DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A

MING-CHIN HSIN, SUNG-PEI CHIEN, YIN-SHAO HSU, CHEN-YUNG LIN and LARRY D. YORE

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A TAIWANESE COMMUNICATION PROGRESSION IN SCIENCE EDUCATION Received: 6 April 2014; Accepted: 17 October 2014

ABSTRACT. Common core standards, interdisciplinary education, and discipline-specific literacy are common international education reforms. The constructive–interpretative language arts pairs (speaking–listening, writing–reading, representing–viewing) and the communication, construction, and persuasion functions of language are central in these movements. This research developed and validated a communication progression in science education for elementary–secondary schooling in Taiwan. The framework for the communication progression was based on relevant literature, international curricula, and focus-group deliberations; it consisted of three dimensions: presentation, reaction, and negotiation. Delphi deliberations with questionnaires were applied to experts to evaluate the theoretical considerations and to experienced science teachers to evaluate the practical considerations. Results confirmed the importance of communications in science learning and the developmental nature of communications across elementary, middle, and secondary schools and validated the proposed framework and progression. The communication progression has application to other international education systems as they address common core standards and curricula in language and science. KEYWORDS: communication progression, functions of language, national curricula, science education

Communication is identified in many science curricula as an umbrella learning outcome that involves more than the narrow meaning (sharing, reporting, publicizing, etc.) by identifying the multiple purposes of language in doing and learning science. Some curricula use communication without clearly defining its intentions or establishing links to science literacy, nature of science, information communication technologies (ICT), and pedagogical practices. Reporting and sharing ideas (communicative function), negotiating and constructing understanding (epistemic function), and persuading others and critiquing their claims (rhetoric function) illustrate objectives in effective science classrooms. Furthermore, communication has been identified as an essential science and engineering practice in the K–12 framework for science education in the United States of America (USA; United States National Research Council [NRC], 2012); and it may serve to encourage many teachers to teach science, use oral and written discourse Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10763-0149589-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2014 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2014

MING-CHIN HSIN ET AL.

more effectively, and differentiate their science instruction (Shymansky, Wang, Annetta, Yore & Everett, 2012; Tobin & Tippett, 2014). This study addressed the lack of clarity and missing links within the context of science classrooms in Taiwan that introduced communication as a basic ability and learning outcome in the Grades 1–9 Curriculum (Taiwan Ministry of Education [MOE], 2008). However, the communications and their purposes in science classrooms were not well-documented and understood nor was there a validated communication progression in science education to help guide curriculum development and instructional decisions. BACKGROUND The preliminary framework for this study was structured on relevant literature and the Taiwanese and international curricula with similar intentions. This framework was then examined and modified using focus group discussions and Delphi deliberations. Communication in Science Education Science education reforms worldwide have promoted science literacy, interpretations of how people learn, and uses of assessment for, of, and as learning. ‘Vision III of Science Literacy for All’ goes beyond this idea as a slogan to an integrated, dynamic framework of fundamental literacy in science, science understanding, and fuller participation in the public debate about socioscientific issues resulting in informed decisions and sustainable actions. This vision of science literacy explicitly places language and communication in a central position of fundamental literacy and emphasizes the communicative, epistemic, and rhetoric roles of language in learning science. Contemporary interactive–constructive or social constructivist views of learning place different emphases on the ontological and epistemological features of science and functions of communications (Henriques, 1997). Communication in science education reflects the essence of constructivism and nature of science (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Hughes & Daykin, 2002). Constructivism embodies the essence of successful communication: interacting and understanding, and the affordances of ICTs to collect, interpret, and analyze experiences (Hughes & Daykin, 2002; Stocklmayer, 2001). Essentially, knowledge is established by negotiating and constructing ideas through speaking–listening, writing– reading, representing–viewing, and public and private meaning-making (Henriques, 1997). Multiple types of communication and transformation

DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNICATION PROGRESSION

amongst these can increase students’ critical thinking and active learning when they are motivated and engaged in learning. Nature of science (NOS) has been studied as an important goal, and teaching, learning, and assessment of NOS have been priority topics in science education worldwide (Lederman, 2007). Although there might not be agreement amongst NOS researchers, the ontology (requirements and limitations of the knowledge system) and epistemology (ways of knowing) of science should be critical influences on science curricula and instructional decisions. Ontological considerations require the proper use of scientific metalanguage, procedures, and genres for examining and explaining nature and naturally occurring events. Epistemology considers the logic, plausible reasoning, and methods for collecting and interpreting data and justifying knowledge claims within the limitations of science. Functions of Language Functional systemic linguistics has found that science and scientists use language and produce text with unique forms and functions, which suggests that learning science involves experiences being reconstructed through public and private language. Carlsen (2007) provided a framework to illustrate these communicative, constructive, and argumentative functions of language in science education. Communication. Communication in science is taken as a process in which a sender transmits a message to a receiver explaining in two perspectives: interpersonal and intrapersonal. Scientists use a variety of common and unique methods to share, display, and report their questions, procedures, findings, and explanations. Peer-reviewed products are amongst the most valued and trusted, and the knowledge production cycle (production, peer review, feedback, and revision) improves the quality of the communication and might shape or modify the central ideas in the message. Modern ICTs have changed how communications are produced and how the products are reported, critiqued, and modified. Construction. Construction in science illustrates the process of negotiation in making senses of the experiences in doing and learning science in inquiry-oriented environments and dealing with sociocultural issues. Beebe, Beebe & Redmond (2005) explained that negotiation is a process in which individuals or groups exchange proposals and interact with each other to create understanding and agreement or to achieve a goal. The negotiation of meaning occurs across multiple formats as students


deliberate with peers to reach agreement, and it involves personal meanings, comparing, critiquing and analyzing data interpretations, and reflecting on their ideas and those of others reported elsewhere (Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif & Sams, 2004). Presenting and representing in negotiation within a social context help participants to construct and validate their concept and claims in learning science. Argumentation. Aristotle’s reference to rhetoric as means of persuasion is the historical and academic foundation and function of language as argument. Argumentation is a tradition for knowledge acquisition and public debate of socioscientific issues that involves reasoning with evidence (Erduran, Simon & Osborne, 2004; Kuhn, 2010; Lin, 2014). Toulmin’s (2003) pattern of argumentation (data, claim, backings, warrants, qualifier, counterclaim, and rebuttal) has served as a basic model, and it has been widely studied in science education research. However, the presence or absence of these elements does not fully document the quality of an argument. Argumentation studies involving constructing and engaging in an argument have demonstrated enhanced conceptual understanding and a progression of argument skills and strategies for students from different school levels. Felton & Kuhn (2001) structured a coding scheme to record the argumentative dialogue including transactive questions, transactive statements, and nontransactive statements. An individual’s ability to support a claim can be measured and noted by the type of responses made. Kuhn & Udell (2003) suggested three aspects that argumentation skills can be advanced: the quantity of reasons, the quality of argument, and the quality of argumentative discourse. International Curricula Communication has drawn attention from many countries regarding the reforms and curricula in language arts, mathematics, social studies, technology, and science that stressed disciplinary literacy. Comparisons of national science curricula from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, England, and the USA indicated common targets (all students), goals (science literacy involving conceptual understanding, literacy abilities in science, and applications of these understandings and abilities to socioscientific issues), pedagogical intentions such as constructivism, and authentic assessments (of, for, and as) learning. These curricula emphasized the importance of language and ICTs to communicate, construct meaning, persuade others, and support learning within


