uric... .!

$2.:

$3 ”mugw, ( LN"

.3

mflmfili .3

.r.......3

7&3“: '

 

1

W1 'l “in in

u

“fl."
AV!"

‘0‘
’

“"5 “I '
’ "15‘ l

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

“IT JUST FLIES”: JOINT CONSTRUCTION OF ACCOUNTS IN
ELEMENTARY SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

presented by

Mark Enfield

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Teacher Education

 

 

Maw

 

Major Professor’s Signature
M / Z, 2—00?

Date

 

MSU is an Afflnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

University

 

‘ LIERAfiY '
Michigan State

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

 

“IT JUST FLIES”: JOINT CONSTRUCTION OF ACCOUNTS IN ELEMENTARY
SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

By

Mark Enfield

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Teacher Education

2004

ABSTRACT

“IT JUST FLIES”: JOINT CONSTRUCTION OF ACCOUNTS IN ELEMENTARY
SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

By
Mark Enfield
Increasingly elementary classrooms use whole group discussions to help
students make sense of ideas; this includes science teaching and learning.
Science teaching and learning faces particular problems in this practice. We
know that students hold na'ive conceptions of phenomena that challenge
development of understandings of science ideas. Students in whole group sense
making discussions naturally introduce na'ive conceptions. Therefore one
question asks whether this practice facilitates students’ making sense of
phenomena, challenging students’ na'ive conceptions, and learning scientific
ideas. In addition, the social and linguistic demands of discussions privilege
students who tacitly understand the logic of scientific discourse, who have
greater command of language, and who have higher social status in the class.
The goal is that students will collaboratively construct accounts that make sense
of phenomena in the natural world; but this is not easy. Patterns in video-
recorded discussions show that students’ interests lay in jointly constructing
accounts that describe how to control phenomena. Such accounts sound like
descriptions of how to do things to achieve certain outcomes. When discussions
attempt to generate this kind of account, more students participate and there is
increased use of shared utterances. However, science also attempts to generate

accounts that describe and explain phenomena free from human action. In this

study, when the teacher (also this researcher) attempts to shift students’ towards
accounts that describe phenomena free of human intervention, problems arise.
Students make fewer attempts to speak or share utterances. Furthermore, the
discussions become triadic, involving only the teacher and one or two students.
Thus I argue that to support students’ collaboration they need opportunities to
pursue accounts that are meaningful and useful to them. In addition, to learn
scientific modes of communication, instruction needs to include careful and
deliberate actions that help students learn to construct scientific accounts. To
help young students learn language and how to use language, while
simultaneously learning science, places heavy demands on classroom teachers.
Teachers need support to facilitate learning language, ideas, practices, and how
to jointly construct accounts of phenomena that are meaningful to students and

also scientific accounts of phenomena in the world.

Acknowledgements

Thoreau writes that he went to Walden Pond so that he might live life
deliberately. The problem is that we all know that living deliberately involves
more than the statement implies. It involves people providing opportunities,
being knowledgeable, and serving as sources encouragement to continue a
deliberate life. While Thoreau describes some people he encountered in his life
on Walden Pond, I suspect those people did more than his writings convey.

As I think about my opportunity to deliberately investigate how young
students learn science, it is clear that my work was as much about understanding
how young students learn science as it was about learning to work with and rely
on others. Thus before diving into theories, data, explanations, and explorations
described in this dissertation, I want to pause to express my gratitude to those
who helped me live deliberately in one classroom with a group of students.

To begin with the regular classroom teacher and the students in the
classroom deserve thanks. For me, Deborah Corbin became another hero of
teaching when she allowed me to join her classroom as a teacher. For two years
I was fortunate to watch and learn from her and other teachers what it means to
be an excellent teacher. She allowed me to alter curriculum, try different ideas,
and explore the various ways that students could learn science through talking
about their ideas. Those students also deserve my thanks. They worked,
thought, struggled, laughed, and learned many things. Throughout it all they
were open to my constantly asking them to talk to one another and let me listen

to their ideas as a way of helping them learn science.

iv

Helping me learn to see things in classroom events and pushing me to
develop deeper understandings of my experiences were my committee
members. They deliberately pushed me to be clearer about my questions,
connect my ideas with my data, and understand based on evidence how events
in the classroom made sense. Charles (Andy) Anderson spent more than three
years listening to me talk about data, providing me with ways to look at events in
this classroom, and helping me understand ways that my students were making
sense of science. He, along with others, Jenny Denyer, Victoria Purcell Gates,
and Edward Smith, guided and supported me through a mountain of videotapes,
my ever expanding and entangled questions, and my struggles to explain the
things that I saw.

Finally I had wonderful encouragement throughout this process. My family
and friends continue being thoughtful, encouraging, and supportive from the
moment I left Oklahoma to come to Michigan State University until the moment I
submit this dissertation. But words alone will never explain the ways that my
wife, Leigh Hall, stood by me through the brightest and darkest times. She
encouraged me, supported me, and listened while I rambled on about my most
recent finding in the data. She not only allowed me to stay up all hours of the
night, work tireless days, and still smile as l groaned; she also continued to have
unending confidence in my ability. I do not know which of these things she did
deliberately. However, it allowed me to live deliberately in my data. For that I will

be forever grateful.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ........................................................................................................ x
List of Figures ...................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1 .............................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION: JOINT CONSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE
DISCUSSIONS ..................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
What are the origins of this question? — My background ............................ 2
Focusing the work ........................................................................................... 5

Participation: How can students’ participation in joint construction of
accounts be described in terms of claims and accounts? .............................. 6

Language: How does the language students use support joint construction of
accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the accounts that
students construct? ........................................................................................ 9

Content: What is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct
and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making about

phenomena in the world? ............................................................................ 12
Summarizing the problem ............................................................................ 16
Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................ 19
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF JOINT
CONSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE DISCUSSIONS ....................... 19
Introduction ................................................................................................... 19
Theoretical Model .......................................................................................... 19

Participation: How can students’ participation in jointly constructed accounts
be described in terms of claims and accounts? ........................................... 21

Language: How does the language students use support joint construction of
accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the accounts that
students construct? ...................................................................................... 23

Content: what is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct
and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making about
phenomena in the world? ............................................................................ 27

vi

Empirical Research ....................................................................................... 30

Individuals as participants in a group ........................................................... 31
Semantics of oral language and joint construction ....................................... 34
Sense-making in discussions ....................................................................... 37
Summary ........................................................................................................ 39
Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................ 41
Methods for researching joint construction accounts .......................................... 41
Introduction ................................................................................................... 41
Context, Social Setting, and Participants ................................................... 42
Data Sources ................................................................................................. 45
Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 48

Participation: how can students’ participation in joint construction of accounts
be described in terms of claims and accounts? ........................................... 49

Language: How does the language students use support joint construction of
accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the accounts that
students construct? ...................................................................................... 51

Content: What is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct
and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making about

phenomena in the world? ............................................................................ 52
Summary and looking forward ..................................................................... 54
Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................ 55
PATTERNS OF JOINT CONSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE
DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................................... 55
Introduction ................................................................................................... 55
Participation: How can students’ participation in joint construction of
accounts be described in terms of claims and accounts? ........................ 56
Participation relies on shared utterances ..................................................... 57

Students participated in accounts shan'ng utterances that involved human
agents acting in the world. ........................................................................... 63

vii

Summary of participation ............................................................................. 78

Language: How does the language students use supportjoint
construction of accounts and also reveal something about the nature of
the accounts that students construct? ....................................................... 79

Semantic relationships and thematic sequences supported joint construction
of accounts .................................................................................................. 79

Content: What is the nature of the accounts that students jointly
construct and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making

about phenomena in the world? ................................................................ 101
Students’ accounts as practical reasoning about how control phenomena in
the world. ................................................................................................... 101
The nature and accuracy of students’ accounts focused on practical
scientific reasoning, but not on model-based scientific reasoning. ............ 110
Chapter Summary ....................................................................................... 126
Chapter 5 .......................................................................................................... 129
Accounts and activity in discussion contexts .................................................... 129
Introduction ................................................................................................. 129
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................... 130
Revisiting the findings ................................................................................ 133
Discussion of the results ............................................................................ 135
What did I want for students and why did I want this? ............................... 136

What did students want to accomplish when they constructed accounts? 138

Why the two desires conflict .................................................................. 142
Implications and future research ............................................................... 144
Students Ieaming to make generalized statements in the world ................ 145
Students’ accounts and hands-on experiences ......................................... 148
The developmental appropriateness of specific topics in science .............. 149
Students resources to jointly construct accounts ....................................... 151

viii

Future Research .......................................................................................... 153

Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 155
Appendices ....................................................................................................... 161
Appendix A .................................................................................................... 162
Appendix B .................................................................................................... 216
Coding Schemes Used in Analysis ............................................................ 216

Language: How does the language students use support joint constnrction of
accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the accounts that
students construct? .................................................................................... 217

Content: What is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct
and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making about
phenomena in the world? .......................................................................... 218

List of Tables

Table 4.1 - Semantic Relationships and Thematic Sequences in Wind
and Kites Talk ........................................................................ 81

Table 4.2 — Semantic Relationships and Thematic Sequences in

Seeds Talk ............................................................................ 90

Table 4.3 — Evaluation of Accounts in Wind and Kites Talk ............... 111
Table 4.4 — Evaluation of Accounts in What are Seeds Talk .............. 117
Table 4.5 - Thematic Patterns in Joint Construction ........................ 127

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 .............................................................................. 22
Figure 2.2 .............................................................................. 27
Figure 4.1 .............................................................................. 58
Figure 4.2 .............................................................................. 61
Figure 5.1 .............................................................................. 131

xi

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION: JOINT CONSTRUCTION IN

ELEMENTARY SCIENCE DISCUSSIONS

Introduction

This study examines the development of students’ sense-making in
elementary science classrooms. My interests, based on my personal history and
teaching experiences, are in the ways that talk in social settings supports the
sense-making around science ideas, focusing on two issues. First, one way to
make sense of science involves developing accounts for experiences with
phenomena in the world. Second, scientific accounts of those phenomena
involve particular ways of reporting, considering, and explaining experiences with
phenomena in the world. Students often account for phenomena in ways that
are ultimately not scientific. Thus an important question is; how do students (and
teachers) collaborate on explanations of phenomena in the world? What is the
nature of claims that students make in discussions that supports collaboration
around the construction of accounts of phenomena? Based students’ joint
construction, what is the nature of the accounts that young students find
meaningful and useful? Finally considering the nature of the accounts that
students jointly construct, how do those accounts compare to the goals and

norms of science in the context of whole group discussions?

This study reports data collected from my work as a classroom teacher
and thus follows a participant observer perspective (Atkinson & Hammersly,
1994). The questions above arose based on my experiences learning and
teaching science. Those question rest on some fundamental assumptions. First,
an effective means of developing accounts of phenomena in the world relies on
collaborative, social activity intended to serve a joint purpose. Second, the
accounts developed can be thought of as scientific if they include descriptions of
experiences and observations of phenomena, patterns in those experiences and
observations, and ultimately explaining those patterns. Ultimately a goal of
science teaching and learning would be to develop scientific accounts. However,
the joint purposes of participants in social activity in a classroom may not always
lead to the stated goal of science learning. However, before getting to the
interactions and potential outcomes of collaborative activity, it is important
understand things about my learning and teaching of science, the origins of these
questions, and the connections I think are important to science teaching.

What are the origins of this question? — My background

My interest science goes back as long as I can remember. Unfortunately,
I don’t remember learning science in elementary school. I do remember
following my father, a research scientist, as he collected and described
observations of phenomena in the world, and reported his findings at
conferences and in papers. Dad always had detailed explanations of the work he
was doing and reasons why it made sense and was important. At home, Mom

encouraged us to explore the world around us, tell about our experiences, and

explain our ideas why those experiences made sense. We often sat after dinner
talking about our experiences from the day and explaining our theories of the
world while our parents listened. Whether we espoused a theory about the world
or asked for candy at the grocery store, my parents constantly pushed us to
explain why we thought the things we thought. Through this social activity of
explaining the reasons why we thought or wanted things, we learned that causes
were important to explanations. Furthermore we learned that depending on the
context and theory certain reasons made more useful explanations than other
reasons. These early years socialized me into scientific reasoning.

My background of learning to think about reasons naturally led me as an
undergraduate to pursue a degree in science. During my first semester in
college I took a Physics course. As I reflect on early formal experiences learning
science, a common thread was that the experiences I recall involved social
encounters where I worked with others to develop accounts of phenomena that
were meaningful and useful in the given context. Specifically I am thinking of
laboratory activities working to explain the phenomena we observed. For me,
learning science was a discursive activity involving interactions with other people.

When I began graduate studies in Physics, I was surprised to find that one
of the top physicists at that university had a small lab in which he worked alone.
Furthermore, Industrial and Applied Physics seemed less than applied and did
not really involve explaining phenomena of the world‘. The highlight of this time

was working as a lab instructor and tutor in the physics department. I loved

 

1These were my impressions and may be far from the truth. All I know is that I can still recall the
small, dimly lit room called the lab, my coursework that was primarily mathematical derivations of
equations, and limited social contact with others.

 

helping other people understand the elegance of explanations that accounted for
so many of the varied phenomena in the world. It quickly became apparent that
graduate study in Physics was not a good career choice for me.

I was fortunate to find a position in a hands-on science museum. The
interactive exhibits and hands-on science classes offered rich in opportunities to
engage others in collaboratively developing accounts of phenomena. Whether
teaching a class or discussing an exhibit with a visitor, interactions with visitors
required listening and hearing the ways people interpreted the phenomenon an
exhibit attempted to demonstrate. These interactions also required thinking
about how different interpretations made sense. The ultimate goal was to help
visitors understand scientific accounts of the phenomena they witnessed.

But something about this experience was not satisfying. One problem was
that the museum offered flashy and extravagant phenomena that were engaging,
but not very common to visitors’ everyday experiences. Another problem was
that there was something missing in these experiences. I wondered how they
impacted people and their lives, did their experience at the museum change the
way they interpreted phenomena in the world? I had many experiences feeling
that the kinds of explanations I helped visitors understand were not wholly
satisfying to them. Based on this, I was dissatisfied with interactions with visitors
because I felt that they left the museum with non-scientific accounts, but with the
impression that their accounts were scientifically accurate.

I began doctoral studies in science education hoping to find answers to

these problems of science learning. A wise faculty member, who later became

my advisor and dissertation director, suggested that my limited experience in
schools (having only completed a practicum experience) inhibited the range of
questions that I might ask of teaching and learning science. Therefore I sought
out opportunities to teach science in elementary schools. It was through
classroom teaching and a mini-study conducted during those experiences that
the questions of this study emerged. Working in a classroom with students and
listening to them explain phenomena helped me realize that there were yet
unexplored benefits and drawbacks in whole group discussions of science
experiments and concepts. This study focused on such benefits and drawbacks.
Focusing the work

In the following section I describe thinking that led to the central research
question: how does one multi-age group of first to third grade students engaged
in whole group discussions use language to jointly construct (collaborate on)
accounts of phenomena in the world? This central question has led me to sub-
questions about participation, language, and content. These questions are as
follows:

1. How can students’ participation in joint construction of accounts be
described in terms of claims and accounts?
2. How does the language students use support joint construction of
accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the

accounts that students construct?

3. What is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct
and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making
about phenomena in the world?

It is important to note that while I will treat these classifications separately, the

central question implies overlaps of these classifications.

Participation: How can students’ participation in joint construction of

accounts be described in terms of claims and accounts?

A central goal of the current reform of science education is that this is an
educational reform about all students learning science with understanding
(National Research Council, 1996; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989). Keeping in
mind this study’s question about oral language and focusing on all students
Ieaming science with understanding, requires considering many different issues.
The issue most relevant to this study is the inclusion of linguistically and culturally
diverse students in discourses2 of science (Lee & Fradd, 1996, 1998).
Discourses refer to the linguistic practices and processes that distinguish
members of a community (Gee, 1991, 1997). One approach that strives toward
this goal is to think about how students should learn the linguistic practices and
processes of science. A different approach would be to attempt to ensure the
participation of students of all cultural and linguistic backgrounds in the context of
whole group discussions in science classrooms. Regardless of the approach, to

ensure all students learn science with understanding, an important consideration

 

2 This study uses the term discourse in particular ways to mean ways of using language to
participate in communities. Portions of this will be addressed in the following section about
language.

 

 

when implementing discourse oriented pedagogies will be to think about
students’ participation.

Memories of students I have taught often involve their participation in
various contexts. I remember thinking in the science museum about the ways
different students worked together on projects, listening and talking with one
another. One of the primary responsibilities that I had while working at the
museum involved coordinating a program for middle school students called, “If I
Had a Hammer.” In this program students worked in groups to build a house
using drills and screws in a two hour session. After teaching the same lesson
hundreds (yes literally hundreds) of times I began to pay attention to how groups
worked together. Some focused on equitable participation of all, some invoked
principles of division of labor, and still others seemed to be groups of
independent operators. It was clear that students had many different ways of
participating with one another. The adults chaperoning the students often
wanted to dictate over this participation. But I learned there were many benefits
to various forms of participation and that autonomic construction led to task
completion, but not to learning how to work together, or make sense of diverse
approaches to ideas and problems.

lnforrnal learning environments present special problems of participation.
The question remains whether such problems carry over to discussions in
classrooms; my experience says it does. One story comes from my teaching in a
third grade classroom and involves a student who I will call Carlos. Carlos

actively listened and attempted to contribute to the discussions. However, Carlos

faced a couple of barriers. First, he had speech problems that made his oral
language difficult to understand. Furthermore, the fact that he stuttered and re-
started several times in his turns made it even more difficult to understand him.
Carlos infrequently spoke and if he did it seemed to me that his ideas failed to
become topics in the discussion. In fact, later analysis of data from those
discussions3 revealed that Carlos often had relevant and important ideas to
include in the discussion. Furthermore, his ideas did become topics in the
discussion, but he did not get credit for making those contributions. In summary,
Carlos attempted to participate with the group, but the group did not actively
participate with him.

This issue of participation is both a student and teacher issue. In the case
of Carlos, students needed to learn to listen to and participate with him. But the
teacher in this case held a greater responsibility. I needed to establish contexts
and cultures that not only encouraged, but demanded fair participation. I needed
to work harder to include Carlos in the discussion. Each of these things should
be part of best practice teaching. Yet, there is a lot to learn before we can
develop teaching practices. We need better understandings of the language that
young students use in discursive contexts. Additionally, we need understandings
of the nature of the claims that students make about phenomena through their
discourse. Finally we need more complete understandings of students’
participation in discursive contexts. These last two understandings introduce

language and content, as being connected to participation. The fundamental

 

3 This paper is in preparation, soon to be sent out for review.

assumption that there are interconnected issues in discursive contexts makes it

important to also consider them as they relate to participation.

Language: How does the language students use support joint construction
of accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the accounts

that students construct?

My first graduate student appointment was on a research project that
worked with a teacher study group situated in one school. These teachers were
actively involved in exploring the work of Karen Gallas (1995). The teachers
worked to include the kind of “Science talk” that engages students in developing
theories (or accounts) of phenomena in the world (Gallas, 1995). It was exciting
to visit these classrooms, listening to students discuss their theories of how
things worked in the world. I noticed how students talked to one another, who
spoke and how ideas developed and were part of the discussions that took place
in these classrooms. I also listened to the teachers plan, consider and think
about the talk and work of their students’ science learning. To me, there were
exciting things taking place in these classrooms, but I wasn’t quite sure what
made these things exciting. At the same time, I worried about the complexity of
the classroom events I witnessed and felt that there were many things happening
that needed some further exploration. Specifically I wondered about the
explanations that students came up with, the accuracy of those explanations, and
the instances that students generated explanations that were not scientific but

remained compelling.

 

 

The following academic year I began teaching science in an urban
elementary school. My experiences teaching led to a number of questions about
the Science Talks that l initiated in my teaching. As a white middle class male,
with a strong scientific background, I knew based on reading Heath (1983) that
my ‘ways with words’ were probably quite different from those of my students.
These different ‘ways with words’ are important resources that people use to
make sense of the world around them. Students’ ‘ways with words’ present two
problems for classroom discussion; first, students’ linguistic differences may
make sense-making and meaning-making challenging in classroom settings.
Second, students need to learn to participate and communicate using academic
discourses. Therefore there is a need to help students learn new ways of
speaking in order to be successful in school.

I interpreted success as developing what Gee (1991) describes as a
secondary discourse in science. I wanted students to be successful using
language structures privileged in school and especially in science learning. I
wondered whether the Science Talks helped students learn the discourse of
school science. During that year I completed a study that examined the role of
my content knowledge as a mediating factor in helping students gain access to
and participate in Science Talks (Enfield, 2000a, 2000b).

Reflecting on the first year of looking at discussions in classrooms using
the conceptual lenses I had, resulted in my feeling less than satisfied with the
result. The problem was that as I worked with students and listened to them in

Science Talks, I felt that my normative expectations of developing students’

10

secondary discourse prevented me from hearing and understanding their sense-
making. I began thinking about Bakhtin’s {, 1896 #106} dialogic problem that
thoughts are shaped through interactions with others. This complemented with
the Vygtoskian (1986) notion of thought and language suggested that I needed to
think more about the language that my students were using in these discussions.
I needed to consider the students’ meanings in Science Talks as much as I
needed to think about their ‘ways with words.’

Originally a problem was that my treatment of language assumed singular
meanings of students’ utterances. This one to one correlation I attempted to
make between statement and meaning treated language, utterances, and
meaning as empirical constructs. However, Quine’s (1953) dismissal of
empiricism revolutionized my thinking about knowledge in the world, and thus my
empirical treatment of language left me feeling dissatisfied. But I struggled to
connect this to students’ language. It was not until I began to understand the
Bakhtinian (1986) notion that no utterance has singular meaning and therefore
cannot be adequately examined based on meaning alone. Quine’s (1953) major
criticism was the problem of synonymy and Bakhtin suggests that in language no
two utterances have synonymous meanings. Therefore I needed to consider the
polysemous meanings of students’ utterances.

Attempting to resolve this problem I turned to different perspectives on
language. Specifically, I considered the forms and functions of language of
students’ oral language. This functional approach to examining students

utterances followed work of Coulthard (1985) and Grice (1999) to consider how

11

forms of students’ language functioned in discourse contexts to communicate
ideas about the world. An important idea from functional analysis of language is
that statements or utterances in a discussion require some relationship to
preceding statements. Thus describing the nature of students’ utterances in
discussion and looking for patterns in those utterances is important. This lead
to the ultimate articulation of the question: How do forms of language students
use in oral discussions function to facilitate joint construction of accounts of

phenomena?

Content: What is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct
and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making about

phenomena in the world?

My concerns over students sense-making in science is actually the
prelude to the story contained in this study. My interest in pursuing a doctorate in
science education stems from discontent that I felt while working in the science
museum. At that time I had been introduced to conceptual change theories as
they relate to science learning (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982; Smith,
1990). But it was not clear, especially in the context of the hands-on museum,
how such theories could be useful in teaching science. However, it was clear,
based on interactions with museum visitors, that everyone has different accounts
of phenomena and ways of making sense of phenomena. I prefer to think of the
accounts and sense-making strategies as na'ive accounts (Shapiro, 1994) that do

not fully reflect the knowledge and practice of science.

12

The notion that individuals hold na'ive ideas about the way the world
works was actually one problem I encountered while working in the museum.
Many of the exhibits presented phenomena, but did not challenge visitors’ ways
of explaining or making sense of phenomena. One exhibit stands out in this
regard. The coupled pendulum consisted of two simple pendulums, suspended
at equal lengths, connected by a stiff bar about two-thirds of the distance from
the bottom of the cable suspending the weights. If operated properly, the
coupled pendulum was a dramatic demonstration of conservation of energy.
However, often visitors would push the pendulum bobs to see the result, and
explain it just as they would any simple pendulum. While they engaged with the
phenomenon, their ideas remained unchanged.

But if I stood at the exhibit and engaged people in discussions about why
they thought different things happened, the experience was dramatically
different. At times people were almost disturbed by the result and then began
exploring the exhibit with more deliberate actions to develop deeper
understandings. These experiences introduced me to the power of prior
conceptions and encouraged me to think about the importance of those
discussions in challenging conceptions. This raises a question; what sources of
knowledge contribute to an individual’s accounts of phenomena?

Leaving the museum and entering the world of academia, it was possible
to begin to explore and more fully realize the potential of conceptual change
theories (Posner et al., 1982; Smith, 1990). The theory helped situate science

learning in terms of the experiences and sources of knowledge a learner has with

13

phenomena in the world. These experiences are the foundation of ideas and
explanations of those phenomena. The theory also suggests ways to engage
learners in thinking about their explanations to help develop more scientific
explanations of those phenomena. Further it became clear that learning is a
dialogic act (Bakhtin, 1986) that involves interactions between learners, teachers,
experiences, and explanations.

Realizing that there were important interactions necessary to learning and
that whole class discussion in science was an appealing pedagogical strategy, I
became interested in thinking about how this functioned in classrooms. Within
the context of whole class discussions I became interested in students’
understandings and sense-making. This interest was clarified when I began
teaching in a classroom, attempting to discussion with a group of students, and
facing new challenges.

I recall an experience during a discussion about force and motion that
highlighted for me the challenges that a discursive pedagogy faces in helping
students make sense of science. We were approaching the end of a study of
force and friction. Students sat in a circle, taking turns sharing ideas about
forces and friction. Normally, I did not enter conversations other than to clarify
points and maintain order. However, on this day, when the circle came to my
position, the girl next to me invited me to say something. Making a pedagogical

choice4 to pose a question, I asked students to explain their understanding of the

 

‘ By this I mean that I chose to say something to challenge students and push them to further
their explanations. In other words I was playing a role of teacher to attempt to further student
thinking.

14

connection between force and friction. When I posed this question, the same girl
asked, "Don’t you understand the connection between force and friction?"

There are many ways to interpret this episode. Important to this study is
that the challenge I encountered in this discussion is both the core of the study
but also raises problems with this practice. Focusing on the core of the study is
another of my questions; how well do students’ accounts of phenomena reflect or
relate to a scientific account? Understanding this basic question was the basis
for my involvement in the discussion. As the teacher, I posed an evaluative
question. Lemke (1990) has described how the expectations of teacher and
student alike is that the teacher knows the answer. This leads to a problem
because the benefit of discussion is the dialogic act of sense-making. If the
assumed relationship of teacher as knower and student as absorber is
maintained, this inhibits development of understanding by students.
Furthermore, I assert that there is more going on in a single discussion than
construction of accounts. My question posed a logical, simplistic, and
problematic interpretation of the on-going events in that discussion. So, while
this question may be a vital assessment of student understanding; it may inhibit
students’ engagement with explaining phenomena in order to ‘guess’ the answer
the teacher wants.

Discussions in science can provide opportunities to ‘step outside’ of
traditional school roles. Discussions can be contexts for students to describe
their experiences, interpret patterns in those experiences, and develop

explanations for the patterns that they infer. Ultimately this is scientific. The

15

problem is that we are just beginning to understand whose science we are talking
about. This thinking led to another question: what is the nature of the accounts
that students jointly construct and collectively validate in whole group sense-
making discussions?

Summarizing the problem

Discussions in science classrooms are not just talk. These discussions
communicate content while also being contexts to learn sense-making practices
of science that explore and explain phenomena in the world. In this way,
learning science is a mutually constituent activity, meaning that knowledge and
action are situated in contexts in which individuals participate (Lave & Wenger,
1991; Rogoff, 1995). Therefore, students learn scientific explanations and ways
of making scientific explanations, through participation in contexts in which they
use language to communicate with one another about ideas. For young students
this presents a challenge because they are learning language, science content,
particular ways of talking about ideas that are needed in science, and sense-
making practices of science.

Resolving this complex challenge is not a simple task. In fact it is an
impossible task given the scope of this work and the data collected. This study
has a different aim, to describe the knowing and acting of students in the context
of discussions that aim at joint construction and collective validation of accounts
of phenomena in the world. Thus I will present in the following chapters
descriptions of students’ accounts of phenomena. In particular I focus on the

accounts from the data set in which there is substantial student participation and

16

collaboration, as shown in their engagement strategies (Cazden, 1988). I will
show that students, through participation, collectively establish contexts that
allow them to talk about phenomena using fundamentally scientific logic. I will
show that even when not present, in their contexts students discuss phenomena
and invent ways to include experiences that are relevant and important.
However, the experiences presented and the explanations students make may
not immediately sound scientific. Ultimately the resolution to the multiple
challenges is to keep the problem situated in its mutually constituent reality and
to keep questions about science literacy as complex ones.

It is impossible in a study of this nature to make general statements about
discussions in classrooms. It is also difficult based on the findings presented
here to make inferences about the specific things that resulted in particular
outcomes described here. However, I will argue that there may be value in
considering different perspectives when thinking about talk in science
classrooms. Further I argue that future research should consider the ways that
teaching science should involve actions in the contexts that students construct in
whole group sense-making discussions. Some thoughts about teaching actions
to explore will be presented, looking toward future studies of discourse in science
learning.

The following chapters consider multiple aspects of the questions,
challenges, and issues raised here. Fundamentally it will be about the questions
that arose early in this chapter. Chapter Two explores literature related to the

research questions of this study. The chapter first develops a theoretical model

17

 

that is used throughout the remainder of the study and empirical findings from
past studies that pursued similar questions. Chapter Three describes data
collected and methods of analysis used in this study to answer the research
questions. This is followed by Chapter Four which presents findings from the
data, organized around the patterns that I found. Finally, Chapter Five discusses

explanations and implications of the findings of this study.

18

Chapter 2
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF

JOINT CONSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE

DISCUSSIONS

Introduction

This study considers how a group of students jointly construct accounts of
phenomena in whole group sense-making discussions in a lower elementary
classroom. Therefore this chapter will consider theoretical and empirical
descriptions in the literature to examine whole class discussions. In this case, I
will describe theoretical explanations and empirical findings concerning students’
collaboration on the construction knowledge claims that are part of an account of
phenomena. Similar descriptions can be made of the ways that claims are
combined to form a collective account. Finally theoretical principles and
empirical findings provide insight on the accounts that students jointly construct
relate to scientific ideas about phenomena in the world.
Theoretical Model

I begin by describing a theoretical model that guided analysis in this study.
Then I will present relevant empirical literature that considered similar problems
in classroom contexts. The theoretical model was built through grounded theory
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and thus evolved throughout the study. However to
explain it here, I will focus on the connections between the theoretical model and

my research questions. Recall that these questions were:

19

1. How can students’ participation in joint construction of accounts be
described in terms of claims and accounts?

2. How does the language students use support joint construction of
accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the
accounts that students construct?

3. What is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct
and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense—making
about phenomena in the world?

Before considering these questions in detail, it is important to clarify what
is important in these questions that will be the focus of data analysis. Since I
was interested participation in whole class sense-making discussions one might
ask how to examine students’ participation. Whole class sense-making
discussions are “situated in historical development of on-going activity (pg. 51,
Lave & Wenger, 1991).” Therefore students’ actions in discussions must be
considered as situated in on-going activity. Students’ actions, primarily focused
on their talk, can show both the ways that students collaborate with one another
and the practices they engage in to negotiate meaning. Therefore an
assumption is that students, through their participation, negotiate situated
meanings of phenomena and explanations (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Negotiation
of meanings leads to acquisition of practices and understandings of science.
Therefore, for the purposes of this study, I am interested in the ways that
students engage in oral discussions with one another. Within discussions each

individual, through their contributions (or lack of contribution) helps to define

20

through dialogic interaction meanings and individuals in relation to one another

(Bakhtin, 1986).

Participation: How can students’ participation in jointly constructed

accounts be described in terms of claims and accounts?

The challenge is determining how to examine situated activity and
practice. One perspective would be to think about the nature of participant
frameworks, which considers the ways that participants align themselves with
others and the ways they position themselves with respect to the content of a
discussion (O'Conner & Micheals, 1996). Examination of participant frameworks
includes the on-going historical activity with a focus on students’ actions.
However, this will not be sufficient because this study is also interested in the
meanings that are constructed through dialogic interactions. Furthermore, this
does not allow sufficient distinction between social and academic goals in
discussions. Therefore, the model used in this study (represented in Figure 2.1
below) describes discussion contexts in which there is on-going activity.

One way think about students’ participation in discussion contexts is to
consider how different alignments with fellow participants and positioning with
respect to content allow activities that accomplish goals and purposes in the
discussion. I will simplify this here to two continua (shown in Figure 2.1) that
intersect orthogonally at the level of the activity with one focused on the students
and the other focused on the teacher. The student continuum considers
students’ concerns with status and connection at one end and their academic

needs on the other. Similarly the teacher continuum has goals for students’

21

participation and communication and goals for their academic learning at the
other. Given the actions of participants in the situation, the activity in the
discussion context, can shift in any direction along either continuum. For
example, the traditional teacher triadic dialogue (Lemke, 1990) would lay on the
teacher continuum very near the academic learning end and far away from
students’ status and connection goals. On the other hand, students telling about
a weekend trip or their Christmas gifts will probably move toward the student

status and connection end and far away from academic learning.

 

Students' social goals:
tension between achieving social
status animal-ting connections with
peers

Figure 2.1

    
    

 

Discussion
Context

 

 

 

Teacher
academic Teacher
goals for social goals
students: for students:
tensmn tension
between between
application i .‘ . ' ~_ desire and
and inquiry " . .__'-_ .; j; Willingness to
ant W 1' ’ '1 """" ‘ share ideas
developing and ability to
canonical value and
accounts and respect
ways of other's ideas
speaking

 

 

Students' personal academic needs:
tension between understanding
accounts of phenomena and explaning

how to control phenomena

 

22

Unfortunately, this theoretical model is not complete. There are two
problems related to the model that need to be resolved in order to clarify this.
First, there is the problem comes in describing the actions that take place within
the activity. Then, since the study considers joint construction it will be important
to describe how things become taken as shared (Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Cobb &
Yackel, 1995) in a activity and the discussion context. Some of the solution to
these problems comes from considering issues of language that students used in

the discussions.

Language: How does the language students use support joint construction
of accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the accounts

that students construct?

Beginning with actions at the smallest level, the study defined the unit of
analysis as a single utterance. Bakhtin (1986) proposes that we consider the
utterance as the unit of speech communication. This follows a sociolinguistic
tradition arguing that it is inappropriate to treat grammatical sentence units when
analyzing speech acts in conversation.(Austin, 1999; Bakhtin, 1986; Coulthard,
1985). This is because utterances do not always follow grammatical forms and
thus should not be analyzed grammatically. Furthermore, each utterance
becomes a part of the context that defines individuals and ideas in relation to one
another. As a result, this dialogism between individuals and ideas leads to each

utterance having multiple meanings in any given context. (Bakhtin, 1986)

23

Therefore it becomes important to think about both the nature of the utterance
and its polysemous meaning in order to consider each utterance in each
particular context.

In order to analyze the nature and meaning of utterances rests on further
theoretical positions. I have thought of this in terms of speech acts. Linguists’
descriptions of speech acts rest on philosophical, theoretical and empirical work
(Jaworski & Coupland, 1999). Relevant to this study is the notion of speech acts
in discussions. Theorists have described speech acts in terms of the form and
function of utterances in a discussion (Austin, 1999; Grice, 1999). Specifically I
think about forms as the nature of the utterance and function as the possible
meanings an utterance can carry. Sinclair (cited in Coulthard, 1985) proposed
22 speech acts that fall into three categories; meta-interactive, interactive, and
turn-taking. This study will follow this, focusing on the interactive utterances, to
look at their semantic meanings. Meta-interactive utterances can be thought of
as talk about the talk. Turn-taking utterances help manage speakers and turns in
discussions. These are not as prominent in this discussion.

In terms of science education, theories about language used in interaction
with others come together in Lemke’s (1990) comprehensive analysis of oral
language in high school science classrooms. His over-riding construct of
semantic relationships and thematic patterns serves was a foundational
theoretical and analytic framework in this study. A semantic relationship involves
considering how meanings of words fit together to communicate particular ideas.

This relates to utterances that should have discernable semantic relationships.

24

Thematic patterns are patterns of semantic relationships that describe particular
content. (Lemke, 1990) Therefore to consider thematic patterns in discussions
requires looking at relationships between utterances. Therefore thematic
patterns characterize the nature of collective knowledge claims in a discussion.
Discussions in elementary classrooms will not reveal the complexity of thematic
patterns that Lemke found. However, this is a useful approach to analyzing
students’ sense-making in science.

Thematic patterns are important in resolving the second problem with the
theoretical model. Within activity in a discussion context, in order to have joint
construction, utterances must be connected or related to one another. This
focuses on how utterances can become taken as shared (Cobb & Bowers, 1999;
Cobb & Yackel, 1995) in activity and discussion contexts. Thematic patterns are
similar to floors recognizing that speakers and listeners share “psychological time
and space (Edelsky, 1993).” In other words, speakers and listeners attempt to
share a topic and a discussion space and time. This follows conversational
maxims that contributions reflect some cooperative purposes and a generally
accepted direction of discussion (Grice, 1999). Thus the assumption is that each
student utterance logically fits in the ongoing activity. Therefore, I describe, for
the purposes of this study, shared utterances as utterances that use, repeat, or
revise prior utterances in the on-going activity.

This study framed science learning and knowing as activity that involves
developing connected sets of claims (both empirical and theoretical) about the

world, which I refer to as accounts. Accounts develop based on claims of

25

experiences and observations of phenomena, through reasoning about
interpretations of patterns in observations and experiences, and hopefully result
in explanations of those patterns (Anderson, 2001). This chapter considers the
forms and functions of language that students use in oral discussions to
construct and validate through collective processes accounts of phenomena,
using oral discussions to refer to whole class sense-making discussions in
elementary science teaching and learning.

This study faced a particular analytic problem regarding units of analysis
and operational definitions. I identified three analyzable units to consider. The
utterance in this study refers to a single oral language meaning unit. Utterances
can, individually or combined with other utterances, forrn claims. As stated
above, claims are single meaning units that describe or explain phenomena in
the world. Claims can also stand individually or combine with other claims to
form accounts. Accounts attempt to make general statements about the world.

Adding this to the previous model, a more complex, but also more
satisfying model is revealed. This shown in Figure 2.2 revisits the former notion
of continua present in the discussion. However, it is important to note that social
goals in this model connect to activity, while intellectual goals connect to
accounts. This study focuses on academic goals and as a result, will center

observations in the data, patterns and explanations on the accounts.

26

 

Students' social goals:
tension between achieving social
status am’ uniting connections with
peers

Figure 2.2

   
 
 
     

Dis cuss ion
Context

Teacher
academic Teacher
goals for social 15
students: for stu ents:
tension tension
between between desire
application , and
and in ' willingness to
developing share ideas and
canonical ability to value
accounts and and respect
ways of other's ideas

 

 

 

 

 

Students‘ personal academic needs:
tension between understanding accounts
of phenomena 47d explaning how to
control phenomena

 

Content: what is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct
and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making about

phenomena in the world?

Finally, it is important to recall that a goal of science involves constructing,
concise and reliable explanations of phenomena in the world. Scientific
explanations can be referred to as models and theories and are drawn from
experiences that include careful observation, data collection, and inquiry into
phenomena. (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989) Therefore, science literacy in oral
discussions implies talking in ways that develop and use scientific models and

theories to explain observed and/or experienced phenomena. This study was

27

also concerned with the understandings that students develop of scientific
models and theories. Therefore, I considered understanding as “the ability to
think and act flexibly with what one knows (pg. 39, Perkins, 1998).” Therefore we
can consider the how students think and act in their talk with models and theories
as indicators of understanding of science.

Whole group sense-making discussions organically develop accounts of
phenomena. Thus the accounts may not explicitly describe theories or models,
however, such accounts have models and theories embedded in them.
Therefore it helps to have a framework to describe accounts of phenomena. This
study relies on the description of accounts based on ideas from Anderson (2001),
that a scientific account is an interconnected set of experiences, patterns and
explanations. Furthermore, following Kuhn (1993), to be scientific, an account
must respond to all the evidence from the set of available experiences.

Therefore a scientific account consists of an interconnected set of experiences,
patterns and explanations that respond to one another. This leads to three
criteria with which to evaluate a scientific account. First, the set of experiences,
patterns, and explanations needs to be coherently connected with one another
(hereafter referred to as coherence). Second, the range of experiences must
lead to an appropriate set of patterns to explain a complete account (hereafter
referred to as completeness). Finally, the resulting account can be evaluated in
terms of its correspondence with a scientific account (hereafter referred to as

correspondence).

28

Experiences have taken a special place in science curriculum, science
learning, and theories of science teaching and learning. Hands-on experience is
a catchword connected with science learning. The common interpretation is that
this means students will learn science if they manipulate materials and
experience different phenomena. There is growing understanding that
experiences in school alone are not sufficient to develop scientific accounts. One
problem that has been identified is that students come to school with experiences
that may or may not be useful in the process of developing scientific accounts.
Therefore in order to learn science students need to learn conceptualizations that
reflect the ideas of science (Posner et al., 1982; Smith, 1990; Watson & Konicek,
1990). Furthermore it is important to keep in mind that in many cases students’
explanations for how or why phenomena happen in the world are sensible or fit
their particular sociocultural context (Kawagley, Norris-Tull, & Norris-Tull, 1998;
Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery, & Hudicourt—Barnes, 2001).

Thinking about experiences and the explanations of those experiences it
is possible to deconstruct the corpus of explanations suggesting that any attempt
to explain reality will fail due to faults of logic in empiricism (Darrelson, 1985;
Quine, 1953). However, Bazerman (1988) and Latour & Woolgar (1986) provide
more productive approaches suggesting that scientific explanations come
through a combination of social and empirical activity. Explanations are most
productive when based on experience and situated in contexts that allow
collaborative, social action to construct useful and plausible explanations.

Therefore, while students' explanations may not equate the scientific explanation,

29

the process of explaining experiences in a social context is ultimately scientific.
Furthermore, students’ activity in discussions situates them in participant
frameworks in which they can position themselves with respect to content.

Finally an implicit idea in this study was the importance and value of
collaboration in learning. This draws from the ideas about reciprocal teaching
(Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) and Vygotskian (1986) theories of learning.
To begin with working with peers to develop explanations situates students as
learners and sources of knowledge. This follows ideas of reciprocal teaching
allowing students to have shared responsibility in learning and in this case
developing accounts of phenomena. Furthermore the students engaged in
dialogue activate the thought and language connection that is important to
Vygotsky. Students’ collaborating in discussions allows entry at all levels of a
continuum of knowledge and invites peers to state for peers the ideas that are
important in an experience.
Empirical Research

A number of research studies have considered discussions in science
learning, but none have considered issues similar to the structure of this study.
This structure includes consideration of early elementary students, participation
and joint construction in whole group discussions, and sense-making of young
learners. In the following summary of empirical research, I focus on those studies
that have considered similar issues to the particular attributes that distinguish this
study. Recent studies in science education have shown increased attention to

the role of discourse in science learning (Hilton-Brown & Kelly, 2001). A few of

30

these studies look at discourse in terms of oral language used in large group
sense-making discussions. Research has also considered how students develop
explanations in whole group discussions. Findings from this research have
focused on some central themes, including structure of discourse, students’
interactions with one another, and the ways that discussions become challenging
places to make sense of ideas. The findings from these studies help flesh out

the terrain that will be important in this study.
Individuals as participants in a group

Several studies consider the ways participants’ identities and social
positions affect both the degree to which they are willing to participate and the
value that peers place on the contribution of that individual. Thinking about
students’ social position and participation in talks presents a challenge that
teachers often think about in planning and teaching in group activity. Gallas’s
(1995) description of “big talkers” dominating discussions and intimidating peers
offers evidence (and later suggestions for resolution) of the problems that we all
intuitively know are part of whole-group sense making discussions. This
becomes a more complex problem if the issues of domination and intimidation
are not as apparent as the description Gallas (1995) provides of two boys
dominating discussions.

Smith and Anderson (1999) describe a small group of pre-service
teachers working in a social context to learn science. They show that learners’
personal identities as being knowledgeable of science impact their interactions

with subject matter and their peers when learning in socio-cultural contexts.

31

While there are many differences between adult learners and students in their
early experiences in school, the point is that students’ personal efficacy as
knowing science, impacted the actions that they took in classrooms. However,
personal images as being knowledgeable learners of science are not just issues
for pre-service teachers. Barton (1998) shows that students’ identities and
personal efficacy impacted their approaches to science Ieaming and their
interactions with peers in both traditional and non-traditional science learning
contexts. Thus this research suggests that an individual’s sense of personal
efficacy as a science learner is important to actions that individual takes in
science learning.

This complexity of personal efficacy in science learning is confounded by
the ways that teachers and curriculum constrain and bound science learning to
particular ways of knowing. It seems clear that students’ linguistic abilities and
cultural ways of knowing impact personal and public perceptions of their abilities
to think and act scientifically. Some researchers argue that everyday sense-
making offers valid explanations of phenomena, but more importantly offers more
opportunities to engage in discussions that include more participants (Warren et
al., 2001). Similarly Kawagley, Norris-Tull, and Norris-Tull (1998) show that
students’ worldviews, in their case Native American students, impact students’
ways of knowing which has consequences for their science learning. The point
of these studies is that students have different ways of perceiving the world that
are not necessarily wrong, but do not fit the canon of science. This connects to

this study because teachers and students bring implicit images of science to

32

classrooms, which impact their impressions of students’ actions. If those actions,
as the above cited research showed, do not share images of science, there is
potential to marginalize different ways of knowing and acting in science.

One finding from research regarding students’ participation in whole-group
discussions in science classrooms is that students are concerned with status and
friendship groups in the classroom. These concerns and issues do not directly
relate to learning science and lead to constraints in learning for one set of high
school students. (Kelly & Chen, 1999) Further research suggests that in when
learning is situated in whole-group contexts it is important to consider the social
contexts of students’ intellectual activity in science learning. Crawford, Kelly, and
Brown (2000) describe a teacher that attempted to lead more discussions in
classrooms, situate learning in social activity, and to share control of these things
with students. The research shows how this arrangement led to learning through
social processes that focused on intellectual accomplishments of high school
students. The focus of this study is on intellectual activity in social contexts.
Implicit in these findings is that there are personal efficacy and individual social
goals that play out in classroom contexts. However, more work needs to be
done to elaborate on the specifics of individual goals and purposes in classroom
contexts. One question to ask is how students’ social purposes, their need for
status, affiliation, and connection, play out in different contexts.

Other research looks more specifically at the ways that status, affiliation,
and connection impact participation and learning in socially rich science learning

environments. Kurth, Anderson, and Palincsar (2002) consider the social

33

aspects of students’ purposes in interactions in small group science
investigations. They describe how students’ perceived status of group members
impacted the ways that members interact with one another. As a result students
of low status experienced marginalization of participation (Kurth et al., 2002).
Bianchini (1997) describes an intervention in perceptions of social status in small
group work by introducing a model of participant roles to mitigate issues of
status. However, she explains that simply structuring roles in groups is not
enough to tackle complex issues related to social goals and purposes in small
groups. Further, Bianchini (1997) argues that “problems of [students] status are
deeply enmeshed in classroom fabric (pg. 1060).” Thus even in small groups,

there are problems of status, affiliation, and connection between students.
Semantics of oral language and joint construction

Lemke (1990) describes fundamental research on oral language use in
science classrooms. His thorough study of talk in science shows how learning
science means learning to talk science. According to Lemke (1990), many high
school science classrooms rely on triadic dialogues to communicate science
knowledge to students. Triadic dialogues involve a teacher question, the student
responds and the teacher then evaluates the response. However, he also found
that there were patterned forms of communication in science classrooms. His
analysis considers the semantic relationships and thematic patterns of language
occurring in science talk in school. A semantic relationship describes
relationships between words in utterances and a thematic pattern relates

semantic relationships. (Lemke, 1990) This description of talk in science

34

classrooms revolutionized thinking about the language of science in school.
However, all the claims in this study came from secondary science learning and
a natural question is whether the same patterns hold up across grade levels.

A number of different studies look at the nature of oral discussions in
science learning, describing what might be thought of as the “anatomy” (c.f.
Gallas, 1995) of a discussion in science learning. While Gallas (1995) does not
go into the linguistic detail that Lemke (1990) provides, she looks at the ways that
students talk in whole group discussions. Based on her research, she develops
a theory that students through their discussions use oral language in a cyclic
process to propose, support, and extend theories about phenomena in the world.
(Gallas, 1995) Considering students interacting in a large group, as Gallas
(1995) does is helpful to thinking about the nature of language and interactions
that take place in classrooms.

Similarly joint construction in oral discussions has also been researched.
Barnes & Todd (1995) also describe the nature of collaboration in discussions.
They describe students initiating, extending, eliciting and responding to
assertions in discussions, arguing that these discourse moves follow a pattern in
discussions that allow students to collaborate on sense-making. A central
difference for Barnes & Todd (1995) is that their framework does not assume
culmination of the accounts that students are constructing.

Gallas (1995) indicates that students rarely evaluate claims and work hard
to maintain claims that are already in the discussion. Barnes and Todd (1995)

take an even stronger stance saying that students do not evaluate claims.

35

However, the consequence of a focusing on the group is that we do not get much
information about the individual utterances that make up the discussion.
Furthermore, while Barnes and Todd (1995) include empirical knowledge claims,
the discussions Gallas (1995) describes focus on theory and do not help
consider empirical knowledge in classroom discussions.

Research also looks at interactions in classroom discussions. This work
considers the social and cultural aspects of learning to participate in science
discussions that promote learning, focusing on small group work (Anderson,
Holland, & Palincsar, 1997; Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 2000) or whole class
interactions (Kelly & Chen, 1999; Reddy, Jacobs, McCrohon, & Herrenkohl,
1998; Smith & Anderson, 1999; Warren et al., 2001). Hogan, Nastasi, &
Pressley (2000) examine the utterances of students in small group activities in
high school settings. Their analysis codes the nature of students’ statements
which leads to describing the reasoning pattern that students used in their small
group activity. (Hogan et al., 2000) Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery,
and Hudicourt—Barnes (2001) consider whole class discussions and the ways that
students use everyday language and embodied imagining, a strategy of thinking
of what it might be like to be a part of some phenomenon, to construct knowledge
of the world. This study seeks to extend on these bodies of work, adding more
information about the semantic relationships that young students construct in

whole group discussions.

36

Sense-making in discussions

Another approach to considering discussions in science classrooms looks
at the reasoning students engage in during discussions. This requires looking
closely at interactions between students collaborating in discussions. Hogan,
Nastasi, and Pressley (2000) describe the interaction spaces that students and
teachers engage in when collaborating on scientific reasoning. They found
significantly different interaction spaces when students worked alone in groups
as compared to with the teacher in a whole group. A difference that they found
was that reasoning in small groups was more exploratory, while discussions
including the teacher had higher levels of reasoning due to teacher actions in the
discussion. (Hogan et al., 2000) What is not clear from this study is what the
outcome of higher levels of reasoning was on students’ understanding.

There have been attempts to consider how the nature of discussions and
the reasoning of students might lead to developing understanding of scientific
ideas. Bloom (2001) considers whole group sense-making discussions to
examine the ways that students’ claims in discussions lead to particular
accounts5 of phenomena. Bloom shows that students, in the context of an on-
going discussion, can end up making divergent claims that do not lead to
reasoning and as a result create chaotic systems of explanations for students to
interpret. As a result students may struggle to understand science based on

sense-making discussions. This is an important caveat to consider in

 

5 Account follows the term that l have used throughout this study. Bloom does not refer to
accounts. In fact he might argue that this is not an appropriate term since his work showed
chaotic outcomes rather than convergent ones. I present it here as one way to think about
students’ understanding in discussions.

37

discussions and thus why this study centers on the students’ accounts and the
understandings these accounts lead to. The data selection process led to the
selection of convergent accounts (since I used student uptake to guide
selections) so the chaotic problem Bloom (2001) identified, while important to
consider, is not relevant here.

Several studies closely examine the ways that students make sense of
phenomena in science learning. Hulland and Munby (1994) consider sense-
making of students in small and large group discussions. They compare the
sense-making of two students in discussions. They found that one student used
what they describe as scientific reasoning, while the other relied more on stories
and metaphors. (Hulland & Munby, 1994) The findings from this research are
important to this study, but they only reveal how individual students make sense
of phenomena.

Schauble, Klopfer, and Raghavan (1991) also describe the kinds of sense-
making used by groups of students during hands-on science experiments. They
found that groups primarily used an engineering model to conduct investigations
and make sense of the results of their investigations. This is more of an
application of science knowledge to solve a problem, or as they describe, “a
practical exploration for purposes of achieving a desired effect (pg 860).”
(Scauble et al., 1991) These findings do look at groups of students, but the
context of that study was significantly different than this study. The differences of

note were that Schauble et.al. (1991) investigate reasoning of students in

 

6 Chapter Three describes methodologies used in this study. A more complete explanation of
the data selection process is found in that chapter.

38

intermediate grades (5th and 6‘“). This study looks at much younger students.
Furthermore, Schauble et.al. (1991) describe results of students in different
contexts in which students received different tasks to investigate the reasoning
students used based on task structures. This study follows a naturalistic
approach in which there are no interventions in the tasks students were given.

Rath and Brown (1996) also describe students’ reasoning about
phenomena. They identify six modes of engagement that students used to make
sense of phenomena during investigations in a summer camp setting. Similar to
other research, they consider students’ reasoning in small group settings.
Furthermore, the intensive focus on science for a period of three weeks in a
summer camp setting and the fact that the research includes students from a
range of ages in the elementary span distinguishes this research. Based on
findings from their research, Rath and Brown (1996) argue that it is important to
consider both the students social and conceptual orientations in sense-making.
(Rath & Brown, 1996) This study relies on these findings but makes the
distinction of focusing on one classroom of lower elementary students over two
years. In addition, Rath and Brown (1996) focus on small groups while this study
considers whole class discussions.
Summary

There are several points to revisit in this chapter. We can see the ways
that students in whole group sense-making discussions participate and share
utterances of peers to construct accounts of phenomena. Furthermore, the

remainder of this dissertation will use the theoretical model described here to

39

frame the argument of the dissertation. This argument is summarized as saying
that students engaged in joint construction of accounts rely on certain modes of
engagement that they find meaningful and useful. These modes of engagement
are taken as shared, though there are never explicit statements made by
students in terms of what the students find meaningful and useful. These modes
of engagement do not ultimately sound scientific. However, on closer
examination we can see how students are engaged in scientific practices based
on the set of available experiences they have available. Subsequent chapters
describe the methods and data used in this study, patterns in that data, and

explanations of those patterns.

