Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cultural Studies of Science Education
Published in: Cultural Studies of Science Education 2/2015

01-06-2015

The discourse of design-based science classroom activities

Authors: Flávio S. Azevedo, Peggy L. Martalock, Tugba Keser

Published in: Cultural Studies of Science Education | Issue 2/2015

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper is an initial contribution to a general theory in which science classroom activity types and epistemological discourse practices are systematically linked. The idea is that activities and discourse are reflexively related, so that different types of science classroom activities (e.g., scientific argumentation, modeling, and design) recruit characteristically distinct forms of participants’ (students and teacher) discourse. Such a general theory would eventually map out the full spectrum of discourse practices (and their patterns of manifestation) across various kinds of science classroom activities, and reveal new relationships between forms of both discourse and activities. Because this defines a complex and long-term project, here our aim is simply to delineate this larger theoretical program and to illustrate it with a detailed case study—namely, that of mapping out and characterizing the discourse practices of design-based science classroom activities. To do so, we draw on data from an activity that is prototypically design-based—i.e., one in which students iteratively design and refine an artifact (in this case, pictorial representations of moving objects)—and examine the structure and dynamics of the whole-class discourse practices that emerge around these representational forms. We then compare and contrast these discourse practices to those of an activity that is prototypical of scientific argumentation (taken from the literature)—i.e., one in which students argue between competing theories and explanations of a phenomenon—and begin to illustrate the kinds of insights our theoretical program might afford.
previous article Making the implicit explicit: environmental teacher as a “reflective practitioner”
next article Perezhivanie and classroom discourse: a cultural–historical perspective on “Discourse of design based science classroom activities”

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Ideally, we would rely on video records for all focal sessions at Benson and UTDP. In any case, our analysis here is in no way compromised by the absence of a videotaped record of the Benson session. For one thing, some of the gestural and material components of participants’ activities in that session were recorded in field notes and some of it is recovered here. Second, as we will see, in some cases the content and sequence of Benson participants’ utterances alone were enough for us to retrieve important gestural information in a person’s discourse (e.g., the referent of a pointing action), and we use these inferences to validate our analysis. Third and finally, given the grain size of analysis that we target, all arguments regarding typical gestural and material contributions of participants not captured by the prior two devices can be safely made from video records of UTDP sessions. These points will become clearer in the analysis section.
 
2
Please refer to the Appendix for transcription conventions.
 
Literature
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Azevedo, F. S., diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2012). An evolving framework for describing student engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 270–289. doi: 10.​1016/​j.​jmathb.​2011.​12.​003.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.
Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473–498. doi:10.​1002/​sce.​20278.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80, 336–371. doi:10.​3102/​0034654310376953​.
Davis, A., & Elder, C. (2004). The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
diSessa, A. A. (2000). Students’ criteria for representational adequacy. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 105–129). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
diSessa, A., & Sherin, B. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398.
diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.
Edwards, D. (2005). Discursive psychology. In K. L. Fitch and R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 257–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. C. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483. doi:10.​1207/​S1532690XCI2004_​1.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRef
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3(2), 193–217.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1081–1110. doi:10.​1002/​tea.​20040.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1996). Seeing as situated activity: Formulating planes. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 61–95). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1998). Seeing as a situated activity: Formulating planes. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 61–95). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–368.
Hall, R. (1996). Representation as shared activity: Situated cognition and Dewey’s cartography of experience. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 209–238.
Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (1995). Making space: A comparison of mathematical work in school and professional design practices. In S. L. Star (Ed.), The cultures of computing (pp. 118–145). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Hsu, P. L., Roth, W-M., & Mazumder, A. (2009). Natural pedagogical conversations in a high school students’ internship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 481–505.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hynes, M. M. (2012). Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: A look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Technology Design Education, 22, 345–360. doi:10.​1007/​s10798-010-9142-4.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects (Committee on K-12 Engineering Education, National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning-by-design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495–547. doi:10.​1207/​S15327809JLS1204​_​2.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in the elementary grades. In T. Romberg & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (pp. 29–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (1988). Introduction: Sociological orientations to representational practice in science. Human Studies, 11, 271–304. doi:10.​1007/​BF00177300.
McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2009). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 10, 203–229.
Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Reasoned participation: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.
Newstetter, W. (2000). Bringing design knowledge and learning together. In C. Eastman, W. Newstetter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. New York, NY: Elsevier.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.
O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 1, 151–171. doi:10.​1080/​095006999290570.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi:10.​1002/​tea.​20035.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Resnick, M. (1996). Toward a practice of “constructional design”. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 161–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–163). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 31–74). New York, NY: Free Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. doi:10.​2307/​412243.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472.
Saxe, G. B. (1991). Culture and cognitive development: Studies in mathematical understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97–115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. (1996). Introduction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 1–51). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Sherin, B. (2000). How students invent representations of motion: A genetic account. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 399–441.
Simosi, M. (2003). Using Toulmin’s framework for the analysis of everyday argumentation: Some methodological considerations. Argumentation, 17, 185–202.CrossRef
Stevens, R. (2000). Divisions of labor in school and in the workplace: Comparing computer and paper-supported activities across settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 373–401. doi:10.​1207/​S15327809JLS0904​_​1.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1958).CrossRef
Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. New York, NY: Routledge.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3–118.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The discourse of design-based science classroom activities
Authors
Flávio S. Azevedo
Peggy L. Martalock
Tugba Keser
Publication date
01-06-2015
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Cultural Studies of Science Education / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 1871-1502
Electronic ISSN: 1871-1510
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9540-5

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Cultural Studies of Science Education 2/2015 Go to the issue

Forum

STEM policy and science education: scientistic curriculum and sociopolitical silences

Forum

The many faces of agency

OriginalPaper

Signs of taste for science: a methodology for studying the constitution of interest in the science classroom

Forum

A crisis of meaning: promoting new directions in science education

Forum

Perezhivanie and classroom discourse: a cultural–historical perspective on “Discourse of design based science classroom activities”

Forum

Supporting teachers for race-, class-, and gender-responsive science teaching