During the discussion, the teacher usually explained the answers or the reasoning. Because the teacher took on the sole responsibility of confirming the scientific knowledge, he/she becomes the authority of scientific knowledge in this discourse. The teacher’s positional authority determined the pace of the discussion and the direction of the conversation. The teacher’s responsibility to provide the questions and his choice in selecting close-ended questions facilitated his/her control over the inquiry process. Thus, the science inquiry that took place in the classroom focused on students acquiring the accurate scientific knowledge and vocabulary. § // About science literacy // Direct questioning involved assessing students’ scientific knowledge. Rather than holding a discussion, the primary focus of direct questioning was to examine students’ understanding of the information and correct their answers. Student’s answers came in form of scientific knowledge and were acceptable because they were verified by the teacher. This pattern of talk sends a message to students that science literacy involves knowing particular science facts and vocabulary. Thus, it suggests that talk is important because of the scientific content discussed or the passing of science information. Since the talk focuses on students providing the correct response and students often have incorrect answers, students may also believe that science literacy is necessary because science involves students learning the right answers. Furthermore since students often present the “wrong answers,” students may have the impression that science is a difficult subject. **//Student sharing and planning//** § // About science and science learning // //Providing explanations:// Sharing and planning gives students the opportunities to explain or examine their goals and rationale. The discussion is centered on students’ sense making: students’ goals, their rationale for the work that they were doing, and their understanding of science content. During project times students share their ideas with their groups or partners. For instance, Rachel and her group had managed to get their series circuit to light. They started talking about how dim the lights were, so Rachel proposed, “I think we need to batteries to light up more.” As students work with the material, they discuss and explain their plans to one another as well as the teacher. For instance, in our final assessment project, students worked in groups planning and discussing their goals for their room and their understanding of the wiring. Furthermore, each group met with a teacher and explained their plans of the room and their reasons for using that wiring. Teachers focused on asking probing questions so that he/she could understand the student’s objectives for their room as well as encourage the student to think carefully about the implications of their plans. Embedded in this talk pattern is the idea that science involves creating plans/objectives and presenting a rationale or reasoning for their work. This pattern of talk suggests that science involves both reasoning and having reasons. This philosophy can be contrasted to the idea that science is just scientific facts and knowledge that ought to be learned or memorized. In addition, reasoning allows the students to see how the scientific facts connect to one another as well as how it might relate to their lives. Project time also involves students explaining their understanding to one another and to the teacher. Mr. Linst and I walk around the classroom, encouraging students to talk about what is happening in their project. For instance, I watched Andrew’s light bulb flickers on and off, so I posed the question to the students who were watching his work, “Oh, look its blinking, how did it do that?” Amy suggests “the little bit of clay.” The students and I watch Andrew’s light blink on and off as Angel proposes “the wire.” Ianna adds Angel’s comment, “ plus look their over” and she points to the wires that are overlapping and bouncing on one another. Andrew gets excited that his switch is finally working and he calls Mr. Linst to come over and see his switch finally work. During project time, Mr. Linst probes students on their understanding of the material. He often squats down so he can see their work and asks them questions about their project. For instance, Costos ’ motor continues to spin while he flicks his switch on and off. He was trying to see why the switch did not his control the motor. Mr. Linst approached his table, opened his switch, and asked him, “Let’s put it separate, you know you’re circuit right now, Is the switch open or close, Costos ?” Costos proposes “open.” Jonas explains “It’s open, look it still works, why does it still work if it’s still open?” Costos answers, “because of the battery?” Mr. Linst asks Costos, “so where can you put that to make the circuit work better” and points to the motor. Costos points to the side of his circuit which was next to the switch as Mr. Linst encourages him, “try it.” Through having conversations with students about their understanding of the material, student may come to understand that science involves more than just making observations or answers. During student sharing and planning, science involves explanations and comprehension. //Other sources of information:// During student sharing and planning, the talk allowed students to use books and one another as sources of information. Through encouraging students to talk with a friend or turn to the science literature for assistance, the authority of science or science knowledge is not solely placed on the teacher. Students approach one another for help. During our lesson, Grace struggled to make her switch work. Her friend, Crystal came by to assist her. After Crystal worked on the switch for a few