Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ meaning making in classroom discussions: the importance of peer interaction

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

Abstract

The aim is to investigate how encounters with peers affect an individual’s meaning making in argumentation about socio-scientific issues, and how the individual’s meaning making influences the argumentation at the collective level. The analysis is conducted using the analytical method “transactional argumentation analysis” (TAA) which enables in situ studies. TAA combines a transactional perspective on meaning making based on John Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy with an argument analysis based on Toulmin’s argument pattern. Here TAA is developed further to enable analysis that in detail clarifies the dynamic interplay between the individual and the collective—the intra- and the inter-personal dimensions—and the result of this interplay in terms of meaning making and learning. The empirical material in this study consists of a video-recorded lesson in a Swedish upper secondary school. The results show that the analysed student is influenced by peers when construing arguments, and thereby acts on others’ reasoning when making meaning. Further, the results show that most of the additions made by the analysed student are taken further by peers in the subsequent discussion. This study shows how an individual’s earlier experiences, knowledge and thinking contribute to the collective meaning making in the classroom.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almqvist, J., & Östman, L. (2006). Privileging and artefacts. On the use of information technology in science education. Interchange, 37(3), 225–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwartz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwartz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33(2009), 374–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, M. W., & Gibbs, J. C. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 399–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education: The role of peer discussion. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117–138). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G., & Burbules, N. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A three-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1922/1988). Human nature and conduct an introduction to social psychology. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works, 1899–1924 (Vol. 14). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

  • Dewey, J. (1929/1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover publications.

  • Dewey, J. (1938/1986). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works (vol. 12). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

  • Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.

  • Dewey, J., & Bentley A. F. (1949/1991). Knowing and the known. In J.A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 16, pp. 1949–1952). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

  • 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 

  • Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29(4), 417–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 716–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, J. (2001). An introduction to Dewey’s theory of functional “trans-action”: An alternative paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(4), 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P. O. (2008). Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92(1), 141–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidar, M., Lundquist, E., & Östman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom. Science Education, 90(1), 148–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2009). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Vaugn, M. H. (2010). Urban high school students’ critical science agency: Conceptual understandings and environmental actions around climate change. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 373–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2008a). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2008b). Developing dialogues. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the C21st: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 141–153). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öhman, J., & Öhman, M. (2013). Participatory approach in practice: An analysis of student discussions about climate change. Environmental Education Research, 19(3), 324–341. doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.695012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2007). Continuity and change in moral meaning-making—a transactional approach. Journal of Moral Education, 36(2), 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2012). The role of argument: Learning how to learn in school science. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Springer International Handbooks of Education, 24 (pp. 933–949). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Östman, L., & Öhman, J. (2010). A transactional approach to learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO, April 2010.

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quennerstedt, M. (2011). Practical epistemologies in physical education practice. Sport, Education and Society., 18(3), 311–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quennerstedt, M., Öhman, J., & Öhman, M. (2011). Investigating learning in physical education—a transactional approach. Sport Education and Society, 16(2), 159–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1990). Pragmatism as anti-representationalism. In J. P. Murphy (Ed.), Pragmatism from Peirce to Davidson (pp. 1–6). Oxford: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rudsberg, K., Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2013). Analysing students’ learning in classroom discussions about socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 97(4), 594–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semetsky, I. (2008). On the creative logic of education, or: re-reading Dewey through the lens of complexity science. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958/2003). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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 

  • 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(1), 101–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickman, P. O. (2012). How can conceptual schemes change teaching? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Örebro University, 701 82, Örebro, Sweden

    Karin Rudsberg

  2. Uppsala University, 750 02, Uppsala, Sweden

    Leif Östman & Elisabeth Aaro Östman

Authors
  1. Karin Rudsberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leif Östman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elisabeth Aaro Östman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin Rudsberg.

Additional information

Lead Editor: A. Sharma.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Transactive discussions (from Berkowitz and Simmons 2003, pp. 131–132)

  1. A.

    Representational transacts

    1. 1.

      Feedback request (R) Do you understand or agree with my position?

    2. 2.

      Paraphrase (R)

      1. a.

        I can understand and paraphrase your position or reasoning.

      2. b.

        Is my paraphrase of your reasoning accurate?

    3. 3.

      Justification request (R) Why do you say that?

    4. 4.

      Juxtaposition (R) Your position is X and my position is Y.

    5. 5.

      Dyad paraphrase (R) Here is a paraphrase of a shared position.

    6. 6.

      Competitive juxtaposition (R) I will make a concession to your position, but also reaffirm part of my position.

  2. B.

    Hybrid transacts

    1. 7.

      Completion (R/O) I can complete or continue your unfinished reasoning.

    2. 8.

      Competitive paraphrase (R/O) Here is a paraphrase of your reasoning that highlights its weakness.

  3. C.

    Operational transacts

    1. 9.

      Clarification (O)

      1. a.

        No, what I am trying to say is the following.

      2. b.

        Here is the clarification of my position to aid in your understanding.

    2. 10.

      Competitive clarification (O) My position is not necessarily what you take it to be.

    3. 11.

      Refinement (O)

      1. a.

        I must refine my position or point as a concession to your position or point (subordinative mode).

      2. b.

        I can elaborate or qualify my position to defend against your critique (superordinative mode).

    4. 12.

      Extension (O)

      1. a.

        Here is a further thought or an elaboration offered in the spirit of your position.

      2. b.

        Your position implicitly involves an assumption that is questionable (premise attack).

      3. c.

        Your reasoning does not necessarily lead to your conclusion/opinion, or your opinion has not been sufficiently justified.

      4. d.

        Your reasoning applies equally well to the opposite opinion.

    5. 13.

      Contradiction (O) There is a logical inconsistency in your reasoning.

    6. 14.

      Reasoning critique (O)

      1. a.

        Your reasoning misses an important distinction, or involves a superfluous distinction.

      2. b.

        Your position implicitly involves an assumption that is questionable (premise attack).

      3. c.

        Your reasoning does not necessarily lead to your conclusion/opinion, or your opinion has not been sufficiently justified.

      4. d.

        Your reasoning applies equally well to the opposite opinion.

    7. 15.

      Competitive Extension (O)

      1. a.

        Would you go to this implausible extreme with your reasoning?

      2. b.

        Your reasoning can be extended to the following extreme, with which neither of us would agree.

    8. 16.

      Counter consideration (O) Here is a thought or element that cannot be incorporated into your position.

    9. 17.

      Common ground/integration (O)

      1. a.

        We can combine our positions into a common view.

      2. b.

        Here is a general premise common to both of our positions.

    10. 18.

      Comparative critique (O)

      1. a.

        Your reasoning is less adequate than mine because it is incompatible with the important consideration here.

      2. b.

        Your position makes a distinction that is seen as superfluous in light of my position, or misses an important distinction that my position makes.

      3. c.

        I can analyze your example to show that it does not pose a challenge to my position.

Appendix 2

See Table 6.

Table 6 The argumentation in lines 14–69
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rudsberg, K., Östman, L. & Aaro Östman, E. Students’ meaning making in classroom discussions: the importance of peer interaction. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 12, 709–738 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9721-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9721-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation