Abstract
This critical discourse analysis study identifies and describes power relationships in elementary classrooms that support science engagement by providing students time to think, ask questions, and find their voices to talk about subject matter. The first analyses involved identification and description of classroom episodes showing high levels of student power and engagement associated with learning science. Classroom episodes were grouped into seven power patterns: use of questions, teacher sharing authority, giving students credit for knowledge, legitimate digressions, enhanced feedback, and writing opportunities. The second analyses documented the manner in which these patterns formed more complex classroom engagement processes called power clusters. These examples further our understanding of the dynamics of classroom discourse and the relationships between student power and engagement in subject matter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adger, C. T. (2003). Discourse in educational settings. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 503–517). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Alexander, R. (2008). Culture, dialog, and learning: notes on an emerging pedagogy. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 91–114). Los Angeles: Sage.
Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 1–15). Los Angeles: Sage.
Block-Gandy, L. (2001). Colorado Wildlife Unit: an integrated science unit. Denver, CO: Adams 12 Five Star Schools.
Brown, K. L. (2003). From teacher-centered to learner-centered curriculum: improving learning in diverse classrooms. Education, 124(1), 49.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: origins, effectiveness, and applications. Colorado Springs: Biological Science Curriculum Studies.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.
Cochran, K. F., Reinsvold, L. A., & Hess, C. (2014, April). Giving students the power to learn science. Paper presented at the meeting of American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143.
Creswell, J. W. (Ed.). (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design, choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. T. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–484.
Fairclough, N. L. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse analysis: what makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). New York: Routledge.
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431–473.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6.
Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 443–470). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Lambert, P., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). How students learn: reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lave, J., & Wenger, W. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language learning, and values. Westport, CN: Ablex Publishing.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. The Jossey-Bass Education Series. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94104.
Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 55–72). Los Angeles: Sage.
Minor, L. C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., & James, T. L. (2002). Preservice teachers’ educational beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics of effective teacher. The Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 116–127.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
National Science Teachers Association (2014). Science and engineering practices. Retrieved from http://ngss.nsta.org/PracticesFull.aspx
Peirce, K. M., & Gilles, C. (2008). From exploratory talk to critical conversations. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 37–54). Los Angeles: Sage.
QSR International (2012). NVIVO (Version 10).
Regents of the University of California. (2005). Full Option Science System (FOSS). Nashua, NH: Delta Education.
Reinsvold, L. A., & Cochran, K. F. (2011). Power dynamics and questioning in elementary science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1–24. doi:10.1007/s10972-011-9235-2.
Reinsvold, L. A., & Cochran, K. F. (2013, April). Classroom power and questioning: A case study of an effective teacher. Presentation at the meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720–744. doi:10.1002/sce.20324.
Scott, P. (2008). Talking as a way to understanding in science classrooms. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 17–36). Los Angeles: Sage.
Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: a fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631.
Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., & Holman, J. R. (1990). Overcoming constraints to effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 74, 409–420.
Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3–21). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: implications for classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: instructional implication and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155–172). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Text and practices: readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 84–104). London, England: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cochran, K.F., Reinsvold, L.A. & Hess, C.A. Giving Students the Power to Engage with Learning. Res Sci Educ 47, 1379–1401 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9555-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9555-5