Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The many roles of “explanation” in science education: a case study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cultural Studies of Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper the role of explanations is discussed in relation to possible consequences originating in the polysemy of the word explanation. The present study is a response to conceptual confusions that have arisen in the intersection between theory and practice, and between science education literature and communication in authentic science classroom settings. Science classroom communication is examined in terms of one teacher’s word use during eleven lessons about evolution. The study contributes empirical examples of how disciplinary norms of valid explanations are manifested in science classroom communication. A dialogical analysis shows how the teacher provides three conversational structures: asking for acts of explanation, providing opportunities to talk about what explanations are in this context and providing opportunities to talk about explanations constructed by students. These three structures facilitate the process of learning how to evaluate and justify explanations. Three potential meanings of the word “explanation” are pointed to: an everyday meaning, a pedagogical–professional meaning and a scientific meaning of the word. It is suggested that the co-existence of these three potential meanings has communicative consequences in science education.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antaki, C., & Leudar, I. (1992). Explaining in conversation: Towards an argument model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 181–194. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2012). For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, 96, 808–813. doi:10.1002/sce.21000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55. doi:10.1002/sce.20286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billingsley, B., Taber, K., Riga, F., & Newdick, H. (2013). Secondary school students’ epistemic insight into the relationships between science and religion—A preliminary enquiry. Research in Science Education, 43, 1715–1732. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9317-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639–669. doi:10.1002/sce.20449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D., Mesiti, C., O’Keefe, C., Xu, L. H., Jablonka, E., Mok, I. A. C., et al. (2007). Addressing the challenge of legitimate international comparisons of classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 280–293. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2007.10.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D., Xu, L.H., Arnold, J., Seah, L.H., Hart, C., Tytler, R., et al. (2012). Multi-theoretic approaches to understanding the science classroom. Paper presented at the ESERA 2011: ebook proceedings of the ESERA 2011 conference: Science learning and citizenship.

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M., & Wargo, B. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96, 369–391. doi:10.1002/sce.20482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B.J., Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C.J. (2012). Second International handbook of science education [Elektronic source]. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7.

  • Geelan, D. (2012). Teacher explanations. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International handbook of science education [Elektronic source]. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_65.

  • Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwood, R. H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72, 41–49. doi:10.1002/sce.3730720104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P.-L. (2010). Thinking dialogically about thought and language. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Re/Structuring science education (Vol. 2, pp. 113–143). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3996-5_11.

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International handbook of science education [Elektronic source]. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_66.

  • Kampourakis, K., Pavlidi, V., Papadopoulou, M., & Palaiokrassa, E. (2012). Children's teleological intuitions: What kind of explanations do 7–8 year olds give for the features of organisms, artifacts and natural objects? Research in Science Education, 42, 651–671. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9219-4.

  • Kelly, G.J., McDonald, S., & Wickman, P.-O. (2012). Science learning and epistemology. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International handbook of science education [Elektronic source]. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_20.

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning and values. Norwood, New Jersey: Alex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2011). Uses of “understand” in science education. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 452–474. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linell, Per. (2009a). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P. (2009b). With respect to Bakhtin: some trends in contemporary dialogical theories. Paper presented at the Perspectives and limits of dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin, Stockholm, Sweden.

  • Linell, P. (2012). On the nature of language: Formal written-language biased linguistics vs. dialogical language sciences. In A. Kravchenko (Ed.), Cognitive dynamics in linguistic interactions (pp. 107–124). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

  • Mercer, N. (2002). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E.F. (2010). Thinking and speaking on units of analysis and its role in meaning making. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Re/Structuring science education (Vol. 2, pp. 145–153). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3996-5_10.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627–638. doi:10.1002/sce.20438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (2010). Thinking and speaking a dynamic approach. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Re/Structuring science education (Vol. 2, pp. 113–143). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3996-5_9.

  • Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1122–1148. doi:10.1002/tea.21037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seah, L. H., Clarke, D. J., & Hart, C. E. (2011). Understanding students’ language use about expansion through analyzing their lexicogrammatical resources. Science Education, 95, 852–876. doi:10.1002/sce.20448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John. (1971). What is a speech act. The Philosophy of Language, 3, 1965–1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trout, J. D. (2002). Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding. Philosophy of Science, 69, 212–233. doi:10.1086/341050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, Stella. (2012). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: Preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International handbook of science education [Elektronic source]. Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, C. G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry [Elektronic resource]: towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605895.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 379–428. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miranda Rocksén.

Additional information

Lead Editor: C. Murphy.

Appendix

Appendix

Transcript conventions

301

Numbering of the lines in each transcript to facilitate reference to specific utterances or actions in text

↑↓

Rising and falling shifts in intonation are indicated by up- and down-pointing arrows

=But look here

‘Equals’ signs mark the immediate ‘latching’ of successive talk

[]

Square brackets mark the start and end of overlapping speech aligned in transcript to mark the precise position of overlap

Underlining

Indicate emphasis

°I think so°

‘Degree’ signs enclose hearably quiter speech

(0.8)

Numbers in round brackets measure pauses in seconds (in this case, 8 tenth of a second)

(.)

A micropause

[(Looks at screen)]

Additional comments, used for denoting of gestures and moves

Because e::

Colons show degree of elongation of the prior sound

Overview of lesson sequence

Curricular unit: biological evolution

Lessons

(50 min)

1

2

3

4

5

6

Addressed topics

Evolution as topic in science class,

How do particular traits develop? Assignment about giraffes’ long necks

The development of life on earth presented by giving an historical account of the development of life on earth, from big-bang to today

Historical models of the evolution of life, categorisation task

Historical models of the evolution of life, categorisation task

Commenting on previous events.

Cell structure and DNA.

Why do we have a variety of attributes and characteristics? Reproduction of DNA in cell cycle.

Activity structure

1.Introduction

2.‘Brainstorming’

3. Instruction

4. Group assign 1

1. Summary

2. Lecture

3. Whole class discussion

Repeated half class:

1. Summary

2. Instruction

3. Assign 2

Repeated half class:

1. Summary

2. Instruction

3. Assign 2

1. Comment

2. Lecture

3. Small group discussion

1. Summary

2. Lecture

3. Small group discussion

4. Instruction

Tasks and questions

Evolution and genetics: what do you think about when you see those words?

Assignment 1:

Why do giraffes have such a long neck?

We believe that the giraffes of today, stem from giraffes with much shorter necks compared to giraffes of today? How come explain!

What did the world look like millions of years ago? And what will it look like millions of years ahead?

Three different explanations for the development of life on earth:

Creationism, Lamarckism, Darwinism

The three different explanations as goals for students learning during sequence. Assignment 2: Try to classify the different explanations into the categories Creationism, Lamarckism Darwinism

The three different explanations as goals for students learning during sequence. Assignment 2: Try to classify the different explanations into the categories Creationism, Lamarckism Darwinism

What was the difficult part when trying to classify and sort the different explanations into the three categories?,

Are mutations good or bad, what does it depend on whether good or bad?

Will you hand over your mutation to your own kids? Instruction: Assignment 3 what happens with the offspring of cat with no tail, body builder and white elk—will offspring inherit traits?

Curricular unit: biological evolution

Lessons

(50 min)

7

8

9

10

11

Addressed topics

Follow up.

The development of life on earth. Phylogenetic tree.

Conditions for development of first living cells. Miller’s experiment on creating life.

Practical activity including beans and beakers. Instruction in textbook.

Practical activity including beans and beakers. Instruction in textbook.

Individual and population.

Traits, DNA and explaining variation. What is eugenics? What are resistant bacteria?

Activity structure

1. Summary

2. Assign 3

3. Lecture

1. Introduction

2. Lecture

3. Small group discussion

4. Lecture

Repeated half-class

1. Instruction

2. Task work

3. Summary

Repeated half-class

1. Instruction

2. Task work

3. Summary

1. Introduction

2. Lecture

3. Small group discussion

Tasks and questions

Assignment 3 what happens with the offspring of cat with no tail, body builder and white elk—will offspring inherit traits?

What happened between primeval soup and the appearance of the first living bacteria? What bacteria will survive and why these?

Describe the characters of one bean, mix with other beans in the beaker, try to use the explanation to find the proper bean

Describe the characters of one bean, mix with other beans in the beaker, try to use the explanation to find the proper bean

How come that the variation among a species is so big?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rocksén, M. The many roles of “explanation” in science education: a case study. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 11, 837–868 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9629-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9629-5

Keywords

Navigation