• Renee Cole
  • Nicole Becker
  • Marcy Towns
  • George Sweeney
  • Megan Wawro
  • Chris RasmussenEmail author


In this report, we adapt and extend a methodology for documenting the collective production of meaning in a classroom community. A cornerstone of the methodological approach that we develop is a close examination of classroom discourse. Our efforts to analyze the collective production of meaning by examining classroom interaction are compatible with the relatively recent emphasis in mathematics and science education research that focuses on how communities of learners establish ideas through discourse and inquiry. The methodological approach we take builds on and extends an approach from mathematics education that uses Toulmin’s argumentation model to document and analyze students’ conceptual progress. Our modification introduces a new criterion for empirically demonstrating when particular ways of reasoning become part of the normative practices of the community. An example from an undergraduate course in physical chemistry is used to illustrate the methodology.


classroom practice collective activity discourse methodology undergraduate chemistry undergraduate mathematics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asterhan, C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K. & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in mathematical practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cobb, P. & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31, 175–190.Google Scholar
  4. 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, 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S. & Spencer, J. N. (1999). A guided inquiry chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K. & Brown, C. A. (1998). “You’re going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8, 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanson, D. M. & Wolfskill, T. (1998). Improving the teaching/learning process in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hershkowitz, R., Hadas, N., Dreyfus, T. & Schwarz, B. (2007). Abstracting processes, from individuals’ constructing of knowledge to a group’s “shared knowledge”. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19(2), 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K. & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P. & Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.Google Scholar
  13. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Boston: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis, S. E. & Lewis, J. E. (2005). Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nathan, M. & Knuth, E. (2003). A study of whole classroom mathematical discourse and teacher change. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Phillips, D. C. (2003). Social aspects of learning. In D. C. Phillips & J. F. Soltis (Eds.), Perspectives on learning (4th ed., pp. 53–66). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pierson-Bishop, J. & Whitacre, I. (2010). Intellectual work: The depth of mathematical discourse and its relationship to student learning. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty Second Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 401–409). Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  19. Rasmussen, C., Kwon, O., Allen, K., Marrongelle, K. & Burtch, M. (2006). Capitalizing on advances in mathematics and K-12 mathematics education in undergraduate mathematics: An inquiry-oriented approach to differential equations. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rasmussen, C. & Stephan, M. (2008). A methodology for documenting collective activity. In A. E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Design research in education (pp. 195–215). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M. & Wawro, M. (2009). How do you know which way the arrows go? The emergence and brokering of a classroom mathematics practice. In W. M. Roth (Ed.), Mathematical representations at the interface of the body and culture. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Rittenhouse, P. (1999). The teacher’s role in mathematical conversation: Stepping in and out. In M. Lampert & M. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 163–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science & Education, 93, 448–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., Shaughnessy, M., Earnest, D., Cremer, S., Sitabkhan, Y., et al (2009). A methodological framework and empirical techniques for studying the travel of ideas in classroom communities. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 203–222). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 565–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spencer, J. N. (1999). New directions in teaching chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 566–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spencer, J. N. & Moog, R. S. (2008). The process oriented guided inquiry learning approach to teaching physical chemistry. In M. D. Ellison & T. A. Schoolcraft (Eds.), Advances in teaching physical chemistry (pp. 268–279). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
  28. Spencer, J. N., Moog, R. S. & Farrell, J. J. (2004). Physical chemistry: Guided inquiry thermodynamics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  29. Stephan, M. & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 459–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Toulmin, S. E. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Weber, K., Maher, C., Powell, A. & Lee, H. S. (2008). Learning opportunities from group discussions: Warrants become the objects of debate. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1 (pp. 9–23). Utrecht: IGPME.Google Scholar
  34. Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renee Cole
    • 1
  • Nicole Becker
    • 2
  • Marcy Towns
    • 2
  • George Sweeney
    • 3
  • Megan Wawro
    • 3
  • Chris Rasmussen
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.University of Central MissouriWarrensburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations