Abstract
In this paper, we introduce and exemplify aspects of a tool for analysing the various forms and functions of discursive interactions in high school science classrooms. This tool, or analytical framework, is based on a sociocultural view of teaching and learning, and consists of five linked aspects: Teaching purposes; Content of the classroom interactions; Communicative approach; Patterns of discourse; Teacher interventions. Here we focus attention on introducing and exemplifying how different teaching purposes can be addressed through combinations of communicative approach and patterns of discourse, as the scientific ‘story’ develops. In this way we demonstrate how the different aspects of the framework interrelate, providing a coherent basis for analysing classroom interactions. Finally we turn to the ways in which the framework has been used in planning science teaching and discuss how the framework is being used with science teachers in the context of professional development programmes, in both the UK and Brazil.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination, Ed. by Michael Holquist, Trans. by Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech Genres & Other Late Essays, Ed. by Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist, Trans. by Vern W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Duit, R. & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning science: from behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In: B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education, pp. 3–25. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Martin, J.R. (1993). Writing Science. London: Falmer Press.
Harré, R. & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, California.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J. & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: the rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.
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.
Leach, J., Ametller, J., Hind, A., Lewis, J. & Scott, P. (2003). Evidence-informed approaches to teaching science at junior high school level: outcomes in terms of student learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Philadelphia, USA, March.
Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking Science. Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lotman, Yu.M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet Psychology, 26(3): 32–51.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.F. & Scott, P.H. (2000). Analysing discourse in the science classroom. In Leach, J., Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (Eds.) Improving Science Education: the contribution of research. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Mortimer, E.F. & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I. & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Roychoudhury, A. & Roth, W.-M. (1996). Interactions in an open-inquiry physics laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 18, No. 4, pp.423–445.
Scott, P.H. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32: 45–80.
Scott, P., Hind, A., Leach, J. & Lewis, J. (2001). Designing and implementing science teaching drawing upon research evidence about science teaching and learning. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Third International Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece, August 21–25.
Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Viiri, J., Saari, H. & Sormunen, K. (2003). Describing the rhythm of science teacher talk. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Fourth International Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, August 19–23, 2003.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and Speech. In The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky; Rieber, R.W.; Carton, A.S. (Eds.). Trans. by Minich, N. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 39–285.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Scott, P., Mortimer, E. (2005). Meaning Making in High School Science Classrooms: A Framework for Analysing Meaning Making Interactions. In: Boersma, K., Goedhart, M., de Jong, O., Eijkelhof, H. (eds) Research and the Quality of Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3673-6_31
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3673-6_31
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3672-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3673-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)