Res Sci Educ DOI 10.1007/s11165-014-9402-5 From Words to Concepts: Focusing on Word Knowledge When Teaching for Conceptual Understanding Within an Inquiry-Based Science Setting Berit S. Haug & Marianne Ødegaard # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract This qualitative video study explores how two elementary school teachers taught for conceptual understanding throughout different phases of science inquiry. The teachers implemented teaching materials with a focus on learning science key concepts through the development of word knowledge. A framework for word knowledge was applied to examine the students’ level of word knowledge manifested in their talk. In this framework, highly developed knowledge of a word is conceptual knowledge. This includes understanding how the word is situated within a network of other words and ideas. The results suggest that students’ level of word knowledge develops toward conceptual knowledge when the students are required to apply the key concepts in their talk throughout all phases of inquiry. When the students become familiar with the key concepts through the initial inquiry activities, the students use the concepts as tools for furthering their conceptual understanding when they discuss their ideas and findings. However, conceptual understanding is not promoted when teachers do the talking for the students, rephrasing their responses into the correct answer or neglecting to address the students’ everyday perceptions of scientific phenomena. Keywords Inquiry . Conceptual understanding . Science and literacy . Video study Introduction Over the last decades, good science teaching and learning have become increasingly associated with inquiry (Anderson 2002). Policy documents and curriculum materials around the world are developed based on the idea of inquiry-based instruction as the way to improve science education (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2004; Rocard 2007). An inquiry-based approach has the potential for students to learn how to do science, learn about science, and learn science by doing science (e.g., Anderson 2007; NRC 2000). In this study, we focus specifically on the aspect of “learning science by doing science,” that is, how to teach for conceptual understanding by emphasizing word knowledge development in an inquiry-based setting. The connection B. S. Haug (*) : M. Ødegaard The Norwegian Centre for Science Education, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1106, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway e-mail: b.s.haug@naturfagsenteret.no Res Sci Educ between word knowledge and conceptual knowledge is accentuated by Cervetti et al. (2006). They advocate that when science words are taught as concepts, applied in a context and in relation to other science words and concepts, word knowledge is consistent with conceptual knowledge. Learning to use the language of science is vital for learning science (e.g., Lemke 1990; Wellington and Osborne 2001); thus, it is important to emphasize students’ development of word knowledge and how teachers help their students learn and use scientific language. We followed two elementary school teachers as they implemented an integrated inquiry-based science and literacy curriculum. This curriculum stresses learning a set of pre-selected key concepts that are important for understanding the scientific idea being taught. Through this approach, our contribution to the field is to describe and provide information about actual science inquiry practices to better understand the sources for promoting conceptual understanding (i.e., understanding of science concepts) through inquiry science. We did this by examining concrete examples of events that are normally taken for granted in classrooms. The call for research on how knowledge is constructed when engaging students in hands-on activities has recurred over the past several decades (e.g., Ritchie and Hampson 1996). Nevertheless, despite the prevalence and importance of science inquiry, few research studies have actually examined teachers’ instructional practices in inquiry classrooms (McNeill and Krajcik 2008; Poon et al. 2012), and Crawford (in press, 2014) said that we lack adequate descriptions of the nature of classroom inquiry instruction. Several studies report on students’ learning outcome based on written pre- and posttest design. Results are then typically combined with teachers’ reports on how science instruction was enacted or by examining the inquiry curriculum (e.g., Minner et al. 2010). Therefore, more in-depth research on the teaching and learning processes within an inquiry-based setting is needed. Since we wanted to contribute to a practice-oriented perspective of inquiry-based science, we observed instructional practices in different phases of science inquiry and the interactions that occurred between teachers and students. This made it possible to illuminate different teaching approaches and how they influenced students’ conceptual understanding. Inquiry Science and Conceptual Learning A growing body of evidence substantiates inquiry-based instruction as more effective in terms of student learning compared to traditional instruction that focuses on knowledge transmission (e.g., Anderson 2002; Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007; Minner et al. 2010). Teaching strategies that actively engage students in the learning process through scientific investigations are more likely to increase conceptual understanding than strategies that rely on more passive techniques. Inquiry-based instruction has the potential to engage students in active construction of knowledge necessary for understanding as the students seek answers to questions, experience phenomena, share ideas, and develop explanations (Minstrell and van Zee 2000). Minner et al. (2010) reviewed 138 studies on the impact of inquiry science instruction on student outcomes and found a clear positive trend favoring inquiry-based instructional practices. In particular, instruction emphasizing students’ active thinking and drawing conclusions from data had a positive effect on the students’ development of conceptual knowledge. Likewise, in a study on how teachers’ enactment of an inquiry-orientated science curriculum influences student learning, Fogleman et al. (2011) provided evidence of the importance of students actively engaging in inquiry investigations to develop an understanding of key science concepts. The authors emphasized the significant role of teachers when conducting inquiry in the science classroom; in that study, 38 % of the variation in student gain scores occurred between teachers. Despite the substantial support for science inquiry, some ambiguity regarding the positive results exists. Kirchner et al. (2006), for example, presented evidence against the Res Sci Educ effectiveness of inquiry-based materials and instruction. However, in their study, inquiry was categorized as “minimal guidance during instruction.” In response, Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) contested this claim, stating that inquiry-based instruction relies on significant scaffolding to guide student learning. Although inquiry is highlighted in reform documents across the world, and research has shown that inquiry teaching can produce positive results, it does not, by itself, tell teachers exactly how to do it. Science inquiry in the classroom takes on different forms, and there is no one definition. Additionally, few teachers have experience with scientific inquiry, in either their own schooling or training, and thus have very naïve conceptions of inquiry in the classroom (Anderson 2007; Blanchard et al. 2009; Windschitl 2004). Research has also pointed to the influence of teachers’ beliefs about science and science teaching on their receptivity to inquiry-based teaching (e.g., Borko and Putnam 1996; Crawford 2007; Lotter et al. 2007). What teachers know and what they believe shape their interpretations of curricular and instructional approaches. Several studies have suggested that inquiry-based instruction can be supported by research-based curriculum materials (e.g., Davis and Krajcik 2005; Wilson et al. 2010). One such curriculum is from the teaching program Seeds of Science, Roots of Reading (Seeds/Roots) developed at Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley (Cervetti et al. 2006). The Seeds/Roots curriculum consists of a number of units covering life science, physical science, and earth science topics. All units are based on the principle of integrating inquirybased science and literacy, and the materials are designed to address key science concepts multiple times through multiple modalities (do it, say it, read it, write it) (Cervetti et al. 2006). Considerable evidence supports the efficacy of an integrated curriculum, in terms of both literacy and science outcomes (Cervetti et al. 2012; Guthrie et al. 2004; Magnusson and Palincsar 2004; Yore et al. 2004). A suggested explanation is that when science content is addressed through a combination of inquiry and literacy activities, students learn how to read, write, and talk science simultaneously as these literacy activities support the acquisition of science concepts and inquiry skills (Cervetti et al. 2012; Norris and Phillips 2003). Cervetti et al. (2006, 2012) emphasized the connection between word knowledge and conceptual understanding. They argued that the synergy between science and literacy rests upon the understanding that an active level of word knowledge in science (understanding of words as they are situated within a network of other words and ideas) can be described as conceptual knowledge. We embrace and build on this science/literacy integration, and especially the connection between word knowledge and conceptual knowledge, in the present study. Research Questions Most of the evidence that inquiry-based instruction results in significant learning gains, compared to traditional instruction, stems from large-scale experimental studies and studies that include a pre- and posttest for students (Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007; Minner et al. 2010). These studies, however, have not provided insight into the actual teaching and learning process as it occurs moment by moment in the classroom. Our study differs as an in-depth qualitative study aiming to illuminate how teaching approaches foster conceptual understanding in inquiry-based science. Our study provides a detailed view of inquiry-based instruction in elementary school classrooms and uses students’ development of word knowledge as evidence of success. We address this through the following main research questions: 1. How does students’ word knowledge develop throughout different phases of inquiry? 2. How do teachers facilitate conceptual understanding through inquiry-based activities? Res Sci Educ Theoretical Perspectives There are many reasons why students should learn what specific scientific terms mean, including understanding scientific concepts, being able to communicate the ideas and processes of science, and improving their reading comprehension (Bravo et al. 2008; Glen and Dotger 2009; Lemke 1990). It has been well established that learning to use the language of science is fundamental to learning science (Norris and Phillips 2003; Scott et al. 2007; Wellington and Osborne 2001). What is not well-known is how teachers help their students learn and use scientific language. In traditional science instruction, learning new words is sometimes reduced to acquiring definitional knowledge of a large number of words (Cervetti et al. 2006). According to the work of Vygotsky (1986), studying words out of context puts the learning process on the purely verbal plane. Rather than developing students’ thinking, this method encourages only reproducing and recollecting established definitions. Many researchers have shown that effective word learning integrates new words in a network of other words and ideas (e.g., Bravo et al. 2008; Stahl and Stahl 2004). As Lemke (1990) put it, “Concepts are just thematic items… we never use them one at a time; their usefulness comes from their connections to one another. So it is really the thematic patterns that we need and use” (p. 91). Developing Word Knowledge Knowing a word is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. It is multifaceted and ranges from having low control of a word (students can decode the term) to passive control of a word (students can provide a synonym or basic definition) to active control of a word (students can situate the word in connection to other words and use the word in oral and written communication) (Bravo et al. 2008; Nagy and Scott 2000). These categories suggest degrees of word knowledge. As active control of words involves understanding words in context and in relation to other words within the discipline, it can be thought of as conceptual knowledge (Bravo et al. 2008) (see Table 1). For example, knowing the science word “force” in an active way means more than being able to recognize the printed word or to recite its definition. Active control approaching conceptual understanding of force involves the ability to understand a word’s relationship to other science words, such as “gravity” or “magnetism,” and the ability to use the science word appropriately in speech and writing. By treating concepts as equivalent to word meanings, as suggested by Vygotsky (1987), conceptual knowledge develops alongside an increased understanding of word meaning, indicated by the gradient in Table 1. From this perspective, word learning in science should be thought of and taught as concepts that are connected to other concepts to form rich conceptual networks (Cervetti et al. 2006). Link-Making Strategies Scott et al. (2011) also emphasized making networks of ideas and concepts to promote conceptual understanding. In an article on pedagogical link-making, they accentuated three link-making strategies for promoting conceptual understanding: (i) support knowledge building, (ii) promote continuity, and (iii) encourage emotional engagement (Table 2). To support knowledge building, everyday and scientific concepts must be linked to integrate (overlap between everyday and scientific ways of explaining) or to differentiate (what it is and what it is not, e.g., force is not a real substance) everyday and scientific ways of explaining the concepts. Other knowledge-building links involve linking scientific concepts, creating links to help students see the connections between scientific construction and everyday experiences, and Res Sci Educ Table 1 Framework for word knowledge (based on Bravo et al. 2008) Level of word knowledge Cognitive process Low Passive Recognition Definition Explanation Conceptual knowledge Knowing how a word sounds or looks when it is written. Being able to recite a word’s definition, but having little understanding of the meaning of the word or its implications. Relationship Knowing the word’s relationship to other words and concepts. Context Knowing how to use the word in context. Understanding how the word fits in different sentences. Application Knowing how to apply the word in context when engaging in inquiry about a phenomenon. Linking the word to the empirical Active data. Synthesis Knowing how to use the word when communicating the emerging knowledge about the phenomena under study. Solving problems in new situations by applying acquired knowledge. Conceptual knowledge develops alongside an increased level of word knowledge making links between different modalities of representations (e.g., verbal and graphic). Linkmaking to promote continuity involves the teacher reviewing events from earlier lessons to develop a scientific story over time that focuses on the substantive content. Since a specific topic is normally taught over time, links should be made between the different sequences to avoid teaching and learning as isolated, disconnected events (Scott et al. 2011). The third link-making strategy, to encourage emotional engagement, differs in nature from the other two, but linking positive engagement to the subject matter is crucial to support the first two. By linking a student’s point of view and that student’s name, the following discussion brings together perspectives that are identified with different students instead of focusing on anonymous points of view (Scott et al. 2011). Our theoretical perspectives on teaching for conceptual understanding are based on the development of word meaning and link-making procedures. The frameworks depicted in Tables 1 and 2 are applied as guidelines when we analyze how teachers teach science concepts through inquiry-based activities. Additionally, we included linguistic support in our analysis, denoting how teachers scaffold and encourage students’ use of the language of science. This is based on literature that emphasizes that learning to use the language of science is fundamental to learning science (e.g., Lemke 1990; Norris and Phillips 2003; Wellington and Osborne 2001). Table 2 Link-making strategies to promote conceptual understanding Link-making strategy Explanation Support knowledge building Making links between different kinds of knowledge. Involves connecting relevant scientific concepts and linking scientific explanations and phenomena Promote continuity Making links between teaching and learning events occurring at different points in time. Involves making references to teaching and learning activities across points in time Encourage emotional engagement Encouraging a positive emotional response from students by making links to the substantive content of the lessons. Involves making connections between a specific point of view raised by a student and that student’s name Based on Scott et al. (2011) Res Sci Educ Methods In this section, we introduce the context of our study, our data sources, and how these data were collected. We also describe how we selected participants and provide details about our analysis process. Context of the Study The study was conducted in Norway as part of a larger ongoing project aiming to test and refine a teaching model that integrates inquiry-based science and literacy, the Budding Science and Literacy project (Ødegaard and Frøyland 2009). The project builds largely on curriculum materials from the Seeds/Roots teaching program. This program introduces the Do-it, Talk-it, Read-it, and Write-it approach, in which students learn science concepts in depth simultaneously as they learn how to read, write, and discuss in an inquiry-based setting (Cervetti et al. 2006). The Budding Science and Literacy project invited elementary school teachers to participate in a year-long professional development course. The participating teachers met once a month for lectures and practice related to integrating inquiry-based science and literacy. The teachers practiced how to use science inquiry as a context for introducing different genres of reading and writing and how to engage students in discussions of evidence related to their investigations. As part of the course, the teachers adapted and implemented teaching materials from the integrated science/ literacy curriculum to the local context of their own classrooms (e.g., language, students’ age, time and tools available, school policies). Six teachers volunteered to be videotaped while they implemented the teaching materials, and for the present study, we followed two of these teachers. Before we collected data, the participating teachers, parents on behalf of their minor students, and the principals signed an informed consent form agreeing to the videotaping of the classroom instruction for research purposes. Data Sources The data were collected from video recordings of the teachers implementing the curriculum. There were four cameras in each classroom: One small wall-mounted camera faced the students, one camera followed the teacher, and two students wore head-mounted cameras. The wall- and head-mounted cameras had satisfactory audio recordings, while the teacher wore a small microphone linked to the teacher camera. This microphone captured all of the teacher talk during the lesson, as well as most of the student talk. Altogether, 35 h of instructional lessons were video recorded, evenly distributed among the six volunteer teachers. The video recordings were coded according to a coding scheme for different modalities (doing, reading, writing, talking) and inquiry activities (see Table 3) developed by the Budding Science and Literacy research group (Ødegaard et al. 2012). The coding scheme for inquiry activities builds on several theoretical frameworks (Bell et al. 2010; Cervetti et al. 2006; Chinn and Malhotra 2002), and was created as an observational tool that describes what was going on in the classroom. We used the coding to get an overview of classroom activities for the project as a whole but do not report on these data in this article. In the present study, we used the overview coding as a resource to select data for further in-depth analysis. The four main categories demonstrating different phases of inquiry are preparation, data, discussion, and communication. Each category consists of several codes denoting the activity that takes place Res Sci Educ Table 3 Coding scheme for inquiry activities (Ødegaard et al. 2012) Category Specific codes Preparation Background knowledge/wondering/researchable questions/predict/hypothesis/planning Data Collection/registration/analysis Discussion Interpretations/inferences/implications/connecting theory and practice Communication Orally/in writing/assessing their work within the category. We do not regard the process of inquiry as rigid, where one step necessarily follows another; the process goes back and forth between the different phases as evidence is collected and ideas are refined. In addition, we used the code concepts, which refers to classroom talk that explicitly addresses selected key concepts of the current topic. To get an overview of the data material, we coded the occurrence and duration of each code using Interact software, which allowed us to code the videos directly without transcribing the dialogue (Mangold 2010). There were four coders all together, and interrater reliability for each code was assessed by double coding 20 % of the videotapes. The reliability of the coders was satisfactory (75–80 %). Selection of Participants Two of the six volunteer teachers, Anna and Birgit (pseudonyms), were selected for further analysis. To select the participants, we used the initial coding and analyses of the total video material from all six classrooms. Because we wanted to explore science concept instruction, we looked for classrooms coded with the highest frequency of concepts (Fig. 1). We also needed to observe an activity in which the students demonstrated possible development in their level of word knowledge after they had engaged with the specific concepts several times. Such development was best achieved during the communication phase, when students were supposed to link their hands-on activity to the scientific content. Thus, we selected Anna and Birgit based on the following criteria: (i) The science concepts are frequently addressed during lessons, and (ii) students communicate their understanding based on a hands-on activity. For the first criterion, addressing science concepts, Anna and Birgit stood out with higher percentages than the other teachers (as seen in Fig. 1). The second criterion, students communicating their results from an investigation, was realized in only three out of the six classrooms, including Anna’s and Birgit’s. Therefore, the sources of our analysis were Anna and Birgit. Anna and Birgit are generalists who teach all subjects. Neither has a formal science background. Anna taught fifth graders (10-year-olds), while Birgit taught fourth graders (9year-olds). Both teachers created learning environments in their classrooms where students felt safe to ask questions and reveal their ideas. Establishing such norms of behavior is an essential factor of successful learning (Bransford et al. 2000). Teaching Materials The Seeds/Roots curriculum comprises several units covering various topics within the different sciences (life science, physical science, and earth science). All the units are based on the principle of integrating inquiry-based science and literacy, and the materials are Res Sci Educ Fig. 1 Results for the first criterion of selecting participants for the study. The figure shows the percentage of coded time for key concepts during classroom dialogue. Teacher Anna, and teacher Birgit, had the highest percentages. All names are pseudonyms designed to address science key concepts multiple times through multiple modalities (Cervetti et al. 2006). These key concepts consist of words that are central to science and necessary for understanding the scientific ideas (e.g., force, gravity, property, system) and processes (e.g., investigate, data, evidence) taught. Anna and Birgit taught the introductory sessions from one unit they chose, guided by the detailed step-by-step teacher’s guide that came with the unit. Both teachers purposefully and consistently used the materials to guide their enactments. Anna taught the unit Gravity and Magnetism to her 10-year-old students. This was the students’ first encounter with the topic. It introduced forces as a push or a pull between two objects, and we followed the students’ development of word knowledge for force. In groups of four, the students investigated examples of forces as either a push or a pull by using two blocks with a hook, a rubber band, and two types of springs (see Fig. 2). The aim of the lesson was to teach what a force is and enable the students to show and explain which forces are at work. Birgit taught the unit Digestion and Body Systems to her 9-year-old students. The students had already been introduced to the concept of systems in general. We observed the class learning about the structure and function of the different parts in a system, with emphasis on the word function. The students worked in groups of four to make a ball-sorting system that separated balls by size. The materials available were a pump, a tube, different types of filters, a collecting bag, and tiny balls in two sizes (see Fig. 3). At the end of the lesson, the students were expected to understand that each part of a system has a function and be able to explain the functions of the different parts in the ball-sorting system. Analysis Our aim for this study was to examine students’ development of word knowledge and how teachers facilitated students’ conceptual understanding during different phases of inquiry. The Fig. 2 Materials used in Anna’s class included blocks with hooks, two types of springs, and a rubber band Res Sci Educ Fig. 3 Materials used in Birgit’s class included a pump, a tube, filters, tiny balls, a collecting bag, and a rubber band phases of inquiry correspond to the categories in the coding scheme: preparation, data, discussion, and communication (see Table 3). For an in-depth analysis, we read and reread transcripts of the classroom discourse from the communication phase. With the research questions in mind, we gradually decided which episodes to concentrate on that would provide us with some answers (Erickson 2012). This process revealed very different results for the two classrooms regarding the students’ level of word knowledge. Thus, to explore these results and further our understanding of the interplay between inquiry-based instruction and content, we used the overview coding of the videos to select episodes from the preparation, data, and discussion phases related to the analyzed communication phase. We transcribed and analyzed the episodes, which all occurred during a 90-min lesson for both teachers, accordingly. Using the overview coding, we identified episodes that revealed details of how science was presented in the classroom when explored through a micro-analytic lens on the talk between the teacher and students. When lessons are viewed only through checklists or coding schemes built to analyze the macro-structure of the lesson, these insights are not evident (Tan and Wong 2011). Our analysis concentrated on how the teacher facilitated students learning words as concepts and how she encouraged the students to use the selected key concepts in talking and writing and apply them in context. We analyzed the students’ conceptual understanding according to the framework for word knowledge (shown in Table 1), where an active level of word knowledge (being able to apply the word in a context to make meaning) is considered conceptual knowledge (Bravo et al. 2008). When the teachers encouraged and scaffolded the students’ use of the language of science, we recorded the action as linguistic support. We also examined the teachers’ use of the link-making strategies Scott et al. (2011) emphasized as important for conceptual understanding (Table 2). Results Our in-depth analyses of the communication phase in the two classrooms revealed distinct differences in the students’ level of word knowledge. Anna’s students demonstrated a low level of word knowledge, while Birgit’s students demonstrated an active level, consistent with conceptual knowledge. This result baffled us, as both teachers carefully followed the instructions for the integrated curriculum, which emphasizes learning key concepts. To understand why these differences had occurred, we examined the entire sequence of learning activities connected to the student presentations in the two classrooms. This sequence included the Res Sci Educ preparation before the hands-on activity, the hands-on activity itself, and the discussion that followed the presentations of findings from the hands-on activity. We present the results as they took place in the classroom, organized in Tables 4 and 5 (Anna and Birgit, respectively). In the tables, the results are explained with examples of our coding according to the framework for word knowledge and link-making strategies. After each table, we comment further on the results. Anna: Rephrasing Students’ Answers In the preparation phase of inquiry, Anna activates the students’ prior knowledge by encouraging them to share their thoughts and ideas when they hear the word force. The teacher accepts one-word answers, in which the students’ ideas center specifically on muscles, but also on magnets and magic (see Table 4). Connecting force to muscles is a common confusion among students; additionally, in Norwegian, “power,” as in muscle power, is identical to the word force. Bravo et al. (2008) emphasized that confusion can be expected when one word holds different meanings depending on the context. However, Anna does not address the students’ conceptual confusion. As expected in the introductory stage of a new topic, the students show low control of the word force. However, there is no development in the students’ understanding as the teacher wraps up the discussion at the end and moves on to the data collection phase. This phase engages the students in a hands-on activity to collect data by exploring the blocks, springs, and rubber band. Anna circulates as the groups work, and when she asks what kind of force they observe, the students just guess. They are clearly confused about the concept of force, and they are not guided toward understanding how force relates to push and pull. Ole, who responds “shooting force,” later contributes during the communication phase, and hangs on to his original idea of force. When the teacher does not address students’ everyday perception of a concept and differentiate it from the scientific explanation, the students’ initial understanding remains, and their conceptual understanding is not promoted. The students’ level of word knowledge for force thus remains low. During student presentations, none of the groups can explain force as a push or a pull with reference to their hands-on activity. They silently demonstrate push and pull by wrapping the rubber band around the blocks or putting a spring in between the blocks. The students seem to lack the language necessary to explain their investigation, and the teacher takes over and does the talking. When Anna asks questions, she transforms the student responses into the correct phrase she is looking for. Consequently, the meaning of what the students say becomes quite distinct from what the teacher rephrases it into. This is illustrated by Gina’s response under Communication in Table 4. In our analysis, the discussion phase had to involve some type of reference to the collected data (Ødegaard et al. 2012). Thus, we selected the discussion that followed the communication phase as an example. After all groups silently demonstrate their work, Anna invites the students to discuss what they have learned. The students continue to refer to muscle power, and mix up push and pull in a way that reveals a lack of understanding of the concept of force. We see that the teacher, when rephrasing the students’ answers to include push and pull, makes the necessary links between concepts, while the students are involved only superficially. According to Scott et al. (2011), students’ engagement in the link-making process is crucial if scientific conceptual knowledge is the goal. In Anna’s classroom, we did not observe strategies that promote continuity and encourage emotional engagement. Based on the students’ responses, we saw no development in the students’ level of word knowledge for force at this stage. Thus, when Anna concludes that the students have reached the learning goal, it is Inquiry phase Organizational structure Example Students’ level of word knowledge Description Teacher support Description Preparation Whole class Students refer to force as magnetism, magic, and muscles Recognition Low level Recognize the word force when the teacher asks them what it means Does not support knowledge building Accepts one-word answers without encouraging the students to elaborate on their thinking or link the word to a context Does not support knowledge building Does not address the students’ existing ideas of force or differentiate between everyday and scientific ways of explaining force Supports knowledge building Links the word force to the students’ hands-on experiment Does not support knowledge building Provides the answer without guiding the students toward a scientific understanding of force Teacher closes the discussion with a definition of force Data Hands-on activity Group work Anders: We do not know how to make a push Definition Passive level Demonstrates an understanding of the word force being connected to push Teacher (T): How could you make a push between the two (blocks) if the hooks were not there? (Students put the spring between the blocks and let go. The spring bounces off). And what kind of force is that? Anders: Flying Ole: Shooting force T: Yes, you push them together Recognition Low level Recognizes the word force, but are not able to relate it to push or pull Res Sci Educ Table 4 Examples from Anna’s classroom teaching and learning force as a concept during the different phases of inquiry Table 4 (continued) Inquiry phase Organizational structure Example Students’ level of word knowledge Description T: (Turns to the next group) What kind of force was that? Push or pull? Eric: It was a push? (said like a question) Malina: It is a push (pauses) or a pull Recognition Low level Group presentation Whole class Ole: It was shooting force. Recognition Low level T: Yes, I pull them apart Recognition/definition Passive level Supports knowledge building Scaffolds to help the students link force to push and pull Does not support knowledge building Walks away without addressing the students’ conceptual confusion Does not support knowledge building Ignores Ole’s response and repeats the question. Does not address the group’s everyday way of explaining force Does not support knowledge building Rephrases the student’s response into the “correct” phrase without eliciting the student’s thinking or clarifying the change she makes Recognizes the word force. Refers to shooting force, not demonstrating an understanding of force as a push or a pull between two objects T: What kind of force? Gina: They pull them together Description Recognizes the word force, but are not able to relate it to push or pull. T: If you take the blocks like this (takes the blocks with the spring in between) and want to have them closer (walks away) Communication Teacher support Recognizes the word force, approaching definition as she refers to force as a pull Res Sci Educ Inquiry phase Organizational structure Example Students’ level of word knowledge Description Teacher support Description Discussion Whole class Students mainly refer to force as muscle power. When asked about push or pull, they continuously mix the two Recognition/definition Low/passive level Recognizes the word force and can say something about force related to push and pull without understanding the meaning The teacher rephrases student responses by inserting or altering their use of push or pull Does not support knowledge building Rephrases and links concepts without addressing students’ confusion and existing ideas of force. Does not explain the difference between everyday and scientific ways of explaining force The teacher sums up by asking if they all agree on the definition (force is a push or a pull between two objects) and puts a star on the board for reaching the learning goal (I can explain what a force is) Does not support knowledge building Bases the conclusion on her own link-making of concepts and alteration of students’ responses Each coding for word knowledge and teacher support is justified in the following column labeled description. Force is in italics for easy recognition, not because it is emphasized by the speaker Res Sci Educ Table 4 (continued) Res Sci Educ based on her own explanations and adjustments of student responses, and not on the students having demonstrated an understanding. This indicates that Anna is focused on the class progressing through the curriculum rather than on addressing the students’ needs. Several studies, especially concerning formative assessment, have reported similar findings (Bell and Cowie 2001; Shavelson et al. 2008). The lesson analyzed was the students’ first encounter with the concept of force, which might explain, in part, their low level of word knowledge. However, an examination of later lessons revealed that Anna’s students remained at a passive level of word knowledge with little or no progress toward conceptual knowledge. To sum up, Anna is doing the talking and the link-making for the students. She turns their responses into the “correct” phrases and does not encourage or challenge the students to apply the key concepts in a context. Our in-depth analysis reveals that the high percentage coded for concepts in the initial overview coding is related to Anna’s active role in applying the concepts, not the students’ role. The students show a passive level of word knowledge that is inconsistent with conceptual understanding. We now turn to Birgit’s classroom. In Table 5, we present the results from our analysis of the different inquiry phases in her classroom. The table is followed by a thorough description of the results. Birgit: Students Do the Talking To activate the students’ prior knowledge, Birgit lets them think about and discuss their understanding of the word function in small groups during the preparation phase of inquiry (see Table 5). As the students discuss, Birgit circulates and asks the groups questions before she sums up the discussion for the entire class. The small-group discussion engages all the students in talking, instead of just a few, which is usually the case if the teacher asks the whole class as a group. In this strategy, referred to as think-pair-share, students are given the chance to individually think about a concept before pairing up with a fellow student to discuss their ideas, and finally share these ideas with the whole class. Lyman (1981) introduced the thinkpair-share strategy as a way of maximizing participation, focusing attention, engaging students, and giving them time to think about the concepts presented. Birgit is attentive to the student discussions and scaffolds the students’ learning by linking the word function to the students’ everyday experiences. She keeps challenging the students with follow-up questions and builds on the students’ responses to guide the students toward a more sophisticated understanding of the word function. When the groups start to put the different parts together to build a ball-sorting system, Birgit observes the groups closely. She asks them to explain what they are doing and supports them as they develop their vocabulary. During the activity, Birgit encourages the students to discuss why their system worked as intended, directing their thinking toward the function of the different parts. The students apply the meaning of function in context and link the meaning to their empirical investigation. Additionally, when Birgit requires the students to review the inquiry process, she facilitates link-making between what they experienced in the process and their content knowledge. During the communication phase, Birgit encourages the students to name the parts and describe the function of each part. This encouragement makes the students aware of the words they use, and they improve their performance. The students do the talking, and the teacher scaffolds their presentation, urging the students to express their understanding. We observe that the students link the scientific concept of function to an everyday way of explaining, and they combine different forms of representation when using their ball-sorting system as support when the students present their findings orally. Involving students in creating such links is Inquiry phase Organizational structure Example Preparation Group work Teacher (T): What do you think the word function means, Mary? Teacher support Description Supports knowledge building Encourages the students to provide an everyday meaning for the word function T: Mm. Do you have any examples? Mary: A car or a guitar Supports knowledge building Makes the student link the word function to something familiar T: Yes, and how does that function? Talk about Mary’s example in the group Supports knowledge building Encourages emotional engagement Encourages students to link function to everyday concepts and phenomena. Acknowledges and builds on Mary’s contribution T: Does your system work? Supports knowledge building Directs students’ thoughts to everyday words for function and links it to the concept of system Peter: Yes, this one here (points) T: (Interrupts) what do you mean by “this one”? Linguistic support Makes the student name the parts Supports knowledge building Prompts the student to be more specific about function, uses everyday language Mary: How something works Data Hands-on activity Group work Peter: The rubber band is wrapped around to hold the filter, and we put the pump here to blow air Students’ level of word knowledge Definition Passive level Application Active level Description Knows the definition of the word Applies the meaning of the word in context and links it to the investigation T: What is the air doing? P: The air makes the ball move further down the tube Application Active level Applies the meaning of the word in context and links it to the investigation Res Sci Educ Table 5 Examples from Birgit’s classroom teaching and learning function as a concept during the different phases of inquiry Table 5 (continued) Inquiry phase Communication Organizational structure Group presentation Whole class Example Teacher support Description T: Ok, good. Now, talk together in the group about what it was that made the system work as intended Supports knowledge building Encourages the students to review the inquiry process, thus facilitating link-making between their own experiences and content knowledge T: Good, you made it work. Now I want you to explain it once more, and this time say the name of each part, like filter, tube, pump, and try to explain the function of each part, how it works Provides linguistic support. Supports knowledge building Scaffolds students’ use of the language of science by indicating words they should use and making them articulate the words. Encourages students to link concepts through explaining each part’s function (A student in the group explains the system, naming each part by its name) T: Can you also tell us something about the function of the different parts? Supports knowledge building Encourages students to link concepts through linking function to the different parts of the system Emily: The filter separates the balls. We used the white filter instead of the orange one, because the white one has bigger holes, so the small balls can pass, but not the big ones (pointing at the system as she explains) Students’ level of word knowledge Application Active level Description Applies the meaning of the word in context and links it to the investigation. Links different forms of representation Res Sci Educ Inquiry phase Organizational structure Example Discussion Group work and whole class Based on their investigations, the students discuss, first in pairs and then in whole class, the function of each part. The teacher provides an example (the function of the plastic bag is to collect the balls). She also asks the students to consider the shape and structure of each part, and its relevance to the part’s function. The lesson ends with a discussion of the function of pumps the students know in everyday life Students use the sentence the teacher modeled to talk about each part’s function. They especially discuss that the soft and squeezable structure of the pump is necessary for blowing air. The teacher directs the discussion of other pumps toward a heart that pumps blood Students’ level of word knowledge Synthesis Active level Description Knows how to apply the word in context and how to use acquired knowledge in new situations Teacher support Description Provides linguistic support Supports knowledge building Demonstrates how to phrase a sentence containing the necessary information Links students’ experiences to content knowledge, links science concepts (e.g., function and structure), links scientific explanations to everyday experiences Promotes continuity Links what they have learned to following sessions that involve the circulatory system Each coding for word knowledge and teacher support is justified in the following column labeled description. Function is in italics for easy recognition, not because it is emphasized by the speaker Res Sci Educ Table 5 (continued) Res Sci Educ what Scott et al. (2011) deem necessary for learning scientific conceptual knowledge. After the presentations, an extended discussion takes place in the classroom. Birgit encourages the students to apply the word function in their talk and models a sentence. She continues to use the think-pair-share strategy familiar to the students to engage and involve them in the discussion, jumping directly to the pair-up and start-talking part without an individual thinking part first. The students are now able to apply the word function in context and in relation to other words and concepts, and the students’ level of word knowledge is consistent with conceptual knowledge. When the teacher guides the students toward talking about the example of a heart as a pump at the end of the discussion, she links what they have learned to following sessions that involve the circulatory system. Thus, she promotes continuity, one of the strategies recommended in the link-making framework based on the work of Scott et al. (2011). In addition, in this example, the teacher links scientific explanations to everyday experiences. We observed that in this classroom, moving on depends primarily on the students’ level of understanding, not the curriculum. Summing up Birgit’s classroom, we see that the students are active participants, doing most of the talking with the teacher closely scaffolding their learning progress. Birgit frequently engages students in the think-pair-share strategy, and requires them to use the new science words in their talk. Several link-making strategies are at work, and Birgit makes the link available for the students so that they can come to understand the links for themselves as they discuss their ideas. She makes the students apply their new knowledge in context when engaging in the different phases of inquiry, and the students demonstrate word knowledge consistent with conceptual understanding. Comparing the students in the two classes learning different key concepts (force versus function) might seem to give an unfair image of the results. The key concepts are different, and one class (Birgit’s) had already worked with related concepts in earlier lessons. However, even though both teachers are dedicated to teaching science and motivating their students, the teachers demonstrate, as described, different teaching approaches. Our results indicate that Anna’s teaching approach, even after instruction on the same topic over time, does not result in her students reaching a conceptual understanding of force. Birgit’s approach, however, seems to be more successful. Discussion Students’ Development of Word Knowledge In this study, we closely observed two teachers and their interactions with students through different phases of inquiry and focused on teaching and learning science key concepts. In relation to our first research question regarding students’ development of word knowledge toward conceptual knowledge, we see distinct differences between the students in the two classrooms. Anna’s students never transcend a passive level of word knowledge, while Birgit’s students demonstrate word knowledge approaching conceptual understanding in the initial phase of inquiry. In Anna’s classroom, the students mainly provide short sentences and oneword answers. The students are not scaffolded linguistically or sufficiently encouraged to talk science, which has been well established as necessary to learn science (e.g., Lemke 1990; Wellington and Osborne 2001). When students are not doing the talking, it becomes challenging for Anna to assess the students’ level of understanding and subsequently adapt her teaching according to the students’ need, which several authors have emphasized as essential for promoting student learning (e.g., Black and William 1998; Harlen 2003; Shavelson et al. Res Sci Educ 2008). Birgit’s students, however, develop their level of word knowledge toward conceptual knowledge in accordance with the framework for word knowledge (Bravo et al. 2008) through hands-on and talking activities as the students actively apply the word function in new and familiar contexts. These findings support the approach of the implemented curriculum of developing conceptual knowledge by treating words as concepts (Cervetti et al. 2006), as well as the suggestion of Scott et al. (2011) that link-making between different kinds of knowledge helps construct conceptual understanding. Anna’s students remain at a low level of word knowledge over time, which indicates that inquiry by itself, even when essential consolidating phases such as discussion and communication are realized, does not foster conceptual understanding. Our results suggest that for students to develop word knowledge toward conceptual knowledge, teachers must encourage and scaffold students’ use of the language of science through all the phases of inquiry. Teachers must emphasize the use of necessary science words and concepts so students can discuss and communicate their growing understanding of a scientific idea. Thus, for students to develop word knowledge toward conceptual understanding, the theoretical frameworks applied (word knowledge and link-making) are effective only if the students are doing the talking. Teaching Approaches The teachers’ pedagogical approaches are the subject of our second research question. The teachers’ methods of interacting with the students during the inquiry activities are quite distinct; thus, we distinguish between and discuss the teachers’ main approaches. Anna starts the lesson by mapping her students’ existing ideas of the word force, an activity in accordance with the curriculum’s intention of fostering conceptual knowledge through the development of students’ level of word knowledge (Bravo et al. 2008). However, she never addresses the students’ lack of understanding of the word force. According to Scott et al. (2011), link-making strategies that support knowledge building include differentiating between everyday and scientific ways of explaining. This implies that it is not sufficient to teach what force is; it is equally important to understand what it is not. Consequently, since Anna never refers to the divergence between the students’ understanding of the concept of force and the view of established science, not surprisingly, the same conceptual confusion appears throughout all phases of inquiry. This finding supports Myhill and Brackley’s (2004) findings that teachers made very little use of students’ prior knowledge and there was almost no evidence that the teachers recognize the impact of prior knowledge on conceptual development. An inquiry-based approach to teaching and learning consists of several phases comprising many different activities. If teachers do not make links to promote continuity between the different phases and activities as suggested in the link-making strategies of Scott et al. (2011), then conceptual learning is unlikely to occur. For instance, mapping students’ existing ideas is of little use if these ideas are not acknowledged and set as a starting point for the activities that follow. In Anna’s classroom, the teacher does most of the talking, a typical strategy in schools (e.g., Mercer et al. 2009). Nevertheless, to develop conceptual knowledge, students need to learn the language of science, which requires practice, not just listening (Lemke 1990; Mercer et al. 2009). Science inquiry provides ample opportunities for students to engage in talking activities. For instance, Birgit consistently involves her students in a think-pair-share activity that allows all of them to talk science (illustrated under Discussion in Table 5). In this activity, students discuss their ideas and findings in the different phases of inquiry. The students practice the language necessary to communicate their ideas while using the acquired key Res Sci Educ concepts to further their conceptual understanding. This offers a practice-oriented example of how to use the synergies of an integrated science and literacy approach, an approach that supports learning of both science and literacy as advocated by several researchers (e.g., Cervetti et al. 2012; Norris and Phillips 2003; Yore et al. 2004). Students’ involvement in science creates opportunities for practicing literacy activities that require knowledge of science concepts. Furthermore, instruction emphasizing students’ active thinking during inquiry has been reported in many other studies as essential for fostering conceptual knowledge (e.g., Fogleman et al. 2011; Minner et al. 2010). Based on our findings, we see the need to use strategies like think-pair-share to actively involve students in talking and thinking to learn the key concepts of the scientific idea presented. This strategy provides an opportunity for the students to talk science, which, as we saw from the results for our first research question, is critical for students to develop conceptual knowledge. Birgit urges her students to use the language of science, providing linguistic scaffolding and setting a standard for the classroom discourse. Immediately, she introduces the word function as a concept and connects it to students’ everyday language and perceptions. This exemplifies teaching conceptual knowledge through thinking of words as concepts (Bravo et al. 2008) and linking science concepts to students’ prior knowledge (Scott et al. 2011). When the students discuss and communicate their inquiry results, they use the word function spontaneously. Thus, the inquiry task created the need for the students to use the concept of function to explain their outcomes. Likewise, Birgit, through her teaching approach, provides the students with a useful scientific vocabulary. This constant focus on the students doing the talking, forcing them to include new science words in their existing vocabulary, is crucial for promoting fluency in the language of science, and for promoting students’ development of conceptual understanding. Hmelo-Silver and Barrows (2006) described similar findings: pushing students to explain their thinking and helping the students articulate their ideas supports them in their sense-making process. In contrast, Anna does not focus much on linguistic scaffolding to support the students’ learning process. Even though Anna actively engages her students in all inquiry phases, they are at no point required to link or apply the key concepts emphasized in the teaching materials. Consequently, her students lack the vocabulary necessary to communicate their results, and her students’ level of word knowledge does not develop toward conceptual knowledge as described in the framework for word knowledge (Bravo et al. 2008). This finding is in line with Furtak and Alonzo’s (2010) finding regarding elementary school teachers implementation of an inquiry-based unit: Teachers tend to prioritize activity over understanding when they teach inquiry-based science. Our results emphasize the need for teachers to make students active participants throughout all phases of inquiry by constantly focusing on students practicing to use the language of science. Anna often takes bits and pieces of the students’ responses and turns them into the “correct” phrase without actually considering the students’ answers. O’Connor and Micheals (1996) argued that this type of revoicing, rephrasing student responses to “fit” the correct answer, does not support student learning. Even so, Anna opens the discussions for student participation and encourages them to contribute their ideas, especially during the preparation phase. According to Mortimer and Scott’s (2003) communicative approach, such dialogic discourse is essential for promoting conceptual understanding. They also emphasize that learning is enhanced by balancing dialogic and authoritative approaches, in which the teacher focuses on factual statements. Thus, Anna follows the suggested pattern of talk. However, when she moves from the dialogic to the authoritative discourse, and concludes with shared knowledge, the students are not sufficiently included, and their existing everyday perceptions of force remain intact. This indicates an emphasis toward the “correct” answer instead of paying attention to the students’ understanding of the concept. To support conceptual understanding, a teacher must Res Sci Educ be explicit about the relation between students’ ideas and the established scientific view of the topic the teacher is teaching. This is advocated by Scott et al. (2011) as a link-making strategy that needs to be addressed in science classrooms to promote learning. However, if the teacher does not understand what the student is suggesting, or is unable to link it to the current task, incorporating the students’ contributions effectively will be very difficult. Elementary school teachers’ lack of science content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge has been well documented (e.g., Harlen and Holroyd 1997; Kind 2009; Magnusson et al. 1999). Thus, a low level of content knowledge might be one explanation for why a teacher adjusts students’ responses toward “one right answer” without providing any further explanation. Another possible reason, in Anna’s case, is that concluding with one answer seems to be the norm; consequently, this will shape her instructional approach, as shown in the research on teacher beliefs (e.g., Crawford 2007; Lotter et al. 2007). We consider this finding about the teacher following a renowned instructional strategy, like Mortimer and Scott’s (2003) communicative approach, with a different outcome than assumed, as yet another example of the importance of in-depth classroom analyses. However, more research is needed to provide teachers with practice-oriented examples of how to effectively implement pedagogical approaches in a way that fosters conceptual learning, both in general and especially through inquiry. Additionally, teacher educators and professional development courses must emphasize the importance of students doing the talking when teachers introduce pedagogical strategies that are expected to support knowledge building. Limitations Even though the results of this study are limited by the teachers teaching different units, we believe that the differences in the results are not linked to the specific units. We consider the differences a matter of teaching approach, regardless of the topic, since the units share the same underlying principle of engaging students in different activities to learn science concepts in depth. A second limitation of this research is related to the small sample; thus, the findings are illustrative and not intended to be representative or generalizable. Nevertheless, the results offer insight that can add to the knowledge about teaching inquiry-based science lessons and fostering conceptual learning. Conclusion In this study, we provided examples of how to develop students’ level of word knowledge toward conceptual knowledge in an inquiry-based setting. The study is not intended as a criticism of the teachers’ practice, but as a way to highlight aspects of inquiry-based science and conceptual learning that were not apparent to us or to the participating teachers before we examined the classroom interactions. The in-depth analyses revealed aspects of different teaching approaches that necessitated attention. Our results suggest that conceptual learning occurs