Kara Loofborough

SED561: Science Talk Report

I.

Science Talk Overview

The purpose of this science talk was to engage in a discussion about Newtons
three laws of motion. Specifically, the objective of the lesson was based on the core
idea outlined in the Framework for K-12 Education. In PS2.A: Forces and Motion,
the core idea states that students should be able to answer the following question:
How can one predict an objects continued motion, changes in motion, or stability?
(NRC, 2012, pg. 114). I used this to guide the direction of my science talk. The big
idea to make sense of was how a car crash would exhibit the three laws of motion.
The discussion took place at the beginning of the lesson before students were
given an assessment about these concepts. What I first asked students to do was to
make predictions with their groups about how they might see the first law of motion
in a car crash. I scaffolded this by first having students clarify what the first law was
before they started making predictions. I circulated at individual groups and asked
what they predicted. I then had students share their predictions to the class. Then they
watched a video of a car crash and I had asked them to take notes on what they
observed. Afterward, I asked students how their predictions lined up with what they
saw. The science talk continued to go back and forth between group discussion and
whole-class discussion where I asked students to share what they discussed with their
groups. Students were also given a rubric and were told they should use it to help
guide their discussion. I continued this through all three laws of motion, using the
same car crash demonstration in the video and having students make observations.
I hoped this science talk would facilitate a deeper understanding of the big picture
by allowing students to make predictions and then checking the accuracy of their
predictions against their observations. This science talk also aligns with the big idea
in that students are developing their understanding of the laws of motion for a given
situation to predict and explain an objects continued motion and changes in motion.
Students should be able to predict outcomes of given situations and apply the relevant
vocabulary, which is part of the state standards.

II.

Question Initiation
Both the students and I were asking questions in the science talk. To begin the
science talk, I had initially asked the guiding questions to start the discussion and
guide the direction. Before the lesson began, I explained that they would be graded
based upon a rubric they were given and that they would be expected to be able to
predict and explain a scenario and apply relevant vocab correctly, and that they
should use this to guide their discussion. As students began making predictions, more
questions came up from the students, which were incorporated into the whole-class
discussion as well as remaining class periods. I used students questions to guide

some parts of the science talk and used talk moves to encourage student-student
interaction during this whole-class discussion. What I would do to improve this
section is to refer students back to the rubric consistently.
The questions I asked students were primarily open-ended. I began by asking
them to make predictions in their groups about how they would see the first law of
motion in any given car crash. I left it as any type of car crash to see what answers
they would come up with and conceptualize their understanding to a broader level. I
also left it as how they would witness the first law because there would be multiple
ways they could observe this in the given car crash scenario. After this I asked
students to make observations in their groups and then share the as a whole-class,
from which there would be more questions to ask each other. The only time I
implemented less open-ended questions was to clarify understanding of certain terms
or phrases and asking students to explain to the class what they meant, such as What
is inertia? or What does equal and opposite mean? Some students struggled with
the terms and the laws so I would ask students to share their conceptions with the
class to help clarify it for others, as well as for themselves. I also pointed out that they
could look back to their notes to help guide them through the discussion. To improve
upon this, I would need to have better anticipation for areas where students would
struggle or become confused, and also determine if I should ask for clarification
before or after predictions and observations. I feel like beforehand would help them
more in discussion, but doing it afterward would also allow students to be wrong and
generate a richer discussion.
Questions were sequenced low to high. Before predictions were made in groups, I
would ask students to first clarify the law to activate their prior knowledge of what
theyve been learning. Before the group discussion happened I would ask students to
look at their notes and tell me what inertia is or what is meant by equal and
opposite. Some discussions were even able to get to higher levels of thinking where
students presented different scenarios and posed deeper questions that were helpful
for other students to ponder in group discussion. What I would do to improve this
sequencing is to develop more specific questions that reflect increasing levels of
complexity.
III.

Question Response
During group discussion, I did not always provide a follow-up response to their
predictions or observations if they had already come to getting close to the answer.
By not confirming or denying, they could continue their discussion and clarify their
conceptions further. Other times, I would help guide them to clarify
misunderstandings in the group or probe them to take conceptions a step further.
Specifically, students were able to tell me that more mass meant more inertia and that
it also meant less acceleration. So then I asked them what effect inertia had on
acceleration, and allowing them to connect their understandings of the first two laws.
Sometimes I would use misconceptions as talking points in the whole-class
discussion. During this time, I would ask those students to share what they thought

and then ask other groups if they agreed or disagreed and why. I also tried to employ
specific talk moves to accomplish science talk goals, as outlined by Michaels and
OConnor in Science Talk Primer (pg. 213). To improve this aspect, I would make
feedback more consistent and provide more structure in specific directions of the talk.
During discussion, I continued to focus on these science talk goals. One
specifically is to deepen their reasoning by asking for evidence or reasoning. I did this
by asking students to specifically state what they saw in the video that supports the
claim they were making. Other times, students explained the laws of motion using the
video without me asking. What I would improve on here is asking students to think of
ways they would find this meaningful to them and probe for deeper thinking by
having students apply their conceptions to other scenarios.
Student-student interaction was encouraged throughout the discussion, both in
groups as well as during the whole-class discussions. I attempted to implement
specific science talk moves to reach the goals. During whole-class discussion I would
ask students to rephrase what another had just said, both in the same group if an
individual was struggling and in other groups and check to see how groups
understandings compared. I also asked students to agree or disagree about each
others conceptions and explained what was meant by anothers statement. For
example, one student had stated that the car was in motion, but the body was at rest,
and I asked the class if anybody agreed or disagreed. This allowed students to
respond to anothers misconceptions and helped to clarify understanding, both for the
mistaken and for the student making the correction. This is where student-student
interaction took place across different groups. This interaction also allowed students
to drive the direction of the discussion, making it more student-centered. What I
would improve here is to clearly state from the beginning that students should be
actively listening to the speaker and warn them that I would call on others to respond
to what was just said.
IV.

Student Ideas
What I learned from the science talk discussion, both through group discussion
and through whole-class discussion was that students still had misunderstandings
about the laws of motion, even when they had been learning about them for over a
week consistently. Inertia was discussed in several class lessons but some students
still struggled with what it meant and what the implications were. Students were also
unclear about what equal and opposite meant with regard to the third law. This
showed me that some students need additional support, and so I integrated this into
the discussions throughout the other lessons, whether it was to clarify the simple
terms before or after. I felt that explaining them before would allow students to
Another difficulty students had was the ability to correctly explain their
understandings. I feel that many students understood what they were observing but
still struggled with determining how to use the words to explain what it was they
observed. Being able to discuss and share their ideas with others was helpful to many
to clarify conceptions. What I would do to improve this is to provide better

scaffolding to students who struggle and anticipating these kinds of struggles before
material is presented.
Another important observation made of students during the science talk was their
ability to defend their claims with evidence. Although many are capable of these
tasks, they do not understand the importance of using their resources to defend their
claims. Students also had difficulty responding to each others observations, whether
they are not listening or that the phrasing is very difficult from each other, so they are
unsure how to respond. What I would do here is definitely incorporate more of
students funds of knowledge and ask students to draw on their experiences. I would
have liked to take this science talk discussion one step further and asked students to
relate what they are observing and discussing back to their own lives and experiences.
By doing this, students would have more of a foundation from which to defend their
claims.
V.

Relevance ( page)
The science talk may have been contextualized through the demonstration of a car
crash scenario. Many students may have witnessed a car crash before, whether in
their life or if they had seen it in other contexts. However, I do not know whether or
not students understand it or will be able to apply this knowledge to their lives. Being
8th graders, Im not certain how relevant or meaningful a car crash would be to them.
I would have liked to make the science talk discussion more meaningful and relevant
to their lives and personal experiences. What I should have done to better prepare for
this is to integrate more levels to the discussion and allowing students to contribute
their funds of knowledge. I could have made the lesson more contextualized by first
letting students brainstorm ideas of where they might observe the laws of motion and
then consistently referring back to their lived experiences. Starting with something
they can relate to and returning to it would be better for making sense of the big idea
and the underlying concepts.
Student-student interaction can also be structured with more support. I did not set
clear expectations regarding how students should respond to each other during wholeclass discussion. I should have stated to students that I wanted them to interact with
each other during this component of discussion. I also could have used more talk
moves in order to accomplish the goals of a science talk. This would also require
asking more specific questions. For the most part I was able to let students guide the
direction of the conversation. If I had better responses to their answers or better
follow-up questions, talk moves would be more easily implemented in order to
encourage student-student interaction and achieve the goals of science talk.

References
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New
K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.