constructivist-oriented environments. Inspection of the national curricula from Australia (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACAR], 2012), Finland (Finnish National Board of Education [FNBE], 2004, p 118–194), England (United Kingdom Department for Education [UKDE], 2013), and the USA (NRC, 1996) provided illustrations of communication learning outcomes. The following analysis states the outcome, education level where possible, and page location; it indicates emphasis: communication function (CF), knowledge construction function (KCF), persuasion function (PF), or a combination of two or more functions. First, the ACARA (2012) includes communication in the science inquiry skills under Share observations and ideas with grade-specific expectations. All of the standards appear to emphasize the communicative function of language. They specify that students should: Present and communicate observations and ideas in a variety of ways such as oral and written language, drawing and roleplay. (Years 1–2, p. 22) (CF) Represent and communicate ideas and findings in a variety such as diagrams, physical presentations, and simple reports. (Years 3–4, p. 29) (CF) Communicate ideas, explanations, and processes in a variety of ways, including multi-modal texts. (Years 5–6, p. 38) (CF) Communicate ideas, findings, and solutions to problems using scientific language and representations using digital technologies as appropriate. (Years 7–8, p. 50) (CF) Communicate scientific ideas and information for a particular purpose, including constructing evidence-based arguments and using appropriate scientific language, conventions, and representations. (Years 9–10, p. 62) (CF) Second, Finland provided a broader view of the communication as strategies (FNBE, 2004). Its curriculum presents communicative and constructive functions of language. The following learning outcomes were provided without grade-specific expectations: The pupils will draw and interpret maps, and use statistics, diagrams, pictures, and electronic messages as sources of geographic information. (p. 177) (CF) The pupils will learn to use scientific knowledge in describing, comparing, and classifying concepts from the fields of physics and chemistry. (p. 186) (KCF)


The pupils will learn to make, compare, and classify observations, measurements, and conclusions; to present and test a hypothesis; and to process, present, and interpret results, at the same time putting information and communication technology to good use. (p. 189) (KCF) The pupils will learn to describe and model chemical reactions with the aid of reaction equations. (p. 192) (CF) Third, communication is identified as an essential competence in England’s current national curriculum for science that emphasizes science knowledge and literacy ability (UKDE, 2013). It addressed all three functions of language and highlights developing an argument. At Key Stages (KS) 1 (age 5–7 years) and 2 (age 7–11 years), students are expected to: Read and spell scientific vocabulary at a level consistent with their increasing word-reading and spelling knowledge at key stage. (KS 1) (CF) Read and spell scientific vocabulary correctly and with confidence, using their growing word-reading and spelling knowledge. (KS 2) (CF) Read, spell, and pronounce scientific vocabulary correctly. (KS 2) (CF) In Key Stages 3 (age 11–14 years) and 4 (aged 14–16 years), students are expected to: Develop their use of scientific vocabulary, including the use of scientific nomenclature and units and mathematical representations. (KS 3) (CF) Present observations and data using appropriate methods, including tables and graphs. (KS 3) (CF) Interpret observations and data, including identifying patterns and using observations, measurements, and data to draw conclusions. (KS 3) (CF) Present reasoned explanations, including explaining data in relation to predictions and hypotheses. (KS 3) (KCF) Evaluate data, showing awareness of potential sources of random and systematic error. (KS 3) (KCF) Identify further questions arising from their results. (KS 3) (PF) Finally, in the USA, the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) suggested that communication was part of science as inquiry to construct and communicate ideas. It provided grade-specific expectations: Students begin developing the abilities to communicate, critique, and analyze their work and the work of other students. (Level K–4, p. 122) (CF and KCF)


