Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka hur elever samtalar när de möter en uppgift som syftar till att öva deras förmåga att använda ett naturvetenskapligt arbetssätt. Undersökningen genomfördes genom att fyra grupper om två elever fick en uppgift där de formulerade frågeställningar kring en isballong (en frusen vattenballong). Samtalen spelades in på band. Inspelningarna transkriberades och analyserades med hjälp av en praktisk epistemologisk analys utifrån tre olika kategorier: samtal inom diskursen, samtal om diskursen och samtal utanför diskursen. Resultatet av undersökningen visar att de flesta eleverna har, trots att de har ringa eller ingen erfarenhet av att arbeta med natruvetenskapligt arbetssätt, ganska lätt att ta till sig uppgiften. Resultatet visar även att det inte är samtal som ligger utanför ramen för uppgiften som utgör det största hindret för eleverna att arbeta med uppgiften, utan i stället att det är samtal som rör uppgiftens utformning.

abstract: This teacher research study examined the effects of utilizing an intervention of Science Writing Heuristics (SWH) as a tool to increase learning during laboratory activities. Five of my eighth grade general science classes participated in this study. Two classes utilized SWH during their laboratory activities (the treatment group) and three classes performed and wrote up their labs in the more traditional, teacher-directed approach (the control group). The assessment scores of the students in the treatment group were compared to the assessment scores of the students in the control group. The post-assessments were analyzed utilizing a t-test. I was teacher in this study and the teacher of all five classes. Data from 41 students were analyzed in this study. A pre-assessment, six laboratory activities, instruction, and a post-assessment occurred within three weeks. The assessments were generated by myself and I performed a t-test using a two-sample analysis, assuming unequal variances (n=16 for treatment group, n=25 for control group) to compare the post-assessments from each group. Results indicated that there was no significant difference between the post-assessment scores of the treatment group with the post-assessment scores of control group (p=0.25). However, the t-test results revealed that when the pre- and post-assessments were compared, there was a significant difference (p=<0.05 for treatment group, p=<0.05 for control group). Each group showed considerable cognitive improvement between pre-assessment (mean scores: 52%-treatment group and 53%-control group) and the post-assessment (mean scores: 72%-treatment group and 80%-control group). This suggests that the presentation of the curriculum lacked a clear distinction between the treatment group and the control group yet benefited most students. Due to circumstances described in the limitations, further research is warranted. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Curriculum and Instruction 2015