40

Chapter 3

Methods for researching joint construction accounts

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the participants, context, data and methods
used in this study. I was curious about how discussion helped students learn
science and develop proficiencies in scientific discourses. The research asked
how one group of first to third grade students used language in whole group
discussions to jointly construct explanations of phenomena in the world.

It is important to note that the study and the data collected include me as a
teacher in the context. There were a couple of reasons to design the study this
way. To begin with I wanted to study the effects of particular strategies of
instruction. To control those aspects of instruction as much as possible, I chose
to establish myself as the teacher. In addition, this structure situated my as a
participant in the context allowing the benefits of teacher research (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1999). This helped me understand the classroom context and
social positions of students in the classroom. In addition it allowed me to think
about how students participated in a social context, and as a result, learned
about subject matter through participation in whole group discussions. This
helped me understand better how students talk to one another and collaborate
on developing understandings of phenomena in the world.

Of course there are drawbacks to this model of research. As a participant

in the data that were collected, I naturally influenced the outcomes in that

41

context. Furthermore, my knowledge of the subject matter and theoretical ideas
about teaching and learning were quite different than that of a typical classroom
teacher. This potentially impacted the outcomes as well. Finally, my presence
as a volunteer teacher in the classroom allowed me to assume a position of
relatively low accountability. As a result I did not feel the pressures of the highly
structured science curriculum of the district. However, I chose to accept these
drawbacks because my main aim throughout the study was to arrive at “thick
descriptions” (Geertz, 1973) of classroom phenomena. This suggested that I
needed to do more than observe; I also needed to participate.

This chapter begins with a summary of the data collected, including, the
participants, context, and setting. The chapter concludes with despcriptions of
the particular analytic methods related to findings reported in Chapter 4.
Context, Social Setting, and Participants

The study took place in one classroom, a multiage setting spanning three
academic years. I taught science, and conducted the study, in the classroom
beginning in September of 2000 and ending in June 2002. Students remained in
the classroom for up to three years. Therefore some students were only in Year
One or Year Two of the study. However a small subset of students was in both
years of the study. While there might be differences in the length of experience
that students had in the context, this was not the question of the study. I was not
seeking to look at individual performance in the context; rather the intent was to
provide an interpretive account of things happening in the classroom [ref

Erickson, 1986]. The following descriptions contain details not often included in

42

descriptions of participants, but I feel that they give a better glimpse into the
participants and ultimately, this classroom context.

The school was situated in a neighborhood in an urban district (Weiner,
2000). The classroom was an open concept classroom shared by four teachers
leading separate classes. Three of the teachers of these classrooms led multi-
aged classes and collaborated on many activities and teaching plans. The
classroom surprised most visitors. It was well equipped in contrast with common
assumptions about urban schools. It was relatively quiet, given the open concept.
Finally, there was a great deal of student autonomy. This was necessary to
facilitate the multi-age program. There was whole group teaching, but primarily
instruction was tailored to each student. In all content areas there was limited
use of textbook based curriculum materials. Students wrote in journals in all
subject areas. Talk about ideas was a regular activity of this classroom; as a
result students had multiple experiences talking with one another about their
ideas.

During Year One there were almost equal numbers of boys (nine) and
girls (eight) in the class. There were seven children in first grade, four in second
grade, and six in third grade. Racially the class was predominantly (eleven of the
seventeen students) African American. There were two European American
students, one Asian American student, one Hispanic student, and two Bi-Racial
students. There was a twin boy and girl in the second grade. Two students
received services for diagnosed learning disabilities; others waited on

assessment. Based on anecdotal information from students, teacher reports,

43

and other information, a few things were known about students’ home lives. One
student lived in temporary housing (motels). Three of the seventeen children
lived with both biological parents in their home. Three of the children reported
that one of their parents was incarcerated. One first-grade boy was in a single
parent home due to the death of his father. Finally, two students lived in adoptive
or foster care homes.

Between Year One and Year Two, district boundaries were re-drawn,
resulting in school population shifts. Only one student from year one left the
school. Six of the eighteen children were new to the school, eight Year One
students remained, and four students moved up from kindergarten within the
school. In Year Two there were more girls (eleven) than boys (seven). There
were grade-level shifts leading to disproportionate age groupings. There were
four first grade students, seven second grade students, and eight third grade
students. Again the predominant (twelve of eighteen students) racial group was
African American. The remaining groups included four European American
students and two Bi-Racial students. By parent choice, the second grade twins
from Year One were separated, leaving the girl in the classroom and placing the
boy in another classroom in the building. During Year Two, four students
received services for diagnosed learning disabilities. Only one student had a
parent incarcerated, another was under felony warrant. Three students lived with
both biological parents. The student from Year One whose father died remained

in the classroom during Year Two.

44

As the science teacher, I came to the school with a rather non-traditional
set of experiences for a primary grades teacher. I came from upper-middle class
home where both of my biological, European American parents lived. My
undergraduate education was in science. My teacher education came during a
Master Degree Program in science and education and completing requirements
for secondary teacher certification in Oklahoma. However, I spent one year
teaching elementary science in third and fourth grades prior to this teaching
experience. Before pursuit of a Doctorate I taught science lessons to various
groups in an informal setting.

The classroom teacher was former graduate student of education with
more than eight years teaching experience. Four years were at this school, prior
to that she taught in another district school as a classroom teacher and a
Reading Recovery teacher. She had a strong commitment to teacher education;
often allowing teacher education students to observe the classroom. She worked
closely with two other teachers, who had similar multi-age classrooms.

Data Sources

As a participant observer {Atkinson, 1994 #61}, I collected a range of data.
Two primary data sources serve this work: videotapes and field notes. Field
notes were written while watching the regular classroom teacher, or immediately
after I taught a science lesson. Whole group and some small groups were
recorded using a digital video camera and cordless microphone. These were

transferred to a computer, digitized, in some cases transcribed and analyzed.

45

While the computer encoded the video into MPEG format7 I wrote viewing notes,
which served as a second set of field notes. The viewing notes catalogued
events including an extended narrative responding to specific questions about
observations in the video. This primary data set, videotapes and field notes, was
complimented with copies of student journals, individual work on handouts and
worksheets, chart paper of whole group writings, group composed class books,
and informal and formal interviews.

Since I wanted to think about the times that students collaborated in
discussions I first reviewed all sixty-six videotapes. In this review I looked for
moments of potential shared utterances. Potential was determined by any time
that a student repeated the idea of another student or themselves in the
discussion. This review generated a catalogue of instances, which documented
the date, time, discussion, speaker, and a description of the events in that
discussion or moment. This criterion and selection procedure identified five
hundred forty instances that deserved further investigation. It is important to note
that this does not mean students stated five hundred forty original ideas, but
rather that was the number of times that I could clearly identify when one student
used another student’s idea or thought or gave another student credit for an idea.

From this catalogue of potential shared utterances I looked for patterns to
suggest that students were developing thematic sequences. This was a first
attempt to identify moments when students seemed to collaborate with one
another. In order to identify these moments I referred to the video summaries,

transcripts, and occasionally the original video tape. Looking at the catalogue of

 

7 This is a rather lengthy process taking 60-90 minutes.

46

shared utterances and patterns, I identified thirty-one selections (which all
included multiple shared utterances) when students were doing more than
merely repeating previous statements.

To reduce the thirty-one selections to a manageable number, I revisited
these particular selections. I looked again at transcripts, video tape summaries,
and video tapes as needed to make further distinctions in these selections. I
attempted to describe the language, content, and phenomena involved in the
selection. Compiling these descriptions of selections, I noticed that more than
one third (eleven of thirty-one) of these selections involved reconciling various
combinations of students’ experiences with explanations of phenomena. This
subset of eleven discussions was further reduced to six discussions including two
discussions in physical, earth and life sciences to create a manageable data set
that represented a range of subject matter.

Analysis followed approaches designed to be consistent with the research
questions. Students’ turns in transcripts were broken into discernable
utterances. These relied on pauses, topic shifts, and place holding expressions
(umm, err, etc.) to identify bounds of an utterance. Transcriptions were formatted
to include short pauses (l) and long pauses (ll), rising intonation (A), and
overlapping speech (underlined). Commentary about gestures and interactive
issues, such as jumping in, were included in italics. Before describing specific
methods, it will help to have an understanding of the six discussion selections.
For analytic purposes (the discussion contained too many topics to maintain

clear analysis), one discussion selection was broken into two parts, making

47

seven selections. Appendix A presents the seven selected and analyzed
discussions in narrative formats followed by complete transcripts.

In the context of this disSertation it will be difficult to consider all these
discussion selections in detail. Since I was intimately involved in the context, the
students were familiar to me and the topics were ones that I planned lessons
around, it is easier for me to navigate all the discussions, keeping them in my
mind. However, to make this more comprehensible to the reader, I would like to
focus on a subset of focal discussion for this dissertation. In particular I am
interested in discussions that included the greatest number of students involved
and the highest percentages of shared utterances. Since a central focus of this
study was collaboration in discussions, it makes sense to focus on ones that had
high levels of student involvement. To determine this, I counted the number of
students participating in the discussion, the number of utterances each speaker
made and the number of times each speaker’s utterances were shared by
another member of the group. In short I wanted discussions that had the
greatest number of students participating and the highest percentage of students’
utterances being shared. This led to the selection of two focal discussions. From
this set, the third and sixth discussions are treated as focal discussions which
provide the majority of the sample analysis reported and described here.

Data Analysis

Preceding sections of this chapter imply relevant methods for analysis.

This section attempts to make explicit the specific analytic tools and procedures

used in each portion of the analysis (these are summarized as coding schemes

48

in Appendix B). These descriptions of analysis procedures are organized
according to the research questions. The following descriptions of methods will
explain how the data were analyzed and the procedures that led to interpretation
of patterns that are reported in Chapter 4. Specifically, this will describe how I
analyzed the semantic relationships of utterances and shared utterances, the
analysis of thematic patterns in the construction of accounts, and how I analyzed

the nature of the accounts that students jointly constructed.

Participation: how can students’ participation in joint construction of

accounts be described in terms of claims and accounts?

To examine students participation I began by looking at each utterance
Analysis of utterances could not rely on grammatical forms that students used in
their utterances because oral language does not always match the grammatical
form of written language (Austin, 1999; Bakhtin, 1986; Coulthard, 1985; Grice,
1999). In addition, this would not help develop understandings of students’ use
of language to develop thematic sequences that positioned themselves around
ideas. Therefore, analysis turned to a semantic analysis of utterances (Lemke,
1990). Such an analysis looks at utterances in terms of how words relate to one
another. Initially coding followed Lemke’s description of semantic relationships
common to the language of science in secondary classrooms. However, the
prominent use of the pronoun you, which is not included in Lemke’s descriptions,
made it necessary to develop additional semantic relationships that described

utterances that made claims about human agency.

49

Lemke (1990) suggests that semantic relationships alone will not be
sufficient in analysis of oral language in science classrooms. The point is that
talking, and in this case talking in science, is not aboutjust knowing the meaning
of words, it is also about how words when put together, have particular meaning.
Furthermore, there are connections between the meanings these meanings that
Lemke (1990) refers to as ‘thematic development strategies.’ Thematic
development strategies describe the nature of what I have called thematic
sequences. I looked at coded utterances for consistency and patterns to infer
the thematic development strategies that students used in discussions. These
thematic development strategies were used to describe the nature of students’
claims, which consequently were part of thematic sequences. Thus this became
an examination of relationships between students’ utterances in the development
of knowledge claims.

The thematic sequences were helpful in describing what was meaningful
and useful to students in the discussion contexts. Based on this coding, it was
possible to develop discussion maps that showed the main utterances in a
thematic sequence, whether these utterances were shared, and which shared
utterances received the most attention in the discussion context. Discussion
maps are similar to concept maps, showing the overall progression of utterances,
claims, and thematic sequences of discursive activity in a discussion context.
The discussion maps are arranged with a vertical timeline running the start of the
discussion at the top of the figure to the end of the discussion at the bottom of

the figure. A box identifies each thematic sequence, with individual utterances

50

also running vertically inside the thematic sequence. Arrows are sure to connect
shared utterances with the initial utterance within and across thematic
sequences.

Discussion maps provided insight into the thematic sequences that
students most engaged in talking about. These same maps provided insight into
the ways that students made accounts that were complete and coherent in their
own terms. The maps were helpful in identifying patterns in the shared
utterances. Such patterns were useful in generating narratives of the accounts,
summaries of the claims, and in identifying the things that were meaningful and

useful in an account of phenomena.

Language: How does the language students use support joint construction
of accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the accounts

that students construct?

This study also analyzed the accounts that students jointly constructed in
the course of the discussions for their accuracy and also to highlight challenges
faced by teachers and students alike in such discussion contexts. This analysis
starts with the analysis of students’ utterances, to look at how relationships
between knowledge claims combined to form accounts of phenomena. This
maintained attention on the ways that students positioned ideas in the discussion
context.

I also wanted to know about the kind of understanding that was possible in
the particular context of the discussion. This kind of analysis could not be

satisfied by looking at either utterances or thematic sequences. Rather it

51

required looking across the thematic sequences to the complete account.
Because of this, methods of analysis took on two approaches: 1) first looking at
knowledge claims to determine the nature and substance of the claim and 2)
second examining how students combined claims in the account.

The first analytic approach focused on the knowledge claims students
used to communicate aspects of a scientific account. This essentially applied a
heuristic of scientific activity (Anderson, 2001; Anderson et al., 1997; Kurth et al.,
2002) which considered whether utterances expressed experiences, patterns or
explanations. The fundamental notion is that scientific accounts consist of
connected sets of claims that explain patterns of phenomena in the world.
Connecting this to the heuristic, experiences are either observations of events or

actions that provide the user observations of events related to phenomena.

Content: What is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct
and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making about

phenomena in the world?

Epistemologically science knowledge is based on a large set of
experiences in the world. For example, a person can observe the Sun each
morning in the eastern sky and every evening the Sun is in the western sky.
Patterns then attempt to describe relationships between the set of experiences
that students consider. So the observer can infer the pattern that the Sun rises
in the east and sets in the west. Finally explanations attempt to tell why

particular patterns occur. In the case of the Sun rising, one explanation is that

52

the Sun orbits around the Earth. Another explanation suggests that the Earth is
spinning, resulting in different sides of the Earth facing the Sun.

From this scientific perspective utterances were coded as communicating
experiences, patterns and explanations. Given that this is a somewhat
hierarchical model, the hypothesis would be that there would be a large number
of experiences, leading to a smaller number of patterns, and resulting in the
fewest number of explanations (Anderson, 2001; Anderson et al., 1997; Kurth et
al., 2002). Utterances were further coded, building on a constant comparative
approach [ref] for the ways that they asserted, elaborated, or evaluated
preceding claims of the developing account. Looking at the coded utterances it
was possible to begin to develop an idea about the accounts students were
constructing.

Since a central focus of this study was on the participant frameworks that
students developed, a remaining question asks how the participant framework
leads to the development of an account. This required a shift in units of analyses
to look at the collective account generated by students. The problem is that it
has been shown that students’ explanations of phenomena do not always match
the scientific account of phenomena (Posner et al., 1982; Smith, 1990; Watson &
Konicek, 1990). Therefore it is likely that the accounts students generated might
not reflect a scientific account. In order to conduct an analysis of accounts, the
main claims made by students and accepted by their peers were synthesized into

a single account. Then a scientific account for the same phenomena was

53

constructed. Finally the two accounts were compared for consistencies and
inconsistencies.
Summary and looking forward

This chapter has presented the data sources and methods of analysis
used in this study. In particular, the data was described in detail in order to
familiarize the reader with the data and context, but also to highlight the two focal
discussions. These focal discussions will be the primary pieces analyzed in the
following chapter. Finally, Chapter Five discusses those findings and offers

explanations about why and how they make sense.

54

Chapter 4

PATTERNS OF JOINT CONSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY

SCIENCE DISCUSSIONS

Introduction

To this point I have described a theoretical model, past empirical work, the
context and data collection, and methods for analysis for this study. These
descriptions focused on ways to explore the research questions. Recall that the
overarching research question asked for descriptions of the ways that groups of
students collaborate on explanations of phenomena in the world. This involved
three sub-questions:

1. How can students’ participation in joint construction of accounts be
described in terms of claims and accounts?

2. How does the language students use support joint construction of
accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the
accounts that students construct?

3. What is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct
and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making
about phenomena in the world?

These questions will again serve as an organizing structure to describe patterns
in findings related to participation, language, and content. Specific methods of

analysis will not be discussed here. Chapter Three described these methods.

55

Appendix A includes narrative and transcribed version of each selected
discussion. Appendix B defines the coding scheme and operational definitions
for analysis.

The findings presented in this chapter show patterns in the students’
utterances, claims, and accounts of phenomena. Presentation of these patterns
first considers the focal discussions, followed by relevant patterns from the other
selected discussions. Patterns in the data reveal how students’ shared
utterances were built around shared semantic relationships that involved
statements about human agents exerting control over phenomena in the world.
Students’ shared utterances were related in thematic sequences that led to joint
construction of accounts. Analysis of patterns in students’ accounts revealed
that their sense-making focused on describing patterns in their experiences that
allowed students to describe ways to exert control over phenomena. Therefore,
the central claim of this chapter is that the accounts that seemed meaningful and
useful for students focused on joint construction of claims and accounts about
human agents acting in the world. Conversely, when I attempted to alter the
thematic and semantic nature of claims and accounts to be about phenomena in
the world abstracted from human action in the world, the result was reduction of
joint construction.

Participation: How can students’ participation in joint construction of
accounts be described in terms of claims and accounts?

A fundamental goal of this study was to arrive at some understanding of

the ways students jointly constructed accounts in collaborative discussions.

56

Therefore it was initially important to identify patterns in students’ participation
and the nature of utterances that supported students’ joint construction. This
section considers students’ participation by looking at patterns in students’
shared utterances. Looking at the focal discussions, the following findings report
students’ use of shared utterances to participate and the role of human agency in

students’ shared utterances.
Participation relies on shared utterances

It seems obvious that participation relies on shared utterances. However
the complexities of participation and the role shared utterances is important. The
following section describes the ways that students shared utterances by looking
at discussion maps8 of each focal discussion. Then more general descriptions of
shared utterances are made across the selected discussions.

Wind and Kites

 

Figure 4.1 represents the wind and kites discussion. It focuses on the
actions students made in the discussion. Each large box is a thematic
sequenceg, with speakers represented inside these boxes. The smaller boxes
represent speaker’s turns. It is important to note that this analysis focuses on
speaker’s turns, of which each turn may include one or more shared utterances.
Arrows show uses of shared utterances. Solid arrows stay with in the thematic
sequence, while dashed arrows represent shared utterances across thematic

sequences. The grey circles number the thematic sequences to enable further

 

8 See chapter 3 and the appendix for descriptions of discussion maps.
9 Thematic sequences receive more detailed attention later in this chapter.

57

discussion below. In the upper right hand corner a grey box is a key that

explains abbreviations in the boxes.

 

 

Figure 4.1

 

 

 

 

START Mien—Tm (1)
mg (lines 1.19)

 

 

Teacher question (1)
Surdenls' response (2,3)
Teadier qustion (4)
Students' response (5)

. Teacher question (4)
maident response (13)

 

 

 

Teacher quest'nn (14) 1

 

 

 

FINISH

 

 

 

Student Initiated Thematic
Seggence (lines 14-32)

 

Student initntbn (21-29)

 

 

a Teacher response (30-1)

 

a Student response (32)

 

 

FIGURE KEY

?-quest'nn
R—Response
I-hirizeion
SU-Shared
Lhemce
A-Aligimtm
E-Evaluz'nn
S-Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stucknt Revitalized Thenntic

Seggence (lines 38-46)

 

Student reveal'ue (38-40)

 

fl Teadier response (41)
Student response(44~45)

 

 

 

 

I. Student hifiatbn (534.2)

 

 

Teacher Initiated Thematic
Seggence (lines 78-100)

 

? Teacher question (78.92)
R Student response (93)

i S U Teacher questbn (9 4-96)
SU Student response (97)

 

 

 

Student response (99)

 

m Teadrer question (100)

Q

 

 

 

Al' GtEvaluate Thematic
Seggence (lines D8425)

 

 

A Teacher questbn (101:)
R Students' response (109)

—R Student response (112)
A Teacher claim(1 13)

a Teacher request (115)

 

 

“Student response (117)

 

Teadrer revoic' 120

 

Teadaer response (125)

 

«a

 

 

 

 

58

The first thematic sequence (circle 1) shows what might be thought of as a
triadic dialogue with teacher questions followed by student responses.
Subsequent sequences in this discussion included greater student talk and more
shared utterances within and across sequences. The next three thematic
sequences indicated by circles two, three, and four, show students using shared
utterances for various purposes. At circle two, Marquisha initiated claims about
flying kites, building on a prior student claim about string (shown by the dashed
line). Next, at circle three, Lora shared Marquisha’s idea, shown by the dashed
arrow, to revitalize the thematic sequence initiated by Marquisha. Finally, circle
four presented an interesting use of shared utterances. Rodger referred to an
earlier utterance, to initiate a thematic sequence about making kites. However,
the group did not share his claims. This is seen in figure 4.1 since no arrows
point to the box representing this claim.

After this I initiated a new thematic sequence (circle five). Previously the
thematic sequences that l initiated led to triadic dialogues. However, this
initiation built into a thematic sequence (circle six) that involved me aligning
students and ideas, providing opportunities for students to engage with theories
and one another. Ultimately my summary statement, line 125, implied there was
no correct answer and that we now had a jointly constructed question.

Figure 4.1 highlights points in the discussion when students shared
utterances to participate within or across thematic sequences. Looking at this

discussion map it is possible to see that shared utterances did support students’

59

participation, but it does not show how this took place. For that sort of analysis, it
will be necessary to look more closely at transcripts of the thematic sequences.

What are seeds?

 

The second focal discussion took place about the same time during the
second year of data collection. This discussion was different in a few aspects.
Most notably the students moderated turns in this discussion, which I took
responsibility for in the first discussion. As a result there were more opportunities
for students to call on friends. This also removed me from being a controlling
participant in this discussion, which had benefits and drawbacks. The central
point is that my relative absence in this discussion allowed students to determine
the ‘rules’ for participation. As a result, this discussion seemed to include more
shared utterances.

The discussion is represented in Figure 4.2 below. Using the same
features as in figure 4.1, students’ comments were removed, to focus on their
actions in the discussion. Each large box represents a thematic sequence, with
speakers represented inside these boxes. The smaller boxes do not represent
specific utterances, but turns. The arrows represent shared utterances across
turns. Solid arrows stay with in the thematic sequence, while dashed arrows
represent shared utterances across thematic sequences. The grey circles
number the thematic sequences to enable further discussion below. In the upper

right hand corner a grey box is a key that explains abbreviations in the boxes.

60

 

 

Figure 4.2

START

 

FINISH

 

    
   
   
 
   
 
   

FIGURE KEY
? — question

5 tudent

 

 

 

 
 

Teacher Initiated Thematic
Seggence (lines 230-237)

 

Student

 

61

 

This focal discussion looks quite different from the wind and kites
discussion when presented in this format. However, it did begin (circle one)
similarly with a teacher question. The difference was that students took up the
question with more than nominal answers (see transcript and further analysis
below).

The next two thematic sequences were primarily filled with student talk.
One reason for this was that students determined who spoke by calling on one
another to speak. I was present in these (see transcript in Appendix A), however
this primarily served to urge students to call on the next speaker.

In the second thematic sequence (circle 2), Rodger initiated the thematic
sequence by drawing on shared utterances from a non-consenting student.
Rodger claimed that the seeds people plant grow into plants. The ideas that
seeds grow and that humans are vital in plant growth became a shared utterance
used by a number of students. In line 140 (circle two), Annie summarized
comments and simultaneously removed references to humans. While her
comment, unlike several others in this thematic sequence, did not get used by
peers directly, it did introduce a transition in the discussion.

Another interesting thing happened at circle three. Brittany evaluated
Erin’s claim (line 146). Her evaluation and challenge was about specific aspects
of the claim, which was resolved easily. Later, at circle six, Rodger attempted to
copy Brittany’s approach (line 201-202). This is interesting because Rodger
attempted, though unsuccessfully, to share the structure that Brittany used to

challenge Erin and embed in the Annie’s utterances.

62

Participation in other selected discussions

The focal discussions were selected because they included the greatest
percentage of student involvement and the greatest number of shared
utterances. However, across the remaining selected discussions patterns in
shared utterances leading to participation were similar to those described above.
Namely this was that students relied on shared utterances to either modify or
extend on a prior statement, to connect a new utterance with those already
shared, or to challenge the claims of a peer (this happened only twice in all of the

coded utterances).

Students participated in accounts sharing utterances that involved human

agents acting in the world.

One pattern that emerged in the data was that students’ participation was
greatest when jointly constructing accounts that involved human agents acting in
the world. The general pattern was that students began by describing their
experiences in the world and ways that they successfully controlled phenomena
through their own or others’ actions in the world. The result was that students
developed accounts that sound like practical explanations of ways to do things.
Occasionally students managed to abstract general principles to make more
decontextualized statements, but ultimately this was not a frequent occurrence.

The following section again presents detailed descriptions of the ways that
this pattern can be seen in the focal discussions. In addition, there are times
presented that describe students’ abstraction of decontextualized statements.

However, it will be seen that these are infrequent. At the end of the section, I

63

provide further descriptions of students’ participation in the remaining selected

discussions.

Wind and Kites

 

In this first focal discussion, I initiated the topic by asking students to

answer my questions about flying kites. Participation in this portion of the

discussion triadic dialogue involving a teacher question, followed by a student

answer, and then the teacher responds with evaluation of the student response.

The consequence was that students did not participate in joint construction of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

accounts.

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary
What has everybody nominal question with
been playing with that is one correct answer

1. Mr. E. so exciting and always
want to take out at recess
when we go outside"
Darrel kites answer
Marquisha kites shared utterance
answer
. Redirect answer as
7
Mr. E. How do those kites work. question
5. multiple WIND Answer
6. Mr. E. Tell me a little more Redirect for further
I mean just the wind explanation
7. Mr. E. doesn’t tell me how the
kite works
Classroom management; thematic sequence maintained
12. Mr. E. Bobby I how question
13. Bobby the string Answer
. Redirect answer as
A
14. Mr. E. What about the string question.

 

 

 

 

 

The focus was on my questions and goals for students, with only one shared

utterance. It is unclear whether that was intended to repeat the idea orjust two

64

 

students with the same idea in succession. To maintain my focus I redirected
each student answer as a new question. However, my questions in lines four,
seven, and fourteen, were sufficiently open to allow students more than single
word responses. Yet students’ single word answers implicitly supported my
control and attempted to appease my requests.

It is interesting to note that in line eight, there was some disorder, when l
evaluated and redirected multiple students’ collective claim “wind.” One
interpretation is that students were confused about my redirection and unsure
about what would count as an adequate response. Another interpretation is that
this sequence was not allowing them to pursue accounts they found meaningful
and useful, and thus they resisted the focus I established in the discussion.

Next, Marquisha initiated a new topic by drawing in prior ideas about the
importance of the string and wind. However, she altered the discussion focus;

her claim rested on human agency as the central cause in kite flight.

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary

The reason how a kite initiates talk about
flies audio disruption causes

beginning in middle of introduces a human
utterance you make it agent

shared utterance
‘string’ including it in
actions of agent

you get the string and restates ‘string telling
you wind it in a big ball human actions on string__
human agency; ‘it’
represents the string

26. Marquisha and then you just run human agent acting

and it goes up in the shifted ‘it’ to kite; shared
air by the wind utterance of wind

the wind blows and restate wind telling how
goes up in the air

 

21. Marquisha

 

22. Marquisha

 

and then put the string

23' Marqwsha and stuff on it

 

24. Marquisha

 

25. Marquisha and you hang on to it

 

 

27. Marquisha

 

 

 

 

 

 

28. Marquisha

 

65

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary
restate (line 21) ‘kite
flies’ = ‘it’s flying

 

29. Marquisha and it’s flying

 

 

OK you’ve told me a evaluation of claims
30. Mr. E.

good story about how

But I still don’t redirect by ‘it’s flying’ =
31. Mr. E. understand how the ‘the kite is flying’ as

kite is flying implicit question

 

response to implicit

32. Marquisha ltjust flies . .
question, restate

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marquisha’s focus on human agency shifted the focus of the discussion.
The result was this reads like a pushing match for power in the discussion. My
evaluation and redirection (lines 30-31) implied a question that attempted to
change the focus away from human agency to material objects acting in the
world independent of human action. I used “OK but” and then shared “flying”
from Marquisha to reject human agency and shift to claims that did not involving
human agency. Marquisha responded (line 32) without referring to human
agency; but implied, using “just flies,” that my focus on material objects and
causes was ‘just’ something that happens and not relevant to her claims or the
account she would find meaningful and useful. Marquisha’s response (line 32)
avoided human agency. But her restatement of ‘flying’, which described
conditional action, shifted to ‘flies’, which focused on action. This left the
possibility of a human agent making the kite fly without explicitly stating it.

This was followed by a break caused by student interruption. After five
lines I managed to yield the floor to another student. She revitalized Marquisha’s
focus, using shared utterances about human agency, which she combined with

claims about material objects.

66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary
38. Lora The wind I Shared Utterance wind
. Shared Utterance
39. Lora the string controls the string, adds a function
kite -
for the stnng
so when you want to Revitalize human
move it in different agency claim,
directions you have connecting this to the
40. Lora . . . .
something to make it string function
move in different
directions
So the string sort of sgzgggesgjggw
41. Mr. E. helps you to control the .
kite A agency claim to follow
the thematic sequence
42. Mr. E. Is that what you said" Invitation to respond
43. Mr. E. Just a minute Rodger Request; response to
bld to speak
If you want to fly a kite Restate human agency
44. Lora . . . . .
you have to have string clarm, rncludrng string
4 5 Lora When you have string it Reformulate function of
‘ doesn’t make it fly away the string
46. Mr. E. OK Acknowledgement

 

Lora revitalized attention on human agency, which established a

connection with Marquisha, while making claims (lines 38 &39) that matched my

desires for the account. My redirection in line 41 only asked her to confirm her

claims. Potentially her inclusion of utterances consistent with my wishes made

me avoid challenging her like I did with Marquisha.

Following this, I used meta-linguistic utterances to model ways to agree

and disagree in discussions for students. I use meta-linguistic to refer to my

statements that told students about acceptable ways to talk in the discussion, but

did not add substantively to the discussion. The result of this move created a

break in the ongoing activity that allowed another student to initiate a new topic.

This new topic also described human control over phenomena.

67

 

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary

Shared utterance string
and kite, talking about
the functions of those
things

Initiates talk about
methods used by
impersonal “they’

Then they get a I make a Methods continued

T or something
Then / like those other Adds characteristics
61. Rodger kites / they just have a

 

The string control the
58. Rodger kite because for the kite
to stay up in the air

 

First they make it out of
59. Rodger wood

 

60. Rodger

 

 

little bit of thing

Then the last time had Tells about a personal
62. Rodger one of those / mine fall experience flying kites

apan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rodger, sharing utterances from prior speakers, described the functions of
the string, which connected him to the developing account about human agents
acting. This should have positioned his utterances as part of the group’s jointly
constructed account of flying kites. However, others did not share his claim.
Failure to have his ideas to become taken as shared positioned Rodger uniquely
in the discussion context. He attempted to be a contributor, but failed to do have
peers see his contribution as meaningful or useful. The question is whether this
was because of his shifting from flying to making kites, or whether it was in
response to his status in the classroom").

At the end of Rodger’s turn a new topic was initiated. I drew a picture on
the board to represent my question. The drawing scaffolded student claims and
established a thematic sequence that related wind and kite flight. The following

selection picks up after the drawing was complete.

 

1° Social status affecting shared utterances may be very important. However, this study did not
focus on the relationship between students’ status and their peers sharing their utterances.

68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary

Which direction is the Restate from line 78
92. Mr. E. . .

wrnd blowrng"
93. Kelvin this way claim

. . . Redirect using shared
A
94. Mr. E. Which IS this way utterance (line 93)
95. Mr. E. Is it blowing this way" Restate (line 94)
96. draws on board is it Restate (line 95)
Mr. E. . . . A
blowrng like this
repeat or shared
97. Kelvin its this way gesturing utterance (line 93 OR
96)

98. Darrel naa/

. . shared utterance
99. Darrel its blowrng that way counterpoint (line 97)

So I should have my refonnulate (line 99)
100. . .

Mr. E. arrow pornting over

here"
101. Darrel yes
102. multiple overlapping talk

 

 

 

 

 

This continued for the remainder of the discussion. There are two
possible interpretations described here. One is that l dominated the discussion,
convincing students to follow my desires and develop a set of claims that related
wind and kite flight. A second interpretation is that students and l were jointly
constructing, in this portion of the discussion, claims about relationships between
wind and kite flight. I argue that given the interchanges between speakers, that
so many students and l were in the same “psychological time/space” (Edelsky,
1993) that this is more likely an instance of joint construction in which we
participated in using shared utterances and claims. Furthermore, in the final line
of the transcript, once it was clear that students did not agree, I suggested that
this was something to check out. Thus I did not evaluate or judge their ideas, but

was jointly involved with them in understanding this particular phenomenon.

69

What are seeds?

 

The second focal discussion was also initiated by a question I asked; I

asked students to define seeds. The following transcript begins after I asked the

question, provided instructions about norms, and yielded the floor to Annie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary
9 A . It‘s something that grows Initiate topic as growth
. nnie . . .
into a plant relationship
10 M OK opens journal to Acknowledgement
. r. E.
make notes
11. Annie Isaac Invitation to speak
Intenuption as l negotiate with students about using science journals.
25 Isaac A seed is like / is s... / is SharedUtterance (is
' something / something)
Shared Utterance
26 Isaac is something that before (plant) supports prior
' it it’s a plant I claim using different
structure
like it’s a flower or a like
27. Isaac tree
28. Isaac it starts out as a seed Restate - return to idea

 

Initially Annie makes a claim about seeds growing into plants (line 9).

What remains unclear is what conditions are required for growth. There are a

range of possibilities, but this initiates a topic that students could share. Isaac

used a shared utterance to connect his ideas with claims made by Annie.

However, his claims added detail in terms of a plant being ‘a flower or a tree’ and

avoided the conditional claim about growth. Furthermore, his claim actually fit

the nature of the question better than Annie’s claim. She described seeds

growing, which does not define seeds. Isaac generated an utterance that

sounded more like a taxonomic statement that related seeds to their adult

70

 

counterpart. Thus, he used the same ideas, but revised the claim to sound more
scientific.

Following this there was an extended discussion, lasting 81 lines of
transcript, which focused on claims from a non-consenting student. While these
utterances are not examined, they were important in the discussion because they
led into subsequent utterances (that included primarily consenting students) that
described planting and growing seeds. This was important because it
established important claims that continued throughout the discussion. For

example, Rodger picked up on the idea and implicit experience of planting seeds:

 

 

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary
103. Rodger I got like some real big
seeds
. . Shared Utterance NC
104. Rodger :2; 'f you mg a small student talked about
planting seeds

 

105. Rodger that won’t work for it
106. Rodger if it is a real big seed
you got to dig the hole Initiates topic about
107. Rodger real deep so it will grow requirements for growth
good
Sequence of non-consenting student turns
A seed even grows into Shared Utterance line 9
a plant
130. Breanne First it has leaves Continues adding
and the green little plant information about stages
comes from the seed but of plant growth
it also comes from the
stem too

OK a couple more managing talk
132' Mr. E' people are still waitim
133. multiple overlapping talk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

129. Breanne

 

 

131. Breanne

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

134. Mr. E. quickly request
135. Breanne Erin invitation to speak

. . Shared Utterance steps
136. Erin First you plant the seed in planting seeds

 

71

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary

 

 

137. and when you give a Shared Utterance seed
Erin seed water it grows into needs for growth and
a plant line 9
138. and you keep on Restate self

Erin watering it and then it
grows into a flower
139. Erin Annie invitation to speak
Shared Utterance takes
up several preceding
ideas and synthesizes,
adding new information
OK now we are talking Shared Utterance

141. Mr. E. about the things a seed
needs

 

 

A plant seed / a seed
140. Annie needs waterl light / and
ummdm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These utterances were not only important in for including many ideas that
students continued to talk about, it also included several speakers, all using
shared utterances to participate in joint construction. Rodger built (line 104),
using a shared utterance, a claim that integrated human agency and introduced
the notion of seeds requiring certain things for plant growth. Implicit in this was
that human agents were required for plant growth. Subsequently, Breanne
talked about plant growth (lines 130-131), sharing the early definitions of seeds
by Annie and Isaac (line 129). This was only important because following
Breanne, Erin continued (line 136), connecting to Breanne and Rodger, that plant
seeds also need humans to provide the seeds water.

A slight shift occurred when Annie drew on shared utterances, adding that
plants need light (line 140). However, her claim shifted out of statements of
human agency, while retaining clear connections to peers. It was almost like
Annie wanted to summarize the claims similar to what a teacher does in a

revoicing move (O‘Conner & Micheals, 1996). This effectively shifted the

72

discussion from being about human agents acting, to generalizable phenomena
in the world.

Following this, one student evaluated another’s claim. Brittany used a
shared utterance to challenge Erin saying, “not all seeds grow into flowers (line
146).” Erin acknowledged this and replied, “flowers, plants, and other kinds of
stuff (line 149).” Both girls connected their assertions with prior claims.
Furthermore this shows an explicit instance when students jointly constructed a
more complete, though not entirely complete, claim about seeds and plants.

Following this there were a few turns from a non-consenting student. In
these turns an idea comes up that must be mentioned, without analysis. The
student commented about seeds being in food. This led to my bid for the floor,
by raising my hand as any speaker would, and initiating a new topic in the form of
a question. I wanted to know ‘where do seeds come from?’ Students used
shared utterances to respond to this question. It is important to note that my
question allows for either a scientific explanatory framework (describing
reproduction) or a practical framework (describing where and how human agents
obtain and exert control over seeds). The turns in portion of the discussion were
broken with both non-consenting student speech and management interruptions.

However the main points include the following excerpts.

 

 

 

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary
170. Mr E Isaac I where do seeds Initiate seed origins
' ' come from?
171. Isaac Nature response seed origins
. Redirect Shared
A
172. Mr. E. But where in nature Utterance nature

 

 

 

 

Isaac struggles, Mrs. C. asks him to repeat, and then the tum shifts

 

 

 

73

 

 

 

 

on the dirt

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary
179. They grow on kinds of Shared Utterance seed
Beverly . .
trees ongrns
180. Beverly and then fall Extend seed ongrns
. Shared Utterance
181. Beverly and sometimes they fall seeds grow in dirt (line

140)

 

Minor management; Beverly yields to Annie

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

out

 

189. A . Trees have audio Shared Utterance trees
nnie .
glitches
Shared Utterance
190. . If you got a tree seed .
Annie . seeds grow into trees
and you want to grow it (line 27)
191. Annie and that tree grows Restate Irne 127
seeds
192. Annie and umm and it
they get to little seeds Shared Utterance NC
193. A . and sometimes those student idea that there
nnie . . .
little seeds grow into are seeds in food
food
and the food drops and Restate line 181, adding
194. Annie some of the seeds come that fruits fall containing

seeds.

 

The students used shared utterances to jointly construct claims and an

account. My initial question was similar to the nominal question | asked in the

kites and wind talk. However, in this case students effectively worked within my

question to develop answers that were went beyond nominal responses. It is

interesting that Beverly drew on an idea from Annie in line 181, implying that

seeds need to be in dirt to grow. Then Annie returned to share an utterance with

Beverly in line 194. Annie also included ideas from a non-consenting student.

This is interesting because the student whose idea Annie took up was well-liked

by other students, spoke often in discussions, and was one of the older students

in the class. The joint construction between Beverly and Annie is also interesting

74

 

because these girls were not popular students in the class. So it was as if they

shared a social benefit by sharing ideas of one another.

Next there was another evaluation; however it was not as simple as the

first evaluation. Rodger jumped in (line 201), without permission, to challenge

one of Annie’s claims. His challenge is interesting in a few ways. First it is

interesting to look at the nature of the challenge. Then it is interesting to

consider the shared utterances he draws on in the challenge. Finally it is

interesting to consider this in light of Annie’s recent collaborations with Beverly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary
200 Rodger Annie / I got a question Bid
‘ for o
y u
Rodger Like you said how would Citation claims that
a all seeds grow into a Annie said seeds grow
201. umm flower into flowers — NOTE:
Repeats Brittany’s
challenge of Erica
202. Rodger That’s what you said
203. Annie huh-uhh Disagreement with claim
204. Annie Here’s what I said Report
Annie If you have a umm tree Restate lines 190-191
205. seed and you plant it
and it grows and if has
206. Annie some trees have Restate
207. Rodger I don’t get it
208 Annie then they grow little Restate line 193
' seeds on them
209. Annie and then they grow food Restate line 193
Annie and sometimes the food Restate line 194
21 O. f
alls off
211. Annie and it the seed Restate line 194
Annie continues to restate all her prior claims, eventually she
concludes to say that it is “like a Iifecycle (line 218). ” At this point I
jump in.

 

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary
Mr. E. What I thought Rodger Citation/Shared

was saying was that it Uterance interpretation

225. sounds like you are of Rodger's challenge to
saying Annie that all Annie.
seeds come from trees//

226. Mr. E. Is that what you mean"

227. Annie I just mean some seeds Acknowledgement

 

 

 

 

 

Rodger attempted to mimic the strategy Brittany used to challenge Annie.
Thus the nature of the challenge is one that should be successful since it was for
Brittany. In fact, he almost used her words verbatim. However, it seemed
unsuccessful and Rodger essentially gave up (line 207). The problem that
Rodger faced was that Annie never in the whole discussion said anything about
flowers. Thus Rodger may have had a logical challenge, which I interpreted for
him in line 225, but he was unsuccessful given the inaccuracy of his challenge.
His sharing of utterances needed to be from Annie’s claims and then using
Brittany’s approach. This was essentially how I interpreted his challenge.

It is also interesting to consider why Rodger challenged Annie and if it was
anything more that a coincidence that this came right on the heels of Annie’s
collaboration with Beverly. Early in the discussion Rodger made utterances that
a number of students shared. It is possible that he was hoping for a similar
status building opportunity in this challenge.

Finally I continued, after interpreting Rodger’s challenge, to challenge
Annie. I took an opportunity to revitalize my own questions (line 168). Rodger

then jumped in (line 230), almost building an alignment with me.

76

 

Line Speaker Utterances Commentary
228 M Some seeds come from Shared Utterance
. r. E. .
trees Beverly & Annie
229. Mr. E. So where does
jumping in Like what Restate unsure,
230' R°dge' kind of possibly line 228
Well maybe we don’t Restateline 231
231. Mr. E. need to know what
kinds//

 

 

 

 

 

. Redirect Shared
Like where do other
232. Mr. E. seeds come from" ggggance Beverly &

 

If not all of them come Restate line 232
233. Mr. E. from trees where do
other ones come from "
234. Annie Stores sometimes Response

235. Annie umm I I don’t know what Restate line 234
they come from

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The main point is that Rodger jumped in during my question in line 229,
attempting to collaborate with me in my question. My response again interpreted
Rodger, but maintained that his question was not the one that I was asking. This
is interesting because he allowed this similar joint construction by me a few
moments earlier. It might be that he was attempting to build an alignment with
my in order to develop a higher status in the class.

Summarizing, students were successful in using shared utterances to
initiate and support participation. This allowed the students to jointly construct an
account about seeds. There was limited evaluation of claims in the account,
though never the whole account. Students had more opportunities in this
discussion to enact social purposes. In contrast with the wind and kites
discussion, I was a participant in the discussion, seeming to stimulate and

support student discussion and thinking. Finally human agency was important in

77

students’ jointly constructed account, including the planting and care of seeds to
make them grow. However, students’ use of human agency was less explicit,
sounding more like examples.
Participation in other selected discussions

In the selected discussions, students followed similar patterns of
participation. Students were most likely to share utterances that described
human actions in the material world. When I, as the teacher, attempted to
' intervene in the topics of utterances or claims or when I attempted to direct the
discussion by moderating turns there was a decrease in participation and joint
construction. My interventions in topics attempted to abstract general statements
about the world based on student utterances and claims. However, multiple
students rarely participated in this abstraction. When students did participate in
joint construction with me in abstract statements, the result was that these
instances became moments of dyadic dialogue focusing on me and one student.
Occasionally students jointly constructed together such abstract claims, however

in those instances the common result was again a dyadic discussion.
Summary of participation

In this section I have focused mostly on participation of students and
features that support participation. However, this does not identify the
characteristics of those features that support students’ joint construction.
Therefore, it will help to understand the nature of the language that implicitly
supported participation and joint construction. In order to do that, it will be

necessary to look more closely at the thematic sequences identified in figures 4.1

78

and 4.2. The following section describes patterns in the thematic sequences that
supported students’ joint construction.

Language: How does the language students use supportjoint construction
of accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the accounts
that students construct?

To identify patterns in the language that students used required looking
closely at each utterance to determine its meaning. This allowed patterns in the
meanings that students attempted to construct jointly in different discussion
contexts. Therefore this section first considers semantic relationships and
thematic sequences (Lemke, 1990) that led to joint construction in the two focal
discussions. Then it is possible to step back and consider whether these
patterns are consistent across other discussion selections. Therefore
subsections look at Wind and Kites and What are seeds? and then considers

Patterns in selected discussions.

Semantic relationships and thematic sequences supported joint

construction of accounts

Recall from Chapter Two that semantic relationships describe the ways
that words in an utterance relate to one another and ultimately result in the
utterance having meaning. Furthermore, based on coding of semantic

relationships in utterances, it is possible to identify themes that occur in those

79

utterances“. These constructs are used here to identify patterns in students’
joint construction.

Wind and Kites

 

Recall that this focal discussion was about wind and kites. The discussion
took place on May 15, 2001 near the end of a unit on weather. Students had
experiences playing with kites at recess. They also used wind vanes to describe
wind direction. There are some important things to notice regarding initial
assertions and joint construction. Analysis of initial assertions focused on
utterances to identify semantic relationships within students’ utterances.
Analysis of joint construction focused on thematic sequences to examine how
semantic relationships and thematic sequences supported students’
development of accounts”.

Table 4.1 summarizes, including quoted utterances, the semantic
relationships in utterances that led to thematic sequences and ultimately
knowledge claims in this discussion. The focus in Table 4.1 is on the utterances
that become taken as shared and used in joint construction of knowledge claims.
The complete transcript is found in Appendix A; however as necessary in the
following description, longer quotes from the transcript are used to clarify the

points. Elaboration on these findings will follow the table.

 

‘1 Semantics and thematics are more completely described in Chapter 2. Their use in coding is
described in Chapter 3 along with further details in Appendix B
'2 See Chapter Three for definitions and explanation of these analytic constructs.

80

Table 4.1 — Semantic Relationships and Thematic Sequences in Wind and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kites Talk
. Selected Semantic Thematic .
Line Utterances Relationships Sequence Knowledge Claim

1. 1-16 Teacher: How objecV process The question
do those kites process implies a process
work? explanation of kites

2. multiple: medium
WIND

3. Teacher: Tell object / Request for
me more process complete semantic
about that, just relationship
wind doesn’t
tell me how
kites work.

4. Bobby: string object

5. Teacher: What object/ Request for
about the process complete semantic
string? relationship

6 21- Marquisha: object/ human Assert that human

32 The reason process agency actions make kites
how a kite flies agent/ action fly. ‘You’ reminds
. . . [is] you listener or creates
make it dependent an experience.

7. Marquisha: agent / object processes Elaboration that
You get the agent/ action structures are
string and you agent/ action required but acted
wind it in a big on by humans.
ball, and you Steps describe
hang on to it, patterns of events.
and then you
just run

8. Marquisha: connector Assert that the wind
And it goes up object/ make the kite fly
in the air by process into the air.
the wind; the medium / Pattem, with
wind blows process possibility of
and goes up in object/ explanation, but
the air. And attribute relies on prior
it’s flying human agency.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Selected Semantic Thematic .
Line Utterances Relationships Sequence Knowledge Claim

9. Mr. E.: But I object/ process Evaluation seeking
still don’t process independent
understand object/ explanation
how the kite is attribute
flying

10. Marquisha: It object / Re-assert that the
just flies process kite flies, emphasis

that how is not
important implying
that actions of the
agent are
important.

11. 39- Lo_r§_: The medium Elaborate on

45 wind, the object/ functions of
string controls process structures. Pattern
the kite. or experience

12. Lgrg So when agent / action human Assertion of the
you want to agent/ object agency human agent
move it in object/ presented in an
different process example
directions you experience to
have describe a function
something to of a structure.
make it move
in different
directions.

13. Mr. E.: So the object/ Redirect to clarify
string sort of process knowledge claim
helps you to agent / action about human
control the agency.
kite?

14. LCEZ If you agent/ action Patterned
want to fly a object / understanding of
kite you have process function of the
to have string. medium / structure that a
When you process human agent would
have string it object/ use
doesn’t make attribute

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it fly away

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Selected Semantic Thematic .
Line Utterances Relationships Sequence Knowledge Claim
15. 58- Rodger: The object/ process Restated from
62 string control process above, shifted
the kite object/ semantics and
because for attribute thematic avoiding
the kite to stay human agency.
up in the air.

16. Rodger: First agent / action human Asserts description
they make it agency of design elements
out of wood. and design in construction
Then they get Pattern or
a, make a T or experience
something.

Then, like
those other
kites, they just
have a little bit
of thing.
17. 78 - Mr. E.: Which medium/ circum- Question implies
100 direction is the manner stances description of
wind blowing" manner of wind
movement

18. Kelvin: this manner Assertion about
way wind direction in

drawing

19. Mr. E.: Which manner Question to scaffold
direction is description
this way?

20. Kelvin: its this manner Elaboration using
way gesturing _gestures

21. Darrel: its manner Counter assertion
blowing that about wind
way direction in drawing

22. 108- Mr. E.: OK So medium / Summarize claim

125 we all know manner
that the wind
is blowing that
way

23. Log: The medium / agency Attributed agency
wind goes action to inanimate
anyway it medium
wants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Selected Semantic Thematic .
Line Utterances Relationships Sequence Knowledge Claim
24. Mr. E.: But in medium / circum- Clarify and restate
this picture, in manner stances claim
this situation,
we all agree
that the wind
is going this
way.
25. Felicity: It medium / Elaboration on
goes this way. manner claim
26. Mr. E.: Felicity medium / Repeat elaborated
says the wind manner claim
is going this
way

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the opening thematic sequence (Rows 1-5, Table 4.1), l posed
questions to the class, asking students for explanations about kites flying.
Students’ single word responses could not be coded for semantic relationships
since semantic relationships seek to explain the meanings that relate two or
more words. It might be possible to infer the intended semantic relationship for a
single word utterance. For example “wind” could be interpreted as ‘wind makes
kites fly’ or ‘kites fly in the wind’; however, these two examples express different
relationships. Thus it is difficult in this situation to determine what claim students
were making In these utterances. However, the utterances are important
because the objects of students’ single word responses, wind and string, became
important as the discussion continued.

The opening thematic sequence (rows 1-5) does not contain joint
construction. My questions to students implied thematic sequences about
processes. However, students’ nominal responses did not include complete

semantic relationships. In response, I continually asked students for elaboration,

84

 

while they continued to make nominal single word utterances. I think students
were not engaged in the thematic sequence that I attempted to establish and as
a result no joint construction occurred.

Marquisha’s utterances, beginning in Row 6, initiated a different thematic
sequence by describing an indefinite “you” doing something to create an
outcome. It was clear that she talked about phenomena in the world. However,
her statements did not fit Lemke’s (1990) framework of semantic relationships.
Therefore, analysis and examination of data needed to look more closely at
Marquisha’s claim to explore the nature of her utterances. She said,

The reason how a kite flies [is] you make it. Then put the string and

stuff on it you get the string and you wind it in a big ball. And you hang

on to it and then you just run and it goes up in the air by the wind. The

wind blows and goes up in the air and it’s flying.

(lines 21-29; May 15, 2001)
This turn might be readily dismissed, as not offering claims relevant to the
development of an account of kites flying. However, her utterances were shared
by her peers, which suggests it had meaning for students. Marquisha focused on
the actions of an indefinite you. The central semantic relationship of her claim
becomes one relating agents13 and their actions. In this case Marquisha’s claims
could be characterized as focused on human agency. She described processes
of the human agent enacts to exert control over phenomena in the world; thus

establishing a new thematic sequence. Later in her turn, she makes statements

 

'3 Lemke does refer to agents in his descriptions of semantic relationships. But this is different
than human agents. Since this kind of statement was prominent in the transcripts, l have used
agent only to refer to instances of human action and all other subjects (nouns) became objects.

85

about interactions of phenomena; however these are contextualized as resulting
from her statement of human agency.

In row 11, Lora took up the processes that Marquisha attributed to human
action, referring to these processes devoid of human agency. But she did not
complete this turn without returning to connect with the animated human actor.
Lora’s move allowed her to synthesize utterances across turns. She included the
human agent in an action, directly connected to a decontextualized statement
about objects and processes. This connected these semantic relationships,
making clear the connection students made between agent and object. This was
joint construction because it drew on two semantic relationships (attributable to
Marquisha in row 7 & 8) and comments about wind and string (rows 2 and 4).
Furthermore, she constructed this statement in a logical ‘if-then’ statement that
sounds scientific and using a model-based structure, but it was based on
semantics that were about practical action in the world. In this joint construction,
the students focused on the role of the human agent, thus their shared thematic
pattern considered human agency.

The next claim relied on preceding speakers. Rodger, in Rows 15 and 16,
describes design features of kites. Rodger, like Marquisha, relied on human
agency, but focused on features of kites and making kites. Thus the semantic
relationship of this assertion focused actions of human agents in design. This
recognized patterns of performance and efficiency suggesting that different
materials or designs function better than others. However, Rodger shifted the

semantic relationship focused on human agents exerting control over

86

phenomena to human agents as designers of objects. The shifted the semantic
relationships probably contributed to the result that Rodger’s utterances were not
taken as shared by the group.

The semantic relationships of students’ utterances in the final thematic
sequence were difficult to clearly interpret. As in the first sequence, multiple
students made partial utterances. Thus the claims associated with these
utterances are also unclear. In addition, the thematic sequence included the use
of a representation of a phenomenon. I drew a picture of a person and a kite on
the board and asked students to describe the wind direction relative to the
picture. This led to several statements like, “this way” and “that way” (see rows
17 -20), which included gestures and references to the drawing. Such
statements alone do not include semantic relationships (though they do include
semiotic relationships). However, in the context, including gestures and the
drawing, the utterance can be interpreted as, ‘the wind blows toward or away
from the kite in that picture.’ This made a semantic relationship between wind (a
medium) and its direction (manner) toward or away from the kite. Thus the
claims were the wind blows toward the kite or the wind blows away from the
kite“.

In row 23, Lora returned to the shared interest in agency, attempting to
initiate a thematic sequence by anthropomorphizing that wind ‘wants’ to move in
different directions. Her utterance included a semantic relationship that ascribed

desire, typically a human characteristic, to inanimate media, wind. This utterance

 

1“ These exact points are not included in the table because the table referred only to the
utterances in the transcription.

87

came in the middle of several utterances that were developing semantic
relationships describing circumstances of wind direction related to kite flight.
Thus Lora’s assertion was not consistent semantically with the on-going
discussion, like Rodger in rows 15 and 16. Furthermore, this utterance did not
become taken as shared, since no other students used the idea that wind can
want something. So while agency had been a thematic pattern earlier in the
discussion, the discussion had shifted. Lora’s entry into the new thematic
sequence failed because her claims were not semantically relevant to the
developing thematic sequence.

Regardless, I consider the thematic sequence occurring in rows 17-26 a
second example of joint construction. These utterances attempted to describe
the conditions present in a hypothetical situation of flying a kite. The students
(based on my questions) were trying to say which direction the wind blew in
relationship to the kite flying, all related to a representation. I operated within
their utterances, attempting to support their claims about wind direction by
scaffolding their claims with questions and the drawing. Furthermore, my role, of
asserting a relationship using a representation, situated me as a participant in the
discussion. The students and l were jointly constructing a claim about the
nature of the relationship between wind direction and kite flight.

The drawing played a vital role in this discussion, essentially becoming a
claim in the discussion context. V\fithout the drawing, students needed to
connect experiences with kites to knowledge, translating this to a related

utterance about the wind, the kite and its position relative to the wind direction.

88

V\fith the drawing the semantic relationship in my question could be a nominal
question that focused students on an assumed phenomenological relationship;
that wind affects kites. Since the question was nominal, students’ responses
were also nominal, saying ‘this’ or ‘that’ way. However, in this context the
utterances became part of a thematic pattern focused on the circumstances
needed for kite flight. The drawing represented utterances in the thematic
sequence for students so that they could participate in joint construction without
sophisticated language to develop independent utterances consistent with
preceding semantic relationships.

In summary, this discussion began with incomplete utterances suggesting
that wind and string were important in kite flying. Marquisha integrated these
ideas into claim about the ways that human agents exert control over structures
(string) and media (wind) to fly a kite. Rodger claimed that human actions design
kites in particular ways. I implied that kites fly in only particular circumstances
related to wind direction, which led to students making, but not agreeing on,
claims about the direction of the wind relative to the flight of the kite. Finally,
Lora’s claim ascribed agency to wind.

Two important findings from this focal discussion provide insight into the
ways students talked about content in this discussion context. First, students’
joint construction initially relied on human agency. This facilitated joint
construction because it afforded the introduction of students’ own lived
experiences. Second, students could, during the portion of the discussion about

the drawing, jointly construct claims that described conditions for kite flying

89

without direct reference to human agency. However in this instance such joint
construction relied on a drawing to support students making semantically
connected utterances that fit the on-going thematic pattern. Finally, students’
jointly constructed account agreed only on the actions of human agents to exert
control over phenomena. Claims about phenomena occurring beyond the
control of humans were present in the account, but not agreed on by all students.
What are seeds?

This focal discussion was about seeds and plants growing from seeds. It
took place late in Year Two as part of a unit on living things Table 4.2
summarizes the semantic relationships of utterances and indicates how
utterances were part of thematic sequences to develop knowledge claims and
accounts of plants and seeds. The complete transcript of the discussion is
included in Appendix A; however as necessary in the following discussion, longer
quotes from the transcript are used to clarify the points. Elaboration on these

findings will follow the table.

Table 4.2 - Semantic Relationships and Thematic Sequences in Seeds Talk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lines Selected Semantic Thematic Knowledge Claim

Utterances Relationships Sequence

1. 1-28 Mr. E.: attribute / classify Question implies
What is a object defining attributes
seed? ofseeds

2. Annie: It’s object/ process Assertion that
something process seeds are defined
that grows by growing into
into a plant plants

 

90

 

Isaac: A
seed like is
something,
is
something
that before
it it’s a
plant, like
it’s a flower
or a like
tree, it
starts out
as a seed.

object / class
class /
example
event / object

classify

Assertion that
classifies seeds
according to a the
class plants; uses
examples to
develop class

 

29 -100

Eadended
sequence
ofnon-
consenfing
student
speech

 

 

 

 

 

 

100-
143

Rodger: I
got like

some real
big seeds.

object /
attribute

classify

Report to establish
validity

 

Rodger:
And if you
dig a small
hole, that
won’t work
for it if it is
a real big
seed

agent / action
action /
outcome

human
agency

Assert that seeds
need appropriately
sized holes to grow
when planted by
human agents

 

Breanne: A
seed even
grows into
a plant.

object /
process

process

Re-assert definition
of seeds as
growing into plants

 

 

Breanne:
First it has
leaves and
the green
little plant
comes
from the
seed but it
also comes
from the
stem too.

 

object / event
object /
process

 

 

Elaborate
describing stages
of seed growth

 

91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. ELIE: First agent/ action human Elaborate on
you plant agency human agency (row
the seed. 6)

dependent
processes

10. Erin; And agent / action Assert agent
when you object/ actions of watering
give a seed process seeds is a process
water it that plant growth
grows into depends on
a plant.

1 1. Erjn_ And agent / action Repeat making the
you keep object/ plant become a
on watering process flower
itandthen
it grows
into a
flower.

1 2. Annie: A object / circum- Summarize
plant seed, conditions stances assertions of action
a seed dependent
needs processes
water, lig ht, necessary for
and umm growth
dirt.

13. 144 — Brittany: class / object classify Validation of

150 Erin, not all assertion focused

seeds grow on classification
into flowers

14. 5&3 Yes, class / object Acknowledge and
flowers and elaborate on
plants and classes
other stuff

15. 150- Mr. E.: object / process Summarize process

195 Everybody process definition of seeds

agree [3]
that a seed
grows into
a plant

16. Mr. E.: object / origin circum- Question about the
Isaac, stances origins of seeds
where do
seeds
come
from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

92

 

 

17.

 

18.

 

19.

 

20.

 

21.

 

22.

Isaac:
Nature

location

 

Bevefly:
They grow

on kinds of
trees and
then fall

object / origin

Assertion that
seeds grow on
trees and then fall

 

Beverly:
And

sometimes
they fall on
the dirt.

object / event

Elaborate that the
seeds that fall can
fall on dirt

 

Annie: If
you got a
tree seed
and you
want to
grow it and
that tree
grows
seeds.

agent /
process

human
agency

dependent
processes

Assert agent
actions produce the
seeds by making a
tree grow

 

Annie:
They get to
little seeds
and
sometimes
those little
seeds grow
into food

object /

process event

/ process

processes

Elaborate on claim,
devoid of agency
that seeds grow in
fruit on trees

 

Annie: And
the food
drops and
some of
the seeds
come out.

object /
process
object /
process

Repeat sequence
involving fruit

 

 

23.

 

200-
230

 

Rodger:
Annie how

would a all
seeds grow
into a
flower

 

object / class

 

classify

 

Evaluation of prior
assertion; confused
speaker and claim

 

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. Annie: If agent/ action human Elaborate adding
you got a agency the role of human
tree seeds agent necessary for
and you planting seeds
want to
grow it, that
tree grows
seeds

25. Annie: object / class classify Elaborate that
Some trees object / event some trees grow
have seeds fruit (some is
that grow classifier); add
fruit and fall concept that plants
it will and seeds follow a
start all pattern of Iifecycle
over again
like a life
cycle

26. Mr. E. : I object / class Revoice student
thought evaluation to clarify
Rodger that the issue is
was saying that not all seeds
that it come from trees.
soundsfike
you are
saying all
seeds
come from
trees

27. Annie: I object/ class Respond to
just mean evaluation
some
seeds

28. 230 - Mr. E.: object / class circum- Re—state question

237 Where do object / origins stances about the location
other on the object that
seeds seeds
come
from?

Annie: origins
Stores
sometimes

 

 

 

 

 

 

94

 

Annie’s utterance (row 2) responded to my question, “What are seeds?”

The question implied that the response should involve a definition or

classification. Annie said that seeds grow into plants. While this could be

semantically interpreted as a definition, the thrust of her utterance was seeds

grow to make new plants. Her utterance focused on processes or actions that

the seed completes, and thus was semantically a statement of process. Building

on Annie, the next utterances shifted the semantic relationship to classify or

identify things as members of a group. Logically, to classify something, one often

relies on characteristics of a class or identity attributes. The following quote

shows a claim that classified the object.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Semantic

line Speaker Utterance Relationship Commentary

25. Isaac A seed is object/ class The student first
like / is identified the thing
something I he classifed.

26. Isaac is something object/ event He classified the
that before it class object related to
it’s a plant/ other objects;

plants were the
class.

27 Isaac like it’s a class / The class ‘plant’
flower or a example was elaborated
like tree usrng familiar

examples.

28. Isaac it starts out object/ object Then he returned to
as a seed the object,

reconnecting it and
the class.
5-1 3-02(2)

95

 

Isaac essentially said, ‘a seed is something that before it’s a plant it’s a
seed.’ To begin with, each utterance paralleled either the subject or the phrase
preceding it. He began with ‘a seed’ and ends with ‘a seed’. He parallels ‘plant’
with a phrase that includes ‘flower’ and ‘tree’ as examples. Therefore he took
some effort to compare the object and the group to which this object belongs.

Another way that this selection is interesting is that it draws on a shared
utterance, namely when Annie claimed that, “it’s something that grows into a
plant (line 9, 5-13-02(2)).” Isaac essentially elaborated on Annie’s utterance.
However, while he interpreted, and re-stated Annie’s utterance, he made
important alterations that asserted something different. He clearly broke apart
the object of observation, the seed, from the group to classify, plants. In addition,
he elaborated on the group providing examples. Thus his utterance
distinguished seeds from plants, while still recognizing a fundamental relationship
between them. In contrast, Annie’s utterances could be interpreted as claiming
that seeds grow into plants and thus are parts of the whole.

Some students’ utterances failed to follow semantics of preceding
statements. An interesting example of this occurred in this selection. In table
4.2, row 3, Isaac claimed that ‘a seed was something that before it was a plant it
was a seed (paraphrased).’ He added examples of plants, saying they were
‘flowers or trees.’ The core of his utterance did not semantically relate seeds
growing into plants as an action of seeds. Instead his relationship described
before and after outcomes. Fundamentally the outcome was the same, but it

was interesting to see that ‘before and after’ semantics were not used by other

96

students. Breanne, in row 8, used sequences, which might have led to similar
‘before and after’ relationships. However, she focused on growth and the
outcomes of growth. A final point about the utterance in row 3, it is interesting
that students only referred to flowers and trees as kinds of plants in this
discussion, even though they had experiences with more types of plants”. So
while, Isaac’s utterance did not become an important semantic relationship for
students, they seem to have taken portions of his idea.

In row 6, Rodger described how to plant a seed. He began using a human
agent, which established a thematic pattern using human actions in the world.
Then as if coaching the listener, he described particular actions that ‘you’ needed
to take, so the seed could grow well. Breanne joined the thematic sequence and
drew from a prior utterance (row 2) repeating that seeds grow into plants. She
then shifted to talk about stages of plant growth. In row 9, Erin began restating
Rodger’s claims. Then she synthesized ideas about a human agent acting and
stages of growth, seen in the next three rows. Finally, in row 12, Annie joined the
thematic sequence to summarize and decontextualize statements stating, “A
plant seed needs water, light, and dirt.” While this claim dropped information
about stages of growth, it was a clear synthesis of the majority of the prior
utterances.

I describe the preceding sequence as a thematically focused on
processes dependent on human agency. The semantics of the claims were

contextualized all in terms of Rodger’s initial assertion that when you plant seeds

 

15 I brought several plants to class including flowers, vegetables, and house plants. Students
made observations of all these plants, so they had a larger array of types of plants to consider.

97

you need to make the hole big enough. There were two exceptions to the use of
human agency in this thematic sequence. Breanne’s comment about stages of
growth is interesting. I interpret, that she was thinking based on Rodger‘s claim
of ‘you planting seeds.’ It was as though Breanne was describing the things that
one would notice if they could watch a seed germinating. Alternatively, since
experiences from the lesson sequence focused on stages of development, it Is
possible that she was retrospectively describing her experiences planting seeds.

Annie (row 12) also was another exception. She listed all the things plants
need, almost like a set of instructions to ensure proper growth. By implying
instructions, one interpretation is that she is telling all the things a human agent
needs to do to ensure proper growth. Another interpretation of Annie’s utterance
is that it was about circumstances for growth. If this was the meaning that she
intended, then her utterance was outside the on-going thematic sequence. In
either case, Annie’s utterance was the last in this thematic sequence. Therefore
it could also be seen as a signal to shift semantic relationships.

The final set of utterances in this discussion was just alluded to. This
stemmed from a question that I asked the class. I asked the students to explain
where seeds come from (row 16). Semantically, the question asked students to
describe circumstances that account for generation of seeds. Beverly, when
answering my question, said, “they grow on trees (row 19).” This could be
interpreted as semantically describing processes of seed growth. However, in

the context of the situation, it fits the thematic sequence about circumstances.

98

Thus I interpret her utterance to be saying that the requirements to have seeds
are trees that produce those seeds.

Beverly’s initial assertion, in row 18, described seeds as coming from
trees that grow seeds. Semantically, she related the problem of origins to the
producer. Annie (row 20-22), shared Beverly’s utterance telling about the way a
human agent could get more tree seeds, by planting the seeds, having them
grow and produce fruit that contained more seeds. Her elaborations, while not
following the exact semantic relationship that Beverly established (this would be
an easy way to participate in the on-going thematic pattern), did maintain topical
coherence by talking only about trees and trees seeds. In order to elaborate on
Beverly’s point, Annie relied on semantic relationships of human agents and
processes.

The main findings of this focal discussion are similar to the findings of the
preceding focal discussion. Students shared utterances focused on describing
processes that depend on human agency. Students focused on making
statements about how to control phenomena in the world. While, students did
directly evaluate one another’s claims, their strategy involved shifting the
semantic relationship of the original claim. Finally, the complexity in this
discussion as compared with the Wind and Kites discussion suggests that the
differences in teacher action, content, or students’ roles in the discussion

impacted the thematic sequences of the account.

99

Semantic Relationships and Thematic Sequences in other selected discussions

Looking across the selected discussions students semantic relationships
led to four main types of thematic sequences. These thematic sequences
expressed relationships that made claims about characteristics, circumstances,
processes, and human agency. The findings presented to this point suggest that
human agency was a dominant type of thematic sequences in the discussions.
However, looking across the discussions this is not quite the case. Process
based thematic sequences were prominent in three of the five remaining
selections. The other two talks focused on characteristics and circumstances.

However, there is an important distinction to make between the focal
discussions and the remaining talks. A reason discussions were selected had to
do with multiple students using shared utterances. Two of the five discussions
(January 1, 2002 and January 9, 2002) were dominated by a single speaker, thus
while there was limited use of shared utterances in the discussions these did not
lead to joint construction by the group. Similarly, the May 15, 2001 discussion
about wind varies involved my scaffolding observations of phenomena. As a
result there was limited joint construction in this discussion because of my
scaffolding. One statement of human agency was included in this selection, but
it did not develop as a thematic sequence.

The May 5, 2001 discussion about clouds focused on processes and there
was joint construction in this discussion. The joint construction was launched by
a sequence that followed a human agency thematic sequence that later shifted to

be only processes. The May 13, 2002 discussion about seeds in a flower

100

included considerable of student talk that focused on processes. This is an
interesting case because the selection picks up at the end of seeds focal
discussion described here. However, while there was student talk, it focused on
responses to one student raising questions about the claims other students
made. Thus the joint construction, if it could be called that, was not thematically
related as much as it was related in participation. As a result students’
utterances did not build on one another. Rather, they took up the initial question,
posing theories in response.

Content: What is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct
and how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making about
phenomena in the world?

Findings in this section focus on the nature of students’ jointly constructed
accounts in the selected discussions. First, I will describe the accounts resulting
from students’ joint construction, in terms of experiences, patterns and
explanations. This is done to show how students are ultimately engaged in
scientific practices that focused on practical reasoning about how to exert control
over phenomena in the world. This will illustrate the nature and accuracy of the

accounts that students jointly construct.

