Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Challenging Transmission Modes of Teaching in Science Classrooms: Enhancing Learner-Centredness through Dialogicity

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is an ongoing reform towards more inquiry-based teaching in school curriculum policy in South Africa. Reform towards more inquiry-based approaches is already integrated in pre-service teacher education programmes. As inquiry-based approaches have been gaining momentum worldwide, there is an increasing concern that dialogic interaction in classroom communication is being neglected. This is especially within teacher-orchestrated classroom interactions that should foster greater learner centredness and thus authentic scientific inquiry. In learner-centred teaching approaches, student contributions should be explicitly taken into account as part of classroom interactions in science. Learner-centred approaches provide the rationale for improved interaction, especially when student contributions should be considered within teacher-orchestrated communications. The aim of this study is to bring forth indicators that are connected to different forms of interactions and complement the dialogic-authoritative categorization through in-depth analysis of two lesson transcript examples. Even though over-authoritative and even transmission modes of communication seemed to prevail in South African classrooms, it is through finding building blocks for dialogicity this status can be challenged towards more learner-centred interaction. The explicitness of dialogicity and fundamentally contrasting differences between examples of dialogic and authoritative approaches are presented through the in-depth analysis of classroom interactions of two case episodes. Implications for teaching and teacher education are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Each episode was defined according to the dominant communicative approach (dialogic, authoritative) and the level of interaction. In more detail, an episode constitutes of specific activity, topic and teaching purpose carried through via specific communicative approach (see Lehesvuori et al., 2013). The end of an episode is considered by changes in activity, topic and/or communication, which, at the same time, indicates the beginning of the next episode.

  2. Proxemic shift stands for changes in interpersonal physical distances.

  3. We have assimilated the idea of the different levels to macro-, meso- and micro-levels of analysis through which classroom interactions can be temporally addressed (Lehesvuori et al., 2013).

References

  • Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching (3rd ed.). York: Dialogos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avraamidou, L. (2016). Studying science teacher identity: theoretical, methodological and empirical explorations. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleicher, R. E., Tobin, K. G. & McRobbin, C. J. (2003). Opportunities to talk science in a high school chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education, 33(3), 319-339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington: Washington, DC: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. (2010). The teaching of science: 21st century perspectives. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2004). Questioning students in ways that encourage thinking. Teaching Science, 40(4), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. (6th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: the importance of the F-move. ELT Journal, 56(2), 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. London: Methuen/Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE) (2013) OPS 2016—renewal of the core curriculum for pre-primary and basic education. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/current_issues/101/0/ops2016_renewal_of_the_core_curriculum_for_pre-primary_and_basic_education

  • Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

  • Furtak, E. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2009). Guidance, conceptual understanding, and student learning: an investigation of inquiry-based teaching in the US. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 181–206). Munich: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabinger, R.S., & Dunlap, J.C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 3(2), 5-34.

  • Hall, J. K. (2007). Redressing the roles of correction and repair in research on second and foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 511–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P.-L., Roth, W.-M., & Mazumder, A. (2009). Natural pedagogical conversations in high school students’ internship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(5), 481–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiemer, K., Gröshner, A., Pehmer, A.-K., & Seidel, T. (2015). Effects of a classroom discourse intervention on teachers’ practice and students’ motivation to learn mathematics and science. Learning and Instruction, 35, 94–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2014). Better than best practice: developing teaching and learning through dialogue. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehesvuori, S., Ratinen, I., Kulhomäki, O., Lappi, J., & Viiri, J. (2011a). Enriching primary student teachers’ conceptions about science teaching: Towards dialogic inquiry-based teaching. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 7(2), 140–159.

  • Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2011b). Introducing Dialogic Teaching to Science Student Teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(8), 705–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Moate, J., & Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher-led whole class discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 912–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littleton, K., & Howe, C. (Eds.) (2009). Educational dialogues: understanding and promoting productive interaction. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 30, 703–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon., K. (2012). Case studies of interactive whole-class teaching in primary science: communicative approach and pedagogic purposes. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1687–1708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2009). Developing argumentation: lessons learned in the primary school. In M. N. Muller & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices. Springer: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis ((2nd edition) ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in science classrooms. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”?: an investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A. W. (2009). Developing elementary teachers’ understandings of hedges and personal pronouns in inquiry-based science classroom discourse. Journal of Research in Science Education, 8(2), 247–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A. W. (2011). Science communication in teacher personal pronouns. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1805–1833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. K. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. volume II). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E. E. (2010). Shifting to a student-centered science classroom: an exploration of teacher and student changes in perceptions and practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(3), 329–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramnarain, U. (2010). Grade 9 science teachers’ and learners’ appreciation of the benefits of autonomous science investigations. Education as Change, 14(2), 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas-Drummond, S., Mercer, N., & Dabrowski, E. (2001). Collaboration, scaffolding and the promotion of problem solving strategies in Mexican pre-schoolers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XVI(2), 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari, H., & Sormunen, K. (2007). Implementation of teaching methods in school science. In E. Pehkonen, M. Ahtee, & J. Lavonen (Eds.), How Finns learn mathematics and science (pp. 215–228). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: striking a balance between ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ classroom talk. School Science Review, 88(324), 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., Ametller, J., Mortimer, E., & Emberton, J. (2010). Teaching and learning disciplinary knowledge: developing the dialogic space for an answer when there isn’t even a question. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 322–337). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 605–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, H. (2015). Interpret in context: generalizing from the single case in evaluation. Evaluation, 21, 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (2010). How prosody marks shifts in footing in classroom discourse. International Journal of Educational Research, 49(2–3), 69–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • She, H. & Fisher, D. (2002). Teacher communication behavior and its association with students' cognitive and attitudinal outcomes in science in Taiwan. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 63-78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbach-Koehler, F., & Thorne, S. L. (2011). The social life of self-directed talk: a sequential phenomenon? In J. Hall, J. Hellermann, S. Pekarek Doehler, & D. Olsher (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 66–92). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R. B. (2010). Dialogue and teaching thinking with technology: opening, expanding and deepening the ‘inter-face’. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 338–357). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G., & Arauz, R. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments received from external scholars during the process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyvaskyla, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Jyvaskyla, Finland

    Sami Lehesvuori & Jouni Viiri

  2. The Department of Science and Technology Education, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa

    Umesh Ramnarain

Authors
  1. Sami Lehesvuori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Umesh Ramnarain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jouni Viiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sami Lehesvuori.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lehesvuori, S., Ramnarain, U. & Viiri, J. Challenging Transmission Modes of Teaching in Science Classrooms: Enhancing Learner-Centredness through Dialogicity. Res Sci Educ 48, 1049–1069 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9598-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9598-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation