Skip to main content
Log in

Framing Oneself and One Another as Collaborative Contributors in Small Group Argumentation in a Science Classroom

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-C., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education, 103(5), 1235–1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 585–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heui-Baik Kim.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 19 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10071-z

Keywords

Navigation