Science Talk Report

G.P. Hudak
SED 561 - 2 December 2014

I.

Science Talk Overview

For this science talk assignment, I engaged several of my 8th grade honors science classes
in a conversation and lesson as part of a unit about biology and the history of genetics, with a
particular focus on Gregor Mendel, the 19th century monk who is widely regarded as the father of
modern genetics. Before initiating the science talk assignment with the honors classes, I provided
an opportunity for my 1st hour general science class to assist with the development and
deployment of the lesson. The classes contain between 24-30 students and are split into groups of
4 around the room as pods or teams. My goal was for the students to figure out that there are
rules in this type of conversation, specifically which if they were to make a claim, back it up with
a citation or evidence (Luft, 2008). This is a fundamental on which Id like to build my students
lifelong careers as critical thinkers.
The big idea for that particular lesson was to bring into focus our previous work on
punnet squares, heredity and chance with regards to genetic inheritance. Our objective was to
learn about Mendel, his process, his goals, and what he achieved. It was also important to
provide framing for this scientists work as he used the scientific method, particularly by using
test groups and control groups. To begin the class, I provided a line of questioning starting off in
broad terms asking where genetics came from. I activated prior knowledge by tying in references
to the weeks of lessons we had been working on. I asked the class what a genotype was, and was
provided two incorrect answers before receiving the correct one. It was typical in all of the
classes, regardless of whether they were an honors class or not, to hit a few vague answers before
warming up to find an appropriate response. After receiving a correct answer, I asked what a
phenotype was, and then got the ball rolling after that. I then engaged the class with a question
about where the study of modern genetics came from. That is the point where we opened our
texts and referenced key concepts within their genetics chapter. The hope for this type of
interactive discussion was for the students to wrestle with certain ideas about genetics and to
put themselves in his shoes since he lived in a period of time where genetic science was
unknown, so how could they test ideas about it? I asked about why he would use peas and
flowers, and asked students to come up with thoughts about how to conduct their own
experiments. This led to a 4 minute conversation about the simplicity of these organisms, and
their ease of use from an observers point of view.
The students opened their texts and watched a brief video about Gregor Mendel and his
work in genetics. I asked questions like What was he trying to accomplish? Why is this work
important? What did he do to answer the questions he had about pea plants and flowers? What
types of experiments are performed today that are a result of Mendels work? I encouraged the
groups to engage in discussion with one another about some of these ideas, and wrote on the
board about inheritance and genetic variation. The portion of the lesson that revolved around
science talk was short enough to lead us into a web module about genetic inheritance and the
students filled out a worksheet (guided by the webquest) until the period was over.

Science Talk Report

G.P. Hudak
SED 561 - 2 December 2014

II.

Question Initiation

This lesson on genetics and inheritance is designed to follow a unit on punnet squares and
brief introductions to DNA and RNA. It is common for many of these units to incorporate the
human story of scientists and researchers that made these discoveries possible, so it was my hope
to get students to try to think of these events as a story (Furtak, 2009). Essentially, most of the
questions were provided by me. This was my first attempt at instigating a discussion of this type
as most of my background in teaching has been as a lecturer. Despite attempts to get them to ask
questions to each other, I found it difficult to get them to stop addressing me and work together.
This particular unit was new information to them and they found it challenging to go far with
their line of questioning. My claim is that they could have had more engagement in science
discussion if I had moved this assignment into a different part of the unit, or even just couched it
into the end of class, instead of the beginning of class.
I moved from asking the entire class about an idea or concept about Mendel, genetics or
inheritance, and I would get a brief or vague answer that was somewhat relevant, but often not
the answer I was looking for. With my first hour class, I assigned team leads within their groups
to facilitate questioning to the rest of the students. They were largely disengaged and confused
with the process. Classes that followed did somewhat better, but as 8th graders I believe they
werent particularly used to the idea about talking on subject that they simply didnt know about
yet. They attempted to make meaningful connections but since this topic was new, they didnt
really know how to start.
At the beginning of class, I asked the students a few questions that began with simple,
straightforward answers and grew increasingly difficult or open ended. First, I asked the students
to define or describe certain terms from previous units, specifically about genotypes and
phenotypes. After answering those, they didnt really have any follow up questions. I worked to
make the questions more intense, or probing and open-ended. Many of my expectations were not
met, but I found that just the fact that these students were trying to discuss these concepts, and
use mature language in the process, it seemed to have a benefit with regards to engagement and
classroom management.
The sequence of these lines of questioning attempted to move from low to high in terms
of complexity and overarching reference to big ideas within the genetics unit. I attempted to
limit the number of closed questions and left many of them open, but when I discussed with a
few students that there was no right answer, they appeared confused and uncertain how to
proceed. One student remarked that it didnt make sense since this was a science class and there
are right answers in science.

III.

Question Response

While asking questions like Why did Mendel perform these experiments on pea
plants? I would receive various answers, ranging from Mendel did these experiments to see if
something is passed down to the next generation, to He did these experiments because he
thought something would happen.

