중학교 과학 수업의 소집단 논변활동에서 협력적 기여자로의 전환 시에 나타난 학생들의 행위주체성 탐색

학위논문(박사)--서울대학교 대학원 :사범대학 과학교육과(생물전공),2020. 2. 김희백.In science education, scientific argumentation has been highlighted as a core epistemic practice of the scientific community. To support students positioning in the center of knowledge development in argumentation activities, it has been asserted that students need to shift from the perception that teachers alone possess scientific knowledge. Based on the notion that students perceptions dynamically shift in a context-sensitive manner, previous studies with a framing perspective have explored the contexts that facilitate students productive framing, that is, students framing of classroom activity, wherein they are expected to and allowed to participate as contributors in the construction of knowledge. However, we still lack an understanding not only of how students frame themselves as contributors in the construction of knowledge but also of how they acknowledge one another as collaborative contributors during this shift in framing. This study aimed to explore this aspect based on students interactions in argumentation activities and focused on student agency as a main feature facilitating the negotiation of group members framing of their positions in argumentation activities in science classrooms. Specifically, I first conducted a theoretical investigation on student agency to develop a framework for the analysis of student agency that facilitates a shift in group members shared framing. Then, based on this theoretical investigation, two case studies were conducted. The first case focused on a small group of students who acknowledged one another as collaborative contributors in the development of a communal argument through group discussion. This case demonstrated how student agency plays an essential role in facilitating a shift in students shared framing of their positions as collaborative contributors. The second case study explored a small group of students with a marginalized student. This study identified the marginalized students various attempts to be accepted as a contributor by the other students, facilitating the negotiation of the framing of argumentation activities. The findings of these studies can contribute to our understanding of the role of student agency in the construction of a collaborative learning community in science classrooms. In the theoretical investigation of student agency, I explored which aspects of student agency have been studied previously and the ways in which agent practices in learning communities have been investigated. The results of the investigation revealed five aspects of agency related to students actions in a learning community: epistemic agency, transformative agency, educated action in science, disciplinary agency, and material agency. I also delineated the three approaches by which the previous research has examined the practices of students as agents who construct learning communities. These approaches are as follows: (a) describing agency as a whole across the entire learning community, (b) describing the influence of a focused students agency, and (c) describing interactions between agents. Based on these analyses, I developed an approach to discuss student agency in terms of the students capability to facilitate the negotiation of framing and the way in which students negotiated the framing of the argumentation activity in subsequent discussion. Based on this theoretical investigation of student agency, two case studies were conducted. In both cases, the argumentation activities were designed to facilitate the students framing of the argumentation activity as a process of collaborative knowledge construction and implemented in science classrooms. In the first case study, I focused on the group that clearly showed a shift toward productive framing, that is, students engagement in discussion for the development of a communal argument. Then, I investigated how the students negotiated the personal framings of their positions and how this negotiation of framing was facilitated in the group. The analysis showed that the focus groups interactions were initially focused on the student with higher epistemic authority. One student facilitated changes in this interaction pattern. She was able to initiate the changes by forming a zone of interaction separate from the student with higher epistemic authority. She facilitated the negotiation of framing, and the students shifted to framing one another as collaborative contributors through their interactions. Later, in the collective zone of interaction with all group members, the students began to justify their claims with their own ideas, sharing positional framing of themselves and one another as collaborative contributors. These findings suggest that the context that has been discussed as facilitating students active participation can be more precisely described as facilitating the beginning of students negotiation of positional framings. Students shared framing of themselves and each other as collaborative contributors manifested after the negotiation of their personal positional framings that was facilitated by a students agency. In the second case study, I focused on a group with a student who was marginalized in the group and was not accepted by the other students in group discussion. I identified the discursive moves that reflected this students agency in his attempts to position himself as a collaborative contributor in small-group argumentation activities. Then, I explored how the structure of the group activity was negotiated in the subsequent discussion. Finally, I discussed how argumentation activity in a science classroom affected students negotiation of the activity structure. The students agentic discursive practices were categorized as presenting reasoning based on cognitive resources, presenting the epistemological framing of the argumentation activity, or presenting a reflection on previous epistemic practices. The students negotiation of group activities in the subsequent discursive interactions varied with their varying positional framings of the marginalized student and power relations. The discussions subsequent to his discursive moves revealed that the other students perceived that he did not possess a valid epistemological understanding or valid cognitive resources that could contribute to the process of constructing communal knowledge claims. The contexts in which his ideas were addressed in group discussions were characterized by three features. The first was the rebuttal of an idea presented by the marginalized student followed by the acknowledgment of its validity. The second was the acknowledgment shown after the marginalized students justification of the validity of his ideas. In another context, when he asked other students to supplement his understanding with the elaboration of their own ideas—presenting his thoughts as modifiable—he was accepted in the discussion with the other students. Most of the time, the marginalized students practices and the reasoning he provided were acknowledged when he justified his ideas by stating that they were consistent with scientific concepts or with the epistemic practices of scientific argumentation. Through this process, the students tried to position themselves as authors of knowledge while reflecting on the dialogical features of scientific argumentation. Based on the findings in these three sub-studies, this dissertation describes that student agency facilitates group members framing of their positions as collaborative contributors to knowledge development in small-group argumentation activities in science classrooms. Based on the previous literature that has explored instructional supports that can facilitate student framing shifts, this study suggests that it is not only the instructional supports that facilitate the framing shift; student agency also plays an important role in students shaping of their discussion into dialogical argumentation. The implication of this study is based on its illustration of student agency in students shifts to positioning themselves as collaborative contributors, which provides information for understanding and supporting the construction of a collaborative learning community in the context of argumentation activity in science classrooms.과학적 논변활동은 과학자 공동체가 지식을 구성하는 과정의 사회적 측면이 반영된 활동으로서 과학 교육에서 조명 받고 있다. 그리고 과학 교실 속 논변활동에서 학생들이 지식 구성의 주체로 자리할 수 있도록 지원하기 위해서는 논변활동의 도입과 더불어 교사만이 과학적 지식을 지닌다는 인식으로부터 벗어나도록 지원해줄 필요가 있음이 주장되고 있다. 이러한 주장 하에 선행 문헌에서는 학생들의 생산적 프레이밍을 촉진할 수 있는 교수학습 맥락이 탐색되어왔다. 즉, 학생들이 과학 교실 속 논변활동을 그들이 지식 구성의 기여자로서 참여할 것으로 기대되며 그러한 권한이 주어진 활동이라고 프레이밍할 수 있도록 촉진하는 교수학습 맥락이 탐색되어 왔다. 하지만 이러한 맥락에서 학생들이 어떻게 자신뿐만 아니라 서로를 지식 구성의 기여자로 인정하게 되는지에 관해서는 잘 논의되지 않았다. 본 연구는 학생들이 과학 교실 속 논변활동에서 협력적 기여자로 자리해가는 과정을 촉진하는 중요한 요인으로서 학생의 행위주체성에 주목하였다. 이를 보이고자 다음과 같은 연구들이 이루어졌다. 먼저 프레이밍의 전환 과정에서 학생의 행위주체성을 포착할 수 있는 접근 방법을 고안하고자, 학생의 행위주체성에 관한 이론적 고찰 연구를 진행하였다. 그 다음 이 연구에서 고안한 접근 방법을 바탕으로 두 사례 연구가 진행되었다. 첫 번째 사례 연구에서는 학생들이 서로를 협력적 기여자로 프레이밍하게 된 소집단에 주목하였으며, 이러한 프레이밍 전환이 일어난 그들의 논의 과정을 탐색했다. 연구 결과에서는 학생의 행위주체성이 이러한 프레이밍의 조율과 전환 과정을 촉진한 주요 요인임을 보여주었다. 두 번째 사례 연구에서는 프레이밍의 조율을 촉진하는 행위주체의 담화 실행과 그에 이은 학생들의 논의에서 어떻게 프레이밍이 조율되는지 탐색하고자 하였다. 이에 학생들 간의 프레이밍 차이와 조율 과정이 명료히 드러나는 사례를 탐색하고자 다른 학생들과의 상호작용에서 소외된 학생의 사례에 주목하였다. 분석 결과는 과학 교실 속 논변활동에서 협력적 학습 공동체의 형성에 학생의 행위주체성이 어떠한 역할을 하는지에 관하여 깊이 있게 보여주었다. 구체적으로 학생의 행위주체성에 관한 이론적 고찰에서는 선행 문헌에서 행위주체성의 어떠한 측면을 다루었으며 학습 공동체를 구성하는 행위주체로서 학생들의 실행을 어떻게 탐색해왔는지 검토하였다. 분석 결과는 선행 문헌에서 행위주체성이 인식적 행위주체성, 변화적 행위주체성, 실천적 행위주체성, 학문의 행위주체성, 물질의 행위주체성으로 크게 다섯 가지 측면에서 논의되었다는 점을 보였다. 그리고 학습 공동체를 구성하는 행위주체로서의 학생들의 실행을 분석하는 방법은 학습 공동체 전반의 행위주체성에 주목한 경우, 초점을 맞춘 한 학생이 공동체의 활동 구조에 미치는 영향에 주목한 경우, 여러 학생들 사이의 상호작용에 주목한 경우로 구분되었다. 이러한 분석 결과를 바탕으로, 소집단 학생들의 프레이밍 전환을 촉진하는 학생의 행위주체성에 대한 접근 방법을 고안하였다. 고안된 틀을 바탕으로 두 사례 연구가 이루어졌다. 두 연구에서 모두 학생이 협력적으로 지식을 구성하는 과정으로서 논변 활동을 프레이밍할 수 있도록 설계된 논변 활동이 도입된 중학교 과학 교실을 탐색했다. 첫 번째 사례 연구에서는 학생들이 서로를 협력적 기여자로 프레이밍하게 되었음이 담화로부터 명확히 드러나는 소집단에 주목했다. 그리고 이 소집단의 학생들이 어떻게 그들의 위치에 관한 프레이밍을 조율해갔으며, 이 조율 과정은 어떻게 촉진되었는지 탐색했다. 초반에 이 소집단의 상호작용은 학생들이 모두 상호작용에 참여하고 있었으나 그 상호작용은 인식적 권위가 높은 학생에게 집중된 양상을 띠고 있었다. 한 학생이 인식적 권위가 높은 학생으로부터 벗어난 상호작용 영역을 형성하면서 이 상호작용 양상이 변화하기 시작했다. 이 학생은 학생들이 서로를 협력적 기여자로 프레이밍하게 되는 조율 과정을 촉진하였고, 이는 소집단 구성원 모두가 추론을 정교화해가며 공동의 지식 형성에 기여하는 논의로의 전환으로 이어졌다. 이러한 분석 결과는 선행 문헌에서 학생들의 생산적 프레이밍을 촉진하였다고 논한 맥락이 더 정확히는 학생들이 프레이밍 조율하는 과정을 촉발한 맥락인 것임을 보였다. 그리고 학생의 행위주체성이 소집단 학생들이 구성원들을 협력적 기여자로 프레이밍하도록 촉진하는 과정에 중요한 역할을 함을 보였다. 두 번째 사례 연구에서는 다른 학생들에게 기여자로 인정받지 못하고 소외된 학생이 있는 소집단에 주목했다. 그리고 이 소외된 학생이 소집단 논변활동에의 협력적 기여자로 자리하고자 시도하면서 나타난 행위주체로서의 발화 유형을 드러내었다. 또한 각 유형의 발화에 뒤이은 학생들의 상호작용에서 소집단 활동의 구조가 어떻게 조율되었는지 탐색했다. 논의에서는 과학 교실 속 논변활동이라는 맥락이 학생들이 활동 구조를 조율해가는 과정에 어떠한 영향을 미쳤는지 다루었다. 소외된 학생의 발화 유형은 추론의 제시, 인식론적 프레이밍의 제시, 이전 인식적 실행에 대한 검토 의견 제시로 구분되었다. 각 유형의 발화 뒤에 이어진 학생들의 논의는 소외된 학생에 대한 학생들의 프레이밍과 권력 관계에 따라 다양하게 나타났다. 대부분의 경우, 이 논의는 소외된 학생이 소집단의 공동 지식 구성 과정에 기여할 수 있는 인식론적 프레이밍이나 자원을 가지지 못했다고 여기는 다른 학생들의 인식을 드러내었다. 하지만 소외된 학생의 의견이 논의에서 다뤄지는 경우도 있었다. 이는 크게 세 가지 양상으로 나타났다. 첫 번째는 그의 의견에 대한 반박이 먼저 선행된 후에 논의가 이루어지는 경우였다. 두 번째는 그가 자신의 의견이 타당함을 교사의 안내나 과학적 논변활동의 특성을 기반으로 정당화한 경우였다. 세 번째는 그가 다른 학생들에게 그의 의견을 보충시켜주길 요청한 경우로, 이때 그의 의견이 다른 학생들에 의해 수정될 수 있는 여지를 보였다. 소외된 학생의 실행과 추론은 과학적 개념과 일치하거나 과학적 논변활동의 특성을 반영한다고 정당화될 때 그 타당성을 인정받는 모습을 보였다. 이 과정에서 학생들은 지식 구성자로서 위치하면서도 과학적 논변활동의 대화적 측면이 반영된 활동 구조를 형성해가는 양상을 보였다. 이러한 연구 결과를 바탕으로 본 연구는 과학 교실 속 소집단 논변 활동에서 학생의 행위주체성이 학생들이 서로를 협력적 기여자로 프레임하는 과정에 학생의 행위주체성이 중요한 역할을 함을 보이고, 학생들이 어떻게 그와 같이 자리해가는지 탐색하였다. 이로부터 학생들이 대화적 논변활동에 참여하도록 촉진하기 위해서는 학생들의 프레이밍 전환을 촉진하는 교수 맥락을 조성하는 것에서 나아가 서로를 협력적 기여자로 여기는 프레이밍을 공유하고자 하는 학생의 행위주체성 발휘를 지원하는 것이 중요함을 알 수 있다. 본 연구는 학생들의 협력적인 학습 공동체 구성 과정을 지원하기 위한 노력에 깊이 있는 이해를 제공해준다는 점에서 그 의의를 지닌다.Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Theoretical Framework and conceptual definitions of the terms 8 1.1.1 Theoretical framework 8 1.1.2 Conceptual definitions of the terms 15 1.2 Research Questions 19 1.3 Significance of the Study 21 1.4 Overview of the Dissertation 22 Chapter 2. Literature Review 23 2.1 Overview 23 2.2 Dialogical Argumentation in the Science Classroom 24 2.2.1 Argumentation activity in the science classroom 24 2.2.2 Dialogical features of scientific argumentation 28 2.2.3 Small-group argumentation activity 30 2.3 Student Agency in Science Learning 32 2.3.1 Student agency in science education 32 2.3.2 Dialectical relationship of agency and structure 34 2.4 Framing Perspective to Explore Students Understanding of the Science Classroom 39 2.4.1 Framing perspective 39 2.4.2 Epistemological framing 42 2.4.3 Positional framing 44 2.4.4 Exploration of the contexts that facilitate shifts in students framing 46 2.5 Chapter Conclusion 48 Chapter 3. Theoretical Investigation of Student Agency to Develop an Approach to Explore Student Agency as Facilitating a Shift in Shared Framing 50 3.1 Overview 50 3.2 Chapter Introduction 51 3.3 Research Context and Methods 52 3.3.1 Selection of literature as subject of the analysis 52 3.3.2 Analysis 53 3.4 Findings and Discussion 54 3.4.1 Aspects of agency discussed in science education 55 3.4.2 Approaches to examining students agentic practices in learning communities 68 3.4.3 Developing an approach for the analysis of student agency as facilitating a shift in group members shared framing 79 3.5 Chapter Conclusion 83 Chapter 4. Framing Oneself and One Another as Collaborative Contributors in Small-Group Argumentation in a Science Classroom 87 4.1 Overview 87 4.2 Chapter Introduction 88 4.3 Framework for Analysis 91 4.3.1 Positional framing 92 4.3.2 Consideration of boundary of interaction in students positional framing 92 4.4 Research Context and Methods 93 4.4.1 Research participants 94 4.4.2 Research context 95 4.4.3 Data collection and analysis 98 4.5 Findings 104 4.5.1 A polarized collective zone of interaction with discussion centered around Hyun 104 4.5.2 Elaboration of ideas in a separate zone of interaction from Hyun 109 4.5.3 A collective zone of interaction with collaborative contributors 113 4.6 Discussion 117 4.6.1 The discussion in the polarized collective zone of interaction 118 4.6.2 Contribution of Mins agency on the shift of the students framing 119 4.6.3 Framing as collaborative contributors in argumentation activity 121 4.7 Chapter Conclusion 122 Chapter 5. A Marginalized Students Attempt to Position Himself as a Collaborative Contributor in Small-Group Argumentation in a Science Classroom 127 5.1 Overview 127 5.2 Chapter Introduction 128 5.3 Framework for Analysis 131 5.3.1 Identifying the discursive practices of agency based on Emirbayer and Misches (1998) perspective on agency 132 5.3.2 Capturing the structure of activity through students epistemological and positional framing 134 5.3.3 Exploring why the framings were negotiated in a certain way with a focus on the students power relations 135 5.4 Research Context and Methods 137 5.4.1 Research participants 138 5.4.2 Research context 138 5.4.3 Selection of the focus group 139 5.4.4 Data collection and analysis 142 5.5 Findings 148 5.5.1 Presenting reasoning based on Junes cognitive resources 149 5.5.2 Presenting Junes epistemological framing of argumentation activity 157 5.5.3 Presenting Junes reflection on the previous epistemic practices 164 5.6 Discussion 170 5.6.1 Junes agency in the context of argumentation activity 170 5.6.2 Affordances and constraints on Junes agency in the context of argumentation activity 173 5.6.3 Reflection of scientific argumentation in the students negotiation of the framing 176 5.7 Chapter Conclusion 179 Chapter 6. Conclusion and Implications 182 6.1 Summary and Conclusion 182 6.2 Implications and Recommendations 188 References 192 Appendix 210 Appendix 1. Contents of the argumentation activities implemented in the science classrooms 210 국문 초록 … 211Docto

