Research in Science Education

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 25–49 | Cite as

Intermingling and bumpiness: Exploring meaning making in the discourse of a science classroom



In this study we capture and analyse in qualitative terms the conversational rhythm—the ebb and the flow of meaning making—in a Year 5 class in order to understand when and how teacher and students succeed in developing shared understandings, and when and how they encounter difficulties. We use the two contrasting concepts of intermingling and bumpiness to catch the phenomenological aspect of time in the science class, which is constituted by the voices of the teacher and the students as they come together to construct disciplinary knowledge. It is a collaborative action research that sheds light on the struggles and possibilities that arise in a science class as a teacher enacts a socio-cultural perspective and engages his students in collecting and analysing experimental data and reasoning through a particular model.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arnold, M., & Millar, R. (1996). Learning the scientific “story”: A case study in the teaching and learning of elementary thermodynamics.Science Education, 80(3), 249–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, J., & Varelas, M. (1995). Assisting construction: The role of the teacher in assisting the learner's construction of pre-existing cultural knowledge. In L. Steffe (Ed.),Constructivism in education (pp. 433–446). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Dewey, J. (1929).The sources of a science of education. New York: H. Liveright.Google Scholar
  4. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duschl, R. A. (1990).Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, A. D., & Mercer, N. (1987).Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  7. Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: The social and cognitive ecology of teacher-student interaction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (Ed.),Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 29–62). New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  8. Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell, & K. Weiler (Eds.),Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3–12). New York: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
  9. Hicks, D. (1996). Discourse, learning, and teaching.Review of Research in Education, 21, 49–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holton, G. (1988).Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  11. Kahle, J. B. (1995). Opportunities and obstacles: Science education in the schools. In C. S. Davis, A. B. Ginorio, C. S. Hollenshead, B. B. Lazarus, & P. M. Rayman (Eds.),The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering (pp. 57–95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Lemke, J. L. (1990).Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  13. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Lythcott, J. (1991). The nature of essential knowledge basis for science teachers.Teaching Education, 3(2), 41–55.Google Scholar
  15. O'Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism-Toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 791–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts.Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwab, J. (1978). The practical: A language for curriculum. In I. Westbury, & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.),Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays (pp. 287–321). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  18. Varelas, M. (1996). Between theory and data in a 7th grade science class.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 229–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Varelas, M. (1997). Third and fourth graders' conceptions of repeated trials and best representatives in science experiments.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 853–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Varelas, M., & Becker, J. (1997). Internalization of cultural forms of behavior: Semiotic aspects of intellectual development. In B. D. Cox, & C. Lightfoot (Eds.),Sociogenetic perspectives on internalization (pp. 203–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  22. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and Speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.),The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1): Problems of general psychology (N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934)Google Scholar
  23. Yackel, E. (1995). Children's talk in inquiry mathematics classrooms. In P. Cobb, & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.),The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 131–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Education, M/C 147University of Illinois at ChicagoChicago
  2. 2.Inter-American Magnet SchoolUSA

Personalised recommendations