CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Science Education and PedagogyEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesEvolution and Science Education

Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions

Open access
Caño, Lidia, Sanz, Josu·2025·Journal of Research in Science Teaching
DOI 10.1002/tea.70010
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Promoting argumentation based on evidence allows students to give meaning to the phenomena observed, enabling the construction of knowledge. Children's argumentative discourse can be activated by appropriate instruction, but there is little information on argumentation at early ages and there is a need for the teacher to understand how to foster and guide the articulation of ideas at this stage. In this study we aim to assess how teachers' dialogical practices stimulate young children to engage in argumentation and knowledge construction through simultaneously analyzing the teacher's questions and children's answers, from the double scope of the epistemic and argumentative operations. We analyzed elementary classroom discussions of students involved in inquiry activities on plant growth led by two different trainee teachers. Our results show that 6–7‐year‐olds were able to not only use experimental data and prior knowledge as evidence to generate explanations and draw conclusions but also evaluate and question the ideas of others. This gave rise to small argumentative nodes in which a process of co‐construction of knowledge on plant growth and core concepts of the living being took place. We have identified three fundamental characteristics of the dialogical strategies that can condition the quality of the students' practice: the type of teacher's questions, the order or questioning sequence, and certain talk moves to manage correct or incorrect responses and to stimulate peer collaboration. Our results indicate that teachers could involve students in high‐level epistemic operations but also implement appropriate dialogic techniques to raise the level of argumentation and scientific reasoning from an early age.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This case study analyzes two inquiry-based plant discussions with 6–7-year-olds to show how teacher questioning and peer collaboration support epistemic operations and emergent argumentation. It finds that young children can use evidence, evaluate peers’ ideas, and co-construct core ideas about living beings when teachers use productive questions and responsive talk moves.

Key findings

  • Children in all four discussion groups performed epistemic operations including observing, describing, comparing, interpreting, explaining, and evaluating; level 2 operations (interpret, explain, evaluate) were more frequent than level 1 operations in Groups B and D.
  • A high percentage of children’s statements were argumentation components: 68%–87% across groups. The most frequent components were evidence (25.3% ± 4.1 S.E.), claims (24.4% ± 4.9 S.E.), and reasoning (20.1% ± 4.2 S.E.); students also produced counterarguments, pro-arguments, backing, and qualifiers.
  • Teacher productive questions were mostly level 2 (64%–83% of total productive questions by group), with reasoning questions most frequent; however, about 40% of productive questions did not lead to an epistemic operation, and level 2 questions had a lower response rate than level 1 questions.
  • Collaborative student-student interactions triggered most level 2 operations except in Group A (between 57.1% and 90.5%), and 1st graders produced up to six complete arguments linking claim and reasoning in the same statement.

Methods

  • Exploratory case study of two classroom discussions led by two pre-service teachers: Teacher Aitor with 1st-grade students and Teacher Nora with the same students in 2nd grade; participants were 21 students (10 girls, 11 boys), ages 6–7, in a Basque-language school using project-based learning.
  • Data came from 15–20-min teacher-led discussions with subgroups of about 10 students (Groups A and B for Teacher Aitor; Groups C and D for Teacher Nora) following experimental inquiry on plant germination and growth.
  • Discourse analysis coded speaking turns for teacher questions/talk moves, children’s epistemic operations, argumentation components using Toulmin’s argument pattern, and core ideas; inter-rater kappa values were 0.98 for productive questions/talk moves, 0.85 for argumentation components, 0.78 for epistemic operations, and 0.73 for core ideas.

Limitations

  • The paper states methodological limitations in coding short, delayed, or non-linear responses and utterances of young children, and notes that the analysis cannot fully explain why many high-cognitive-demand questions did not elicit responses at the corresponding level.
  • The paper states that classroom discussion is influenced by other factors not addressed, such as individual characteristics of participants, and that findings cannot be generalized because the study is based on case studies.
  • Evident from the text: the sample is small and drawn from one school with convenience sampling, involves only two pre-service teachers without specific training in teacher questioning, and is not an intervention study.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tea.70010

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

7 of 51 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationcitation

    The short utterances registered in this study may not be a consequence of limited evidence-based reasoning skills but rather the result of a lack of oral communication development to generate well-structured arguments in a standard way at these early ages.

