The Use of Dialog to Build Scientific Literacy in the Laboratory Setting
Abstract
Students that are scientifically literate demonstrate the ability to use verbal descriptions, pictorial representations, the language of mathematics, and technology applications to build conceptual models of natural phenomena that are useful both for describing observations and making predictions based on observed behavior. The laboratory setting is ideal for the use of classroom dialog that emphasizes invitational questioning to identify student preconceptions, gently expose misconceptions, and help students extend their understanding in ways that enable them to reconceptualize their prior knowledge base. A framework for designing the laboratory experience emphasizing invitational questioning and conversational interaction, rather than passive, recipe-based laboratory experiences, integrating as many of the four domains of scientific literacy as possible in a safe, is proposed in this manuscript.
References
Basu, S., Biswas, G., Kinnebrew, J., (2016). Using multiple representations to simultaneously
learn computational thinking and middle school science. Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-16), (pp. 3705-3711). Phoenix, AZ, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
Clement, J. J., (1978) Some types of knowledge used in understanding physics [PDF File].
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED291568.pdf
Evagorou, M., Erduran, S., & Mantyla, T. (2015). The role of visual representations in scientific
practices: from conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to ‘seeing’ how science works. International Journal of STEM Education 2;11 DOI 10.1186/s40594-015-0024-x
Germann, P., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory
manuals: promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (5): 475-499.
Huang, W. (2005). The Socratic method in medicine—the labor of delivering medical truths,
For the Office-based Teacher of Family Medicine, 37, 8, 537-539.
Jackson, J., Dukerich, L., & Hestenes, D. (2008). Modeling instruction: an effective model for
science education. Science Educator, 17, 1.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1980), Mental models in cognitive science, Cognitive Science, 4, 71-115.
Lemke, J. (2004), The literacies of science. In E. Wendy Saul, Ed., Crossing Borders in
Literacy and Science Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and Arlington, VA, NSTA Press.
Moore, C. B., Abella, I. D., Abaraham, N. B., Boggs, G., Davis, B. G., Denton, D. D., Doyle, M.P., Fox, M. A., Gable, D. L., Gangolli, R., Graybeal, F. T., Hackerman, N., Haynes, J. K., Johann, E. G., Kirwan, W. E., Kuerbis, P. J., Long, S., Merritts, D. J., Moore, J. A., Moore, P. P., Reynolds, W. A., Serum, J. W., Wilkinson, D. T. (1997), Misconceptions as barriers to understanding science. In ScienceTeaching Reconsidered: A Handbook. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Oh, R., & Reamy, B. (2014) The Socratic method and pimping: optimizing the use of stress and
fear in instruction. American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 16, 3: 182-186
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a
scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207
Stoddard, H, & O’Dell, D. (2016) Would Socrates have actually used the “Socratic method”
for clinical teaching? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1092-1096, April, 2016
Trowbridge, L., Bybee, R., & Powell, J. (2008). Teaching Secondary School Science: Strategies
for Developing Scientific Literacy (9th Edition). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
