Learning science in small groups: The relationship of conversation to conceptual understanding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between conversation and conceptual understanding of erosion. The objective of this study was to investigate how fifth grade students' conceptions of erosion changed while they used stream tables and worked in groups of four within an inquiry-based curriculum. This study used symbolic interactionism and sociocognitive frameworks to interpret science learning in the elementary classroom. The research focused on the conceptual understanding of the focal group students, their use of classroom discourse to talk about their understandings of erosion, and the expertise that emerged while using stream tables. This study took place over a one-semester long study on erosion. Key informants were eight fifth graders. The data sources consisted of children's journals; transcripts of audiotaped interviews with the key informants before, during, and after the erosion unit; transcripts of videotapes of the students using the stream tables; and field notes recording children's discourse and activity. Individual and group cases were constructed during the study. The knowledge of the eight focal group children was placed on a hierarchy of conceptual understanding that contained 8 components of the erosion process. All four of the students whose ideas were examined in depth gained in their conceptual understanding of erosion. Students' individual expertise enhanced their own conceptual understanding. The contribution of classroom discourse and expertise to conceptual understanding differed between the two focal groups. Group 1 used essential expertise to sustain generative conversations, maximizing their learning opportunities. Students in Group 1 got along with one another, rotated assigned roles and jobs, and were able to start their own generative conversations. Members of Group 1 asked generative questions, connected stream table events to real life situations, and involved everyone in the group. Group 2 engaged in a predominance of procedural discourse and had fewer learning opportunities. Group 2 had two dominant personalities who developed a conflict over roles and jobs, keeping their peers out of the conversation. Students in Group 2 had generative conversations, but these were not sustained due to the lack of acknowledgment of peer expertise and the starting their own generative conversations.
Degree
Ph.D.
Advisors
Krockover, Purdue University.
Subject Area
Science education|Elementary education
Off-Campus Purdue Users:
To access this dissertation, please log in to our
proxy server.