    “The short utterances registered in this study may not be a consequence of limited evidence-based reasoning skills but rather the result of a lack of oral communication development to generate well-structured arguments in a standard way at these early ages, as also indicated by Convertini and Arcidiacono (2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Convertini and Arcidiacono (2021) source

      Section 3 explains that young children’s apparently incomplete arguments need not reflect limited argumentative ability: they may be natural features of spontaneous oral conversation or rely on implicit premises and gestures. Section 7 likewise cautions against inferring a lack of argumentative ability from non-elaborate speech. The paper does not establish that the short utterances in the citing study result from underdeveloped oral communication, rather than limited evidence-based reasoning. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Adopting a non-directive role stimulates the use of evidence to explain scientific phenomena and to question or request evidence and warrants from each other, thereby scaffolding students through increasing cognitive levels in a collaborative way.

    “Adopting a non-directive role stimulates the use of evidence to explain the scientific phenomena and to question or request evidence and warrants from each other, thereby scaffolding students through increasing cognitive levels in a collaborative way”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Berland and Hammer 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hogan et al. 1999 source
    • cites Jin and Kim 2020

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    In Teacher Nora's class, an explanation was elaborated as many as three times based on the hypothetical effect of a new factor, as yet untested, but induced from an observation made in the experiment or from general experience.

    “In Teacher Nora's class, an explanation was elaborated as many as three times based on the hypothetical effect of a new factor (Table 2), as yet untested, but induced from an observation made in the experiment or from general experience:”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Initial drawings of 1st graders showed that some inanimate elements were considered as living beings while plants were not.

    “Several initial drawings of 1st graders showed that some inanimate elements were considered as living beings while plants were not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    6-7-year-old children in the study evaluated and questioned the ideas of others.

    “Our results show that 6-7-year-olds were able to not only use experimental data and prior knowledge as evidence to generate explanations and draw conclusions but also evaluate and question the ideas of others.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 41
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    From the age of 4-6 years, children are able to generate predictions, use observations as evidence, and evaluate and question each other.

    “from the age of 4-6 years, children are able to generate predictions, use observations as evidence, and evaluate and question each other (Frejd 2019;Kim and Roth 2018;Metz 2011;Manz and Allen 2017;Ruffman et al. 1993;Siry et al. 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Frejd 2019 source

      The Acts of Doing Science and Discussion sections report that children used observations as evidence and evaluated and questioned one another. But the study’s participants were about 6 years old, not ages 4–6, and its findings describe generating ideas rather than explicitly generating predictions. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Kim and Roth 2018 source
    • cites Metz 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    According to Fleiss (1981), kappa coefficients above 0.75 are regarded as excellent agreement indicators.

    “According to Fleiss (1981), kappa coefficients above 0.75 are regarded as excellent agreement indicators.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fleiss (1981) source

      The Analysis of Subject Effects section discusses an intraclass correlation coefficient and describes an estimate as indicating good reliability. A search of our copy for kappa, the 0.75 threshold, and an ‘excellent agreement’ interpretation found no passage addressing the claimed rule. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Therefore, children's evidence-based reasoning was not limited to their observations, but they also relied on previous information and personal experiences.

    “Therefore, children's evidence-based reasoning was not limited to their observations, but they also relied on previous information and personal experiences, as also reported by Frejd (2019) and Varelas and Pappas (2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Frejd (2019) source
    • cites Varelas and Pappas (2013)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Creating research-based didactic tools and frameworks for teaching science through argumentation can help teachers focus their attention on fostering the construction of evidence-based explanations in their classes.

    “Creating research-based didactic tools and frameworks for teaching science through argumentation can help teachers focus their attention on fostering the construction of evidence-based explanations in their classes”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zembal-Saul 2009 source

      In “Discussion and Implications,” the paper says its argument-construction framework appeared to help preservice teachers focus on constructing evidence-based explanations. “Connections to Problems of Practice” also describes instructional resources intended to connect the framework to classroom practice. The claim extends this finding from preservice teachers to teachers generally and implies an effect on what they foster in their classes, which the cited passages do not establish. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Collaboration among students enables the co-construction of knowledge in elementary school children.

    “Although previous studies have shown that collaboration among students enables the co-construction of knowledge in elementary school children”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Frejd 2019 source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that child–child interaction supports and enriches ideas, and that children evaluate, question, and challenge one another’s ideas. That supports the collaborative knowledge-building point, but the study concerns six-year-olds in a preschool class, not elementary school children generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Manz and Allen 2017 source
    • cites Naylor et al. 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Students also countered or supported the ideas of others, backed their statements with prior knowledge, and used modal qualifiers.

    “although students also countered or supported the ideas of others, backed their statements with prior knowledge, and used modal qualifiers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Teacher Aitor's class the students claimed that plants were living beings and, that logs, shoes, clothes and caves were not living beings.

    “In Teacher Aitor's class the students claimed that plants were living beings and, that logs, shoes, clothes and caves were not living beings (Episodes A2 and B2, Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Students with Teacher Nora claimed that plants need water and time to be born and to grow, that they need neither soil nor light to be born, but that they do need soil to grow.

    “Students with Teacher Nora claimed that plants need water and time to be born and to grow, that they need neither soil nor light to be born, but that they do need soil to grow (e.g., Episode C2 in Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The two pre-service teachers had received general instruction on science education during their undergraduate courses but not specific training in teacher questioning.

    “At the time of the study, both pre-service teachers had received general instruction on science education during their undergraduate courses but not specific training in teacher questioning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Teacher Nora confirmed through drawings that 2nd grade children considered plants to be living beings but some misconceptions arose regarding the process of germination and growth.

    “Teacher Nora confirmed through drawings that 2nd grade children considered plants to be living beings but some misconceptions arose regarding the process of germination and growth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    To justify these claims students constructed explanations appealing to different factors quantified in Table 2.

    “To justify these claims students constructed explanations appealing to different factors quantified in Table 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Teachers could involve students in high-level epistemic operations and implement appropriate dialogic techniques to raise the level of argumentation and scientific reasoning from an early age.

    “Our results indicate that teachers could involve students in high-level epistemic operations but also implement appropriate dialogic techniques to raise the level of argumentation and scientific reasoning from an early age.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The teacher's questions stimulate the performance of epistemic operations by the students, which in turn leads to the construction of arguments and engagement in the argumentation process, the content of which is focused on the core scientific ideas.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Children made claims to answer the inquiry question of the experiment performed with Teacher Aitor and Teacher Nora and elaborate explanations based on evidence to justify their claims.

    “Children made claims to answer the inquiry question of the experiment performed with Teacher Aitor and Teacher Nora (”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The wording and the sequence of teachers' questions matter.

    “we found that the wording and the sequence of teachers' questions matter.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although both teachers used more level 2 questions than level 1 questions in all the groups, only in groups B and D were level 2 operations more frequent than level 1.

    “Although both teachers used more level 2 questions than level 1 questions in all the groups (Table 5), only in groups B and D were level 2 operations more frequent than level 1 (see Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    We have shown that 6-7-year-old children constructed evidence through observation, description, and comparison operations, after which they were able to draw conclusions and justify them through evidence-based explanatory and evaluative procedures.

    “We have shown that 6-7-year-old children constructed evidence through observation, description, and comparison operations, after which they were able to draw conclusions and justify them through evidence-based explanatory and evaluative procedures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Core ideas about the living being arose through argumentation on the concepts of nutrition and reproduction function and the life cycle (in both case studies), of the structure-function relationship (in Teacher Aitor's class), and of the response to stimuli and regulation (in Teacher Nora's class).

    “As illustrated in Figure 2 and in the previous section, core ideas about the living being arose through argumentation on the concepts of nutrition and reproduction function and the life cycle (in both case studies), of the structure-function relationship (in Teacher Aitor's class), and of the response to stimuli and regulation (in Teacher Nora's class).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Two types of talk moves captured and reinforced correct responses by children and helped them move on to new ideas built on the previous ones: revoicing and positive feedback followed by a new question.

    “Two types of talk moves captured and reinforced correct responses by children and helped them move on to new ideas built on the previous ones: revoicing (repeating correct or plausible ideas in a structured way as a recapitulation) and positive feedback followed by a new question.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Both teachers posed the main reasoning question that drove the experiment and the discussion, which triggered the children to make claims and elaborate explanations based on evidence to justify their claims.

    “Both teachers posed the main reasoning question that drove the experiment and the discussion:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Teacher Aitor's pattern was fairly regular and consistent across the two groups, performing a sequence of focusing-comparison-reasoning-rethink questions, while Teacher Nora alternated focusing and reasoning questions throughout the discussion.

    “Teacher Aitor's pattern was fairly regular and consistent across the two groups, performing a sequence of focusing-comparison-reasoning-rethink questions, while Teacher Nora alternated focusing and reasoning questions throughout the discussion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Teacher Aitor's students claimed that plants are living beings based on the evidence that plants are born, grow, change, reproduce and die (life cycle), that they need water to grow (nutrition function), that they have offspring (reproduction function) or that organs are necessary for survival (structure-function).

    “Teacher Aitor's students claimed that plants are living beings based on the evidence that plants are born, grow, change, reproduce and die (life cycle), that they need water to grow (nutrition function), that they have offspring (reproduction function) or that organs are necessary for survival (structure-function) (Figure 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Teacher Nora's pupils reasoned about the need for water (nutrition function), conditions for germination (reproduction function), response to stimuli (phototropism), regulation (excess water being limiting for survival) and life cycle (birth, growth and death) of the plant.

    “Teacher Nora's pupils reasoned about the need for water (nutrition function), conditions for germination (reproduction function), response to stimuli (phototropism), regulation (excess water being limiting for survival) and life cycle (birth, growth and death) of the plant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    We observed, along with other authors, that at these early stages children constructed evidence and arguments through multiple turns, so most single statements corresponded either to claims or evidence statements.

    “We observed, along with other authors (Kim and Roth 2018;Monteira and Jiménez-Aleixandre 2016), that at these early stages children constructed evidence and arguments through multiple turns, so most single statements corresponded either to claims or evidence statements (that sometimes might be intended as reasoning for what had previously been said).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kim and Roth 2018 source
    • cites Monteira and Jiménez-Aleixandre 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    They did so by simply stating agreement or making opposing claims, but in most cases by elaborating reasoning and using evidence, which led to the development of a number of counter-or proarguments.

    “They did so by simply stating agreement or making opposing claims (”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both teachers often forwarded the rephrased statement to other students (toss-back statement), even mentioning their names, which also promoted collaboration.

    “Furthermore, we identified that both teachers often forwarded the rephrased statement to other students (toss-back statement), even mentioning their names, which also promoted collaboration (#A43-#44, Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The process of argumentation gave rise to a new claim (although scientifically incorrect) that may launch future inquiry: 'Is the seed a living being?Why?'.

    “In addition, we observed that the process of argumentation gave rise to a new claim (although scientifically incorrect) that may launch future inquiry:”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The children in our study appealed in their explanations not only to features and causality observed in the experiment, such as growing, dying, or the need for water, but also to other features and cause-effect mechanisms not directly observed, such as the need for specific plant structures to stay alive.

    “The children in our study appealed in their explanations not only to features and causality observed in the experiment, such as growing, dying, or the need for water, but also to other features and cause-effect mechanisms not directly observed, such as the need for specific plant structures to stay alive.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The study defined a series of productive questions and talk moves to prompt young children's evidence-based scientific reasoning, and their phrasing and sequence can determine their success.

    “we have defined a series of productive questions and talk moves to prompt young children's' evidence-based scientific reasoning, stressing that their phrasing and sequence can determine their success.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Performing a nondirective teaching practice promotes the emergence of nodes of argumentation among the children, and thus the highest level of argumentation.

    “we have shown that performing a nondirective teaching practice promotes the emergence of nodes of argumentation among the children, and thus, the highest level of argumentation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Conducting a multidimensional analysis of teacher questions and children's answers across four dimensions has proven useful in capturing the complexity of classroom scientific dialogue and in extracting relevant knowledge about young children's potential and the teacher's dialogic strategies.

    “Conducting such a multidimensional analysis has proven useful in capturing the complexity of classroom scientific dialogue, and thereby, in extracting relevant knowledge about (i) young children's potential to engage in cognitively demanding and collaborative scientific practices and (ii) the teacher's dialogic strategies that enable them to develop that potential.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Teacher Aitor challenged students to reconsider their answers by confronting them with possible contradictions, and Teacher Nora prompted children to reconsider statements that were inconsistent with the evidence.

    “Teacher Aitor, challenged the students to reconsider their answers by confronting them with possible contradictions (e.g., “…but the trees are also still…”), and Teacher Nora prompted children to reconsider statements that were inconsistent with the evidence”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The study identified a series of questions or talk moves in the form of verbal scaffolds, used in response to students' preceding answers, that served three functions: stimulating children to question or revise their own or others' claims or arguments, managing incorrect and correct answers, and enhancing peer collaboration.

    “In this study, we identified a series of questions or talk moves in the form of verbal scaffolds in response to students' preceding answers that served three functions: to stimulate children to question or revise their own or others' claims or arguments, to manage incorrect and correct answers, and to enhance peer collaboration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The most widely used methodological tool to analyze argumentation in classroom talk is Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP).

    “The most widely used methodological tool to analyze argumentation in classroom talk is Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) (Toulmin 2003), which consists of a claim, evidence, warrants, backings, rebuttals, and qualifiers”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Toulmin 2003 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The coding categories achieved inter-rater reliability with kappa coefficients of 0.98 for productive questions and talk moves, 0.85 for argumentation components, 0.78 for epistemic operations, and 0.73 for core ideas.

    “The Kappa value was 0.98 for productive questions and talk moves, 0.85 for argumentation components, 0.78 for epistemic operations, and 0.73 for core ideas.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    After initial independent analysis, the two researchers met to reach agreement on each discrepant coding.

    “After an initial independent analysis the two researchers met to reach agreement on each discrepant coding by familiarizing ourselves with the data to seek common interpretations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The coding of the statements was carried out independently by both researchers.

    “The coding of the statements based on the categories agreed upon by both researchers was carried out by each of them independently.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Since the use of counterarguments or rebuttals in argumentation is indicative of a higher level of argumentation, our results suggest that young children potentially have the capacity to reach such a level.

    “Since the use of counterarguments or rebuttals in argumentation is, according to Erduran et al. (2004), indicative of a higher level of argumentation, our results suggest that young children potentially have the capacity to reach such a level.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Erduran et al. (2004) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    An inappropriate use of scaffolding utterances to stimulate advanced reasoning may not obtain the expected result and may even have negative effects, especially with young children.

    “An inappropriate use of scaffolding utterances to stimulate advanced reasoning may not obtain the expected result and may even have negative effects, especially with young children”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Manz and Allen 2017 source
    • cites Studhalter et al. 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The teacher's questions led to an argumentative and collaborative classroom discourse that prompted the collective construction and evaluation of scientific ideas.

    “which in turn led to an argumentative and collaborative classroom discourse prompting the collective construction and evaluation of scientific ideas.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    By simultaneously categorizing both the teacher's questions and three dimensions of the children's responses-the epistemic operations, argumentative practice, and conceptual content-we have carried out a novel approach that could illuminate the complexities of a science classroom discourse and potentially help to improve teaching practices in early primary education.

    “By simultaneously categorizing both the teacher's questions and three dimensions of the children's responses-the epistemic operations, argumentative practice, and conceptual content-we have carried out a novel approach that could illuminate the complexities of a science classroom discourse and potentially help to improve teaching practices in early primary education.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These different questioning schemes induced different sense-making sequences by leading children to either set up the evidence first and then try to elaborate explanations, or to make their claim and then turn to the evidence to justify it.

    “These different questioning schemes induced different sense-making sequences by leading children to either set up the evidence first and then try to elaborate explanations, or to make their claim and then turn to the evidence to justify it.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Our study shows, in line with previous ones, that children as young as 6 years old are able to engage in scientific dialogue that is not purely descriptive, performing evidence-based reasoning of a certain complexity and carrying out operations of high cognitive demand.

    “Our study shows, in line with previous ones (Kim and Roth 2018;Metz 2011;Siry et al. 2012;Varelas and Pappas 2013), that children as young as 6 years old are able to engage in scientific dialogue that is not purely descriptive, performing evidence-based reasoning of a certain complexity and carrying out operations of high cognitive demand.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kim and Roth 2018 source
    • cites Metz 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Siry et al. 2012 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Explanations of children also included analogies with humans as support, or backing, to justify why a plant is a living being, which reflects the ability to transfer or apply knowledge to different cases or situations.

    “Explanations of children also included analogies with humans as support, or backing, to justify why a plant is a living being, which reflects the ability to transfer or apply knowledge to different cases or situations (Jiménez-Aleixandre et al. 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jiménez-Aleixandre et al. 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The study's results have provided several keys that could contribute to the improvement of teaching practice in the early years of primary science education.

    “our results have provided several keys that could contribute to the improvement of teaching practice in the early years of primary science education.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Classroom discussion is influenced by other factors not addressed in this study, such as the individual characteristics of the participants.

    “classroom discussion is influenced by other factors not addressed in this study that deserve to be considered in further studies, such as the individual characteristics of the participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    By tossing back questions, the teachers validate the students' ideas and establish them as a baseline on which to build, shift the responsibility for knowledge construction back to the student, and promote student-student collaboration.

    “By doing this, the teachers not only validate the students' ideas and establish them as a baseline on which to build, but they shift the responsibility for knowledge construction back to the student and promote student-student collaboration”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chin 2007 source
    • cites Pimentel and McNeill 2013 source
    • cites van Zee and Minstrell 1997 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study has methodological limitations, especially regarding the coding of short, delayed, or non-linear responses and utterances of children at this early age.

    “our study does have some methodological limitations, especially regarding the coding of short, delayed, or non-linear responses and utterances of children at this early age.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Building the lesson from a previously articulated argumentation-conceptualization map can help to structure the teacher's dialogic intervention, to refocus the activity and the discussion, and to collect unforeseen ideas that arise in the conversation.

    “building the lesson from a previously articulated argumentation-conceptualization map, as the one proposed in this study, can help to structure the teacher's dialogic intervention, to refocus the activity and the discussion, and to collect unforeseen ideas that arise in the conversation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Responsive questioning techniques both help students progressively make sense of the conceptual ideas and require them to engage in more higher-order thinking.

    “Therefore, these kinds of “responsive questioning” techniques both help students progressively make sense of the conceptual ideas (Chin 2006) and also require them to engage in more higher-order thinking (Chin 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chin 2006 source
    • cites Chin 2007 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The analysis does not allow complete elucidation of why a significant number of questions, especially those of high cognitive demand, did not elicit responses at the corresponding level.

    “our analysis does not allow us to elucidate completely why a significant number of questions, especially those of high cognitive demand, did not elicit responses at the corresponding level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The argumentation-conceptualization map helps visualize how fragments of ideas are constructed through the different argumentative operations, by representing simultaneously the structure and content of the discourse.

    “we have developed an argumentation-conceptualization map to help visualize how fragments of ideas are constructed through the different argumentative operations, by representing simultaneously the structure and content of the discourse.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A diagram such as the one used in this study may help summarize all the components of argumentation (evidence, reasoning and counter- and pro-arguments) and conceptual knowledge built in response to the inquiry question throughout the entire discussion.

    “a diagram such as the one we use in this study may help summarize all the components of argumentation (evidence, reasoning and counter-and pro-arguments) and conceptual knowledge built in response to the inquiry question throughout the entire discussion.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This type of diagram, by integrating the scientific concepts addressed in a Toulmin's layout for argumentation, allows the teacher to anticipate the core ideas to scaffold and to foresee the corresponding evidences and claims that could be worked on in class.

    “This type of diagram, by integrating the scientific concepts addressed in a Toulmin's layout for argumentation, allows the teacher to anticipate the core ideas that he or she wants to scaffold and to foresee the corresponding evidences and claims that could be worked on in class.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    In order to foster students' sense-making, teachers have to decide which ideas or paths of reasoning to emphasize and fix, and which ones to open for students to figure out by pointing out plausible ways forward.

    “Recent studies show that, in order to foster students' sense-making, teachers have to decide which ideas or paths of reasoning to emphasize and fix, and which ones to open for students to figure out by pointing out plausible ways forward”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Krist and Shim 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Watkins and Manz 2022 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    The insights gained from this work can inform a number of dialogic teaching practices for early ages.

    “the insights gained from this work can inform a number of dialogic teaching practices for early ages”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Early-age children are underrepresented in the scientific literature on classroom talk.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Teacher's excessive follow-up evaluations limit students' attempts to construct alternative explanations and reduce the dialogical space for students.

    “Soysal (2023) recently found that teacher's excessive follow-up evaluations limit students' attempts to construct alternative explanations and reduce the dialogical space for students.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Soysal 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    This constructive-challenge strategy resembles a neutral evaluation that avoids a triadic dialogue and favors a collaborative construction of knowledge.

    “This strategy resembles a neutral evaluation that avoids a triadic dialogue (teacher's judgment on whether it is correct or not) and favors a collaborative construction of knowledge”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chin 2007 source
    • cites Lemke 1990

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Soysal 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The progression of questioning in inquiry teaching has been described by other studies.

    “The progression of questioning in inquiry teaching has been also described by other studies”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Benedict-Chambers et al. 2017 source
    • cites Kawalkar and Vijapurkar 2013

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

58 of 58

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The teacher's questions stimulate the performance of epistemic operations by the students, which in turn leads to the construction of arguments and engagement in the argumentation process, the content of which is focused on the core scientific ideas.

    “We work on the assumption that the teacher's questions stimulate the performance of epistemic operations by the students, which in turn leads to the construction of arguments and engagement in the argumentation process, the content of which is focused on the core scientific ideas.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The coding scheme used to classify epistemic operations and argumentation components validly captures the intended constructs.

    “we describe quantitative patterns in the operations and arguments that emerge in the children's discourse that arise from Figure 1 and Table 2 (quantitative data on specific features of the students' utterances)”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Early-age children are underrepresented in the scientific literature on classroom talk.

    “a group underrepresented in the scientific literature on classroom talk”
3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. NRC, 2012, A Framework for K‐12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Caño, L., & Sanz, J.
Affiliations
  • University of the Basque Country (ES)
  • Department of Didactics of Mathematics, Experimental and Social Sciences University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) Spain
Corresponding author
Caño, Lidia
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-05-23
Volume
62
Issue
9
Pages
2060-2079
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
DOI
10.1002/tea.70010
OpenAlex
W4410695104
Cited by
5
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 5
FWCI
16.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Research in Science Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
University of the East (PID2022‐137010OB‐I00)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
Keywords
argumentation, epistemic operations, teacher questioning, dialogic practice, inquiry-based learning, young children, plant growth, scientific reasoning, peer collaboration, knowledge construction, elementary school science, talk moves

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review