Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 709–738 | Cite as

Students’ meaning making in classroom discussions: the importance of peer interaction

  • Karin Rudsberg
  • Leif Östman
  • Elisabeth Aaro Östman
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

The aim is to investigate how encounters with peers affect an individual’s meaning making in argumentation about socio-scientific issues, and how the individual’s meaning making influences the argumentation at the collective level. The analysis is conducted using the analytical method “transactional argumentation analysis” (TAA) which enables in situ studies. TAA combines a transactional perspective on meaning making based on John Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy with an argument analysis based on Toulmin’s argument pattern. Here TAA is developed further to enable analysis that in detail clarifies the dynamic interplay between the individual and the collective—the intra- and the inter-personal dimensions—and the result of this interplay in terms of meaning making and learning. The empirical material in this study consists of a video-recorded lesson in a Swedish upper secondary school. The results show that the analysed student is influenced by peers when construing arguments, and thereby acts on others’ reasoning when making meaning. Further, the results show that most of the additions made by the analysed student are taken further by peers in the subsequent discussion. This study shows how an individual’s earlier experiences, knowledge and thinking contribute to the collective meaning making in the classroom.

Keywords

Meaning making Learning Education Socio-scientific issues Argumentation Pragmatism 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Almqvist, J., & Östman, L. (2006). Privileging and artefacts. On the use of information technology in science education. Interchange, 37(3), 225–250.Google Scholar
  2. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwartz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwartz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33(2009), 374–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkowitz, M. W., & Gibbs, J. C. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 399–410.Google Scholar
  5. Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education: The role of peer discussion. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117–138). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biesta, G., & Burbules, N. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Cromwell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A three-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1922/1988). Human nature and conduct an introduction to social psychology. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works, 1899–1924 (Vol. 14). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dewey, J. (1929/1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover publications.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (1938/1986). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works (vol. 12). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J., & Bentley A. F. (1949/1991). Knowing and the known. In J.A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 16, pp. 1949–1952). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29(4), 417–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 716–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrison, J. (2001). An introduction to Dewey’s theory of functional “trans-action”: An alternative paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(4), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P. O. (2008). Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92(1), 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lidar, M., Lundquist, E., & Östman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom. Science Education, 90(1), 148–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2009). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.Google Scholar
  21. McNeill, K. L., & Vaugn, M. H. (2010). Urban high school students’ critical science agency: Conceptual understandings and environmental actions around climate change. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 373–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mercer, N. (2008a). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mercer, N. (2008b). Developing dialogues. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the C21st: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 141–153). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Öhman, J., & Öhman, M. (2013). Participatory approach in practice: An analysis of student discussions about climate change. Environmental Education Research, 19(3), 324–341. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2012.695012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2007). Continuity and change in moral meaning-making—a transactional approach. Journal of Moral Education, 36(2), 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Osborne, J. (2012). The role of argument: Learning how to learn in school science. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Springer International Handbooks of Education, 24 (pp. 933–949). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Östman, L., & Öhman, J. (2010). A transactional approach to learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO, April 2010.Google Scholar
  30. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quennerstedt, M. (2011). Practical epistemologies in physical education practice. Sport, Education and Society., 18(3), 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quennerstedt, M., Öhman, J., & Öhman, M. (2011). Investigating learning in physical education—a transactional approach. Sport Education and Society, 16(2), 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rorty, R. (1990). Pragmatism as anti-representationalism. In J. P. Murphy (Ed.), Pragmatism from Peirce to Davidson (pp. 1–6). Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  36. Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rudsberg, K., Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2013). Analysing students’ learning in classroom discussions about socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 97(4), 594–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Semetsky, I. (2008). On the creative logic of education, or: re-reading Dewey through the lens of complexity science. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Toulmin, S. E. (1958/2003). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.Google Scholar
  44. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wickman, P. O. (2012). How can conceptual schemes change teaching? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin Rudsberg
    • 1
  • Leif Östman
    • 2
  • Elisabeth Aaro Östman
    • 2
  1. 1.Örebro UniversityÖrebroSweden
  2. 2.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options