DOI QR코드

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

Abstract

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 $8^{th}$ grade science classroom videos of five nations who participated in the Third TIMSS (Trend in International Mathematics and Science Study) video study. A total of ten video-recorded science lessons and their verbatim transcripts were selected and analyzed using a framework developed by the researchers of the study. It was revealed that a range of discourse modes were utilized and these modes were often sequentially connected to build CSK in the science classrooms. Although dominant discourse modes and their sequences varied among different lessons or different countries, the study identified three salient patterns of science classroom discourse: teacher-guided negotiation and the sequences of exploring - building on the shared and retrieving - elaborating. These patterns were found to be different from the discursive features commonly witnessed in the community of professional scientists and interpreted as implying the existence of unique epistemic cultures shared in science classrooms of different countries. Further studies are suggested to reveal detailed characteristics of these epistemic cultures of science classrooms, as well as to confirm whether any cultural traits inherently shape the differences in science classroom discourse among different nations.

Keywords

science classroom;discourse;classroom science knowledge;epistemic culture

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  7. 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.
  8. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portmouth, NH: Heinemann
  9. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York: Methuen.
  17. 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
  18. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171-212. https://doi.org/10.1086/442968
  24. 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
  25. Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (Ed.) (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic culture: How sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  30. Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (2002). Classroom interaction and social learning: From theory to practice. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
  31. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
  32. 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
  33. 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.
  34. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  35. 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.
  36. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  37. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  38. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London, UK: Routledge.
  39. 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
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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-#
  44. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press
  45. 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
  46. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  47. 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.
  48. Nuthall, G. A. (1999). The processes involved in knowledge acquisition in the classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 189-212.
  49. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). ACEPT IN-003.
  55. 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
  56. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Talking science: Language and learning in science classrooms. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  57. 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.
  58. Roth, K. J., & Garnier, H. (December 2006/January 2007). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Science in Spotlight, 64(4), 16-23.
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  63. 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.
  64. 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.
  65. 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
  66. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  67. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  68. 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

Cited by

  1. 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
  2. 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