The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) call for a high level of classroom discourse (Lee, Quinn, and Valdés 2013). In the NGSS classroom, students engage in argument from evidence; construct explanations; and obtain, evaluate, and communicate information in order to explain phenomena and design solutions to problems. As a result of these language-intensive practices, the NGSS present opportunities and challenges for English learners (ELs), who represent the fastest growing subset of the U.S. student population. To engage all students, including ELs, in the high level of classroom discourse called for by the standards, educators have turned to talk moves (e.g., “Say more about that”), defined as general-purpose tools for facilitating academically productive discussions (MacDonald, Cook, and Miller 2014). While talk moves have shown to be effective in building classroom community and promoting participation of all students (see Michaels and O’Connor 2015 for a review), the generic nature of talk moves may limit their utility in guiding students’ sense-making and promoting science understanding.

In this article, we propose the notion of discipline-specific probes, which go beyond general-purpose talk moves by targeting specific science concepts and ideas. First, we highlight affordances and limitations of general-purpose talk moves from the perspective of EL education, and discipline-specific probes from the perspective of science education, and then delve into how the two can be used in a complementary fashion to support productive science discussions with all students and ELs in particular. Second, we present a heuristic developed by our research team in collaboration with a teacher advisory board for generating discipline-specific probes to facilitate discussions around scientific models. Third, we follow one teacher back into her fifth-grade classroom to see how she uses the heuristic to guide students’ sense-making and promote science understanding. Finally, we provide recommendations for teachers to implement the heuristic in their classrooms.

From General-Purpose to Discipline-Specific 

Grounded in the central role of talk in learning, talk moves are “simple families of conversational moves intended to accomplish local goals” (Michaels and O’Connor 2015, p. 334). Talk moves were originally conceived as a way to disrupt the dominant form of classroom discourse, referred to as Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE), wherein the teacher initiates a question, a student responds, and then the teacher evaluates the correctness of the student’s response. In contrast to IRE, teachers use talk moves to facilitate productive discussions that build classroom community and promote participation of all students (Michaels and O’Connor 2012). Although not specifically developed for ELs, talk moves align with contemporary perspectives on second language acquisition that go “beyond a focus on ‘native-like’ or ‘standard’ English and instead focus on the role of language as a resource for learning” (Bunch 2013, p. 325). Table 1 identifies four specific goals for productive discussions and examples of talk moves that are useful for achieving these goals.

The talk moves listed in the right column of Table 1 are general purpose because they are not specific to any disciplinary concept or idea being discussed. Thus, they are equally applicable to a discussion about the movement of gas particles (i.e., a physical science idea) as they are to a discussion about the relative brightness of stars in the sky (i.e., a space science idea). On the one hand, the fact that these talk moves “can be used at any point in any kind of discussion” (Michaels and O’Connor, 2012, p. 4) is helpful to teachers, who can add these general-purpose tools to their proverbial teaching toolbox and use them across a range of teaching situations without much modification. On the other hand, the generic nature of these talk moves may also limit their utility.

Going beyond general-purpose talk moves, we propose the notion of discipline-specific probes as tools that are specific to science concepts and ideas being targeted in the discussion. As general-purpose talk moves are still useful for building classroom community and promoting participation of all students, discipline-specific probes are intended to supplement, rather than replace, general-purpose talk moves. If discussions in science class are to result in “deep understanding” (Michaels and O’Connor 2012, p. 2), general-purpose talk moves must be supplemented with discipline-specific probes that guide students’ sense-making toward particular disciplinary ends.

For example, in a class discussion focused on explaining how smell travels across the room, one student may observe, “The smell goes all around.” To encourage other students to engage with this idea, the teacher may use a general-purpose talk move (e.g., “Does anyone want to respond to that idea?”). Ideally, as the discussion continues, the class will co-construct the idea of gas particles moving freely (5-PS1-1 in the NGSS); however, at certain high-leverage points in the discussion, it is likely that the teacher will need to guide students’ sense-making with discipline-specific probes directly related to the particle nature of gas (e.g., “If we could look really closely at smell, what might we see?”) and the movement of gas particles (e.g., “Say more about how the particles are moving.”).

In facilitating discussions such as this one, it is important that teachers strike a delicate balance between guiding sense-making toward the targeted science concepts and ideas and leaving ample space for students to grapple with emerging ideas. Teachers must ensure that discussions involving discipline-specific probes do not fall into the familiar IRE pattern based on the teacher’s agenda of “covering” particular science topics. This is especially crucial when working with students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, including ELs, who come to school with knowledge from their homes and communities that can enrich the science classroom community (González, Moll, and Amanti 2005). Thus, teachers must be strategic in their use of general-purpose talk moves and discipline-specific probes, considering the affordances and limitations of each, as summarized in Table 2. Although the appropriate balance of general-purpose talk moves and discipline-specific probes cannot be prescribed in the abstract and will be different for each discussion and group of students, recognizing the affordances and limitations of each can serve as a framework for teachers to make informed decisions in the classroom. For example, a teacher applying this framework may decide to follow each discipline-specific probe with a general-purpose talk move so that discussions are sufficiently guided (i.e., an affordance of discipline-specific probes) while also ensuring participation of all students (i.e., an affordance of general-purpose talk moves).

A Heuristic for Discipline-Specific Probes

In collaboration with a teacher advisory board, our research team is currently developing and field testing NGSS-aligned instructional materials for all fifth-grade students, including ELs. One prominent feature of the instructional materials is that students develop and revise scientific models in small groups as they make sense of phenomena. Group modeling is a productive context for facilitating science discussions, particularly with ELs who use multiple modalities (e.g., pointing at diagrams and symbols in the model) to communicate their ideas.

The purpose of the heuristic (Table 3) is to help teachers facilitate productive discussions around group models by guiding students’ sense-making in direct relation to targeted concepts and ideas. In the first column, and in line with the vision of the NGSS, teachers identify the three dimensions of science learning—science and engineering practices (SEP), crosscutting concepts (CCC), and disciplinary core ideas (DCI)—targeted in a particular group modeling task. In the second column, teachers identify strengths and weaknesses of the group model in relation to the targeted dimensions. In the third column, based on the strengths and weaknesses identified in the model, teachers generate discipline-specific probes to guide students’ sense-making and promote science understanding.

Introducing the Heuristic to Teachers

We introduced this heuristic at one of our teacher advisory board meetings, which occurred prior to classroom implementation of our ecosystems unit. The unit addresses fifth-grade NGSS performance expectations (PEs) in life science and physical science through the phenomenon of the tiger salamanders’ disappearance. Over the course of the unit, students investigate why the tiger salamanders mysteriously disappeared from a local vernal pool ecosystem. One of the PEs targeted in our ecosystems unit was 5-PS3-1 Energy: Use models to describe that energy in animals’ food (used for body repair, growth, and motion and to maintain body warmth) was once energy from the sun. [Clarification Statement: Examples of models could include diagrams, and flow charts.]. In a task aligned to this PE, students work in groups to develop models of how energy moves through the vernal pool ecosystem.

To prepare teachers for facilitating productive discussions around this group modeling task, we asked them to fill in the three columns of the heuristic based on a sample student model (see the sample student model and a completed heuristic in Figure 1, p. 37, and Table 4, respectively). In the first column of the heuristic, teachers identified the three dimensions of science learning targeted in the task. In the second column, teachers identified strengths and weaknesses of the sample student model in relation to the targeted dimensions. For example, the model includes key components of the system and shows how algae capture energy from the Sun (strength of the model), but it does not show how the energy is transferred through the vernal pool ecosystem to the tiger salamander (weakness of the model). In the third column, teachers generated discipline-specific probes to guide students’ sense-making and promote science understanding. For example, teachers wrote, “How is the Sun’s energy transferred through the vernal pool ecosystem?”

After completing the heuristic, teachers practiced facilitating discussions in real time with members of our research team acting as students. By the end of the meeting, teachers had experience generating and using discipline-specific probes as well as a tangible resource for facilitating productive discussions in their science classrooms.

Bringing the Heuristic Into the Classroom 

Since the teacher advisory board meeting, we have seen improvement in teachers’ use of discipline-specific probes to guide sense-making in discussions around group modeling tasks. In a recent observation, one of our teachers, Ms. Davis, facilitated a discussion with a group of students that was developing a model of how energy moves through the vernal pool ecosystem. An excerpt from this discussion appears in Figure 2.

