- Volume 33 Issue 3
DOI QR Code
Understanding of Science Classrooms in Different Countries through the Analysis of Discourse Modes for Building 'Classroom Science Knowledge' (CSK)
- Oh, Phil Seok (Gyeongin National University of Education) ;
- Campbell, Todd (University of Massachusetts Dartmouth)
- Received : 2013.01.28
- Accepted : 2013.05.03
- Published : 2013.05.31
This study explored how teachers and students in different countries discursively interact to build 'Classroom Science Knowledge' (CSK) - the knowledge generated situatedly in the context of the science classroom. Data came from publicly released
science classroom;discourse;classroom science knowledge;epistemic culture
Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea
- Acher, A., Arca, M., & Sanmarti, N. (2007). Modeling as a teaching learning process for understanding materials: A case study in primary education. Science Education, 91, 398- 418. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20196
- Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (2000). A crosscultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, 3, 101-134. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026599727439
- Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Taylor, P. C., & Chen, C.-C. (2000). Constructivist learning environments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289994
- Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25- 56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639-669. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20449
- Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
- Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., Shin, M.-K., & Zhang, D. (2010). Classroom instructions observed from the perspectives of current reform in science education: Comparisons between Korean and U.S. classrooms. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(3), 151-162.
- Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portmouth, NH: Heinemann
- Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
- Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate
- Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2
- Dow, W. (2006). The need to change pedagogies in science and technology subjects: A European perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(3), 307- 321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-0009-7
- Draper, S., & Anderson, A. (1991). The significance of dialogue in learning and observing learning. Computers and Education, 17(1), 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(91)90076-4
- Driver, R. (1989). The construction of scientific knowledge in school classroom. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing science: Image of science in science education (pp. 82-106). Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.
- Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023002005
- Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York: Methuen.
- Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90, 453- 467. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20130
- Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
- Gee, J. P., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M. C. (1992). Discourse analysis. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 227- 291). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
- Greeno, J. G. (1995). Understanding concepts in activity. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 65-95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Greeno, J. G., and the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5
- Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22, 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269308560019
- Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171-212. https://doi.org/10.1086/442968
- Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
- Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (Ed.) (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
- Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
- Johnson, C. (2007). Technical, political and cultural barriers to science education reform. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(2), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120601097470
- Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81(5), 533-559. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199709)81:5<533::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-B
- Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic culture: How sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (2002). Classroom interaction and social learning: From theory to practice. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
- Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
- Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural perspectives on learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91-113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022665519862
- Lee, S.K., Lee, G.-H., & Shin, M.-K. (2011). Exploring elementary teachers'epistemological understandings of school science lab practices. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 28(2), 21-49.
- Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
- Leung, F. K. S., & Park, K. (2005). Is mathematics teaching in east Asia conducive to creativity development? Results from TIMSS 1999 video study and the learners'perspective study. Journal of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, 9(3), 203-231.
- Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
- Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London, UK: Routledge.
- Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793182
- Michaels, S., Shouse, A., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grade K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
- Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper prepared for the Committee: High School Laboratories. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
- Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 16-31) London: Routledge.
- Mortimer, E. F., & Machado, A. H. (2000). Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse. Science Education, 84, 429-444. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200007)84:4<429::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-#
- Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press
- Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of 'triadic dialogue'? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376-406. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376
- National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
- National Research Council (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
- Nuthall, G. A. (1999). The processes involved in knowledge acquisition in the classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 189-212.
- Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
- Oh, P. S. (2005). Discursive roles of the teachers during class sessions for students presenting their science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1825-1851. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500239714
- Oh, P. S. (2010). How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in abductive inquiry activities of earth science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541-560. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903104457
- Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634-658. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20211
- Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95,627-638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20438
- Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). ACEPT IN-003.
- Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<839::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
- Roth, W.-M. (2005). Talking science: Language and learning in science classrooms. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., Rasmussen, D., Trubacova, S., Warvi, D., Okamoto, Y., Gonzales, P., Stigler, J., & Gallimore, R. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
- Roth, K. J., & Garnier, H. (December 2006/January 2007). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Science in Spotlight, 64(4), 16-23.
- Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press
- Scott, P., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
- Tobin, K., Davis, N., Shaw, K., & Jakubowski, E. (1991). Enhancing science and mathematics teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(4), 85-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02983169
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Vygotsky., L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wretch (Ed. and Trans.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky volume 1: Problmes of general psychology (pp. 37-285, translated by N. Minick). New York: Plenum.
- Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(05)80001-4
- Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Westgate, D., & Hughes, M. (1997). Identifying 'quality'in classroom talk: An enduring research task. Language and Education, 11(2), 125-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500789708666723
- Exploration of Discursive-Epistemic Mechanisms in High School Earth Science Lessons vol.36, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2015.36.4.390
- Determining the Mechanics of Classroom Discourse in Vygotskian Sense: Teacher Discursive Moves Reconsidered pp.1573-1898, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9747-2