when students are required to apply key concepts in their talk throughout all phases of inquiry, with the teacher closely scaffolding the students’ use of language. In contrast, conceptual understanding is not promoted when teachers do the talking, rephrase students’ responses into the correct answer, or fail to address students’ everyday perceptions of scientific phenomena. The frameworks applied for word knowledge and link-making are effective in terms of student conceptual learning only if the students are the ones doing the talking and the ones actively engaged in making the links. Furthermore, the results reveal that the two teachers in our study used the potential of the curriculum materials in different ways, supporting the Res Sci Educ findings of Fogleman et al. (2011) that teachers are responsible for a significant amount of the variation in student learning. Curriculum materials are important, but not sufficient for all teachers to enhance inquiry instruction. If the teacher does not know how to use the curriculum materials to their full potential, his or her students are concurrently not provided with the best opportunities for learning. For science learning to occur in the classroom, a central task for teacher educators and teacher training is to emphasize the importance of connecting the different phases of inquiry instead of treating activities within each phase as isolated events. Moreover, when pedagogical strategies are introduced for pre- and in-service teachers, the significance of encouraging and pushing students to talk science, as well as how to scaffold students’ development of word knowledge toward conceptual knowledge, must be stressed. This study offers insight into students’ development of conceptual understanding through inquiry, yet at the same time the findings generate additional questions that require a revisit to our video recordings. Some of these questions are as follows: How do students apply the key concepts when they talk in groups during different inquiry activities, and what type of teacher interference connected to these discussions promotes learning? Our results also inform our larger project and help refine a teaching model that integrates inquiry-based science and literacy. The importance of encouraging and pushing students to talk science are included as a central aspect of the teaching model being developed, which will be applied in teacher training for pre- and in-service teachers. References Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: international perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536–553. Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322–360. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bravo, M. A., Cervetti, G. N., Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, D. P. (2008). From passive to active control of science vocabulary. In The 56th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 122–135). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquirybased science. In R. Douglas, M. P. Klentchy, K. Worth, & W. Binder (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 221–244). Arlington: National Science Teacher Association Press. Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, D., & Goldsmith, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218. Res Sci Educ Crawford, B. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642. Crawford, B. (in press, 2014). From inquiry to science practices in the science classroom. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II). New York: Routledge. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. Erickson, F. (2012). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1451–1469). Dordrecht: Springer. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptions of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169. Furtak, E. M., & Alonzo, A. C. (2010). The role of content in inquiry-based elementary science lessons: an analysis of teacher beliefs and enactment. Research in Science Education, 40, 425–449. Glen, N. J., & Dotger, S. (2009). Elementary teachers’ use of language to label and interpret science concepts. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(4), 71–83. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: conceptoriented reading instruction. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Harlen, W. (2003). Enhancing inquiry through formative assessment. San Francisco: Exploratorium, Institute for Inquiry. Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 93–105. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdiciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 21–39. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirchner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99– 107. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204. Kirchner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 4(12), 75–86. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex. Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318–1347. Lyman, F. T. (1981). The responsiveness classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students. In A. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming digest (pp. 109–113). College Park: University of Maryland Press. Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Learning from text designed to model scientific thinking in inquirybased instruction. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and scientific instruction (pp. 316–339). Newark: International Reading Association. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Mangold (2010). INTERACT quick start manual V2.4. Mangold International GmbH (Ed.). http://www. mangold-international.com. Accessed 15 September 2013. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984–2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474– 496. Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching in the inquiry-based science classroom. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Myhill, D., & Brackley, M. (2004). Making connections: teachers’ use of children’s prior knowledge in whole class discourse. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(3), 263–275. Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processing. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, D. P. Pearson, R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III; pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Res Sci Educ National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington: The National Academies Press. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental change is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. O’Connor, M. C., & Micheals, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 63–103). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ødegaard, M., & Frøyland, M. (2009). Budding science and literacy. A longitudinal study of using inquiry-based science and literacy in comprehensive schooling. Oslo: Norwegian Centre for Science Education. Ødegaard, M., Mork, S. M., Haug, B., & Sørvik, G. O. (2012). Categories for video analysis of science lessons. Oslo: Norwegian Centre for Science Education. Poon, C. L., Lee, Y. J., Tan, A. L., & Li, S. S. L. (2012). Knowing inquiry as practice and theory. Developing a pedagogical framework with elementary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 303–327. Ritchie, S., & Hampson, B. (1996). Learning in-the-making: a case study of science and technology projects in a year six classroom. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 391–407. Rocard, M. (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Lemke, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link-making: a fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3–36. Shavelson, R., Young, D., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., et al. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: a collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295–314. Stahl, S. A., & Stahl, K. A. (2004). Words wizards all! Teaching word meanings in preschool and primary education. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction (pp. 59–78). New York: Guilford. Tan, A. L., & Wong, H.-M. (2011). “Didn’t get expected answer, rectify it”: teaching science content in an elementary science classroom using hands-on activities. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 197–222. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (translation of Myshlenie i rech’). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minich, Trans). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected work of L. S. Vygotsky (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquirybased and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry.” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., et al. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347–352.