The communication in science inquiry project (CISIP): A project to enhance scientific literacy through the creation of science classroom discourse communities
Two instruments to measure fidelity of implementation are introduced; the Discourse in Inquiry Science Classrooms for classroom observations of teachers and My Science Classroom Survey to measure students’ perceptions of their teachers’ use of the CISIP instructional strategies in their classroom.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study reports on the context and impact of the Communication in Science Inquiry Project (CISIP) professional development to promote teachers’ and students’ scientific literacy through the creation of science classroom discourse communities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data are provided on teachers’ fidelity of implementation of the CISIP instructional strategies, their understanding of the nature of science communication, and their ability to write scientific investigation reports.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Two instruments to measure fidelity of implementation are introduced; the Discourse in Inquiry Science Classrooms for classroom observations of teachers and My Science Classroom Survey to measure students’ perceptions of their teachers’ use of the CISIP instructional strategies in their classroom.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Abstract
This study reports on the context and impact of the Communication in Science Inquiry Project (CISIP) professional development to promote teachers’ and students’ scientific literacy through the creation of science classroom discourse communities. The theoretical underpinnings of the professional development model are presented and key professional development activities are described. Data are provided on teachers’ fidelity of implementation of the CISIP instructional strategies, their understanding of the nature of science communication, and their ability to write scientific investigation reports. Student data includes an analysis of scientific arguments and the perception of their classroom as a science classroom discourse community. Two instruments to measure fidelity of implementation are introduced; the Discourse in Inquiry Science Classrooms for classroom observations of teachers and My Science Classroom Survey to measure students’ perceptions of their teachers’ use of the CISIP instructional strategies in their classroom.
🔖
Cite This Article
UYSAL, S., PURZER, S., WATTS, N. B., PERKINS, G., BEARD, R., LANG, M., BAKER, D. R., LEWIS, E. B., WONG, S. (2022). The communication in science inquiry project (CISIP): A project to enhance scientific literacy through the creation of science classroom discourse communities. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3, 259–274. https://ajindex.com/articles/540885
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review. International journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099-1114.
Baker, D., Bueno-Watts, N., Lewis, E.B., Ozdemir, G., Perkins, G., Uysal, S., Wong, S., & Yasar- Purzer, S. (2008). Discourse in Inquiry Science Classrooms (DiISC): Reference Manual (Tech. Rep. No. 001). Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, The Communication in Science Inquiry Project (CISIP). Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Callaghan, M., Knapp, P., & Noble, G. (1999). Genre in practice. I. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 179-202). London: Falmer. Carrasquillo, A., & Rodriquez, V. (1996). Language minority students in the mainstream classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters. Chamot, A., & O’Malley, J. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227-249.
Chinn, C., & Brown, D. (200). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109-138.
Fradd, S., & Lee, O. (1999).Teachers’ roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 28, 14-42.
Herrel, A. & Jorden, M. (2007). Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners. Upper Saddlr River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Halliday, M., & Martin, J. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Kelly, G. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching (pp.443-470).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kelly, G., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883-915. K