Abstract
In this rejoinder to Ann Kindfield and Grady Venville’s comments on our article “Reconsidering conceptual change from a socio-cultural perspective: Analyzing students’ meaning making in genetics in collaborative learning activities,” we elaborate on some of the critical issues they raise. Their comments make apparent some of the crucial differences between a socio-cultural and a socio-cognitive approach towards conceptual change. We have selected some issues that are addressed, either implicitly or explicitly, in their comments. The main issues discussed are talk and interaction as data, the significance of context in interaction studies, the feasibility of generic claims in small-scale interaction studies, and the difference between studying students’ understanding of science concepts as opposed to studying the construction of meaning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1.
Kindfield, A.C.H. (1993/1994). Biology diagrams: Tools to think with. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(1), 1–36. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0301_1.
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction, and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A socio-cultural approach. Milton Park: Routledge.
Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111. doi:10.1080/0141192990250107.
Roth, W.-M., & Middleton, D. (2006). Knowing what you tell, telling what you know: Uncertainty and asymmetries of meaning in interpreting graphical data. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 11–81. doi:10.1007/s11422-005-9000-y.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Young, M. (2008). From constructivism to realism in the society of the curriculum. In G. J. Kelly, A. Luke, & J. Green (Eds.), Review of research in education, what counts as knowledge in educational settings: Disciplinary knowledge, assessment and curriculum (Vol. 32, pp. 1–28). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Furberg, A., Arnseth, H.C. The importance of socio-cultural context for understanding students’ meaning making in the study of genetics. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 4, 211–219 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9158-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9158-1