Skip to main content

Packaging Inquiry-Based Science Learning for Students: A Discursive Analysis of One High School Teacher’s Talk from Singapore

  • Chapter
Science Education in East Asia
  • 1904 Accesses

Abstract

Knowing how teachers manage or organize inquiry-based science through their instructional talk is fundamental to its successful implementation in schools. In this chapter, we closely examine one high school teacher’s discourse to investigate how the teaching and learning of science by inquiry was presented to students during a new chemistry curriculum. Using discourse analysis, our findings suggest that teacher talk had in fact downplayed the learning of important scientific processes and content knowledge. Students were also moved along a predictable pathway towards the successful completion of their scientific investigations. Unknown to the teacher, he draws upon two types of interpretative repertoires: inquiry science requires low-level content knowledge and inquiry science as a make-do scientific practice, to teach inquiry science in the classroom. As much as teachers everywhere typically wish to master instructional approaches based on inquiry science, our results signal the ubiquitous but unfortunate disjoint between aspiration and practice that can occur even among highly able teachers within a high-achieving system such as Singapore. Our study contributes to the literature on teacher instructional talk by stressing how it can subtly mediate the quality and quantity of epistemic accomplishments of their learners during science teaching.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge, UK: Dialogos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas‐about‐science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned: How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 539–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodzin, A. M., & Beerer, K. M. (2003). Promoting inquiry-based science instruction: The validation of the science teacher inquiry rubric (STIR). Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chue, S., & Lee, Y. J. (2013). The proof of the pudding?: A case study of an “at-risk” design-based inquiry science curriculum. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2431–2454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, K. M., Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2005). Science for all: A discursive analysis examining teacher support of student thinking in inclusive classrooms. In Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 199–224). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, T. (2005). What counts as knowing: Constructing a communicative repertoire for student demonstration of knowledge in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 139–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data. A guide for analysis (pp. 189–228). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry‐oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hökkä, P., Eteläpelto, A., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2010). Recent tensions and challenges in teacher education as manifested in curriculum discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 845–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P. L., & Roth, W. M. (2009). An analysis of teacher discourse that introduces real science activities to high school students. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 553–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. T., & Eick, C. J. (2007). Implementing inquiry kit curriculum: Obstacles, adaptations, and practical knowledge development in two middle school science teachers. Science Education, 91(3), 492–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (2007, May). Scientific literacy, discourse, and knowledge. In: A paper presented at the Linnaeus Tercentenary 2007 symposium “Promoting scientific literacy”. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.-J. (2008). Thriving in-between the cracks: Deleuze and guerrilla science teaching in Singapore. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 917–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.-J. (2014). Science education in a straightjacket: The interplay of people, policies, and place in an East-Asian Developmental State. In A.-L. Tan, C. L. Poon, & S. S. L. Lim (Eds.), Inquiry into the Singapore science classroom: Research and practices (pp. 151–171). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English National Literacy Strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 701–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tzialli, D. (2012). Identification, interpretation—Evaluation, response: An alternative framework for analyzing teacher discourse in science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1823–1856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M., & Macbeth, D. (1998). Demonstrating physics lessons. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 269–298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Márquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modeling the water cycle. Science Education, 90(2), 202–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (Ed.). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, UK: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J. (2005). Making psychology relevant. Discourse and Society, 16(5), 739–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1995). Discourse analysis. In J. Smith, R. Harré, & R. van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 80–92). London, UK: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M. (2008). The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological perspective. Educational Research Review, 3(1), 30–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. (2014). Science education’s need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98(3), 383–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 51–85). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, S., & Potter, J. (2008). Discursive psychology. In S. Willig & W. Stainton­Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative psychology (pp. 73–91). London, UK: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry‐based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—Empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shien Chue .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chue, S., Lee, YJ. (2015). Packaging Inquiry-Based Science Learning for Students: A Discursive Analysis of One High School Teacher’s Talk from Singapore. In: Khine, M. (eds) Science Education in East Asia. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16390-1_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics