“We’re getting somewhere”: Development and implementation of a framework for the analysis of productive science discourse

Paul Grimes, Scott McDonald, Paul van Kampen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Sense-making and argumentation are two common ways to frame student discourse. The former emphasizes the process of students coming to an understanding, the latter the logical and rhetorical structure of the product. When we investigated the discourse of two groups of preservice science teachers in an environment that fosters productive disciplinary engagement, we found that elements of both sense-making and argumentation pervaded the discourse as the preservice teachers engaged in the scientific practice of developing an explanation of a complex phenomenon. We have developed a framework based on, but extending that of Toulmin that allowed us to capture the to-and-fro nature of the development of an explanation by using elements of argumentation and sense-making as well as transactivity. Using the framework we were able to characterize almost all utterances of the 40-min discourse of both groups. Both groups arrived at a similar point of conceptual convergence, even though the interactions that took place during the activity were of quite a different nature. We detail the affordances of our framework and contrast them with those of purely argumentation-based frameworks.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5-36
Number of pages32
JournalScience Education
Volume103
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2019

Fingerprint

argumentation
discourse
science
Group
teacher
student
Discourse
Argumentation
interaction
Sensemaking

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education
  • History and Philosophy of Science

Cite this

@article{90f9b03812e643478242772e05b866b2,
title = "“We’re getting somewhere”: Development and implementation of a framework for the analysis of productive science discourse",
abstract = "Sense-making and argumentation are two common ways to frame student discourse. The former emphasizes the process of students coming to an understanding, the latter the logical and rhetorical structure of the product. When we investigated the discourse of two groups of preservice science teachers in an environment that fosters productive disciplinary engagement, we found that elements of both sense-making and argumentation pervaded the discourse as the preservice teachers engaged in the scientific practice of developing an explanation of a complex phenomenon. We have developed a framework based on, but extending that of Toulmin that allowed us to capture the to-and-fro nature of the development of an explanation by using elements of argumentation and sense-making as well as transactivity. Using the framework we were able to characterize almost all utterances of the 40-min discourse of both groups. Both groups arrived at a similar point of conceptual convergence, even though the interactions that took place during the activity were of quite a different nature. We detail the affordances of our framework and contrast them with those of purely argumentation-based frameworks.",
author = "Paul Grimes and Scott McDonald and {van Kampen}, Paul",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1002/sce.21485",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "103",
pages = "5--36",
journal = "Science Education",
issn = "0036-8326",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "1",

}

“We’re getting somewhere” : Development and implementation of a framework for the analysis of productive science discourse. / Grimes, Paul; McDonald, Scott; van Kampen, Paul.

In: Science Education, Vol. 103, No. 1, 01.2019, p. 5-36.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - “We’re getting somewhere”

T2 - Development and implementation of a framework for the analysis of productive science discourse

AU - Grimes, Paul

AU - McDonald, Scott

AU - van Kampen, Paul

PY - 2019/1

Y1 - 2019/1

N2 - Sense-making and argumentation are two common ways to frame student discourse. The former emphasizes the process of students coming to an understanding, the latter the logical and rhetorical structure of the product. When we investigated the discourse of two groups of preservice science teachers in an environment that fosters productive disciplinary engagement, we found that elements of both sense-making and argumentation pervaded the discourse as the preservice teachers engaged in the scientific practice of developing an explanation of a complex phenomenon. We have developed a framework based on, but extending that of Toulmin that allowed us to capture the to-and-fro nature of the development of an explanation by using elements of argumentation and sense-making as well as transactivity. Using the framework we were able to characterize almost all utterances of the 40-min discourse of both groups. Both groups arrived at a similar point of conceptual convergence, even though the interactions that took place during the activity were of quite a different nature. We detail the affordances of our framework and contrast them with those of purely argumentation-based frameworks.

AB - Sense-making and argumentation are two common ways to frame student discourse. The former emphasizes the process of students coming to an understanding, the latter the logical and rhetorical structure of the product. When we investigated the discourse of two groups of preservice science teachers in an environment that fosters productive disciplinary engagement, we found that elements of both sense-making and argumentation pervaded the discourse as the preservice teachers engaged in the scientific practice of developing an explanation of a complex phenomenon. We have developed a framework based on, but extending that of Toulmin that allowed us to capture the to-and-fro nature of the development of an explanation by using elements of argumentation and sense-making as well as transactivity. Using the framework we were able to characterize almost all utterances of the 40-min discourse of both groups. Both groups arrived at a similar point of conceptual convergence, even though the interactions that took place during the activity were of quite a different nature. We detail the affordances of our framework and contrast them with those of purely argumentation-based frameworks.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056448082&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056448082&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/sce.21485

DO - 10.1002/sce.21485

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85056448082

VL - 103

SP - 5

EP - 36

JO - Science Education

JF - Science Education

SN - 0036-8326

IS - 1

ER -