Science Talk Report

G.P. Hudak
SED 561 - 2 December 2014

Some of my ELs answered differently, thinking I was asking about the ease with which
Mendel could experiment with plants. I wrote on note cards that I provided to them to assist with
forming their sentences that said He did these experiments because and got a couple answers
back that were similar to He did these experiments on pea plants because they are easy to
experiment on. I frequently had to clarify the questions and the fact that I was not asking
Why, but Why. It happened on four occasions in my video, and I seem to remember it
occurring off camera, as well. I also received He did it because he knew it would happen.
When asked What would happen, the student replied that he knew it would be a different
color if he did that way.
Following up with the students was a challenge that led me to ask other students within
the group to respond with a thoughtful answer. I corrected one or two students about their
answers when I asked about inheritance, why Mendel used all purple flowers at first (to have a
control group), but the majority of science talk occurred when I provided opportunities for them
to cite evidence. Since the chapter was open in front of them, I asked a few students to
paraphrase as opposed to simply reading an answer directly from the book when I asked
them a follow up question about Mendels process, or whatever the particular detail was that I
was asking about. When I pushed them to expand their understanding into todays genetics, I got
a unique opportunity for contextualization when one group brought up the movie Jurassic Park,
and a pair of students eyes lit up. They were enthusiastic to discuss their experience with this
work of fiction, and it ignited a discussion among the group. This student-student interaction was
what I was looking for, particularly when they hit on the fact that a genetically identical copy
was, in fact, a clone, and thats why the purple flowers gave way to more purple flowers.

IV.

Student Ideas

It was evident that these students needed more time and practice within this unit to
discuss ideas and gain a fundamental conceptual framework, because at this point in the unit it
just wasnt really going forward in the way that I had hoped. They needed more information on
which to base an argument. It appeared that there were just too few opportunities at this point in
the semester to have an opinion about these concepts. Many 8th graders hadnt yet grasped some
of these concepts, so it was early for them to argue many points about Mendel. However,
towards the end of their discussions, it became apparent that they could agree on several points.
Flowers were being used because it was easier than using animals or insects. Also it became
widely understood that the colors of flowers was simple, and thus an easy experiment. Student
conceptions about peas varied, however, and it is not entirely clear why. One possible reason
could be because of the increased possibilities for variation between hybrids and clones. White
flowers and purple flowers making hybrids may have been easier to grasp. Several studentstudent interactions were overheard trying to make sense of the types of peas, especially with
size and texture. They seemed to get the color inheritance, but not heterozygous co-dominance of
certain phenotypes. This was probably due to the fact that it was still early in the unit and they
needed more time to practice ideas.
3

Science Talk Report

G.P. Hudak
SED 561 - 2 December 2014

80% of the students charged with follow-up questions probing into their understanding of
certain phenotypes (flowers with purple spots, etc.) were able to sift through the short chapter in
their textbooks and point it out directly in an illustration, or point to a key concept, whatever the
follow up may have been asking about. Some of the ELs were slower at this, but still found the
appropriate evidence within the text and were able to cite it properly. As a matter of fact, several
ELs defended claims with evidence, though directly from the text and not paraphrased, as well as
native English speakers in the first hour class.

V.

Relevance

By the 2nd hour I was able to bring forward the reference to Jurassic Park, thanks to the
students who made the connection, and make it meaningful to them in that regard, since it was a
story that they enjoyed. I made several attempts to bring meaning to the fact that genetic
inheritance comes from parents who combine genetic information to pass down to children, but I
feel I could have done a better job preparing a line of questioning about that. It didnt appear to
resonate with any of the groups very much, but I continued practicing bringing relevance to the
topics. Some parts of genetics can be very interesting to this age group, but it appeared that the
history of Mendel was lost on a few students. I asked students about hybrids and clones, which
can be an interesting topic of discussion for these students now that they have completed the
unit, but at the time they struggled with certain aspects of variation and genetic inheritance. I
didnt want them to go too far off track, especially with an alternative conception about how
genes get passed down. For example, I reiterated to several students that there is not a gene that
just says purple flower or white flower, but that these punnet squares are simplified, and that
genes are much more complex than that. Overall, this exercise could have been much more
effective at the end of a unit rather than at a beginning. Another critique Id have for my
performance would be to have a dozen more questions in the can and ready to deploy, instead
of just one or two. I would like to avoid confusing them on an already confusing topic, so I think
some open ended questions are best left to have in collaborative workgroups where there really
are no right or wrong answers.
I was very satisfied how many of my ELs and other students were able to reference the
big ideas we were discussing in the unit overall, like Mendels use of the scientific method, for
example. It was through engagement in group discussion that they were able to participate and
bounce ideas off of each other, especially in my 1st hour with a particular group of ELs. I believe
that the students probably would have been more active in their participation in Think Pair Share
arrangements, too, because I did notice a few students being passive while the other students
spoke. In a duo, this might be eliminated.

References
Luft, J. (2008). Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. Arlington, Va.: NSTA Press.

Science Talk Report

G.P. Hudak
SED 561 - 2 December 2014

Furtak, E. (2009). Formative assessment for secondary science teachers. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Corwin.