Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterizing Science Classroom Discourse Across Scales

Research in Science Education volume 51, pages 35–49 (2021)Cite this article

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Banilower, E., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). The status of k-12 science teaching in the United States: Results from a national observation survey. In D. W. Sunal & E. L. Wright (Eds.), The impact of the state and national standards on k-12 science teaching (pp. 83–122). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co..

    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 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannady, M. A., Vincent-Ruz, P., Chung, J. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2019). Scientific sensemaking supports science content learning across disciplines and instructional contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in 3 part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

    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. Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, 409–434.

  • Elgin, C. Z. (2013). Epistemic agency. Theory and Research in Education, 11(2), 135–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1504_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structures in lessons. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 153–181). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2007). Routines, roles, and responsibilities for aligning scientific and classroom practices. Science Education, 91(1), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, K. N., Lee, C. S., DiStefano, R., O’Connor, D., & Seitz, J. C. (2016). Measuring science instructional practice: A survey tool for the age of ngss. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9448-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horizon Research. (2000). Inside the classroom: Observation and analytic protocol. NC: Retrieved from Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, H., Windschitl, M., Stroupe, D., & Thompson, J. (2016). Designing, launching, and implementing high quality learning opportunities for students that advance scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1316–1340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawasaki, J., & Sandoval, W. A. (2019). The role of teacher framing in producing coherent NGSS-aligned teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(8), 906–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1657765.

  • Kelly, G. J. (2014). Discourse practices in science learning and teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 321–336). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloser, M. (2014). Identifying a core set of science teaching practices: A delphi expert panel approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1185–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manz, E. (2016). Examining evidence construction as the transformation of the material world into community knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1113–1140. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nava, I., Park, J., Dockterman, D., Kawasaki, J., Schweig, J., Hunter Quartz, K., & Martinez, J. F. (2019). Measuring teaching quality of secondary mathematics and science residents: A classroom observation framework. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118755699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Connor, C., Michaels, S., Chapin, S., & Harbaugh, A. G. (2017). The silent and the vocal: Participation and learning in whole-class discussion. Learning and Instruction, 48, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, C., Michaels, S., & Chapin, S. (2015). “Scaling down” to explore the role of talk in learning: From district intervention to controlled classroom study. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 111–126). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Assn.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (rtop): Reference manual, ACEPT technical report no IN00–3. AZ: Retrieved from Tempe.

    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 

  • Sandoval, W. A., Kwako, A. J., Modrek, A., & Kawasaki, J. (2018). Patterns of classroom talk through participation in discourse-focused teacher professional development. In J. Kay & R. Luckin (Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count. 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018 (Vol. 2, pp. 760–767). London: ISLS.

  • 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(3), 1848–1869. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856.

  • Schultz, S. E., & Pecheone, R. L. (2015). Assessing quality teaching in science. In T. J. Kane, K. A. Kerr, & R. C. Pianta (Eds.), Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance from the measures of effective teaching project (pp. 444–483). John Wiley & Sons.

  • Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. S. (1996). “This question is just too, too easy!” Students’ perspectives on accountability in science. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 97–125). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Ambitious science teaching. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (award #1503511). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors only, and do not represent the official views and opinions of the NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, 2327 Moore Hall, Box 951521, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    William A. Sandoval & Heather F. Clark

  2. California State University, Dominguez Hill, Carson, CA, USA

    Jarod Kawasaki

Authors
  1. William A. Sandoval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jarod Kawasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heather F. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William A. Sandoval.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sandoval, W.A., Kawasaki, J. & Clark, H.F. Characterizing Science Classroom Discourse Across Scales. Res Sci Educ 51, 35–49 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09953-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09953-7

Keywords

search

Navigation