moments, Grace explained that she wanted to try it out. Crystal watched Grace work on it and gave her suggestions about how paperclip needed to touch both the other paperclip and the wire. Students’ expertise in terms of having worked with the material was considered a source of knowledge or authority during student sharing and planning. For instance, when we began our study on electricity, the students were given the opportunity to make a circuit with batteries, wires, and circuits. I noticed one student explain to their partner, “Oh I know how to do it, I did it before at home.” Another example of a student valuing the importance of another student’s experience can be found during a student interview. Crystal explained, “Maurice is the one who helps me a lot, because he already did this so he is an expert.” During project time, students that had accomplished their work visited other tables and offered their help. Project time was more than just an opportunity for students to work with the materials. Through placing students in partners or groups, encouraging them to turn to another student for help, and allowing students to visit other table groups or the classroom library, students may come to see how there are other sources of authority in science. In the process of having students share and plan, students might come to know one another and themselves as doers and knowers of science. //Solutions:// During project time, the context of the talk allowed students to see the value in allowing for different projects as well as the necessity of problem-solving. In Mr. Linst lesson plans on switches, students approached the problem of making switches in different ways. Serena’s group made a switch that sat on the clay and joined the paperclips together, while Andrew had wires that overlapped and lit up. As Amy watched Andrew’s circuit, she asked him, “Aren’t you supposed to use clay?” Andrew answer, “ no, I don’t need to use clay” and called out for Mr. Linst to come and see his switch because it was “different.” Rather than there being one correct way of making a switch, the different switches were valued for their originality and creativity. This was different from Mr. Linst’s direct questioning which allowed for only one correct answer. Furthermore, students knew that materials provided were available for their use and creativity rather than a restriction as to how they were supposed to approach the problem. In every science lesson, students were given the opportunity to work with the batteries, wires, lights, and motors. Although students planned out ways of making their circuit work, there were often obstacles such as a dead battery, broken light bulb, or unattached wires that prevented their circuits from working. These challenges allowed students to see the importance of problem-solving in science. For instance, Saul and his group added a new battery with the hopes of making the lights on their series battery brighter. When the circuit failed to light up, Rachel began to suggest that perhaps the bulbs were broken. I explained that just a few moments ago they had lit up, so I believed that perhaps it was something else that was preventing the circuit from working and we continued to have a discussion about it. The context upon which science was raised involved presenting multiple solutions and problem solving. It conveyed to students that science allowed for different solutions or creations and that each was acceptable. It also suggested that the process of doing science was not always formulaic. Instead, the practise of science involves finding solutions as well as trial and error. Science was more than just drawing diagrams on maps, for as students tried to create their circuits, they began to realize that doing science involved adjusting their plans or finding a solution. § // About the roles in the science classroom // Students were asked to work with the materials and talk about their ideas, questions, or explanations to their. Project time included instances such as creating plans of a room they wanted to build, students making a list of the necessary materials, students construct a working switch, or students providing a rationale for their work. Student’s experiences with the materials or previous understanding of it were considered a source of knowledge in class as students were given the opportunity to share their stories. During project time, students allowed to walk around the room and look at other students’ work. They were encouraged to seek a friend/teacher’s help when they were struggling or assist another group when they had finished. Along with the freedom to move around the class, project time also gave students freedom in terms of talk. Students initiated conversations at their own time/place, with their own question, and with the person of their choice. The role that students were given can be contrasted to direct questioning in which the teacher decided whom s/he was speaking to and what the student was to answer about. Students were encouraged to be confident and clear about their goals and reasons with their group members and the teacher. As compared to direct questioning, students were given some opportunities to pose their own questions and carry out their investigations. Doing science involved a willingness to ask questions, try out their ideas, solve their own problems, and engage with the materials; so project time was more student centered and directed. Through allowing students to create their plans, direct the pace of their work, and provide explanations of their goals/rationale, students were given the authority to be doers of science, under their own terms. An important role that was given to students is that of collaborator. Students worked with partners or groups thus it was necessary for students learn to work together. Groups negotiated