Students need opportunities to present their abilities and understanding and to use the knowledge and language of science to communicate scientific explanations and ideas. Writing, labelling, drawing, completing concept maps, developing spreadsheets, and designing computer graphics should be a part of science education. (Level 5–8, p. 144) (CF and KCF) With practice, students should become competent at communicating experimental methods, following instructions, describing observations, summarizing the results of other groups, and telling other students about investigations and explanation. (Level 5–8, p. 148) (CF) Students in school science programs should develop the abilities associated with accurate and effective communication. These include writing and following procedures, expressing concepts, reviewing information, summarizing data, using language appropriately, developing diagrams and charts, explaining statistical analysis, speaking clearly and logically, constructing a reasoned argument, and responding appropriately to critical comments. (Level 9–12, p. 176) (CF and KCF) The new framework for science education identifies communicationrelated science and engineering practices, which include all three functions of language (NRC, 2012, p. 42): 1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) (CF) 7. Engaging in argument from evidence (PF) 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (KCF) Therefore, communication in these national curricula have addressed many aspects including presentation, multiple representations, use of science language and terminology, expressing and sharing ideas, using ICTs, seeking information and evidence, and structuring arguments, critiques, and judgments. These examples illustrate the multiple functions of language under the communication umbrella including presenting, sharing ideas, constructing understandings, arguing, and persuading. The USA’s framework provided a much more essential and central role of language and communication as a science and engineering practice and consideration of the constructive–interpretative functions of language in science. Collectively, these ideas outline the essential structure of a progression for communications. Delphi Technique The Delphi technique involves a systematic, multiple-round deliberation, and collaborative approach to providing, assessing, and synthesizing


individuals’ contributions to a problem-solving process (Hsu & Sandford, 2007). In the first round, participants respond to a survey, and the responses are summarized into a second survey. In the second round, the same participants reflect and reconsider the collective opinions of the previous round. Modifications and clarifications are made. Consensus can be achieved after several rounds.

RESEARCH DESIGN This three-part study developed and verified a framework for communications in science education that indicated the progression for Grades 3–6, 7–9, and 10–12 students. First, the preliminary framework was developed and critiqued by a focus group. Second, the preliminary framework was examined further using a Delphi technique with theoretical experts (university researchers) and practical experts (experienced science teachers) separately. Third, data collected were interpreted using distinct methods of analysis to validate communication progression in science education. Part 1: Development of the Preliminary Framework of the Communication Progression The literature review and international and national curricula were combined to develop a framework for the communication progression that adapted and demonstrated three phases of communication: presentation, reaction, and negotiation. Presentation includes message transmission, reaction represents feedback from peers, and negotiation involves dialogic interaction and discussion. Furthermore, the quality and multiple dimensions of argumentation, cognitive demands, and functions of communication were applied to establish and distinguish the learning progression for different school levels. A focus group was recruited that consisted of two professors whose expertise included science education, earth science, and life science; two researchers whose expertise included communication, science education, and statistics; and two research assistants who held master’s degrees in science education. Regular meetings were held to review and discuss the literature and curricula; further information and documents were introduced as the deliberations progressed. The framework was structured on the quality of argumentation, cognitive demands, language functions, communication theory, and curricula.


The focus group provided performance indicators for different concepts and school levels within the learning progression. The progression starts at Year 3 because, in Taiwan, kindergarten is not part of compulsory education and science is not formally considered in Grades 1 and 2. The preliminary framework and progression (Table 1) suggested that elementary school students should learn to state their opinions based on science experience; (b) junior high school students should learn to state their opinions in multiple ways using science theories or evidence, and they should learn to indicate reasons for their opinions; and (c) senior high school students should identify the different communication objectives then choose appropriate approaches and systematically present their opinions. Part 2: Delphi Deliberations The initial framework for the communication progression needed to be validated. Therefore, a Delphi survey using a questionnaire was conducted with two different groups (science education experts and experienced science teachers) consisting of two rounds with each group to focus on theoretical and practical issues separately and sequentially. Questionnaire for the Science Education Experts. The authors developed an initial questionnaire consisting of 17 items based on the preliminary framework for the first Delphi session with the science education experts. Likert-type items with a five-point response scale required them to rate the importance of each component in the preliminary progression as either strongly important (5), important (4), neutral (3), unimportant (2), or strongly unimportant (1). In order to avoid misunderstanding by the target audience, proper wording of statements was considered essential. Therefore, an open response was provided during the first round for each item where the experts could identify confusing ideas and propose wording changes. For example, item 1.3—Students can indicate clear reasons to their claims—was modified to: Students can indicate reasons to their opinions. The wording of a few items was slightly modified after the first round. The modified items were presented for the second round of science education expert deliberations to establish the importance of each communication component in the progression (Expert Questionnaire is available on the Electronic Supplemental Materials [ESM] website). Questionnaire for the Experienced Science Teachers Experts. The second session of Delphi was conducted with experienced science teachers from elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. The

C1.1 Students can state their own opinions based on science experience.

