Cover Image

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

Yi̇lmaz Soysal

Abstract


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.

Full Text:

DOWNLOAD PDF

References


Aukerman, M., Johnson, E. M., & Chambers Schuldt, L. (2017). Reciprocity of student and teacher discourse practices in monologically and dialogically organized text discussion. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 13(2), 1-52.

Bachelard, G. (1968). The Philosophy of No. Paris: Paris University Press.

Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891-1912.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1934). Discourse in the novel. The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres & other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Ed. and V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barreto, L. P., Rodrigues, A. A. D., de Oliveira, G. C. B., de Almeida, L. T. G., Felix, M. A. C., de Souza Silva, P., ... & Mortimer, E. F. (2021). The use of different translation devices to analyze knowledge-building in a university chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education, 51(1), 135-152.

Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.

Brown, K., & Kennedy, H. (2011). Learning through conversation: exploring and extending teacher and children’s involvement in classroom talk. Social Psychology International, 32(4), 377-396.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Buty, C., Tiberghien, A., & Le Maréchal, J-F. (2004). Learning hypotheses and an associated tool to design and to analyse teaching-learning sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 579-604.

Buty, C. & Mortimer, E. F. (2008). Dialogic/Authoritative Discourse and Modelling in a High School Teaching Sequence on Optics. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1635-1660.

Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.

Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. M., (2012). The Importance of Embedding Argument Within Science Classrooms. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation (pp. 39-53). Springer Science+Business Media BV 2012.

Carpenter, S. L., Kim, J., Nilsen, K., Irish, T., Bianchini, J. A., & Berkowitz, A. R. (2020). Secondary science teachers’ use of discourse moves to work with student ideas in classroom discussions. International Journal of Science Education, 42(15), 2513-2533.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chapin, S.H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N.C. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.

Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61-82). New York: Routledge.

Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315-1346.

Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.

Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2021). A tool for visualizing and inquiring into whole-class sense-making discussions. Research in Science Education, 51(1), 51-70.

Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.

Christoph, J., & Nystrand, M. (2001). Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One teacher’s transition toward a dialogic classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 249–286.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.

Eemeren, F.H. van, & Groote ndorst, R. (2004 ). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-484.

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.

Eun, B. (2019). Adopting a stance: Bandura and Vygotsky on professional development. Research in Education, 105(1), 74-88.

Firetto, C. M., Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Li, M., Wei, L., Montalbano, C., ... & Croninger, R. M. (2019). Bolstering students’ written argumentation by refining an effective discourse intervention: Negotiating the fine line between flexibility and fidelity. Instructional Science, 47(2), 181-214.

Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A Framework for Analyzing Evidence-Based Reasoning in Science Classroom Discourse. Educational Assessment, (15), 3-4, 175-196.

Gray, R., & Rogan-Klyve, A. (2018). Talking modelling: examining secondary science teachers’ modelling-related talk during a model-based inquiry unit. International Journal of Science Education, 40(11), 1345-1366.

Grinath A.S., & Southerland, S.A. (2019). Applying the ambitious science teaching framework in undergraduate biology: Responsive talk moves that support explanatory rigor. Science Education, 103, 92-122.

Ha, H., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Exploring responsive teaching's effect on students' epistemological framing in small group argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 63-75.

Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27-29.

Hartl, P. (2021). The Ethos of Science and Central Planning: Merton and Michael Polanyi on the Autonomy of Science. In Science, Freedom, Democracy (pp. 39-67). Routledge.

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.

Holquist, M., & Emerson,C. (1981) Glossary for The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M. Holquist, Ed., M. Holquist and C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524.

Jin, H., Wei, X., Duan, P., Guo, Y., & Wang, W. (2016). Promoting cognitive and social aspects of inquiry through classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 319-343.

Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers' questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004-2027.

Kelly, G. J., & Licona, P. (2018). Epistemic practices and science education. In History, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 139-165). Springer, Cham.

Kim, M., & Roth, W. M. (2018). Dialogical argumentation in elementary science classrooms. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 1061-1085.

Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-142.

Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English National Literacy Strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 701-737.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwoord, NJ: Ablex.

Lin, A. M. Y. (2007). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”? Activity theory, conversation analysis and analysis of pedagogical practices. Pedagogies, 2(2), 77-94.

Maeng, S. (2021). Explicating epistemic process in elementary students’ language use by practical epistemology and discourse register analyses. Research in Science Education, 51(1), 153-170.

Magnusson, C. G. (2021). Reading Literacy Practices in Norwegian Lower-Secondary Classrooms: Examining the Patterns of Teacher Questions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1-15.

Manz, E., & Suárez, E. (2018). Supporting teachers to negotiate uncertainty for science, students, and teaching. Science Education, 102(4), 771-795.

Martin, J., Xu, L., & Seah, L. H. (2021). Discourse analysis and multimodal meaning-making in a science Classroom: Meta-Methodological Insights from Three Theoretical Perspectives. Research in Science Education, 51(1), 187-207.

Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17-38.

Mau, S. T., & Harkness, S. S. (2020). The role of teacher educators and university supervisors to help student teachers reflect: from monological reflection toward dialogical conversation. Reflective Practice, 21(2), 171-182.

McMahon, K. (2012). Case studies of interactive whole-class teaching in primary science: communicative approach and pedagogic purposes. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1687-1708.

McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific Discourse in Three Urban Classrooms: The Role of the Teacher in Engaging High School Students in Argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203-229.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1-14.

Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430-445.

Mercer, N., & Barnes, D. (2020). English as a classroom language. In Learning English (pp. 117-149). Routledge.

Mortimer, E. F. (1998) Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: an example from theory of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 67-82.

Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning-making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

O’Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (2019). Supporting teachers in taking up productive talk moves: The long road to professional learning at scale. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 166-175.

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.

Oh, P.S., & Campbell, T. (2013). Understanding of science classrooms in different countries through the analysis of discourse modes for building ‘classroom science knowledge’ (CSK). Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 597-625.

Oliveira, A. W., (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-453.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.

Phillips Galloway, E., & McClain, J. B. (2020). Metatalk moves: Examining tools for collective academic discourse learning. The Reading Teacher, 74(3), 305-314.

Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394.

Sandoval, W. A., Kawasaki, J., & Clark, H. F. (2021). Characterizing science classroom discourse across scales. Research in Science Education, 51(1), 35-49.

Santas, G.X. (1979). Socrates. London: Routledge.

Scherr, R., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 147-174.

Scott, P. H. (1997). Teaching and learning science concepts in classroom: talking a path from spontaneous to scientific knowledge. In Linguagem, cultura e cognicao reflexoes para o ensino de ciencias [Language, Culture and Cognition Reflections for Science Teaching]. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Faculdade de Educacao da UFMG.

Scott, P. H. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning-making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45–80.

Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 137-162.

Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Soysal, Y. (2020a). Exploring elementary and middle school science teachers’ metadiscourse moves: a Vygotskian analysis and interpretation. Learning: Research and Practice. DOI: 10.1080/23735082.2020.1761432.

Soysal, Y. (2020b). Investigating discursive functions and potential cognitive demands of teacher questioning in the science classroom. Learning: Research and Practice, 6(2), 167-194.

Soysal, Y. (2021). An exploration of the determinants of middle school students’ argument quality by classroom discourse analysis. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-29.

Studhalter, U. T., Leuchter, M., Tettenborn, A., Elmer, A., Edelsbrunner, P. A., & Saalbach, H. (2021). Early science learning: The effects of teacher talk. Learning and Instruction, 71.

Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., Azmon, S., & Dreyfus, T. (2019). Following the Traces of Teachers’ Talk-Moves in Their Students’ Verbal and Written Responses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 509-528

Tang, K. S., Tan, A. L., & Mortimer, E. F. (2021). The multi-timescale, multi-modal and multi-perspectival aspects of classroom discourse analysis in science education. Research in Science Education, 51(1), 1-11.

van Booven, D. (2015). Revisiting the authoritative–dialogic tension in inquiry-based elementary science teacher questioning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1182-1201.

van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997a). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209-228.

van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997b). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 229-271.

van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 115-142.

van der Veen, C., Dobber, M., & van Oers, B. (2018). Engaging children in dialogic classroom talk: Does it contribute to a dialogical self? In The Dialogical Self Theory in Education (pp. 49-63). Springer, Cham.

Wei, L., Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (2018). How can teachers facilitate productive small-group talk? An integrated taxonomy of teacher discourse moves. The Elementary School Journal, 118(4), 578-609.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A social approach to socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Ed.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 85－100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. W. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S.Carton (Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology (pp. 39- 285). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934).

Ziman J. (2001). Real Science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v4i4.32029

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Copyright (c) 2021 Yi̇lmaz Soysal

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Journal of Science Learning is published by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
in collaboration with the Indonesian Society of Science Educators
Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi 229 Bandung 40154, West Java, Indonesia
Website: http://www.upi.edu
Email: jslearning@upi.edu