In this excerpt, Ms. Davis uses general-purpose talk moves and discipline-specific probes strategically, considering the affordances and limitations of each (see Table 2). Ms. Davis first responds to Diego, who is an EL, with a general-purpose talk move that encourages other students in the group to engage with and build on Diego’s idea (“Can anyone expand on that?”). By focusing on Diego’s contribution to the discourse rather than his failure to use a complete sentence, Ms. Davis promotes participation of all students and adopts a view of “language as a resource for learning” (Bunch 2013, p. 325). Recognizing, however, that a general-purpose talk move may not be sufficiently specific to highlight the concepts and ideas being targeted in the discussion, Ms. Davis follows up with a discipline-specific probe from her heuristic about the transfer of energy through the vernal pool ecosystem (“So the energy goes from the Sun to the algae. How does it get to the tiger salamander?”). When Sara responds, Ms. Davis leaves ample space for students to engage with Sara’s idea and, in doing so, avoids “correcting” her and falling into the traditional IRE pattern. Mariana’s subsequent response suggests that the discipline-specific probe was successful in guiding students’ sense-making and promoting understanding of energy transfer through ecosystems.

Recommendations for Teachers

To support teachers in implementing the heuristic in their classrooms, we provide recommendations in three areas: (1) classroom logistics, (2) inclusion of ELs, and (3) assessment.

1) Classroom Logistics:

• Create groups of three to five students. This will promote participation of all students in the discussion while also ensuring a diversity of ideas within each group. Provide chart paper and ample space in the classroom so that group members can work on the model simultaneously.
• Give clear and specific instructions for the task, including the amount of time allotted (e.g., “You will have 20 minutes to develop a model with your group that shows how energy is transferred through the vernal pool ecosystem”).
• Set ground rules for the discussion. Offer examples of how students can disagree respectfully, ask for evidence to support ideas, and work cooperatively.
• As you circulate to each group, consult the heuristic to determine what you are looking for in the models. Before entering a group discussion, listen to students to get a sense of their current thinking. After guiding the discussion using general-purpose talk moves and discipline-specific probes strategically, ensure that each group has a plan for revising their model to reflect any new insights from the discussion.

2) Inclusion of ELs:

• Place ELs with at least one other group member who shares the same home language. This is especially important with beginning or newcomer ELs, whose still-emerging English proficiency could act as a barrier to their meaningful participation. These students, in particular, benefit from opportunities to use all of the linguistic resources at their disposal, including home language.
• Use objects and resources in the situation to make language comprehensible for ELs. In the example in Figure 2, Ms. Davis pointed to an arrow in the group’s model while also providing the language to communicate about energy transfer (“So you’re saying that the Sun gives energy to the tree”). This enabled Diego to make meaning of Ms. Davis’s talk and contribute productively to the subsequent discussion. Providing examples of how language is used to talk about science ideas is important for all students, not just beginning ELs.

3) Assessment:

• Use the heuristic during small-group discussions to assess student understanding for formative purposes. Specifically, the heuristic guides teachers through the formative assessment process of developing three-dimensional science criteria (column 1), applying the criteria to interpret student performance (column 2), and providing contingent feedback that promotes student understanding (column 3). In doing so, the heuristic promotes a view of formative assessment as an ongoing process that is embedded in instruction and aimed at improving teaching and learning in real time.
• Use the heuristic at the end of instruction to inform the development of summative assessment tasks and criteria. Figure 3 shows how the completed heuristic from Table 4 can be adapted to assess student understanding of energy transfer through ecosystems in a different context (i.e., the forest ecosystem).

Conclusion

From the perspective of EL education, general-purpose talk moves build classroom community and promote participation of all students. From the perspective of science education, discipline-specific probes guide students’ sense-making toward particular disciplinary ends. By using general-purpose talk moves and discipline-specific probes strategically, teachers can ensure all students’ voices are heard and valued in the classroom while also promoting science understanding. As linguistic diversity increases among K–12 students, capitalizing on productive intersections between EL education and science education is essential to ensuring all students, including ELs, meet rigorous science standards. The heuristic presented in this article can be applied or adapted for immediate use by teachers to improve the quality of discussions in their science classrooms. 

Scott Grapin (sg4413@nyu.edu) is a doctoral candidate, Alison Haas is a research associate, Lorena Llosa is an associate professor, and Okhee Lee is a professor, all at New York University. Marcelle Goggins is a research consultant in Seattle, Washington.