This study aimed to explore the development of teachers’ knowledge of dialogue and argument through three specific knowledge bases: declarative, procedural, and epistemic. Additionally, the study sought to understand the implications of this knowledge for implementing a knowledge generation approach in classroom settings. To achieve these objectives, a multiple-case study was conducted with 12 elementary teachers who participated in a professional development (PD) program centered on the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH), an approach designed to promote knowledge generation. Data collection involved classroom observations, interviews, and teacher reflections on the PD experience. Our analysis focused on evaluating the three knowledge bases in the context of using argument and dialogue, with a comparison across teachers categorized as low, moderate, and high implementers of the knowledge generation approach. The findings identified two key factors influencing teachers’ implementation of dialogue and argument: the depth of their knowledge in the three knowledge bases and the time allocated for development. The results underscore the necessity for teachers to move beyond merely acquiring declarative knowledge when aiming to implement high levels of argument and dialogue in their classrooms. Teachers who demonstrated moderate levels of argument and dialogue in their practice were found to possess at least a moderate level of procedural and epistemic knowledge. Furthermore, time emerged as a critical factor in the development of these knowledge bases. The study revealed that while some teachers reached advanced levels of knowledge within six months of the initial PD workshop, others required additional time to progress.
Ercan Dursun, J., Suh, J. K., & Hand, B. (2025). What does knowledge of dialogue and argument mean for elementary teachers’ instructional practices? A case study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2025.2543564