Abstract
In this chapter we discuss the relation between instructional format and discursive patterns in science classrooms. While we acknowledge a huge body of research both within studies of instruction and discourse features in classrooms, related discussions tend to be fragmented. Despite a massive growth of studies of discourse patterns and dialogues in classrooms (Wells 1985; Edwards and Mercer 1987; Mortimer and Scott 2003; Alexander 2006) we still know, for example, little about the productive interplay between discursive engagements, instructional practices and students’ learning in the different subject areas. Foregrounding interaction analyses (i.e. mundane talk and general linguistic maneuvers) discourse analyses have contributed to expand our understanding of the power of turn taking and competing voices in the classrooms. How these discursive patterns interact with and support learning in different subject domains are, however, still an open question and, more important, how issues of communication patterns are dealt with and made productive within different instructional formats is still not understood. In a recent large scale video study from the US, for example, no relationships were found between discourse features and student learning when examining whether different instructional patterns and discursive formats in mathematics and English Language Arts had an impact on students’ achievement scores (Kane et al. 2011). To maximise their impact, we will argue in this contribution, analyses of classroom dialogues must be brought together with analyses of instructional patterns and linked to specific content areas. For this purpose, in this chapter we bring together studies of discourse features and research on instructional format when analysing offered and experienced learning in science classrooms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, R. (2000). Culture & pedagogy. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Alexander, R. (2006). Education as dialogue: Moral and pedagogical choices for a runaway world. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education in conjunction with Dialogos.
Arnesen, N. E., & Ødegaard, M. (2006). Categories for video analysis of science classroom activities. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Aukrust, V. G. (2003). Samtaledeltakelse i norske klasserom – en studie av deltakerstrukturer og samtalebevegelser. In K. Klette (Ed.), Klasserommets praksisformer etter Reform 97. Synteserapport. Oslo: Pedagogisk forskningsinstitutt.
Bakhtin, M. (1953/1980). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 1–15). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Barnes, D., Britton, J., et al. (1969). Language, the learner and the school. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bergem, O. K., & Klette, K. (2010). Mathematical tasks as catalysts for student talk: Analysing discourse in a Norwegian mathematics classroom. In Y. Shimizu, B. Kaur, R. Huang, & D. Clark (Eds.), Mathematical tasks in classrooms around the world (pp. 35–62). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Pourtsmouth: Heineman.
Clarke, D. J. (Ed.). (2001). Perspectives on practices and meaning making in mathematics and science classrooms. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Clarke, D. (2006). Deconstructing dichotomies: Arguing for a more inclusive approach. In D. Clarke, J. Emanuelsson, E. Jablonka, & I. A. C. Mok (Eds.), Making connections: Comparing mathematics classrooms around the world. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Clarke, D., Keitel, C., & Shimizu, Y. (Eds.). (2006). Mathematics classrooms in twelve countries: The insider’s perspective. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211–244.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1880–1990. New York: Teachers College Press.
Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? New York: Taylor and Francis.
Dysthe, O. (1995). Det flerstemmige klasserommet (The multivoiced classroom). Oslo: Ad Notam/Gyldendal.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
Emanuelsson, J., & Sahlström, F. (2006). Interaction, organisation, tasks and possibilities for learning about mathematical relationships: A Swedish classroom compared with a US classrooms. In D. Clarke, J. Emanuelsson, E. Jablonka, & I. A. C. Mok (Eds.), Making connections: Comparing mathematics classrooms around the world. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Emanuelsson, J., & Sahlström, F. (2008). The price of participation: Teacher control versus student participation in classroom interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(2), 205–223.
Erudan, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.
Fischer, H., & Neumann, K. (2012). Video analysis as a tool for understanding science instruction. In J. Dillon & D. Jorde (Eds.), The world of science education (pp. 115–140). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Furtak, E., & Shavelson, R. (2009). Guidance, conceptual understanding, and student learning: An investigation of inquiry-based teaching in the US. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 181–206). New York: Waxman.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jorde, P. (1986). Early childhood education: Issues and trends. The Educational Forum, 50(2), 171–181.
Juzwik, M. M., Nystrand, M., Kelly, S., & Sherry, M. B. (2008). Oral narrative genres as dialogic resources for classroom literature study: A contextualized case study. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1111–1155.
Kane, T. J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Wooten, A. L. (2011). Identifying effective classroom practices using student achievement data. Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 587–613.
Klette, K. (Ed.) (2003). Klasserommets praksisformer etter Reform 97. Synteserapport. Oslo, Pedagogisk forskningsinstitutt.
Klette, K. (2004). Lærerstyrt kateterundervisning fremdeles dominerende? [The persistence of whole class teaching?]. In K. Klette (Ed.), Fag og arbeidsmåter i endring [Schools subjects and practices during periods of change] (pp. 21–38). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget [Oslo University Press]. ISBN 82-15-00445-8.
Klette, K. (2009). Challenges in strategies for complexity reduction in video studies. Experiences from the PISA+ study: A video study of teaching and learning in Norway. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies when analysing teaching and learning in classrooms. Berlin: Waxmann Publishing.
Klette, K. (2010). Blindness to change during processes of change: What do educational researchers learn from classroom studies? In A. Hargreaves, A. Libermann, & M. Fullan (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change. Amsterdam: Springer Publishing.
Klette, K., et al. (2005). Categories for video analysis of classroom activities with a focus on the teacher. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Klette, K., Lie, S., Ødegaard, M., Anmarkrud, Ø., Arnesen, N., & Bergem, O. K. (2008). Rapport om forskningsprosjektet PISA+ (Pluss: Prosjekt om Lærings- og Undervisnings-Strategier i Skole). Oslo: Research Council of Norway.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science. Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
Lindblad, S., & Sahlström, F. (1999). Gamla mönster och nya gränser. Om ramfaktorer och klassrumsinteraktion. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 4(1), s73–92.
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London: Routledge.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (2008). Exploring talk in school. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Neumann & Fischer (2012).
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ødegaard, M., & Arnesen, N. E. (2006). Categories for video analysis of science classroom activities. Oslo: University of Oslo. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/forskning/prosjekter/pisapluss/kodeskjema/
Ødegaard, M., & Arnesen, N. E. (2010). Hva skjer i naturfagklasserommet? ~ resultater fra en videobasert klasseromsstudie; PISA+. NorDiNa, 6(1), 16–31.
Ødegaard, M., & Arnesen, N. E. (in press). Klasseromssamtalen og språkbruk i naturfagklasserom fra PISA+ studien. (to be published in NorDiNa).
Ødegaard, M., & Klette, K. (2012). Teaching activities and language use in science classrooms: Categories and levels of analysis as tools for interpretation. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), The world of science education handbook – Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., et al. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Popkewitz, T. (2000). Educational knowledge: Changing relationships between the state, civil society, and the educational community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rimmele, R. (2002). Videograph. Multimedia-player zur Kodierung von Videos. Kiel: IPN.
Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 1–27). New York: Elsevier Science.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wells, G. (1985). Language, learning and education. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klette, K., Ødegaard, M. (2016). Instructional Activities and Discourse Features in Science Classrooms: Teachers Talking and Students Listening or … ?. In: Klette, K., Bergem, O., Roe, A. (eds) Teaching and Learning in Lower Secondary Schools in the Era of PISA and TIMSS. Professional Learning and Development in Schools and Higher Education, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17302-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17302-3_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17301-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17302-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)