The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons

In this paper, we draw upon a framework for analyzing the discursive interactions of science classrooms (Mortimer & Scott, 2003, Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms, Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press), to probe the movement between authoritative and dialogic discourse in a Brazilian high school science class. More specifically, we argue the point that such shifts between communicative approaches are an inevitable part of teaching whose purpose is to support meaningful learning of scientific knowledge. We suggest that a necessary tension therefore exists between authoritative and dialogic approaches as dialogic exchanges are followed by authoritative interventions (to develop the canonical scientific view), and the authoritative introduction of new ideas is followed by the opportunity for dialogic application and exploration of those ideas. In these ways, one communicative approach follows from the other, authoritativeness acting as a seed for dialogicity and vice versa. We discuss how this analysis, in terms of shifts in communicative approach, offers a new and complementary perspective on supporting “productive disciplinary engagement” (Engle & Conant, 2002, Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–484) in the classroom. Finally we consider some methodological issues arising from this study. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed90:605–631, 2006

[1]  Wolff-Michael Roth.  Talking Science: Language and Learning in Science Classrooms , 2005 .

[2]  Njoud Tachoua.  Interactions enseignant-élèves et situations d'enseignement-apprentissage en optique géométrique , 2005 .

[3]  Leslie R. Herrenkohl,et al.  Power in the Classroom: How the Classroom Environment Shapes Students' Relationships With Each Other and With Concepts , 2004 .

[4]  Eduardo Fleury Mortimer,et al.  Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms , 2003 .

[5]  R. A. Engle,et al.  Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom , 2002 .

[6]  G. J. Kelly,et al.  Communicative Demands of Learning Science Through Technological Design: Third Grade Students’ Construction of Solar Energy Devices ☆ , 2002 .

[7]  Phil Scott,et al.  Designing and Evaluating Science Teaching Sequences: An Approach Drawing upon the Concept of Learning Demand and a Social Constructivist Perspective on Learning , 2002 .

[8]  J. Osborne,et al.  Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education , 2002 .

[9]  Gregory J. Kelly,et al.  Common Task and Uncommon Knowledge: Dissenting Voices in the Discursive Construction of Physics Across Small Laboratory Groups , 2001 .

[10]  Ann Rosebery,et al.  Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense‐making , 2001 .

[11]  Stephen M. Ritchie,et al.  Actions and discourses for transformative understanding in a middle school science class , 2001 .

[12]  R. Alexander.  Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education , 2001 .

[13]  Gregory J. Kelly,et al.  Experiments, contingencies, and curriculum : Providing opportunities for learning through improvisation in science teaching , 2000 .

[14]  J. Osborne,et al.  Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms , 2000 .

[15]  G. Wells.  Dialogic Inquiry: Putting a Tool to Different Uses: A Reevaluation of the IRF Sequence , 1999 .

[16]  James Paul Gee,et al.  话语分析入门 : 理论与方法 = An introduction to discourse analysis : theory and method , 1999 .

[17]  D. Treagust,et al.  Learning in Science — From Behaviourism Towards Social Constructivism and Beyond , 1998 .

[18]  E. Mortimer,et al.  Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: an example from theory of matter , 1998 .

[19]  P. Scott.  Teacher Talk and Meaning Making in Science Classrooms: a Vygotskian Analysis and Review , 1998 .

[20]  Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar,et al.  Canonical and Sociocultural Approaches to Research and Reform in Science Education: The Story of Juan and His Group , 1997, The Elementary School Journal.

[21]  Emily H. van Zee,et al.  Reflective discourse: developing shared understandings in a physics classroom , 1997 .

[22]  Jon Ogborn,et al.  Explaining Science in the Classroom , 1996 .

[23]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Interactions in an open‐inquiry physics laboratory , 1996 .

[24]  Ola Halldén,et al.  Re-framing the problem of conceptual change , 1994 .

[25]  C. Sutton,et al.  Words, Science and Learning , 1992 .

[26]  Giyoo Hatano,et al.  Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[27]  J. Lemke.  Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[28]  John J. Gumperz,et al.  Contextualization and Understanding , 1989 .

[29]  H. Mehan,et al.  Learning Lessons, Social Organization in the Classroom , 1979 .

[30]  Judith L. Green,et al.  What is an Instructional Context? An Exploratory Analysis of Conversational Shifts Across Time , 1979 .

[31]  J. Sinclair,et al.  Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils , 1975 .

[32]  V. Voloshinov.  Marxism and the philosophy of language , 1973 .

[33]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .