Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 317–327 | Cite as

Perezhivanie and classroom discourse: a cultural–historical perspective on “Discourse of design based science classroom activities”

  • Megan AdamsEmail author
  • Sue March


Flavio Azevedo, Peggy Martalock and Tugba Keser challenge the ‘argumentation focus of science lessons’ and propose that through a ‘design-based approach’ emergent conversations with the teacher offer possibilities for different types of discussions to enhance pedagogical discourse in science classrooms. This important paper offers a “preliminary contribution to a general theory” regarding the link between activity types and discourse practices. Azevedo, Martalock and Keser offer a general perspective with a sociocultural framing for analysis of classroom discourse. Interestingly the specific concepts drawn upon are from conversation analysis; there are few sociocultural concepts explored in detail. Therefore, in this article we focus on a cultural historical (Vygotsky in The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. The history and development of higher mental functions, vol 4. Plenum Press, New York, 1987; The Vygotsky reader. Black, Cambridge, 1994) methodology to explore, analyse and explain how we would use a different theoretical lens. We argue that a cultural historical reading of argumentation in science lessons and design based activity will expand Azevedo, Martalock and Keser’s proposed general theory of activity types and discourse practices. Specifically, we use Lev Vygotksy’s idea of perezhivanie as the unit of analysis to reconceptualise this important paper. We focus on the holistic category of students’ emotional experience through discourse while developing scientific awareness.


Cultural–historical Sociocultural Perezhivanie Discourse Classroom science 



We wish to acknowledge with thanks the help and guidance of Professor Marilyn Fleer and acknowledge the monthly Dialectical Logic Learning Space (DLSS) reading group conversations led expertly by A/Professor Nikolai Veresov, which have been instrumental in guiding our understanding of perezhivanie as a concept.


  1. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315–1346. doi: 10.1080/09500690600621100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fleer, M. (2008). Using digital video observations and computer technologies in a cultural–historical approach. In M. Hedegaard, M. Fleer, J. Bang, & P. Hviid (Eds.), Studying children: A culturalhistorical approach (pp. 104–117). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gonzalez Rey, F. (2009). Historical relevance of Vygotsky’s work: Its significance for a new approach to the problem of subjectivity in psychology. Outlines. Critical Practice Studies, 11, 59–73.Google Scholar
  5. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (1995). Making space: A comparison of mathematical work in school and professional design practices. In S. L. Star (Ed.), The cultures of computing (pp. 118–145). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2008). Studying children: A cultural–historical approach. Maidenhead, England; New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hsu, P. (2007). Forum: Questions as a tool for bridging science and everyday language games. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 281–303. doi: 10.1007/s11422-007-9053-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  12. McNeill, K., & Pimental, D. (2009). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Interscience, 94, 203–209. doi: 10.1002/20364.
  13. Roth, W.-M. (2007). Emotion and work: A contribution to third-generation cultural–historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14, 40–63. doi: 10.1080/10749030701307705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sadler, T. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1–42. doi: 10.1080/03057260802681839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schmidt, J., Lyutkh, E., & Shumow, L. (2012). A study of teachers’ speech and students’ perezhivanie in high school physics classrooms. Northern Illinois University. In Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  17. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. The history and development of higher mental functions (Vol. 4). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  18. Vygotsky, L. S. (1989). Concrete human Psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 27, 53–77. doi: 10.2753/RPO1061-0405270253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader. Cambridge, MA: Black.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationMonash UniversityFrankstonAustralia

Personalised recommendations