Argumentive Writing as a Collaborative Activity

Although converging evidence indicates that argumentive thinking and writing are best promoted by collaboration with others, it is still unclear which instructional approaches exert most benefits. The present study builds on the success of using a dialogic approach to develop argumentation skills in middle school students. The key component of the approach used here is the creation of an adversarial classroom setting in which students engage deeply in dialogic argumentation, which is viewed here as a process involving two or more individuals who hold opposing views. In dialogic argumentation, the focus of students’ attention will tend to center on the discursive goals of strengthening their own positions and weakening the position of the opponents. These goals of discourse ensure that students not only exercise supporting their claims with reasons and evidence but also practice making and responding to critiques, which is said to promote students’ mastery of the argument-counterargument-rebuttal structure. While the literature describes compelling advantages of dialogic approaches, it also reports valid concerns. A main concern is that during dialogic argumentation arguers have diverging goals of advancing their own positions, which may prevent the integration of opposing arguments. In an attempt to explore whether this disadvantage can be minimized, the present study examines whether the addition of a collaborative writing activity, as a form of peer argumentation that draws students’ attention towards a converging goal, to the dialogic curriculum provides students a further degree of support in developing their argumentive writing skills. It is hypothesized that collaborative writing would serve as a bridge between dialogic and individual argumentation by changing the focus of students’ attention from the adversarial to the collaborative dimensions of argumentation. To examine this hypothesis, two classes of sixth grade students participated in a month-long intervention that promoted deep engagement in dialogic argumentation on a series of challenging topics. Groups differed only with respect to participation in collaborative writing. Analysis of individual essays on the final intervention topic indicates that students who participated in collaborative writing showed gains relative to students who didn’t in coordinating evidence with claims, specifically in drawing on evidence to make claims that are inconsistent as well as consistent with their favored positions. On a transfer topic, students in the collaborative writing condition continued to surpass students in the individual writing condition; however, the gains were restricted to drawing on evidence to make claims that are consistent with the students’ favored positions. The results support the claim that the combination of adversarial and collaborative forms of peer argumentation in classroom instruction is a promising path for developing middle school students’ argumentive writing skills. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed

Student meaning making in elementary algebra teaching : An in-depth study of classrooms in four countries

Paper II and III are not available as a part of the dissertation due to the copyright.The research presented in this thesis is based on observations and analyses of classroom data from four countries. The data were collected through a collaboration of local research teams in Finland, Norway, Sweden and the USA (California) and the shared topic of interest is the learning of elementary algebra. This thesis is concerned with the meaning making of students as they are introduced to, and engage in, tasks, symbols and ideas belonging to the highly abstract discourse of algebra. Further, as a response to the complexity of classroom learning, the thesis also seeks to advance analytical approaches for studying algebraic thinking.publishedVersio

Exploring the effect of a Dialogical Argumentation Instructional Model in enhancing grade two learners' understanding of the day and night cycle

Magister Educationis - MEdOver the last 15 years the Department of Education has rolled out various projects in an attempt to improve Mathematics and Science results and to increase the amount of learners who exit their schooling with those subjects. The 2010 - 2014 matric results show a decrease in the number of students who exiting with Science. One of the factors that might influence the learners' decision to do science can be ascribed to the methodologies that the teachers are using to teach Science. In response to the latter, this study investigated the cognitive shifts of grade two learners' conceptual knowledge of the day and night cycle after being exposed to a Dialogical Argumentation Based Instructional Model. The Contiguity Argumentation Theory (CAT) and Toulmin's Argumentation Pattern (TAP) were used as a framework to capture and interrogate learners' arguments with argumentation frames developed to categorize the learners’ argument responses. Analytical approaches were used to assess learners' argumentation skills along four stages namely intra-argumentation, inter-argumentation, whole class discussion and trans-argumentation. The study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. The data was collected from grade 2 learners in a primary school in Cape Town, Western Cape Province in the form of a pre-post questionnaire, focus group interviews and classroom observation. The major findings of this study indicated that ● The Dialogical Argumentation Instructional model can assist learners to develop argumentative skills. ● The grade two learners in this study had alternative conceptions regarding the day and night cycle which is not scientifically valid. ● The views that learners hold are egocentric. ● DAIM is an effective teaching strategy to help learners to eliminate the misconceptions This study has shown that the Dialogical Argumentation Instructional Model (DAIM) seems to be effective in enhancing the learners’ understanding of the day and night cycle.National Research Foundatio

Managing A Discursive Journey for Classroom Inquiry: Examination of a Teacher’s Discursive Moves

This study presents an analysis of teacher discursive moves (TDMs) that aid students in altering their thinking and talking systems. The participants were a science who handled the immersion inquiry activities. The primary data source was the video recorded in the classroom. This video-based data was analyzed through systematic observation in two phases comprising coding and counting to reveal the mechanics of the discursive journey. Three assertions were made for the dynamics of the discursive journey. First, the teacher enacted a wide range of TDMs incorporating dialogically/monologically oriented, simplified (observe-compare-predict), and rather sophisticated moves (challenging). The challenging moves were the most featured among all analytical TDMs. Second, once higher-order categories were composed by collapsing subcategories of the displayed TDMs, the communicating-framing moves were the most prominent performed moves. Lastly, the teacher created an argumentative atmosphere in which the students had the right to evaluate and judge their classmates and teacher's utterances that modified the epistemic and social authority of the discursive journey. Finally, educational recommendations are offered in the context of teachers noticing the mechanics and dynamics of the discourse journey

Using Dialogical Argumentation instruction model on grade 6 learners' understanding of the cause of the phases of the moon

Magister Educationis - MEd (Mathematics)The aim of this study was to explore ways in which a dialogical argumentation instruction model (DAIM) could be used to assist and enhance grade 6 learners' understanding of the causes of the phases of the moon. The study was underpinned by Toulmin's 1958 Argumentation Pattern (TAP) and Ogunniyi's 2007 a & b Contiguity Argumentation Theory (CAT) It was a case study that was carried out in a primary school in Cape Town, South Africa and a sample of thirty - five grade six learners participated. Data were collected using multiple data collection instruments including the pre- and post-achievement tests for grade 6 on the causes of the phases of the moon, an audio-taped interview schedule, focus group interview schedule, field observation schedule and classroom observation notes, all based on grade 6 learners' conceptions of the causes of the phases of the moon. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. The findings of the study were as follows: Firstly, before DAIM, grade 6 learners held conceptions that; rain, clouds, seasons, day and night, and shadows from the planets, the stars and the sun were the causes of the phases of the moon.. Some of these conceptions arose from the learners' own science viewpoints and others from their indigenous perspectives. These conceptions were all not consistent with laws and principles of science because they were not the causes of the phases of the moon. However, after DAIM, grade 6 learners held the view that the light from the sun and the revolution of the moon round the earth were the causes of the phases of the moon. This indicates that there was a shift from the learners' pre DAIM to post DAIM thinking

Exploring the Form and the Function: a Review of Science Discourse Frameworks in the Service of Research and Practice

The importance of how classroom discourse can be used to support science learning has gained national attention with respect to both science teaching and research across K12 and higher education. In this review article, we examine a commonly referenced set of nine frameworks for use inscienceclassrooms. Specifically, we examine the ways in which various frameworks emphasize the structure (i.e.,form) or practical use (i.e.,function) of language across classroom settings, and the impact of such an emphasis on the facilitation and analysis of science classroom discourse. The findings from this review should help researchers investigate and educators facilitate classroom discourse in ways that ensure that all students can participate in and demonstrate their scientific understanding

Dialogic interactions in the cooperative classroom

Attention in recent years has turned to the key role talk plays in mediating students' learning when they work cooperatively together. There is no doubt that talk, albeit by the teacher or peers, has the capacity to stimulate and extend students' thinking and advance their learning. Teachers do this when they encourage students to engage in reciprocal dialogues where they exchange information, explore issues, interrogate ideas, and tackle problems in a cooperative environment that is supportive of these discussions. In turn, students learn to listen to what others have to say, consider alternative perspectives, and engage critically and constructively with each other's ideas by learning how to reason and justify their assertions as they cooperate together. This study involved three Year 7 teachers and 17 groups of students (3-5 students per group) from their classes. The teachers had agreed to teach two units of cooperative, inquiry-based science across two school terms. All three teachers had been trained to use a dialogic approach to teaching designed to challenge children's thinking and learning. This paper presents examples of both teachers' and students' dialogic interactions and discusses the complementarity of these discourses even though the teachers used slightly different dialogic approaches in interacting with their students. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Disciplinary authenticity and personal relevance in school science

Pursuing both disciplinary authenticity and personal relevance in the teaching and learning of science in school generates tensions that should be acknowledged and resolved. This paper problematizes and explores the conceptualizations of these tensions by considering personal relevance, disciplinary authenticity, and common school science as three perspectives that entail different educational goals. Based on an analysis of the literature, we identify five facets of the tensions: content fidelity, content coverage, language and discursive norms, epistemic structure and standards, and significance. We then explore the manifestations of these facets in two different examples of the instruction and learning of physics at the advanced high school level in Israel and Italy. Our analysis suggests that (1) the manifestations of these tensions and their resolution are highly contextual. (2) While maintaining personal relevance and disciplinary authenticity requires some negotiation, the main tension that needs to be resolved is between personal relevance and common school science. (3) Disciplinary authenticity, when considered in terms of its full depth and scope, can be equipped to resolve this tension within the discipline. (4) To achieve resolution, teachers’ expertise should include not only pedagogical expertise but also a deep and broad disciplinary understanding.Peer reviewe

Investigating Pre-service Natural Science Teachers’ perceptions of earth in space through spatial modelling and argumentation

Magister Educationis - MEdThis study involves a group of pre-service teachers who are specialising in Science and Mathematics education at a university in the Western Cape province of South Africa. The aim of the study was to investigate perceptions about the earth in space held by the pre-service natural science teachers. A related aim was to create awareness among the prospective teachers about various views that people hold about the earth as against the scientifically valid view (Govender, 2009, Plummer & Zahm, 2010, Schneps & Sadler, 1989). To determine and improve the prospective teachers’ perceptions and awareness about the significance of the earth in space the study adopted the dialogical argumentation model (DAIM) and spatial modelling as a theoretical framework (Ogunniyi, 2013). Further, the study used pre- and post-test data based on the responses of the pre-service teachers to questionnaires, focus group interviews and reflective diaries. The data set was analysed using a mixed methods approach (qualitative and quantitative). Results from the study show that most the pre-service teachers involved in the study hold both scientific and alternative conceptions about the earth in space. However, they seem to suppress the latter because they believe them to be unscientific. In addition they believe that their role is to impart scientific knowledge to learners. As has been revealed in a number of studies, some of the prospective teachers did not have much background in geography