The purpose of this study was to examine the patterns of dialogue that were established and emerged in one experienced fifth-grade science teacher's classroom that used the argument-based inquiry (ABI) and the ways in which these patterns of dialogue and consensus-making were used toward the establishment of a grasp of science practice. Most current studies on ABI agree that it does not come naturally and is only acquired through practice. Additionally, the quality of dialogue is also understood to be an important link in support of student learning. Few studies have examined the ways in which a teacher develops whole-class dialogue over time and the ways in which patterns of dialogue shift over time. The research questions that guided this study were: (1) What were the initial whole-class dialogue patterns established by a fifth-grade science teacher who engaged in ABI? (2) How did the science teacher help to refine whole-class dialogue to support the agreeability of ideas constructed over time? This eighteen week study that took place in a small city of less than 15,000 in Midwestern United States was grounded in interactive constructivism, and utilized a qualitative design method to identify the ways in which an experienced fifth-grade science teacher developed whole-class dialogue and used consensus-making activities to develop the practice of ABI with his students. The teacher in this study used the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach to ABI with twenty-one students who had no previous experience engaging in ABI. This teacher with 10 of years teaching experience was purposefully selected because he was proficient and experienced in practicing ABI. Multiple sources of data were collected, including classroom video with transcriptions, semi-structured interviews, after lesson conversations, and researcher's field notes. Data analysis used a basic qualitative approach. The results showed (1) that the teacher principally engaged in three forms of whole-class dialogue with students; talking to, talking with, and thinking through ideas with students. As time went on, the teacher's interactions in whole-class dialogue became increasingly focused on thinking through ideas with students, while at the same time students also dialogued more as each unit progressed. (2) This teacher persistently engaged with students in consensus-making activities during whole-class dialogue.These efforts toward consensus-making over time became part of the students' own as each unit progressed. (3) The classroom did not engage in critique and construction of knowledge necessarily like the community of science but rather used agreeing and disagreeing and explaining why through purposeful dialogic interactions to construct a grasp of science classroom practice. The findings have informed theory and practice about science argumentation, the practice of whole-class dialogue, and grasp of science practice along four aspects: (1) patterns of dialogue within a unit of instruction and across units of instruction, (2) the teacher's ability to follow and develop students' ideas, (3) the role of early and persistent opportunities to engage novice students in consensus-making, and (4) the meaning of grasp of science practice in classroom. This study provides insight into the importance of prolonged and persistent engagement with ABI in classroom practice.

There exists a general consensus in the science education literature around the goal of enhancing students. and teachers. views of nature of science (NOS). An emerging area of research in science education explores NOS and argumentation, and the aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness of a science content course incorporating explicit NOS and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers. views of NOS. A constructivist perspective guided the study, and the research strategy employed was case study research. Five preservice primary teachers were selected for intensive investigation in the study, which incorporated explicit NOS and argumentation instruction, and utilised scientific and socioscientific contexts for argumentation to provide opportunities for participants to apply their NOS understandings to their arguments. Four primary sources of data were used to provide evidence for the interpretations, recommendations, and implications that emerged from the study. These data sources included questionnaires and surveys, interviews, audio- and video-taped class sessions, and written artefacts. Data analysis involved the formation of various assertions that informed the major findings of the study, and a variety of validity and ethical protocols were considered during the analysis to ensure the findings and interpretations emerging from the data were valid. Results indicated that the science content course was effective in enabling four of the five participants. views of NOS to be changed. All of the participants expressed predominantly limited views of the majority of the examined NOS aspects at the commencement of the study. Many positive changes were evident at the end of the study with four of the five participants expressing partially informed and/or informed views of the majority of the examined NOS aspects. A critical analysis of the effectiveness of the various course components designed to facilitate the development of participants‟ views of NOS in the study, led to the identification of three factors that mediated the development of participants‟ NOS views: (a) contextual factors (including context of argumentation, and mode of argumentation), (b) task-specific factors (including argumentation scaffolds, epistemological probes, and consideration of alternative data and explanations), and (c) personal factors (including perceived previous knowledge about NOS, appreciation of the importance and utility value of NOS, and durability and persistence of pre-existing beliefs). A consideration of the above factors informs recommendations for future studies that seek to incorporate explicit NOS and argumentation instruction as a context for learning about NOS.