Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

A Descriptive Study on Students' Talk During the Presentation of Their Science Projects

  • Published : 2005.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Based on the Vygotskian perspective that a learner's thinking is constituted in his or her talk and the assumption that student talk in the classroom may occur in more than one way, this study examined discursive practices of students in Korean high school science classrooms. Data came from $11^{th}$ grade earth science classrooms where the Group Investigation (GI) method was implemented. Data source included verbatim transcripts developed from video recordings of class sessions in which students presented their science projects to the whole class and exchanged questions and answers during the presentations. The analysis of the videotape transcripts revealed five different modes of student talk, including 1) retrieving information, 2) reformulating information, 3) building on one's own experience, 4) elaborating current understanding, and 5) negotiating meanings with others. Considering that each of the five modes had different value for learning science, it was recommended that the teacher should engage students in more active modes of discourse and guide them into more sophisticated understanding of science.

Keywords

References

  1. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited: Making meaning through talk. Portmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers
  2. Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039-1065 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1039::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-S
  3. Bleicher, R. (1994). High school students presenting science: An interactional sociolinguistic analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(7), 697-719 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310704
  4. Chang, G. L., & Wells, G. (1993). Dynamics of discourse: Literacy and the construction of knowledge. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 58-90), New York, NY: Oxford University Press
  5. Crawford, T., Chen, C., & Kelly, G. (1997). Creating authentic opportunities for presenting science: The influence of audience on student talk. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 1-13
  6. Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press
  7. Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
  8. 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
  9. Hammer, D. (1995). Student inquiry in a physics class discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 401-430 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1303_3
  10. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 451-493 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0803&4_4
  11. 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 https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2
  12. Kaartinen, S., & Kumpulainen, K. (2002). Collaborative inquiry and the construction of explanations in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 12, 189-212 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00004-4
  13. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
  14. Lotman, Y. M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet Psychology, 26(3), 32-51
  15. Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(5), 45-53
  16. Meyer, K., & Woodruff, E. (1997). Consensually driven explanation in science teaching. Science Education, 80, 173-192 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2<173::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-C
  17. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press
  18. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  19. Oh, P. S., Shin, M.-K., & Yager, R. E. (2003). Patterns of teacher questioning discourse in Korean science classrooms. The Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 24(2), 61-73
  20. 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
  21. Roychoudhury, A., & Roth, W. M. (1996). Interactions in an open inquiry physics laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 423-445 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180403
  22. Schuh, K. L. (2003). Knowledge construction in the learner-centered classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 426-442 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.426
  23. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-80 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269808560127
  24. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004
  25. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1989). Group Investigation expands cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 17-21
  26. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1994). Group Investigation in the cooperative classroom. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 97-114), Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
  27. Susskind, E. (1979). Encouraging teachers to encourage children's curiosity: A pivotal competence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 8(2), 101-106 https://doi.org/10.1080/15374417909532896
  28. Tobin, K. (1987). Forces which shape the implemented curriculum in high school science and mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 287-298 https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(87)90021-7
  29. Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 549-560 https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027870190606
  30. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981), The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed. and Trans.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe
  31. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 37-285, translated by N. Minick), New York, NY: Plenum
  32. Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses, and the 'Third Space'. Science Education, 88, 901-914 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20024
  33. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
  34. Wertsch, J. V. (1980). The significance of dialogue in Vygotsky's account of social, egocentric, and inner speech. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 5, 150-162 https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(80)90036-3
  35. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  36. Wertsch, J. V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. P. Steffe, & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 159-174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates