Ways of Knowing beyond Facts and Laws of Science: An Ethnographic Investigation of Student Engagement in Scientific Practices

Abstract

In this study, an anthropological perspective informed by sociolinguistic discourse analysis was used to examine how teachers, students, and scientists constructed ways of investigating and knowing in science. Events in a combined fourth-and fifth-grade elementary class were studied to document how the participating teacher provided opportunities for students to diverge from the intended curriculum to pursue their questions concerning the behavior of sea animals in a marine science observation tank. Analysis of the classroom discourse identified ways that particular teaching strategies provided opportunities for student engagement in scientific practices. Implications of this study for the teaching of science in elementary classrooms include the value of student-initiated science explorations under the conditions of uncertainty and for topics in which the teacher lacked relevant disciplinary knowledge.

A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes

“…In this article we draw on a variety of published work, such as that of Lemke (1990;, Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn & Tsatsarelis (2001), Duval (2002;diSessa (2004), in order to craft a concept that we call disciplinary discourse (the complex of representations, tools and activities of a discipline). What we bring to earlier work is the suggestion that students need to become fluent in a critical constellation of the different semiotic resources-or modes of disciplinary discourse as we depict thembefore they can appropriately holistically experience the disciplinary way of knowing that these resources/modes potentially give access to.…”

“…In a similar vein, a number of authors have made the case that challenges found in student learning are largely a function of difficulties in handling and understanding highly specialized forms of communication that are not found to any great extent in everyday situations, for example, Driver & Ericksson (1983), Solomon (1983), Säljö (2000), and diSessa & Sherin (2000). Learning is thus increasingly being characterized in discourse terms (for example diSessa, 2004;Florence & Yore, 2004;Lemke, 1990Lemke, , 1995Lemke, , 1998Northedge, 2002Northedge, , 2003Roth, McGinn, & Bowen, 1996;Swales, 1990;Säljö, 1999;Wickman & Östman, 2002).…”

“…Thus the ways of knowing that underpin the activities may be opened to students through participation and observation. (See for example Crawford, Kelly, & Brown, 2000;Kuhn, 1962Kuhn, /1996Roth & Lawless, 2002;Wells, 2000). We believe that this idea is the leitmotif of student laboratory work.…”

Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking

“…Recent studies in science have focused on the characteristics of classroom talk and questions that facilitate productive thinking in students (e.g., Abell, Anderson, & Chezem, 2000;Crawford, Kelly, & Brown, 2000;Gallas, 1995). This study contributes to the growing literature on the nature of dialogue during science instruction that facilitates student thinking.…”

Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning

“…Research literature about inquiry classrooms often does not describe the classroom practices, rather classroom inquiry is summarized as ''doing science,'' ''hands-on science,'' or ''real-world science'' (Crawford, 2000). Furthermore, researchers often label a classroom as inquiry-oriented based on the nature of the curriculum materials used by the teacher and not by what the teacher and students are actually doing (Flick, 1995).…”