Dialogic Science Education for Diversity

  • Rupert Wegerif
  • Keith Postlethwaite
  • Nigel Skinner
  • Nasser MansourEmail author
  • Alun Morgan
  • Lindsay Hetherington
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 8)


This chapter argues that a dialogic understanding of the nature of science should lead to a dialogic approach to science education. This argument is combined with a description of a dialogic approach to science education developed in the context of a large European Commission funded international project called ‘science education for diversity’. The project surveyed school students aged 10–14 and their teachers in Malaysia, India, Lebanon, Turkey, the Netherlands and the UK and developed a framework for the design of education in the context of diversity in science education. This approach to education is called ‘dialogic’ both because it is about responding to the diverse voices of students without prejudging the nature of that diversity and because it is about teaching for dialogue, where the quality of dialogue is understood as being central to science.


Young People Science Education Partner Country Dialogic Approach Shared Inquiry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This chapter draws on research funded by the EC Framework 7 programme, specifically the science education for diversity project. The team collecting and analysing the data included in addition to the authors:

Professor Helen Haste (Harvard) and Dr. Andrew Dean (The University of Exeter, UK); Professor Saouma BouJaoude, Dr. Rola Khishfe, Dr. Dian Sarieddine, Dr. Sahar Alameh and Dr. Nesreen Ghaddar (American University of Beirut, Lebanon); Professor Huseyin Bag and Dr. Ayse Savran Gencer (Pamukkale University, Turkey); Assistant Professor Michiel van Eijck and Dr. Ralf Griethuijsen (Eindhoven University of Technology); Dr. Ng Swee Chin and Dr. Oo Pou San (Tunku Abdul Rahman College, Malaysia); and Dr. Sugra Chunawala, Dr. Chitra Natarajan and Dr. Beena Choksi (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India).


  1. Aikenhead, G. S., & Lewis, B. F. (2001). Introduction: Shifting perspectives from universalism to cross-culturalism. Science Education, 85, 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. M. Bakhtin (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. Braund, M. (2009). Progression and continuity in learning science at transfer from primary and secondary school. Perspectives on Education, 1, 5–21. Available on: Accessed 23 Apr 2012.
  7. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barton, A. C. (2000). Crafting multicultural science education with preservice teachers through service learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(6), 797–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barton, A. C., & Tobin, K. (2001). Urban science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 843–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barton, A. C., & Tobin, K. (2002). Learning about transformative research through other’s stories: What does it mean to involve “Others” in science education reform? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 110–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, L. (2004). Thinking differently about cultural diversity: Using postcolonial theory to (Re)read science education. Science Education, 88, 819–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CILASS. (2008). Inquiry-based learning: A conceptual framework. Available at: Last accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  13. Diack A. (2009). A smoother path: managing the challenge of school transfer. Perspectives on Education (Primary Secondary Transfer in Science), 2, 39–52.Google Scholar
  14. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dupré, J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dupré, J. (2001). Human nature and the limits of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2004). Europe needs more scientists: Report by the high level group on increasing human Resources for science and technology. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. (2000). Runaway world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gillies, D. (1998). The Duhem thesis and the Quine Thesis. In M. Curd, J. A. Cover, et al. (Eds.), Philosophy of science: The central issues (pp. 302–319). New York: Norton. Hanson, Norwood Russell.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Haggarty, L., & Postlethwaite, K. (2003). Action research: A strategy for teacher change and school development? Oxford Review of Education, 29(4), 423–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haste, H. (2004). Science in my future: A study of values and beliefs in relation to science and technology amongst 11–21 year olds. London: Nestle Social Research Programme.Google Scholar
  23. Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7, 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89, 314–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kawasaki, K. (2004). The concepts of science in Japanese and Western education. Science Education, 5(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, O. (2001). Culture and language in science education: What do we know and what do we need to know? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 499–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Alex.Google Scholar
  28. Mansour, N., & Wegerif, R. (2013). Science education for diversity: Theory and practices. Springer Science.Google Scholar
  29. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  30. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499–1521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  33. Minner, D., Levy, A., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction – What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nanda, M. (1997). The science wars in India. Dissent, 44(1), 79–80.Google Scholar
  36. Oakeshott, M. (1989). In T. Fuller (Ed.), The voice of liberal learning: Michael Oakeshott on education. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Osborne, J. (2007). Engaging young people with science: Thoughts about future direction of science education (pp. 105–112). In C. Linder, L. Östman & P. Wickman (Eds.) Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium held at Uppsala University, Uppsala, May 28–29, 2007.Google Scholar
  38. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  39. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003a). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003b). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parmesan, C., Ryrholm, N., Stefanescu, C., et al. (1999). Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature, 399, 579–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rocard, M., et al. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.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. Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Roth, M. (2009). Dialogism: A Bakhtinian perspective on science language and learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. SED WP2 (2011) SEDWP2D1: Documentary Analysis Synthesis Report. Available on: Accessed 21 Feb 2012.
  50. SED WP3 (2011) SEDWP3D1: Survey Research Synthesis Report. Available on: Accessed 21 Feb 2012.
  51. Seddon, K., Skinner, N. C., & Postlethwaite, K. C. (2008). Creating a model to examine motivation for sustained engagement in online communities. Education and Information Technologies, 13(1), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2005). How do learners in different cultures relate to science and technology? Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 63–71.Google Scholar
  53. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2007). Perceptions and images of science and science education. In M. Claessens (Ed.), Communicating European research 2005. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1101–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sprod, T. (2011). Discussions in science: Promoting conceptual understanding in the middle school years. Melbourne: Australian Council Educational Research (ACER).Google Scholar
  56. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Webb, P., & Treagust, D. (2006). Using exploratory talk to enhance problem-solving and reasoning skills in grade-7 science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 36(4), 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rupert Wegerif
    • 1
  • Keith Postlethwaite
    • 1
  • Nigel Skinner
    • 1
  • Nasser Mansour
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alun Morgan
    • 1
  • Lindsay Hetherington
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations