Expanding discourse repertoires with hybridity

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

In "Hybrid discourse practice and science learning" Kamberelis and Wehunt present a theoretically rich argument about the potential of hybrid discourses for science learning. These discourses draw from different forms of "talk, social practice, and material practices" to create interactions that are "intertextually complex" and "interactionally dynamic." The hybrid discourse practices are described as involving the dynamic interplay of at least three key elements: "the lamination of multiple cultural frames, the shifting relations between people and their discourse, and the shifting power relations between and among people." Each of these elements requires a respective unit of analysis and are often mutually reinforcing. The authors present a theoretically cogent argument for the study of hybrid discourse practices and identify the potential such discourses may have for science education. This theoretical development leads to an analysis of spoken and written discourse around a set of educational events concerning the investigation of owl pellets by two fifth grade students, their classmates, and teacher. Two discourse segments are presented and analyzed by the authors in detail. The first is a discourse analysis of the dissection of the owl pellet by two students, Kyle and Max. The second analysis examines the science report of these same two students. In this article, I pose a number of questions about the study with the hope that by doing so I expand the conversation around the insightful analysis presented.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)535-539
Number of pages5
JournalCultural Studies of Science Education
Volume7
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2012

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cultural Studies

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Expanding discourse repertoires with hybridity'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this