Abstract
Studies in science education have explored contextual features that facilitate students’ active participation in discussion in argumentation activities. Based on this literature, we aimed to explore students’ practices as they shifted their epistemic practices from unproductive to collaborative meaning-making discussion in an argumentation activity in a science classroom. We examined the discursive interactions of a small group with students who attempted to engage in interaction with one another, facilitating the negotiation of group members’ positional framings as collaborative contributors during an argumentation activity. Although the students suggested ideas and engaged in interactions, the students’ interactions were first dependent on a student holding higher epistemic authority (a polarized collective zone of interaction). The students’ shift to collaborative contributors was shown in separate zones of interaction from a student with higher epistemic authority, led by a student who repeatedly attempted to elicit other students’ reasoning. Then, at the end of the activity, this zone of collaborative contributors expanded to all of the group members, and the students jointly developed the reasoning (a collective zone of interaction). This finding indicates the importance of facilitating students in recognizing not only themselves but also one another as also potential contributors. With such acknowledgment, the students can elicit one another’s ideas, facilitating them in positioning themselves as collaborative contributors in argumentation activities. We discuss the meaning of being collaborative contributors and the significance of students’ role in shifting their positional framing.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303–1324.
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.
Chen, Y.-C., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education, 103(5), 1235–1276.
Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467–498.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 409–434). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.
Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Greeno, J. G. (2009). A theory bite on contextualizing, framing, and positioning: A companion to son and goldstone. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 269–275.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives (pp. 88–119). Greenwich, England: Information Age Publishing.
Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L. A., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2016). Aligning teaching to learning: A 3-year study examining the embedding of language and argumentation into elementary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 847–863.
Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.). (1999). Positioning theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524.
Kolstø, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 117–136). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328.
Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 585–612.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states by states (appendix F). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi summer school, course CLVI (pp. 1–64). Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society.
Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261–292.
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2007). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 71–88). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Redman, E. H., & Xiao, S. (2019). Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1848–1869.
Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2006). Zones of interaction: Differential access to elementary science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 443–466.
Shim, S. -Y., & Kim, H. -B. (2018). Framing negotiation: Dynamics of epistemological and positional framing in small groups during scientific modeling. Science Education, 102, 128–152.
Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
van de Sande, C. C., & Greeno, J. G. (2012). Achieving alignment of perspectival framings in problem-solving discourse. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 1–44.
Varelas, M., Tucker-Raymond, E., & Richards, K. (2015). A structure-agency perspective on young children’s engagement in school science: Carlos’s performance and narrative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 516–529.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Rev ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Funding
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018S1A5A2A01030929, 21B20151713505).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(DOCX 19 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ha, H., Kim, HB. Framing Oneself and One Another as Collaborative Contributors in Small Group Argumentation in a Science Classroom. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 19, 517–537 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10071-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10071-z