The paper reports an empirical study that examined relationships between the implementation quality of an argument-based inquiry (ABI) approach, teachers’ talk moves, and students’ critical thinking. Students were taught using an ABI approach in which they had opportunities to engage in critical thinking. However, this instructional approach was handled by a variety of teachers with differing capacities to implementing it. Systematic observation (talk move analysis) was therefore required to describe how quality of implementation affected students’ critical thinking. Four middle school science teachers and 92 seventh-grade students participated. Videos of in-class implementations were examined through classroom discourse analysis. It was observed that the ABI approach seemed to stimulate student-led critical thinking when implemented with higher quality. Teacher-led talk moves were correlated with implementation quality and had the ability to evoke or hinder students’ critical thinking. Instances of teachers evaluating students’ responses based on scientific knowledge and transmission of knowledge tended to inhibit students’ execution of higher-order critical thinking. Frequent use of less cognitively demanding talk moves, such as observe–compare–predict, did not seem to help students attain higher-order critical thinking. Four talk moves in particular (legitimating, challenging, monitoring, evidencing) appeared to be associated with higher implementation quality, in turn promoting students’ critical thinking. Communicating moves appeared to facilitate the initiation and maintenance of elaborate verbal exchanges. These encouraged students to perform higher-order critical thinking, though only in the presence of other talk moves (e.g., challenging, legitimating, monitoring, and evidencing).

中文翻译：

---

讲科学

该论文报告了一项实证研究，该研究检查了基于论证的探究 (ABI) 方法的实施质量、教师的谈话动作和学生的批判性思维之间的关系。使用 ABI 方法教授学生，让他们有机会参与批判性思维。然而，这种教学方法由具有不同实施能力的各种教师处理。因此，需要系统观察（谈话动作分析）来描述实施质量如何影响学生的批判性思维。4 名中学科学教师和 92 名七年级学生参加。通过课堂话语分析检查了课堂实施的视频。据观察，当以更高的质量实施时，ABI 方法似乎能激发学生主导的批判性思维。教师主导的谈话动作与实施质量相关，能够激发或阻碍学生的批判性思维。教师根据科学知识和知识传播评估学生反应的实例往往会抑制学生执行高阶批判性思维。频繁使用认知要求较低的谈话动作，例如观察-比较-预测，似乎并没有帮助学生获得更高层次的批判性思维。特别是四个谈话动作（合法化、挑战、监控、证据）似乎与更高的实施质量相关，反过来又促进了学生的批判性思维。交流动作似乎促进了精心设计的口头交流的开始和维持。这些鼓励学生进行更高层次的批判性思维，尽管只有在存在其他谈话动作的情况下（例如，挑战、合法化、监控和证据）。