Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 837–868 | Cite as

The many roles of “explanation” in science education: a case study

  • Miranda Rocksén
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

In this paper the role of explanations is discussed in relation to possible consequences originating in the polysemy of the word explanation. The present study is a response to conceptual confusions that have arisen in the intersection between theory and practice, and between science education literature and communication in authentic science classroom settings. Science classroom communication is examined in terms of one teacher’s word use during eleven lessons about evolution. The study contributes empirical examples of how disciplinary norms of valid explanations are manifested in science classroom communication. A dialogical analysis shows how the teacher provides three conversational structures: asking for acts of explanation, providing opportunities to talk about what explanations are in this context and providing opportunities to talk about explanations constructed by students. These three structures facilitate the process of learning how to evaluate and justify explanations. Three potential meanings of the word “explanation” are pointed to: an everyday meaning, a pedagogical–professional meaning and a scientific meaning of the word. It is suggested that the co-existence of these three potential meanings has communicative consequences in science education.

Keywords

Explanation Classroom discourse Dialogism Video analysis Evolution Science education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Antaki, C., & Leudar, I. (1992). Explaining in conversation: Towards an argument model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 181–194. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420220206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2012). For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, 96, 808–813. doi: 10.1002/sce.21000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55. doi: 10.1002/sce.20286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billingsley, B., Taber, K., Riga, F., & Newdick, H. (2013). Secondary school students’ epistemic insight into the relationships between science and religion—A preliminary enquiry. Research in Science Education, 43, 1715–1732. doi: 10.1007/s11165-012-9317-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639–669. doi: 10.1002/sce.20449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, D., Mesiti, C., O’Keefe, C., Xu, L. H., Jablonka, E., Mok, I. A. C., et al. (2007). Addressing the challenge of legitimate international comparisons of classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 280–293. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2007.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, D., Xu, L.H., Arnold, J., Seah, L.H., Hart, C., Tytler, R., et al. (2012). Multi-theoretic approaches to understanding the science classroom. Paper presented at the ESERA 2011: ebook proceedings of the ESERA 2011 conference: Science learning and citizenship.Google Scholar
  9. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ford, M., & Wargo, B. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96, 369–391. doi: 10.1002/sce.20482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraser, B.J., Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C.J. (2012). Second International handbook of science education [Elektronic source]. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7.
  12. Geelan, D. (2012). Teacher explanations. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International handbook of science education [Elektronic source]. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_65.
  13. Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.Google Scholar
  14. Horwood, R. H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72, 41–49. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730720104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hsu, P.-L. (2010). Thinking dialogically about thought and language. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Re/Structuring science education (Vol. 2, pp. 113–143). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3996-5_11.
  16. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International handbook of science education [Elektronic source]. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_66.
  17. Kampourakis, K., Pavlidi, V., Papadopoulou, M., & Palaiokrassa, E. (2012). Children's teleological intuitions: What kind of explanations do 7–8 year olds give for the features of organisms, artifacts and natural objects? Research in Science Education, 42, 651–671. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9219-4.
  18. Kelly, G.J., McDonald, S., & Wickman, P.-O. (2012). Science learning and epistemology. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International handbook of science education [Elektronic source]. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_20.
  19. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning and values. Norwood, New Jersey: Alex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  20. Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2011). Uses of “understand” in science education. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 452–474. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Linell, Per. (2009a). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub Incorporated.Google Scholar
  22. Linell, P. (2009b). With respect to Bakhtin: some trends in contemporary dialogical theories. Paper presented at the Perspectives and limits of dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  23. Linell, P. (2012). On the nature of language: Formal written-language biased linguistics vs. dialogical language sciences. In A. Kravchenko (Ed.), Cognitive dynamics in linguistic interactions (pp. 107–124). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Mercer, N. (2002). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Mortimer, E.F. (2010). Thinking and speaking on units of analysis and its role in meaning making. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Re/Structuring science education (Vol. 2, pp. 145–153). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3996-5_10.
  26. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627–638. doi: 10.1002/sce.20438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roth, W.-M. (2010). Thinking and speaking a dynamic approach. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Re/Structuring science education (Vol. 2, pp. 113–143). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3996-5_9.
  29. Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1122–1148. doi: 10.1002/tea.21037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seah, L. H., Clarke, D. J., & Hart, C. E. (2011). Understanding students’ language use about expansion through analyzing their lexicogrammatical resources. Science Education, 95, 852–876. doi: 10.1002/sce.20448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Searle, John. (1971). What is a speech act. The Philosophy of Language, 3, 1965–1996.Google Scholar
  32. Trout, J. D. (2002). Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding. Philosophy of Science, 69, 212–233. doi: 10.1086/341050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Vosniadou, Stella. (2012). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: Preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International handbook of science education [Elektronic source]. Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  35. Wells, C. G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry [Elektronic resource]: towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511605895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 379–428. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Prof. StudiesGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options