and discussed their ideas over what to do, how to do it, why something was happening, or what they needed. They were asked to turn to one another or another group for help as well as assist those who were struggling. Mr. Linst made it clear that negotiating and discussing was an important aspect of doing science. The teacher also helped in resolving conflicts between group members and facilitated discussions between students. The teacher’s role consisted of asking open-ended questions, resolving conflicts, obtaining materials for students, and helping students make sense of their projects. At times, the student would call on a teacher and ask them to help them figure out why the circuit was not working. Other times, the teacher would notice a struggling student and ask questions to probe his or her thinking. Since teachers assisted students in getting the materials and working with them, their role in the classroom consisted mostly of supporting the student’s work and questions. During project time, it was assumed that both the teacher and students had something important to say about the workings of the circuit. Student’s stories, questions, ideas, and solutions were welcomed and shared. Altogether, both teachers and students were seen as an authority of scientific knowledge. § // About science literacy // Through student sharing and planning, talk in science focused on students present their questions, ideas, goals, and understanding to others and the teacher. Students were also able to share their stories, explanations, or suggestions. Talk in science involved being able to communicate one’s ideas, goals or questions to another person. As compared to direct questioning where student were often asked to answer a question, the talk in project time was more open-ended. Talk in student sharing and planning also focused on negotiating and resolving conflict between group members. During a dispute, students were encouraged to present their sides and come up with a solution that satisfied both parties. Emphasis was placed on students being able to partner with any of the students in the classroom. The teacher would encourage students to be supportive of their partner’s questions or ideas and did not allow students to be rude or disrespectful to one another. Students knew that this type of behaviour would lead to sitting alone in the corner of the classroom library. **(3) Student Value** I also interviewed students to learn more about what they valued about these two forms of contrasting talk. Three or four ideas emerged as the strongest themes: (a) furthering student’s work, (b) the importance of listening, (c) learning through talk, (d) the necessity of talking in science **//(a) Furthering student’s work//** Three of the students discussed the importance of talk as part of their work doing science. Luis, Angel, and Costos proposed that talking with other students allowed them to further their science inquiry. Although all three students recognize the value of peer discussion, the students have different understandings as to how talk affects the outcome of their science inquiry: interesting experiments, easier process, “more smartness,” and an experiment that works. //Luis:// Luis explains that when he works with his group members, they discuss the process of doing the experiment; “I talk to my tablemates. How they should build this thing together.” He proposes that group discussion and sharing is necessary in science because it allows for him to have interesting and working experiments. Luis suggests that “If you don’t talk in science, ain’t going to be any interesting experiment… And nothing is going to work if you don’t talk in science.” In his explanation of a successful science student, Luis believes that the student is able to “share ideas with one another.” //Angel:// Angel enjoys working on the projects with partner because there were “two brains (and that is better than one of course).” In her interview, she discusses the process of working and negotiating with her partners, suggesting that when “you are working with someone else with another brain and when your ideas come together, you’ll have disagreements and conversations about what you are doing…you get to listen to your partner’s ideas and they get to listen to yours and you come together with an agreement and then about the experiment and I get to talk a lot with my partner about the experiment…” Angel also notes how group discussion allows her to get help from friends when the teacher is busy. Angel believes that group discussion allows for “more smartness out of two people and then you are able more easier to do the work.” Angel sees the value of group discussion and work, because of the capacity or capability of doing better work when two people are involved and the process of doing science is easier. //Costos// //:// Costos believes that the process of doing science involves a discussion with his partner. When asked “what science is,” Costos proposes that science involved projects and experiments, such that experiments had to be done “in class, because if you take it home, you are not going to tell what’s happening to your partner.” Costos proposes that learning in science happened through whole class discussion and sharing of group information. He counts on the work done by his other groups to help him with his work. He suggests, “If you don’t get something, Mr. Linst, we have a conversation and then we, some other tables that have figure it out, they tell the whole class then we try it and if it does work then great.” **//(b) The Importance of Listening//** In their interview, Grace and Tania discuss the importance of listening to the teacher’s understanding of the science content or how the student can accomplish the task. The two students appear to have different reasons for listening to the teacher. //Tania:// Tania believes that the teacher should “tell them (students) what the science teacher knows so that they can learn.” Throughout her interview, Tania discusses the importance of a science teacher in teaching students and even scientists what they are to learn about science. Tania’s view of science and science learning places an emphasis on understanding the science content. This view of science and science learning also shapes or is shaped by her understanding of talk in the science classroom. When asked why we talk in the science, Tania answers, “so we can pass the test.” How does Tania feel about the test? She replies “nervous,” explaining that, “I am afraid that I am gonna fail it, yah.” //Grace:// Grace explains that during whole class discussion, “we talk a lot about the experiment.” She believes that the whole class talk consists of sharing their ideas “of what we are going to do” and the teacher demonstrating or giving “an example of what you are going to do.” Graces believes that this is done in order to make it easier on the student as she spoke about the teachers doing it the “easy way” When asked how it is we learn science, Grace points to listening as an important part of learning science. She explains that in a science classroom, students “actually learn by listening. We learn important stuff, if you don’t listen you might know nothing, you might get caught up in oh really bad.” Grace proposes that even scientists learn through listening. She believes that through listening one is able to learn from another person who knows the material. Knowing the material leads to being “a better person in life and doing the right thing.” However, if one does not learn, that person may get into trouble. **//(c) Learning through talk//** One of the themes that emerged from the data was the value of student discussion for it allowed students to learn through talking about the material. Most of the students discussed the importance of student sharing and planning in terms of being able to listen to and have the assistance of another student. Alongside this, student sharing and planning also allows students to learn through discussing or sorting through their ideas. //Angel:// Angel enjoys working in groups because, “you have somebody to talk to and let your ideas come out. And say that’s okay, that’s right. It’s better working with someone else than working by yourself .” Angel notes the value of group discussion for it is a place where she can talk, present and organize her thoughts. She also is aware of how another student’s assistance or affirmation can help her. **//(d) The Necessity of talking in science//** Whole class discussion focuses on students providing the right answer to the teacher. Christopher believes that talk is important because students often get the answer wrong. He relates the students’ ability to respond to the teachers question to the need for more talk in the science classroom. //Christopher:// During an interview with Christopher, he explained to me that we talked a lot in science because most of the time students got the answers wrong. As he suggests that students talked the most in science “because when the teacher asks some questions, then the kid over there gets it wrong then another guy has to try and another guy until someone gets it right,” Christopher points around the room noting the different students that have tried to answer the teacher’s question. Christopher compares science to math and social studies and suggests that science required more talk, because “most of the people get it wrong.” Christopher’s view of whole class talk and science illustrates how some students may understand science as a more difficult subject. **Discussion and Implications** In Mr. Linst’s science classroom, the talk and activities shaped the type or kind of science that was valued. During direct questioning, the students’ knowledge of science content was essential, while in student sharing and planning, the process of doing science was more important. The major patterns of talk sent two different messages about what science means, how we do science, what science is, and who does science. These two discourses set up different value systems, such that students were asked to code-switch and take up different roles in the settings. Thus, elementary science teachers and science educators should consider what it is they want their students to know about science. Secondly, it is important as science educators to learn about where teachers are in the process of learning how to conduct a science discussion. Through my time working with Jonas, I have seen him try to move from direct questioning to a whole class teacher-student conversation. Teachers should be given the support they need to build their teaching pedagogy and be provided with opportunities to practice how they might talk in the classroom. Lastly, changing the talk in the science classroom also involves understanding the students’ expectations and views of science. One particular student (that did not appear to be interested or engaged with the materials or the project activities) had a very different perspective of science. In her interview, Tania spoke about how science was learned through the science teachers providing the information (as to what they needed to know and what they were supposed to do). Tania was more concerned about fourth-grade science test and whether or not she knew or understood the material for it. Thus, from her perspective, the process of doing science did not involve working with or learning through using the science materials. In order to understand the science talk, we should consider the students’ understandings of science for they two shape the classroom dialogue. As teachers, we should also work towards explaining our own ideas about science to the students.