Exploring the Form and the Function: a Review of Science Discourse Frameworks in the Service of Research and Practice


The importance of how classroom discourse can be used to support science learning has gained national attention with respect to both science teaching and research across K12 and higher education. In this review article, we examine a commonly referenced set of nine frameworks for use in science classrooms. Specifically, we examine the ways in which various frameworks emphasize the structure (i.e., form) or practical use (i.e., function) of language across classroom settings, and the impact of such an emphasis on the facilitation and analysis of science classroom discourse. The findings from this review should help researchers investigate and educators facilitate classroom discourse in ways that ensure that all students can participate in and demonstrate their scientific understanding.

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


  1. 1.

    Clark, R.P. (2011). The glamour of grammar: A guide to the magic and mystery of practical English. New York: Little, Brown Spark. (Quote is found on p. 45)

  2. 2.

    Our labeling of Polman and Pea’s work as functionalist is based on the fact that even though it does lay out the structure of an exchange, their focus is much more on the use of transformative communication in supporting scientific thinking.

  3. 3.

    The ideas overviewed in this paragraph are part of Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig's_Metaphysics_of_Quality for additional details of this theory of reality.


  1. Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: the authoritative and dialogic tension. In Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20315.

  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1934). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.

  3. Bakhtin, M.M. (1953). Speech genres and other late essays. C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.); V.W. McGee (Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

  4. Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Cassells, C., & Hewitt, J. (1997). Postmodernism, knowledge building, and elementary science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. In Science Education (Vol. 95, Issue 2, pp. 191–216). https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420

  7. Brophy, D. R. (2001). Comparing the attributes, activities, and performance of divergent, convergent, and combination thinkers. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1334_20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010a). The evidence-based reasoning framework: assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown, N. J. S., Nagashima, S. O., Fu, A., Timms, M., & Wilson, M. (2010b). A framework for analyzing scientific reasoning in assessments. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 142–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. SAGE.

  11. Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students’ discourse: the role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education, 100(6), 1009–1038. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Criswell, B. A., & Rushton, G. T. (2014). Activity structures and the unfolding of problem-solving actions in high-school chemistry classrooms. Research in Science Education, 44(1), 155–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41–59). Arlington: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2004_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2012.689383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gray, R., & Kang, N.-H. (2014). The structure of scientific arguments by secondary science teachers: comparison of experimental and historical science topics. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.715779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grimes, P., McDonald, S., & van Kampen, P. (2019). “We’re getting somewhere”: Development and implementation of a framework for the analysis of productive science discourse. Science Education, 103(1), 5–36.

  22. Hardy, I., Kloetzer, B., Moeller, K., & Sodian, B. (2010). The analysis of classroom discourse: elementary school science curricula advancing reasoning with evidence. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530556.

  23. Harlow, D. B. (2014). An investigation of how a physics professional development course influenced the teaching practices of five elementary school teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(1), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9346-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Harré, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1998). Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts Of International Action. Wiley.

  25. Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., & Sidnell, J. (2011). Conversational repair and human understanding: an introduction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 1–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). 10.1023/A:1022810231840. In Educational Psychology Review (Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 75–96). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022810231840

  27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701798495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jurow, A. S., & Creighton, L. (2005). Improvisational science discourse: teaching science in two K-1 classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 16(3), 275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kapon, K. (2017). Unpacking sensemaking. Science Education 101(1), 165–198.

  30. Kruger, A. C., Tomasello, M. (1986). Transactive discussions with peers and adults. Developmental Psychology 22(5), 681–685.

  31. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). Historical structure of scientific discovery: to the historian discovery is seldom a unit event attributable to some particular man, time, and place. Science, 136(3518), 760–764. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.136.3518.760.

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

  33. Meyer, K., & Woodruff, E. (1997). Consensually driven explanation in science teaching. Science Education, 81(2), 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Moon, A., Stanford, C., Cole, R., & Towns, M. (2016). The nature of students’ chemical reasoning employed in scientific argumentation in physical chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mortimer. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classroomsaa. UK: McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  36. National Research Council. (2013). The next generation science standards. For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  37. National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Science Education, & Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  38. National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Science Education, & National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  39. Odden, T. O. B., & Russ, R. S. (2019). Defining sensemaking: bringing clarity to a fragmented theoretical construct. Science Education, 103(1), 187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Olitsky, S., Flohr, L. L., Gardner, J., & Billups, M. (2010). Coherence, contradiction, and the development of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1209–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pirsig, R. M. (1999). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: an inquiry into values. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.

  43. Polman, J. L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 431–466.

  44. Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85(3), 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209–229.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shah, L., Rodriguez, C. A., & Bartoli, M. (2018). Analysing the impact of a discussion-oriented curriculum on first-year general chemistry students’ conceptions of relative acidity. Education Research and …. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/rp/c7rp00154a.

  49. Sobel, B. (2020) Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance themes: quality. Retrieved from https://www.litcharts.com/lit/zen-and-the-art-of-motorcycle-maintenance/themes/quality.

  50. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Teaching science to English language learners: building on students’ strengths. (2008). Arlington: National Science Teachers Association.

  52. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

  53. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Woodruff, E., & Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations from intra- and inter-group discourse: students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802581676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Shah.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic Supplementary Material


(DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Criswell, B.A., Rushton, G.T. & Shah, L. Exploring the Form and the Function: a Review of Science Discourse Frameworks in the Service of Research and Practice. Res Sci Educ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09959-1

Download citation


  • Science classroom discourse
  • Discourse frameworks
  • Science education