Discourse in Science Classrooms

Handbook of Research on Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 443-469

  Kelly, Gregory J ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85070225084     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203824696-19     Document Type: Chapter

References (116)

1. Abell, S., Anderson, G., and Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sounds in third grade. In J. Minstrell and E. Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 65-79). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2. Alexopoulou, E., and Driver, R. (1997). Gender differences in small group discussion in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 393-406.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Anderson, C. W., Holland, J. D., and Palinscar, A. S. (1997). Canonical and sociocultural approaches to research and reform in science education: The story of Juan and his group. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 359-383.
5. Baker, D. (1998). Equity issues in science education. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 869-895). Boston: Kluwer.
6. Baker, D. (2002). Where is gender and equity in science education? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 659-663.
7. Ballenger, C. (1997). Social identities, moral narratives, scientific argumentation: Science talk in a bilingual classroom. Language and Education, 11, 1-13.
8. Barba, R. (1993). Astudy of culturally syntonic variables in the bilingual/bicultural science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1053-1071.
9. Barba, R., and Cardinale, L. (1991). Are females invisible students? An investigation of teacherstudent questioning interactions? School Science and Mathematics, 91(7), 306-310.
10. Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
11. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
12. Bell, P., and Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
13. Bereiter, C., and Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1039-1065.
15. Bianchini J. A. (1999). From here to equity: The influence of status on student access to and understanding of science. Science Education 83, 577-601.
16. Bianchini, J. A., and Solomon, E. M. (2003). Constructing views of science tied to issues of equity and diversity: Astudy of beginning science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 53-76.
17. Bleicher, R. (1994). High schools students presenting science: An interactional sociolinguistic analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 697-719.
18. Bleicher, R. (1996). High school students learning science in university research laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1115-1133.
19. Brown, B. (2004). Discursive Identity: Assimilation into the culture of science classroom and its implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
20. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Carlsen, W. S. (1991a). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61, 157-178.
22. Carlsen, W. S. (1991b). Subject-matter knowledge and science teaching: A pragmatic approach. In J. E. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 115-143). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
23. Carlsen, W. S. (1992). Closing down the conversation: Discouraging student talk on unfamiliar science content. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27(2), 15-21.
24. Carlsen, W. S. (1997). Never ask a question if you don’t know the answer: The tension in teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 14-23.
25. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
26. Chinn, P. W. U., and Hilgers, T. L. (2000). From corrector to collaborator: The range of instructor roles in writing-based natural and applied science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 3-25.
27. Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J., and Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science:An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 237-258.
28. Cross, R. T. (1997). Ideology and science teaching: Teachers’ discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 607-616.
29. Dagher, Z. R. (1994). Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change? Science Education, 78, 601-614.
30. Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research of Science Teaching, 32, 259-270.
31. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
32. Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
33. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
34. Duschl, R. A., and Hamilton, R. J. (1998). Conceptual change in science and in the learning of science. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1047-1065). Boston: Kluwer.
35. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
36. Fairbrother, R., Hackling, M., and Cowan, E. (1997). Is this the right answer? International Journal of Science Education, 19, 887-894.
37. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.
38. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
39. Gee, J. P. (2001a). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction and what is literacy? In E. Cushman, E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, and M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 525-544). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.
40. Gee, J. P. (2001b). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125.
41. Glynn, S., and Muth, K. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1057-1073.
42. Green, J. (1983). Research on teaching as a linguistic process: A state of the art. Review of Research in Education, 10, 152-252.
43. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., and Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116-159.
44. Halliday, M. A. K., and Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press.
45. Hammer, D., and Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 53-90.
46. Hand, B., Alvermann, D. E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B. J., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., et al. (2003). Message from the “Island Group”: What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 607-615.
47. Hand, B., and Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86, 737-755.
48. Hand B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., and Yore, L. D. (1999). Awriting in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1021-1035.
49. Hanrahan, M. (1999). Rethinking science literacy: Enhancing communication and participation in school science through affirmational dialogue journal writing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 699-717.
50. Harris, R. A. (1997). Introduction. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essay on the rhetoric of science: Case studies (pp. xi-xlv). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51. Herrenkohl, L. R., and Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473.
52. Hildebrand, G. M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 345-362.
53. Hogan, K. (1999). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 855-882.
54. Hogan, K, Nastasi B. K., and Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379-432.
55. Hughes, G. (2001). Exploring the availability of student scientist identities with curriculum discourse:An anti-essentialist approach to gender-inclusive science. Gender and Education, 13, 275-290.
56. Jaworski, A., and Coupland, N. (Eds.). (1999). The discourse reader. New York: Routledge.
57. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., and Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84, 757-792.
58. Kahle, J. B., and Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 542-557). New York: Macmillan.
59. Kelly, G. J., and Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28-55.
60. Kelly, G. J., Brown, C., and Crawford, T. (2000). Experiments, contingencies, and curriculum: Providing opportunities for learning through improvisation in science teaching. Science Education, 84, 624-657.
61. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., and Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691-718.
62. Kelly, G. J., Crawford, T., and Green, J. (2001). Common tasks and uncommon knowledge: Dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 135-174.
63. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., and Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.
64. Kelly, G. J., and Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342.
65. Keys, C. W. (1997). An investigation of the relationship between scientific reasoning, conceptual knowledge and model formulation in a naturalistic setting. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 957-970.
66. Keys, C. W. (1999a). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115-130.
67. Keys, C. W. (1999b). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students’ written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1044-1061.
68. Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 676-690.
69. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., and Collins, S. (1999). Using the scientific writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065-1084.
70. Klaassen, C. W. J. M., and Lijnse, P. L. (1996). Interpreting students’ and teachers’ discourse in science classes: An underestimated problem? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 115-134.
71. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., and Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3and4), 313-350.
72. Kurth, L. A., Kidd, R., Gardner, R., and Smith, E. L. (2002). Student use of narrative and paradigmatic forms of talk in elementary science conversations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 793-818.
73. Lee, O. (1999). Science knowledge, world views, and information sources in social and cultural contexts:Making sense after a natural disaster. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 187-219.
74. Lee, O., and Fradd, S. H. (1996). Interactional patterns of linguistically diverse students and teachers:Insights for promoting science learning. Linguistics and Education 8, 269-297.
75. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
76. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Analyzing verbal data: Principles, methods and problems. In B. Fraser and K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1175-1189). Boston: Kluwer.
77. Lemke, J. (2000). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 10, 247-271.
78. Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21, 3-48.
79. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice as ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and the social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80. Lynch, M., and Macbeth, D. (1998). Demonstrating physics lessons. In J. Greeno and S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 269-297). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
81. Macbeth, D. (2000). On the apparatus of conceptual change. Science Education, 84, 228-264.
82. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
83. Meyer, K., and Carlisle, R. (1996). Children as experimenters. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 231-248.
84. Moje, E. B. (1995). Talking about science: An interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 349-371.
85. Moje, E. B. (1997). Exploring discourse, subjectivity, and knowledge in a chemistry class. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 35-44.
86. Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., and Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?": Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 469-498.
87. Mortimer, E. F. (1998). Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: An example from theory of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 67-82.
88. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
89. Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Toward a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79, 201-217.
90. Norris, S. P., and Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 947-967.
91. Norris, S. P., and Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education 87, 224-240.
92. Prain, V., and Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 609-626.
93. Prain, V., and Hand, B. (1999). Student’s perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83, 151-162.
94. Reveles, J. M., Cordova, R., and Kelly, G. J. (2004). Science literacy and academic identity formulation. Journal for Research in Science Teaching.
95. Richmond, G., and Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839-858.
96. Rivard, L. P. (1994). Areview of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969-983.
97. Rivard, L. P., and Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566-593.
98. Roseberry, A., Warren, B., and Conant, F. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61-94.
99. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 709-736.
100. Roth, W.-M. (1999). Discourse and agency in school science laboratories. Discourse Processes, 28, 27-60.
101. Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M. K., Woszczyna, C., and Boutonné, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configuration, and physical arrangements. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 293-347.
102. Russell, T. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers’ questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 27-45.
103. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51.
104. Sinclair, J., and Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The language of teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
105. Strike, K. A. (1974). On the expressive potential of behaviorist language. American Educational Research Journal, 11, 103-120.
106. Sutton, C. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science, 18, 1-18.
107. Takao, A. Y., and Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students’ scientific writing. Science and Education, 12, 341-363.
108. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. University Press: Cambridge.
109. van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 115-142.
110. van Zee, E. H., and Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 227-269.
111. Warren, B., and Roseberry, A. S. (1995). “This question is just too, too easy!" Perspectives from the classroom on accountability in science. Report no. NCRCDSLL/CAL-RR-14. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 390658). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
112. Warren, B., Roseberry, A., and Conant, F. (1994). Discourse and social practice: Learning science in language minority classrooms. In D. Spencer (Ed.), Adult biliteracy in the United States (pp. 191-210). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co.
113. Wellington, J., and Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, UK:Open University Press.
114. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., and Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy:25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689-725.
115. Yore, L. D., Holliday, W. G., and Alvermann, D. E. (Eds.). (1994). The reading-science learningwriting connection [special issue]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9).
116. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., and Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., and Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437-463.