Professional Development
Scientific discourse is often described as a way to increase participation or improve the quality of classroom talk. In KnowAtom classrooms, its purpose is deeper than that. Scientific discourse is one of the primary ways responsibility for thinking shifts from the teacher to students.
When students engage in discourse grounded in shared phenomena, models, and data, they are not just talking more. They are deciding which ideas matter, what evidence counts, and how explanations should change over time. That decision-making is the core of student agency.
This article names three essential ideas about scientific discourse that directly affect whether students experience agency or whether responsibility quietly shifts back to the teacher.
These ideas connect to the design of KnowAtom lessons across K–8 and build on earlier articles in this series, including Why does KnowAtom emphasize releasing responsibility to students early in learning?, How do I release responsibility to students without losing control?, and How do I elevate the level of discourse?.
Scripting is the enemy of student agency
When teachers talk about “scripting,” they are often referring to very different things. Clarifying this distinction matters because not all structure undermines agency.
In some instructional models, scripting shows up as teacher-facing scripts that prescribe exact talk moves, anticipated student responses, and follow-up statements. In others, it shows up as student-facing sentence frames or required language patterns that narrow how students are expected to respond. In both cases, the risk is the same: the thinking work shifts away from students.
The problem is not providing support or structure. The problem arises when structure replaces student decision-making about what to say, what to question, or how to explain.
When discourse is tightly scripted for teachers or students, students learn that their role is to produce acceptable language rather than to develop, test, and revise ideas. Research on classroom cultures of thinking shows that agency increases when students are expected to contribute original thinking and grapple with uncertainty, not rehearse predetermined responses (Ritchhart, 2015).
This is an important place to clarify KnowAtom’s design intent. KnowAtom lessons do include seed questions, conceptual prompts, and anticipated student ideas, but these are not scripts to be delivered verbatim, nor are they definitions of correct student responses. They exist to support teacher decision-making by helping teachers anticipate likely lines of reasoning, common misconceptions, and productive points of tension.
In practice, this means the teacher uses these supports to listen more carefully, not to steer students toward a specific answer. The discourse itself emerges from what students notice in the phenomenon, how they interpret data, and where they disagree.
Kindergarten example
In Weather in Our World, students investigate how different playground surfaces warm in the sun and shade. Rather than prompting a fixed sentence like “The sun makes things warmer,” the teacher invites students to point to thermometer readings and describe what they notice. One student observes that the blacktop number is higher. Another adds that the grass stayed cooler. Students decide what matters in the data, and that ownership drives the conversation.
Grades 1–2 example
In Changing Seasons, students analyze daylight patterns across the year. During discussion, the teacher resists scripting explanations about Earth’s tilt and instead asks, “What patterns do you see in the sunrise times?” Students argue about which months are changing fastest, grounding their ideas in charts and models rather than teacher language.
Grades 3–5 example
In Shaping Earth’s Surface, students model how water erodes sediment. When different groups reach different conclusions, the teacher invites them to compare erosion patterns in their trays. The discourse centers on evidence students collected, not on restating vocabulary, reinforcing that explanations belong to the students.
Grades 6–8 example
In Climate and Human Activity, students debate why coastal regions experience milder temperatures. Rather than scripting academic phrasing, the teacher presses students to reconcile claims using ocean current models and salinity data. Agency shows up as students decide which evidence best explains the phenomenon.
Every student already has ideas worth acting on
A common misconception is that only confident or articulate students are ready for discourse. Learning science research suggests the opposite. Curiosity is universal. What varies is whether classrooms communicate that students’ ideas are expected, valued, and useful for learning (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011).
In KnowAtom classrooms, discourse begins with the assumption that every student has something to contribute, even if that contribution is partial, tentative, or still forming.
Kindergarten example
In Living Things Change, students observe bean plants growing at different rates. Some notice leaf color, others focus on height. The teacher records all observations publicly and asks students which ones might help explain why some plants grew faster. Students see their ideas shaping the next steps of the investigation.
Grades 1–2 example
In Engineering Homes, students test how different materials insulate a model house. During discussion, one student wonders aloud whether thicker walls always work better. Another suggests air gaps might matter. The teacher treats both ideas as hypotheses worth testing, reinforcing that student wondering drives the engineering process.
Grades 3–5 example
In Water on Earth, students model how hurricanes form. Early explanations vary widely. Instead of narrowing ideas prematurely, the teacher invites students to group explanations by similarity and difference. Students take responsibility for sorting and refining ideas, strengthening their sense of intellectual ownership.
Grades 6–8 example
In Biodiversity, students analyze fossil evidence to infer evolutionary relationships. Some initial claims are incomplete or incorrect. Rather than correcting them, the teacher asks students to identify what additional evidence would strengthen each claim. Students experience agency by deciding how their explanations need to change.
Agency does not come from covering content
Engagement is often confused with activity or pacing. Covering a topic efficiently can feel productive, but it rarely results in student agency. Agency emerges when students feel safe to be curious, uncertain, and wrong in public.
Research on productive struggle shows that students engage more deeply when classrooms prioritize sensemaking over speed and correctness (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007). KnowAtom’s phenomena-based lesson structure is intentionally designed to create this kind of intellectual safety.
Kindergarten example
In Making Things Move, students design ramps to change how far objects roll. Many designs fail at first. During discussion, students explain what happened and why, using observations rather than blaming mistakes. Failure becomes information, not something to hide.
Grades 1–2 example
In Animals on Earth, students investigate how animals use structures to survive. When students disagree about the function of a structure, the teacher encourages them to return to images and text rather than resolve the disagreement quickly. Curiosity stays alive because uncertainty is expected.
Grades 3–5 example
In Energy in Motion, students debate how energy transfers through a system. The teacher allows the discussion to remain unresolved until students test competing ideas through investigation. Engagement comes from trying to figure something out, not from arriving quickly at the “right” answer.
Grades 6–8 example
In Changing Environments, students analyze how invasive species disrupt food webs. Rather than covering each organism in sequence, discourse focuses on system-level effects. Students stay engaged because they are working to understand a complex problem, not memorize isolated facts.
What this means for teacher decision-making
Supporting student agency through discourse does not mean stepping back or withholding guidance. It means making deliberate instructional decisions that protect student ownership of thinking.
Across grade levels, effective teacher moves include:
• Treating student ideas as provisional and improvable
• Pressing for evidence and reasoning rather than polished language
• Allowing disagreement to surface and persist
• Returning consistently to shared models, data, and observations
These moves align directly with the release of responsibility described in How do I release responsibility to students without losing control?.
Why discourse is where agency becomes visible
Scientific discourse is not an add-on to inquiry. It is where agency becomes visible. When students see their ideas shaping investigations, explanations, and solutions, they begin to see themselves as capable sensemakers.
That shift is at the heart of KnowAtom’s approach to student engagement. Discourse is not about getting students to talk more. It is about positioning students as the ones who carry the intellectual work of science and engineering.
References
- Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating Cultures of Thinking. Jossey-Bass.
- Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making Thinking Visible. Jossey-Bass.
- Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning.