Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using a Dialogical Approach to Examine Peer Feedback During Chemistry Investigative Task Discussion

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Peer feedback is an inherent feature of classroom collaborative learning. Students invariably turn to their peers for feedback when carrying out an investigative task, and this feedback is usually implicit, unstructured and may positively or negatively influence students’ learning when they work on a task. This study explored the characteristics of verbal peer feedback during a collaborative investigative chemistry task involving New Zealand Year 13 students. During the planning stage of the students’ investigation, the discussions of five pairs of students were recorded and then transcribed. Analysis of transcribed verbal data focused on interactions that involved peer feedback along two dimensions, interactive/non-interactive and dialogic/authoritative (Mortimer and Scott, 2003). The findings indicated that although students adopted a predominantly interactive/authoritative communicative approach, with peer feedback as confirmation or evaluation, they are also capable of a more interactive/dialogic exchange, characterised by elaborative peer feedback. We discuss how this dialogic perspective on peer feedback provides an alternative approach to the analysis and study of student–student interactions during science investigations. The findings should be interpreted in light of the limitations in terms of sample size, grouping and specificity of the coding scheme. Implications for teacher practice are discussed in relation to facilitating peer feedback discourse in the science classroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. NCEA is the national qualification system for students at New Zealand secondary schools.

  2. http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: international perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: the authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 174–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching. York: Dialogos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvaja, M., Häkkinen, P., Eteläpelto, A. & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2000). Collaborative processes during report writing of a science learning project: the nature of discourseas a function of task requirements. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(4), 455–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleicher, R., Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. (2003). Opportunities to talk science in a high school chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education, 33, 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: a sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61, 157–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chigeza, P. (2011). Cultural resources of minority and marginalised students should be included in the school science curriculum. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(2), 401–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogenous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J. T. (1985). Using questions to foil discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2006). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gan, M. (2011). The effects of prompts and explicit coaching on peer feedback quality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

  • González, N., & Moll, L. C. (2002). Cruzando el puente: building bridges to funds of knowledge. Educational Policy, 16(4), 623–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gott, R., & Roberts, R. (2008). Concepts of evidence and their role in open-ended practical investigations and scientific literacy; background to published papers. UK: The School of Education, Durham University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C. (2009). Collaborative group work in middle childhood: joint construction, unresolved contradiction and the growth of knowledge. Human Development, 39, 71–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Duchak-Tanner, V., & Rattray, C. (2000). Hypothesis testing in science: group consensus and the acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 361–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Topping, K., Christie, D., Livingston, K., et al. (2007). Group work in elementary science: towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 549–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43, 317–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 443–469). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: how student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: a sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., O’Conner, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberate discourse idealised and realised: accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B. (1995). Talking about science: an interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 349–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E., & Santos, F. (2003). Changing referential perspective in science classroom discourse. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, E. Hatzikraniotis, G. Fassoulopoulos, & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge based society (pp. 69–78). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2000). Analysing discourse in the science classroom. In R. Miller, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: the contribution of research (pp. 126–142). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 781–802). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piliouras, P., & Evangelou, O. (2012). Teachers’ inclusive strategies to accommodate 5th grade pupils’ crossing of cultural borders in two Greek multicultural science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawlins, P. (2013). Questioning as formative assessment: investigating the use of the ESRU framework to guide students’ learning. Assessment Matters, 5, 30–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: the role of instructional dialogues in assessing students’ learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., Motimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., Ametller, J. Mortimer, E., Gerais, M., & Emberton, J. (2010). Teaching and learning disciplinary knowledge: Developing the dialogic space for an answer when there isn’t even a question. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues:Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 287–303). New York: Routledge.

  • Seiler, G. (2013). New metaphors about culture: implications for research in science teacher preparation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1), 104–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamovlasis, D., Dimos, A., & Tsaparlis, G. (2006). A study of group interaction processes in learning lower secondary physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(6), 556–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. In K. Wheldall (Ed.), Developments in educational psychology: how far have we come in 25 years? (pp. 59–73). London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Reflective discourse: developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ learning in peer directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 361–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 943–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Auckland, New Zealand

    Mark Gan Joo Seng & Mary Hill

Authors
  1. Mark Gan Joo Seng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Gan Joo Seng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gan Joo Seng, M., Hill, M. Using a Dialogical Approach to Examine Peer Feedback During Chemistry Investigative Task Discussion. Res Sci Educ 44, 727–749 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9403-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9403-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation