Constructing explanations of scientific concepts is one of the most frequent strategies used in the science classroom and is a high-leverage teaching practice. This study analysed the explanations provided by student teachers in STEM areas from a socio-materiality perspective focused on verbal and nonverbal language and representations. The study was conducted in a hybrid research format by scholars and a preservice teacher. First, the study compared the representational elements used by 86 student teachers to construct explanations about various concepts in a roleplay setting. Next, a positioning analysis was done by a preservice teacher, to a selection of five of these explanations focused on the concept of “force”. The positioning analysis highlighted the embedded voices in the construction of explanations, with a focus on the intersection between science and language. The results showed that the student teachers created explanations as static artefacts, mainly using examples, graphs and images to clarify the concepts. The voices of learners and scientists were mostly absent from the explanations, which led to the presentation of explanations in STEM areas as finished and unquestionable artefacts, with references neither to nature nor to the history of science. We reflect on the meanings attributed to learning to be a practitioner in the context of interconnecting science and language through explanations, as a process of meaning (re)production within the classroom. Implications for teacher education are discussed in order to enhance student teachers’ awareness about constructing knowledge by enacting explanations in the science classroom.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
ACARA. (2012). The Australian curriculum—science. In.
Anderson, K. (2009). Applying positioning theory to the analysis of classroom interactions: Mediating micro-identities, macro-kinds, and ideologies of knowing. Linguistics and Education, 20(4), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.08.001.
Cabello González, V., & Topping, K. (2014) Learning how to make scientific concepts explicit in teacher education: A study of student teachers’ explanations, their modifiability and transference. Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 51(2), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.7764/PEL.51.2.2014.7
Cabello, V. (2017) Role-playing for learning to explain scientific concepts in teacher education. Journal of Science Education, 18(2), 67–70.
Cabello, V., & Topping, K. (2018) Making scientific concepts explicit through explanations: Simulations of a high-leverage practice in teacher education. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 6(3), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.5937/ijcrsee1803035C.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284.
Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: a methodological approach in motion. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 191–222.
Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20449.
Charalambous, C. Y., Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2011). Prospective teachers’ learning to provide instructional explanations: how does it look and what might it take? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(6), 441–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9182-z.
Cofré, H., González-Weil, C., Vergara, C., Santibáñez, D., Ahumada, G., Furman, M., … Pérez, R. (2015). Science teacher education in South America: the case of Argentina, Colombia and Chile. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9420-9.
Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2018). Drawing nature of science in pre-service science teacher education: epistemic insight through visual representations. Research in Science Education, 48(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9773-0.
Fenwick, T., & Dahlgren, M. A. (2015). Towards socio-material approaches in simulation-based education: lessons from complexity theory. Medical Education, 49(4), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12638.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2013). Performative ontologies: Sociomaterial approaches to researching adult education and lifelong learning. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 4(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela0104.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research (Vol. 1). London: Routledge.
Figueroa, J., Meneses, A., & Chandia, E. (2018). Academic language and the quality of written arguments and explanations of Chilean 8th graders. Reading and Writing, 31(3), 703–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9806-5.
Fleer, M. (2009). Understanding the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within play-based programs. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9085-x
Flores, F., López, Á., Gallegos, L., & Barojas, J. (2000). Transforming science and learning concepts of physics teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289958.
Gage, N. L. (Ed.). (1968). The microcriterion of effectiveness in explaining. California: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching.
Geelan, D. (2003). Teacher expertise and explanatory frameworks in a successful physics classroom. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 49(3), 22–32.
Geelan, D. (2013). Teacher explanation of physics concepts: a video study. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1751–1762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9336-8.
Gerstenberg, T., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2017). Intuitive theories. In M. R. Waldmann (Ed.), Oxford handbook of causal reasoning (pp. 515–548). New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: how our hands help us think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gomez Zaccarelli, F., Schindler, A.-K., Borko, H., & Osborne, J. (2018). Learning from professional development: a case study of the challenges of enacting productive science discourse in the classroom. Professional Development in Education, 44(5), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1423368.
Guzmán-Valenzuela, C. (2016). Connecting theory and practice in qualitative research. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 2, pp. 115–133). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220160000002006.
Hillier, J. (2013). How does that work? Developing pedagogical content knowledge from subject knowledge. Teacher Education and Practice, 26(2), 323–341.
Inoue, N. (2009). Rehearsing to teach: content-specific deconstruction of instructional explanations in pre-service teacher training. Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470802587137.
Kulgemeyer, C. (2018). A framework of effective science explanation videos informed by criteria for instructional explanations. Research in Science Education, (Fist online) 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9787-7.
Kulgemeyer, C., & Riese, J. (2018). From professional knowledge to professional performance: the impact of CK and PCK on teaching quality in explaining situations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(10), 1393–1418. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21457.
Legare, C. H., Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (2009). Evidence for an explanation advantage in naïve biological reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.06.002.