C2.1 Students can state their support or disagreement to peers’ opinions based on science experiences.

C3.1 Students can exchange their opinions with peers based on science experiences.

1. Presentation

2. Reaction (support and disagree)

3. Negotiation

C3.2 Students can understand peers’ opinions and explain the similarities and dissimilarities of these opinions.

3–6, Elementary

Phase

School years and level

C3.4 Students can confirm the key point of each other’s ideas and try to generate opinions with science theories and evidence.

C1.3 Students can indicate reasons for their opinions. C2.2 Students can express their support and add to their peers’ opinions based on science theories and evidence. C2.3 Students can understand peers’ opinions and point out the unreasonable aspects based on logical thinking. C2.4 Students can criticize peers’ opinions and raise alternative ideas based on science theories and evidence. C3.3 Students can exchange their opinions with peers based on science theories and evidence.

C1.2 Students can state their opinions in multiple ways using science theories or evidence.

7–9, Junior high

Preliminary science communication progression

TABLE 1

C3.5 Students can negotiate for principles that allow them to evaluate multiple perspectives of views from their peer learners. C3.6 Students can create theoretically scientific originated arguments, based on the negotiated principles from their peer learners.

C2.6 Students can reflect on or criticize their own or peers’ ideas to generate new opinions after summarizing the evaluation.

C1.4 Students can identify the different communication objectives and choose appropriate approaches to achieve these objectives. C1.5 Students can systematically present their opinions. C2.5 Students can evaluate their own and peers’ opinions with various science theories and evidence.

10–12, Senior high



questionnaire aimed to investigate student achievement rate and to establish the placement of each component in the communication progression. Likert-type items and a five-point response scale for the 17 components were developed for the teacher experts to indicate the estimated achievement rate for their current students (Teacher Questionnaire is available on the ESM website). The achievement rate of each item was considered to locate each component in the progression at the appropriate school level. For example, item C1.1 stated and requested the respondents to identify the success rate based on their experience, Students can state their own opinions based on experience. The percentage that students can achieve: □0–20 %; □20–40 %; □40– 60 %; □60–80 %; □80–100 %. Results of the first round were summarized and presented in the second round to the same experts to confirm the placement. Part 3: Development of the Final Communication Progression The final version of the communication progression was developed using the Delphi data to modify the wording and school-level placement of each communication component. The science education experts’ feedback on importance was used to modify the components in the progression, while the teacher experts’ feedback on achievability of the communication components was used to position each component within the progression. Participants and Data Collection There were two groups of participants in the Delphi deliberations. The science education expert group was formed by science and science education professors and researchers from several Taiwanese universities. A nationwide list of 62 experts was compiled by the focus group. All experts were invited to complete a questionnaire and to provide feedback on the wording of the progression statements. Hard copies of the questionnaire were sent to participants by post with a return envelope enclosed. The first round resulted in 53 of the 62 questionnaires being completed and returned (86 % return rate); the second round resulted in 45 of the 53 questionnaires being completed and returned (85 % return rate); the composite return rate was 73 % (45 of 62). These results were taken as reasonable indications of experts’ opinions of the items’ importance and appropriateness. The second expert group was formed by inviting 98 experienced science teachers from elementary (n = 32), junior high (n = 32), and senior high (n = 34) schools who had attended advisory meetings for


compulsory education in every municipal or county education bureau focused on improving science education or organizing workshops for local science teachers or who had attended workshops or took courses at National Taiwan Normal University. Hard copies of the questionnaire requesting teachers to rate the achievability of each communication component in the progression were sent to participants by post with a return envelope enclosed. The first round of Delphi deliberations resulted in 84 of the 98 questionnaires being completed and returned (86 % return rate); the second round resulted in 65 of the 84 questionnaires being completed and returned (77 % return rate); the overall return rate was 65 % (65 of 98). The teachers’ responses were taken as reasonable indication of achievability of the communication components in the progression.

