Similar to the coding scheme and procedure followed in the analysis of Grade 4 teachers’ facilitation in 2010-2011 (see section on Grade 4 Science Discussions 2010-2011), we coded and counted teachers’ turns at talk to examine their use of academically productive talk moves (APT moves). The coding scheme for teachers’ talk was as follows:

Teachers’ Facilitation of Science Discussions:

1. Expand Moves (Say More; Revoice; Time to Think): This set of moves was designed to encourage individual students to elaborate on their ideas (e.g., “The bigger the size the more space it takes up and then the more volume it has. Is that what you’re saying — is that what you are — and so?”).
2. Listen Moves (Who can Restate/Repeat): This set of moves was designed to encourage individual students to elaborate on their ideas (e.g., “Can someone repeat what Avery said in their own words?”).
3. Dig Deeper Moves (Press for Reasoning/Why; Challenge): This set of moves was designed to prompt students to push their understanding by digging deeper into their reasoning and providing evidence for their ideas (e.g., “Why do you think it’s important to have the same type of container and the same size of container? Why do you think that’s important?”).
4. Think With Others (Add On; Who Can Explain; Do you Agree/Disagree): This set of moves engaged students to think with and respond to their peers’ ideas in fostering co-construction of their understanding (e.g., “No way to know for sure. Okay. Okay. Anyone want to add anything to that or disagree with that or anything?”).

We also coded and counted students’ turns at talk to identify the extent to which they attempted to co-construct science understandings with their peers, and to make sense of the science. The co-construction attempts consisted of the following:

Students’ Co-construction:

1. Agree (e.g., “I agree with Bianca and Shereen...”)
2. Disagree (e.g., “No. But I disagree with what Daniel said with the salt being hot.”)
3. Ask for Clarification (e.g., “What do you mean when you say?”)
4. Clarify Others’ Idea (e.g., “I think what Shereen is trying to say...”)
5. Challenge (e.g., “I have a question for you. What if the eraser had like buoyancy?”)
6. Restate Other (e.g., “She said there’s more space in the air particles.”)
7. Add-On (e.g., “I also wanted to add on to Louie’s...”)

Students’ Scientific Sense-Making:

Students’ attempts to make sense of the science consisted of the following:

1. Revise (students provide evidence of revised thinking, e.g., “Actually, I kind of changed my idea now...”)
2. Raise a related question (e.g., “I have a question. Where does the water go when it evaporates?”)
3. Propose Test (Propose solution to determine volume of the candles, e.g., “You could put them in water and see the water level rise”). In the analysis, this code is also used to identify the extent to which students applied ideas from the curriculum in proposing tests to evaluate the conflicting claims presented in the concept cartoon.

The analysis found that teachers utilized various APT moves in facilitating classroom discourse, and generally used moves more often in the post-discussions. Further, teachers attempted to develop certain aspects of their practice, which is seen in the greater use of two sets of talk moves in the post-discussions - Dig Deeper and Listen moves — whereas these moves were either non-existent or used rarely in the pre-discussions.

Moreover, with the four teachers who were participating in the Talk Science program for the second time, the analysis showed they had used more often Dig Deeper and Think With Others talk moves in post-discussions than pre-discussions in their first year, and continued using these moves in the pre-discussions of their second year. For facilitating post-discussions in their second year, the teachers also drew on Listen moves and increased their use of Dig Deeper moves substantially. Further, three of the four teachers increased their use of APT moves in the second year, and they made the greatest use of talk moves in the post-discussion at the end of the second year.

With respect to students’ participation, the findings revealed that students made several attempts at engaging with and contributing to the discussion. They generated ideas and proposed tests for evaluating competing claims in the concept cartoon more often in the post-discussions than in the pre-discussions. Further, in proposing tests to evaluate the claims, students drew more on the formal science ideas they learned in the curriculum than on ideas from outside the curriculum. The findings suggest that students attempted to apply their understanding of the formal science ideas from the curriculum to the concept cartoon problem.

Here we elaborate on various findings from our analysis of the Grade 4 pre- and post-concept cartoon discussions from 2011-2012. Please refer to the NSF report for more details.