Leinhardt, G. (2010). Introduction: Explaining instructional explanations. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 1–5). Berlin: Springer.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Levy, E. T., & McNeill, D. (2013). Narrative development as symbol formation: gestures, imagery and the emergence of cohesion. Culture & Psychology, 19(4), 548–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X13500328.
Lombrozo, T., & Vasilyeva, N. (2017). Causal explanation. In M. Waldmann (Ed.), Oxford handbook of causal reasoning (pp. 415–432). New York: Oxford University Press.
Martín-Díaz, M. J. (2013). Hablar ciencia: si no lo puedo explicar, no lo entiendo. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 10(3), 291–306.
McCain, K. (2015). Explanation and the nature of scientific knowledge. Science & Education, 24(7), 827–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9775-5.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20201.
MINEDUC. (2013). Propuesta Nuevas Bases Curriculares 7 mo básico a II medio. Santiago de Chile: Ministerio de Educación.
Ministry of Education P. R. of China. (2011). Science curriculum standard for junior middle school. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
Moghaddam, F. M., Harré, R., & Lee, N. (2008). Positioning and conflict: an introduction. In Global conflict resolution through positioning analysis (pp. 3–20). Berlin: Springer.
Mortimer, E. F., & Wertsch, J. V. (2003). The architecture and dynamics of intersubjectivity in science classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(3), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1003_5.
NGSS, L. S. (2013). The next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89(4), 535–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20063.
O’Flaherty, J., & Beal, E. M. (2018). Core competencies and high leverage practices of the beginning teacher: a synthesis of the literature. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(4), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1450826.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Papadouris, N., Vokos, S., & Constantinou, C. P. (2017). The pursuit of a “better” explanation as an organizing framework for science teaching and learning. Science Education, 102(2), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21326.
Pereira, A., Lima, P., & Rodrigues, R. F. (2016). Explaining as mediated action: an analysis of pre-service teachers' account of forces of intertia in non-intertial frames of reference. Science & Education, 25(3), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9806-x.
Preiss, D., Alegría, I., Espinoza, A. M., Núñez, M., & Ponce, L. (2012). ¿Cómo se enseña la ciencia en la escuela? Evidencia de un estudio audiovisual en aulas de escuelas públicas chilenas. Paper presented at the Segundo Congreso Interdiscipinario de Investigación en Educación, Santiago, Chile.
Rappa, N. A., & Tang, K.-S. (2018). Integrating disciplinary-specific genre structure in discourse strategies to support disciplinary literacy. Linguistics and Education, 43, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.12.003.
Redman, C., & Fawns, R. (2010). How to use pronoun grammar analysis as a methodological tool for understanding the dynamic lived space of people. In S. Rodrigues (Ed.), Using analytical frameworks for classroom research (Vol. 1, pp. 163–182). London: Routledge.
Richey, J. E., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2013). How much is too much? Learning and motivation effects of adding instructional explanations to worked examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.006.
Rodrigues, R. F., & Pereira, A. (2018). Explicações no ensino de ciências: Revisando o conceito a partir de três distinções básicas. Ciência & Educação (Bauru), 24(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-731320180010004.
Rodriguez, A. J., & Kitchen, R. (Eds.). (2004). Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms: promising strategies for transformative pedagogy. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Roth, W. M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the emergence of abstract scientific concepts. Learning and Instruction, 12(3), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00023-8.
Sánchez, E., García-Rodicio, H., & Acuna, S. R. (2009). Are instructional explanations more effective in the context of an impasse? Instructional Science, 37(6), 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9074-5.
Sevian, H., & Gonsalves, L. (2008). Analysing how scientists explain their research: a rubric for measuring the effectiveness of scientific explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 1441–1467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802267579.
Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: a learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00111C.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: technology and knowledge in educational practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Tang, K.-S., & Putra, G. B. S. (2018). Infusing literacy into an inquiry instructional model to support students’ construction of scientific explanations. In K.-S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 281–300). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Treagust, D., & Harrison, A. (1999). The genesis of effective scientific explanations for the classroom. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (1st ed., pp. 28–43). London: Routledge.
Wang, C.-Y. (2015). Scaffolding middle school students’ construction of scientific explanations: comparing a cognitive versus a metacognitive evaluation approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 237–271.
Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2007). Causal reasoning as informed by the early development of explanations. In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 261–279). New York: Oxford Univesity Press.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21027.
Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: a framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756420.
Yao, J. X., & Guo, Y. Y. (2018). Validity evidence for a learning progression of scientific explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21420.
Yeo, J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). Constructing a scientific explanation—a narrative account. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1902–1935. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.880527.
Zangori, L., & Forbes, C. (2013). Preservice elementary teachers and explanation construction: knowledge-for-practice and knowledge-in-practice. Science Education, 97(2), 310–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21052.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Cabello, V.M., Real, C. & Impedovo, M.A. Explanations in STEM Areas: an Analysis of Representations Through Language in Teacher Education. Res Sci Educ 49, 1087–1106 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9856-6
- Student teachers
- Positioning analysis