DATA ANALYSIS

AND

RESULTS

Data analyses were conducted; the results are presented separately for the two Delphi surveys about theoretical and practical issues. First, the survey of science education experts and, second, the survey of experienced science teacher experts are reported. Science Education Experts’ Delphi Survey The Delphi survey of science education experts assessed the importance with Likert-type questionnaire items and the wording of each component for the open-end questions. Descriptive statistics (mean, mode) were calculated as the first step in the analysis (science education expert results for each item are available on the ESM website). All items in the preliminary framework (Table 1) were kept for the second round due to the high importance assigned to each item by these experts. An average score greater than 4.1 indicates a tendency toward importance. Wording of the items was modified using suggestions from the first round to form the second questionnaire. The average score for second deliberations was 4.2, indicating that the experts confirmed the importance assigned earlier. Thus, the experts’ consensus was that the progression components were important. N-Vivo (www.qsrinternational.com) was used to categorize the science education experts’ opinions on the wording of each statement. Slight modifications were made to maximize clarity and avoid misunderstanding. The experts’ results supported previous research that suggested more


attention should be given to communication issues in science curricula and the importance of the communication components articulated in many international curricula. Experienced Teacher Experts’ Delphi Survey The questionnaire responses from teacher experts were analyzed to verify or modify the school-level placement of the communication components in the progression. The distributions of teachers’ opinions regarding students’ achievement were varied but consistent over two Delphi rounds of deliberations. The results of the teachers’ ratings for 17 items from round 2 were categorized into three school levels using two analyses: kmeans cluster analysis (Hartigan & Wong, 1979) and sorting algorithm (Shiau & Yang, 2000). The k-means cluster was designed for dividing data into clusters where the within-cluster sum of squares was minimized; therefore, the k-means cluster identified data with high homogeneity located in the same group. The data from elementary school teachers were analyzed first to identify the components with higher achievement ratings, which represents the easier components labeled as items suitable for elementary school students. Second, after excluding these components, data from the junior high school teachers were analyzed to identify the components that would be appropriate for junior high students. Third, after the two k-means cluster analyses, the remaining components were allocated for senior high school students. Table 2 presents the 17 components listed as a progression for elementary, junior, and senior high schools (complete data available on the ESM website). Additionally, there was an interesting pattern across the components in which there was a drop between elementary and junior high school teachers and then an increase for senior high school teachers regarding expectations of students’ achievement rates. The sorting algorithm was enlisted to verify the school-level placement for each component, using the expected achievement rates from the three teachers groups. The data were ranked from high to low. Items that achieved rates 950 % from elementary school teachers were appropriate for elementary school. After excluding these items, data from junior high school teachers were listed in accordance with the achievement ratings. Achievement ratings 9/= to 21 % for the remaining items were identified as appropriate for junior high; achievement ratings G/= 20 % were allocated to the senior high school category (complete results available on ESM website). Results indicate the achievement ratings from high to low, representing the difficulty of the components. Therefore, the framework


placed the easiest components at Grades 3–6, the middle difficult components at Grades 7–9, and the difficult components at Grades 10–12. The Kappa (κ) statistic was applied to explore the relative positions of components from the k-means cluster and sorting algorithm approaches (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). The κ coefficient was high at 0.82, which suggests that the two-analyses approach for the final framework shared very strong agreement about the school-level placement of the components. Furthermore, there was a significant correlation between kmeans cluster ratings and the sorting algorithm results with the preliminary framework. Post hoc explorations of the agreement between the placement data for the components from the two approaches were explored using Spearmen rank-order correlation that yielded significant (p G .001) rho coefficients of .75 (preliminary framework) and .81 (final framework), which indicated that the three school-level placements were in agreement and the final framework was an improvement. Therefore, teachers’ opinions about the frameworks were consistent. Modifications and Revisions to Produce the Final Communication Progression The verified communication progression was produced during focus group discussions after the Delphi deliberations and data analyses. Some components were relocated to different school stages from the initial framework based on these considerations (Table 2). Bolded items C1.2, C1.3, C2.2, and C3.3 were transferred from junior high to elementary school, since the participating teachers considered those items more suitable for Grades 3–6 students. Items C1.4, C1.5, and C2.5 were relocated to junior from senior high school, since the participating teachers believed these items were better suited for Grades 7–9 students. These relocations left items C2.6, C3.5, and C3.6 at the senior high school level and judged to be appropriate indicators for Grades 10–12 students.

DISCUSSION

AND IMPLICATIONS

International science education reforms, curricula, and scholarship have identified communications as a central component of science literacy for all and of critical science and engineering practices that need learning progressions to guide curriculum development and classroom instruction. This study revealed that communication in learning science is much

C1.1 Students can state their own opinions based on science experience. C1.4 Students can tell the difference of communication objectives and choose appropriate approach. C1.5 Students can systematically present their opinions.

Years 7–9 junior high school

Years 10–12 senior high school

Bolded items were transferred from junior high to elementary school

C1.2 Students can state their opinions in multiple ways using science theories or evidence. C1.3 Students can indicate reasons for their opinions. C2.1 Students can state their support or C2.3 Students can understand peers’ C2.6 Students can reflect or criticize self or 2. Reaction opinions and point out the unreasonable peers’ ideas to generate new opinions disagreement to peers’ opinions based (support and after summarizing the evaluation. based on logical thinking. disagree) on science experiences. C2.2 Students can express their support C2.4 Students can criticize peers’ opinions and also add on to peers’ opinions and raise alternative ideas based on based on science theories and evidence. science theories and evidence. C2.5 Students can evaluate self and peers’ opinions with various science theories and evidence. 3. Negotiation C3.1 Students can exchange their opinions C3.4 Students can confirm the key point C3.5 Students can negotiate the principles with peers based on science experiences. of each other’s ideas and try to generate of evaluation from multiple aspects. opinions with science theories and evidence. C3.2 Students can understand peers’ C3.6 Students can agree on the opinions opinions and explain the similarities with science theories and evidence based and dissimilarities. on principle of evaluation. C3.3 Students can exchange their opinions with peers based on science theories and evidence.

1. Presentation

Years 3–6 elementary school

Validated communication progression in science education for elementary, junior high, and senior high school students

TABLE 2



broader than just reporting and sharing ideas and, when applied to the Taiwanese national science education curriculum for Grades 3–12, revealed a theoretically sound and practical progression of learning outcomes. The main findings of this study suggest that (a) Taiwanese science education experts believed that the communication outcomes identified were important goals for science education; (b) experienced science teacher experts believed the elementary, junior high, and senior high school students could achieve the communication outcomes identified; and (c) the communication outcomes could be reliably arranged into a Grades 3–6, 7–9, and 10–12 progression. First, the results revealed that all participants recognized the importance of communication in science education in the aspects of presentation, reaction, and negotiation. Second, significant correlations from two ways of analyzing the school-level placements of the communication outcomes revealed that the participants’ opinions were consistent regarding achievability and school-level placement. Therefore, the results provided support and validation to the communications framework on theoretical and practical grounds. The finalized communication progression was based on reliable opinions of science educators and experienced elementary, junior high, and senior high school science teachers. Despite the importance that has been acknowledged, communication is still limited and weakly set in the current science curricula and context of authentic science reviewed earlier. Efforts are required to address full functionality of language and the constructive– interpretative language arts pairs in science education. The implications of the current study aim to address the following issues. First, the communication progression can serve as criteria for judging existing international science education reform documents and curricula. A quick comparison of this progression and curricula reviewed will illustrate that most of these curricula underemphasize the negotiation dimension (KCF) in favor of emphasizing the representing (CF) and reacting (PF) dimensions. This is reflective of the science education communities’ recognition of the communicative and persuasive functions and under emphasis of the epistemic function of language. Second, the communication progression is presented as a guideline for curriculum design regarding functions, development, and placement. Teaching strategies, activities, and assessments are to be advanced according to the communication progression. Lesson design will have to consider the content and grade expectations of the progression. Activities should also follow the communication progression and facilitate the different functions and stages of communication abilities including presentation, reaction, and negotiation.


Third, the communication progression may provide assistance for students’ content learning and identify areas for teachers’ professional development. Recent research revealed that both Taiwanese teachers and students favored manipulation skills and scientific concepts rather than social issues that require students’ participation in discussion and interaction. Though scientific content is highly valued by teachers and students, communication abilities are important in science literacy. The communication progression items may serve as ability indicators in assessments for learning that are designed around the items in the progression for use with specific grade levels. These formative data can be used to empower science learning and inform science instruction. The current study also raised issues for further research. The results demonstrated a drop between elementary school teachers’ and junior high school teachers’ beliefs about the achievability of specific communication outcomes, followed by an increase in senior high school teachers’ beliefs for the same items. These differences in expectations might reflect the views of elementary, junior, and high school teachers about the value of language and the different student clientele that junior and high school teachers encounter. Besides, the proposed communications progression combined the theoretical and practical knowledge of science educators and experienced science teachers from Taiwan, but it did not consider actual cross-grade communications performance of students. Longitudinal and cross-grade assessments of students’ performances would provide evidence to support or modify the proposed progression. Furthermore, cross-national research on language, literacy, and science education could be used to expand this communication progression into a more detailed and expanded progression that would be useful to a broader range of international contexts.

REFERENCES Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2012). The F-10 curriculum—Science. Sydney, NSW: Author. Retrieved from http://www. australiancurriculum.edu.au/Science/Curriculum/F-10. Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J. & Redmond, M. V. (2005). Interpersonal communication (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.


Carlsen, W. S. (2007). Language and science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 57–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. Felton, M. & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 135–153. Finnish National Board of Education (2004). National core curriculum for basic education 2004. Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http:// www.oph.fi/download/47672_core_curricula_basic_education_3.pdf. Hartigan, J. A. & Wong, M. A. (1979). Algorithm AS 136: A k-means clustering algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C: Applied Statistics, 28(1), 100–108. Henriques, L. (1997). A study to define and verify a model of interactive-constructive elementary school science teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=10. Hughes, M. & Daykin, N. (2002). Towards constructivism: Investigating students’ perceptions and learning as a result of using an online environment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(3), 217–224. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lin, S.-S. (2014). Science and non-science undergraduate students’ critical thinking and argumentation performance in reading a science news report. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1023–1046. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R. & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377. Shiau, S.-H. & Yang, C.-B. (2000). A fast sorting algorithm and its generalization on broadcast communications. In D.-Z. Du, P. Eades, V. Estivill-Castro, X. Lin & A. Sharma (Eds.), Computing and combinatorics (Vol. 1858, pp. 252–261). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Shymansky, J. A., Wang, T.-L., Annetta, L. A., Yore, L. D. & Everett, S. A. (2012). How much professional development is needed to effect positive gains in K–6 student achievement on high stakes science tests? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 1–19.


Stocklmayer, S. M. (2001). The background to effective science communication by the public. In S. M. Stocklmayer, M. M. Gore & C. Bryant (Eds.), Science communication in theory and practice (pp. 3–22). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer/Springer. Taiwan Ministry of Education (2008). Grade 1–9 Curriculum guidelines. Taipei, Taiwan. Tobin, R. & Tippett, C. D. (2014). Possibilities and potential barriers: Learning to plan for differentiated instruction in elementary science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 423–443. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated edition). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom Department for Education (2013). National curriculum in England: Science programmes of study. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/L9ZBsz. United States National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press. United States National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Ming-Chin Hsin, Sung-pei Chien, Yin-Shao Hsu and Chen-Yung Lin National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan Larry D. Yore University of Victoria Victoria, Canada Chen-Yung Lin Graduate Institute of Science Education National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan E-mail: [email protected]