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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge, UK: Dialogos.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas‐about‐science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655–682.
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.
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.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
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.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gilbert, N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91–113.
Lee, Y.-J. (2008). Thriving in-between the cracks: Deleuze and guerrilla science teaching in Singapore. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 917–935.
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.
Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English National Literacy Strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 701–737.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
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.
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.
Márquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modeling the water cycle. Science Education, 90(2), 202–226.
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.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
National Research Council (Ed.). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, UK: Sage.
Potter, J. (2005). Making psychology relevant. Discourse and Society, 16(5), 739–747.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London, UK: Sage.
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.
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.
Roth, W. M. (2008). The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological perspective. Educational Research Review, 3(1), 30–50.
Sandoval, W. (2014). Science education’s need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98(3), 383–387.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16390-1_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16389-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16390-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)