Students’ accounts as practical reasoning about how control phenomena

in the world.

While many of the things implied in this section have already been stated
in previous presentations of data, I would like to first make explicit what I am

meaning by practical reasoning using one example from the focal discussions.

101

Then, I will present descriptions of all the selected discussions to give a sense of
the accounts generated in each discussion.
Practical Reasoninqin one instance

One aspect of the theoretical framework involved explanation of patterns
in experiences with phenomena. Explaining is a cognitive task of making sense
of the set reported (or known) experiences with phenomena, identifying a pattern
in those experiences, and providing a reason that the pattern makes sense
and/or predicts future experiences. Explanations were not common in the
selected discussions. When explanations did occur, they were often
independent of patterns or observations already described in the discussion.
When patterns and experiences were connected to explanations, descriptions of
human agency figured prominently in the experiences or patterns leading up to
the explanation. Thus students relied on human agency to develop accounts that
explain phenomena based on the reported experiences and patterns.

In the wind and kites discussion, Lora and Rodger collaborated on an
explanation of the function of the string in kite flying, giving reasons why the
string was important to flying kites. Lora connected to the notion that the string
allowed a person to keep the kite from blowing away in the wind. She said, “If
you want to fly a kite you have to have string. When you have string it [the wind]
doesn’t make it fly away (lines 44-45; May 15, 2001).” This statement
culminated a sequence of claims that began with experiences described by
Marquisha telling about actions of a human agent to make a kite fly (lines 22-26;

May 15, 2001). Then Lora added a pattern that having a string allowed the user

102

to control kite movement (lines 39-40; May 15, 2001). Finally Lora added the
reason that without the string the kite could fly away (line 45; May 15, 2001).

Lora’s reasoning focused on the practical nature of the phenomena, or
what a person needs to do in order to achieve the desired outcome. However,
Lora’s explanation was not one that relied on model-based reasoning,"5 which
would explain that the kite will not fly without the string and its particular
attachment. Model-based reasoning would conclude that her claim that a kite
without a string would “fly away” because of the wind is inaccurate. However, it
was probably experientially and/or practically accurate, from her knowledge that
objects get blown away in the wind. Furthermore, students had experiences, not
surprisingly, loosing kites in trees or when flying high in the sky and the string
broke, flying away to not be seen again. In Lora’s experiences kites did ‘fly
away,’ making a string important to not loosing kites.

In this discussion context, Lora positioned her claim in terms of a practical
explanation that was meaningful and useful to students. However this same
explanation did not rely on model-based reasoning to explain the function of the
string. In Lora’s explanation, even without the string the kite would still fly; the
string only keeps it from flying away. However a model-based account would
include the way the string keeps the kite at particular angles in the sky. The
students were caught in a science learning problem of generating explanations
based on limited experiences. Scientific explanations often include extensive

patterns unavailable to students. Therefore it is not surprising that students’

 

‘6 This is described in more detail later in this chapter.

103

explanations often seem incomplete and don’t have the parsimonious rigor of
model-based explanations.
DescriLtions of selected discussions

The above example of reasoning was similar throughout the selected
discussions. To see this, the following descriptions survey the accounts students
constructed to see the kinds of reasoning that students engaged in. The
following summaries present the jointly constructed student accounts, including:
1) syntheses of students’ knowledge claims, 2) their claims about experiences,
patterns and explanations, and 3) the connections between their claims. In
addition, each account includes all student inclusions of human agency, as well
as questions that prompted discussions. The account summaries are in
chronological order, including specific speakers only as relevant. The focal
discussions are discussion three and six in this set.
1) Clouds as semi-solid absorbent objects — from May 5, 2001

Students described clouds as semi-solid or solid objects in the sky that
absorb liquid water and then precipitate that water in the form of rain or snow.
However students did not relate clouds to their lived experiences with things like
fog. Students attributed precipitation to times when the cloud absorbed too much
water, which was attributed to one of two criteria: the quantity of water or the
weight of the water.

Students recognized a pattern that water came from clouds and needed to
get to the cloud. Students were uncertain how liquid water got to the cloud from

the ground, but claimed that water was not just, ‘in the air’ but rather the cloud

104

absorbs the liquid water. One student claimed that the water came from Jesus.
Students developed analogies for mechanisms to transport the water from the
ground to the cloud that compared this action to their personal experiences using
sponges, bowls, and cotton. In addition one analogy seemed to rest on virtual
experiences (seeing things on movies or television) comparing clouds to
spaceships, with a ‘Iaser beam that sucks up’.

One student attempted to correlate temperature and rainfall. Picking up
on this, Mrs. Corbin asked the students whether it needed to be warm or cold to
form clouds. The students had theories that the temperature was and was not
relevant to clouds. However, there was no consensus about relationships
between temperature and clouds. One student included an explanation from her
mother that hot and cold air come together to make clouds.

2) Wind vanes indicate wind directions — from May 15, 2001

Based on an experience in the discussion, the students’ claims indicate
that they correlated the direction they felt air move from a fan and the direction
wind vanes pointed. One student made an uncontested claim that the wind vane
direction was a result of air movement exerting forces on the wind vanes.
However, another student was also uncontested in asserting that my wind vane
operated differently because I made it differently. Students did not attempt to
offer explanations in this discussion.

3) Flying kites requires wind, string, and a pilot - from May 15, 2001
Building on the preceding discussion about wind and wind vanes, I asked

students to explain how kites work. Based on school based experiences with

105

kites, students focused on describing what a human agent, ‘you’ does to make
kites fly. Several commented about the string, wind and the structure of the kite
being important. Each successive student utterance moved away from inclusion
of a human agent to increasingly de-contextualized statements about the wind,
the string and the kite.

Connecting wind direction and kites flying, I drew a sketch on the board
including the human actor and a kite and asked students to describe the wind
direction. Students consistently used, “this” and “that” way to describe the wind
direction. However, they did not agree which direction the wind would be blowing
in my drawing. I concluded the discussion suggesting that we needed to test the
different ideas.

4) Light shoots and spreads — from January 7, 2002

This selection was initiated based on my question, asking how “light gets
from that light bulb to my eyes?” Breanne almost solely developed this account,
posing the theory that light “shoots” and “spreads” from the wire inside the light
bulb. I asked her to explain what she meant by spreads. She explained spreads
using a lamp in the classroom as a specific example, describing how the light
from the lamp spreads to illuminate a specific area.

One student made an analogy to spreading like one might do in gym class
by spreading your arms to the sides to assure sufficient spacing (probably based
on personal experience in gym). Breanne then added descriptions of the way

that light spreads including faster, closer, farther, wavy, uneven, zig-zag, and

106

curly. She continued adding the presence of a generic human agent turning on
and off a lamp, describing light from a turned off lamp as “still”.

A second student asked how a light bulb could spread. This introduced
the problem of polysemous word meanings. Breanne attempted to answer this
using a human actor turning on a hypothetical lamp that will not light a whole
room. The selection ended with me attempting to develop an analogy for
Breanne’s explanation.

5) Light reflecting in a prism makes rainbows — from January 9, 2002

Students observed and described observations of two rainbows produced
by the prism. They included descriptions of the spectra (rainbows) and of the
light that was not refracted, but visible. These descriptions took place during
observation and afterward when many students were attempting to explain how
the rainbows were produced.

During these observations one student speculated that a particular part of
the prism made the rainbow. Another speculated that the reason there were two
rainbows on the ceiling was that there were two sides facing up. Once the
classroom lights were turned on, students continued to explain the production of
rainbows. The main explanation offered was that light was reflecting in the
prism. Reflecting was described, using words and gestures, as being like a line
that something reverses against. However this was confusing for some
students. So the assertions were complemented with drawings to represent light

moving and reflecting in the prism, which clarified the confusion.

107

Reflecting was compared to a ball bouncing fast. This led to a question
from a non-consenting student. Ultimately this challenged the bouncing ball
analogy and resulted in rejection of the reflecting explanation by its originator.
However, others continued to support this idea and attempted to explain how the
analogy could work. The claims led to introduction of human agency and
specifically the ways that I held the prism in front of the light source.

6) Seeds are things that grow into plants (with help) — from May 13, 2002

This selection began based on the question, “what is a seed?” Annie
defined this as a process, saying a seed is something that grows into a plant.
Isaac varied this claim saying, seeds as what a plant starts as. These claims
were built on, adding decontextualized descriptions plant Iifecycles and things a
seed needs to grow. Annie built off her description of seeds growing into trees
and Beverly’s claim about seeds (described more below) describing a life cycle of
a fruit bearing tree. This included a decontextualized description of fruit, seeds,
and tree growth.

Rodger and Erin described various degrees of human agency by talking
about how a generic ‘you’ can plant seeds and what ‘you’ need to do in order for
seeds to grow. Brittany challenged Erin’s claim that “seeds grow into flowers.”
Her challenge was that not all seeds grow into flowers. Rodger issued this same
challenge to Annie about her statement that seeds grow into flowers. In
response Annie added, following the human agency approach, that you could

plant a tree seed and get a tree.

108

I asked students where seeds come from. Isaac said they come from
nature. Beverly said that seeds came from trees, which Rodger also challenged
this as a general claim. Annie added to the ideas about seeds coming from trees
and later said that other seeds come from stores.

7) Seeds in a flower and seeds in the ground - from May 13, 2002

A central claim introduced in this selection was a drawing of a sunflower to
assert that seeds are in the center of a sunflower. Breanne challenged this claim
through the remainder of the discussion, asking her peers to explain how there
could be seeds in a sunflower. Breanne’s claim was that the seed was in the
ground, growing the plant, and therefore could not be in the flower.

One response to Breanne’s question relied on the importance of flowers
and seeds in plant propagation. This explanation focused on the life cycle of a
flowering plant, but did not treat, as Breanne seemed to, the seed and plant as
co-existing entities. However, this same explanation introduced human agency,
suggesting that ‘you’ needed to plant the seed to grow another plant and that the
plant needed ‘you’ to grow. It did not explain how a plant produced a seed.

Another explanation was that bees make the seeds and put them in
flowers. This explanation received limited uptake. Rodger challenged this claim,
but this was limited to two turns.

A final explanation was that the seed, once roots come out and the plant
grows, travels up the stem and breaks apart in the flower to make new seeds.

Breanne challenged this asking how a seed can go up a stem.

109

The nature and accuracy of students’ accounts focused on practical

scientific reasoning, but not on model-based scientific reasoning.

In this section I consider the nature and accuracy of the accounts that
students constructed. This is an attempt to consider students’ conceptions of the
phenomena discussed in these contexts. Ultimately it is impossible, based only
on oral discussions to say anything about what each student understands.
However, it is possible to evaluate the accounts in these discussions based on a
systematic process.

Such analysis requires considering the surviving claims, those not rejected
by the group, and comparing them with a scientific account. I will present
analyses of findings from the two focal discussions, and then summarize findings
for the remaining accounts. For each account, I present students’ claims in the
discussion, explaining why or why not I consider them accurate. It is important to
recall that these are young students, so their accounts may at times be simplistic.
In order to provide a point of comparison, I will compare the students’ jointly
constructed accounts with accounts developed based on the Benchmarks for
Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993)
and other sources”. Benchmarks for Science Literacy suggests developmentally
appropriate science ideas for student learning of specific topics in specific
grades. Therefore, I am using it here as a measure of whether students’

accounts were developmentally appropriate.

 

'7 Benchmarks for Science Literacy does not specify particular information about the topics
included in all the discussions. Therefore it was necessary to use other sources to develop these
accounts. I have not cited those sources because I do not draw quotes and relies on general
scientific knowledge.

110

To compare between the student account and the scientific account, I will
bold the overlapping points and 2‘19 points of disagreement between the
accounts and italics are portions of the accounts where specific claims are not
included in the corresponding account. The intent of this analysis is to consider
accuracy and appropriateness of accounts that students generated.
and.and.Ki1es

Beginning with the wind and kites talk, table 4.3 outlines the claims of the
account that students jointly constructed. Recall that this discussion focused on
kites, attempting to explain how kites fly based on students’ experiences flying
kites at recess. It also involved applying knowledge from experiences to a
drawing to infer the wind direction in the representation. Thus this discussion
was structured around experiences, required applications of patterns, and asked
students to explain phenomena using experiences and patterns. It is important
to note that the context might have not provided chances to make coherence in
these elements. Furthermore, the context did not necessarily suggest that their

account correspond with science.

Table 4.3 - Evaluation of Accounts in Wind and Kites Talk

 

 

 

 

Lines Student Student Scientific Conception
Account Conception
1. 1-14 MLEZ How do “lire mission Wind pushes on the
those kites iflzf‘llg'siillrw Infill? ‘i‘ii‘trii‘; I'll—’1 surface of the kite_
work? Iii]fiTmié‘éti‘Zl Sir‘Etillii‘iu.i‘iiiil"‘Jlfl' The kite surface
that (“MID—J it. to lily deflects the wind
2. Multiple: Wind Kites fly by wind making it move slowly
pushing on them. across the front and
quickly across the back
of the kite. The angle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

string control
the kite because
for the kite to
stay up in the
air.

 

the kite flying,
making it stay up
in the air.

 

Lines 3:223: Cosrtgget‘ion Scientific Conception

3. Bobby: the The string makes of the kite, held by the
string the kite fly. string, causes air

pressure differences
that create lift

4. 14-32 Manquisha: you Kt, ' ‘
make it ""

5 Marquisha: you
hang onto string
and run

LL :JL Wind pushes on the
L ‘ ' surface of the kite.
IL L'. L . The kite surface
TL : The The wind makes deflects the wind
kite flies in air the kite fly into the making air move slowly
by the wind air. across the front and
quickly across the back
of the kite.

7. 39—45 Lora: The string The string allows The string keeps the
controls the kite; a user to move the kite at an angle in the
you have kite from one wind. This helps
something to location in the sky create different air
move in to another. pressures. This angle
different keeps the kite flying.
directions. Without the proper

—— .. angle the kite flies

8. Lora: If you i
want to fly a kite “’1 pooflyjor notat all LLL’:
you have to ' The tension
have string. in the string allows a
Whenyou have user to move the kite
string 3t doesnt from one location in
make 't fly the sky to another.
away.

9. 58—62 Rodger: The The string keeps The string keeps the

kite at an angle in the
wind; this angle keeps
the kite flying.
WIthout the proper
angle the kite flies
poorly or not at all. A
kite will not fly without
the string.

 

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lines :ézgzztt 03:22:32" Scientific Conception
10. Rodger: they Someone builds Kite designs use
make it out of kites using wood many materials, in
wood. they just and other various shapes, and
have a little bit materials. sizes. - THIS IS A
of thing. DESIGN
STATEMENT.
11. 78- ML_E.: Which The question asks The wind blows into
125 direction does for interpretation of the face of the kite.
the wind blow? phenomena based Or, the kite should be
on a drawing. downwind from the
12. Multiple: ‘this’ Students assert operator.
or ‘that’ way that the wind
(toward or away blows towards r rrn‘ fit-urn :c 1:":
from kite) and away from that. r I’ rm In: In ;. IJ [WI
“at?" mi” It pr": :.L,I:I;"i::x\.
13. Lora: The wind 3:: w H
goes anyway it ~ 4’1
wants. . 1'?”

 

Looking at the bold words, the students’ account included several ideas

 

related to and partially consistent with the scientific account. However many of
these ideas only partially account for how kites fly. To describe the partiality of
the claims I will need to talk about the student account in connection with the
scientific account. Therefore, when referring to a row in the table, all cells in that
row will be pertinent.

In row 2 students collectively identified wind as important to kites flying.
However, students did not identify the role of wind. It was not until row 6 that
students identified their understanding of the effect of wind on the kite. The
students’ account focused on the wind pushing on the kite, providing no
explanation about how wind made the kite fly. Scientifically, this has to do with

wind speed and air pressure. Deflected wind on the front of the kite slows the

113

wind, creating a region of high pressure in front of the kite and a region of low
pressure behind the kite. Since air moves from high pressure to low pressure,
this creates a force (or lift) on the kite. (NOTE: Kites rely on the angle of the kite
relative to the wind, but this is discussed in more detail below.) Students had
some problems in their account related to wind. In row 8, Lora thought that wind
always pushes kites into the air and potentially pushes the kite away. She later
made the claim that wind “moves any direction it wants (row 13).” Finally, in
row 12 students were collectively unsure about the wind direction. Some
correctly thought the wind blew in the face of the kite. Others thought that the
wind blew behind the kite.

According to Benchmarks for Science LiteracflAmerican Association for
the Advancement of Science, 1993), students at this level should understand that
we can feel wind. However, this discussion really focused on relationships
between force and motion. In terms of motion, Benchmarks for Science Literacy
(American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993) suggests that
these students understand that things move by pushes and pulls. Based on this
standard, the students’ account of kites flying was appropriate for them.

The students and I ventured into areas that were conceptually beyond the
students according to standards and as revealed in their comments. It was in
these conceptual adventures that the students ended up with some inaccurate
accounts of the phenomenon. For example, the anthropomorphism of wind in

row 13 represents one of these inaccuracies. An argument could be that getting

114

into developmentally inappropriate18 areas led students to need to make
inaccurate claims. This might lead students to inaccurate understandings of the
world. Therefore a response would be to limit such discussions to ones that are
developmentally appropriate.

However, I argue that these discussions were vital to helping students
begin to think about how phenomena and explanations can be related. In this
discussion, students were working with relatively complete sets of phenomena
and attempting to make sense of those. They identified patterns and offered
limited explanations. Therefore, this engaged them in practices important in
science, considering sets of experiences from the material world. The problem is
that ultimately all phenomena from the world potentially lead to topics that are
difficult to explain based on third grade science. It becomes difficult to be
developmentally appropriate and engaged in practices of science. In this case,
attempting to connect kite flying, an indicator of wind, with a natural phenomenon
is real and relevant and thus an application of science knowledge. Furthermore,
I think, that is was something the students found meaningful and useful. But at
the same time the students and I struggled with because of the complex
conceptual adventures of meaningful and useful explanations in real contexts.

Students’ comments about the string are interesting. It was clear that
students saw the string as important to kite flight. However, students had
different ideas about the function of the string. One idea was that the string was

important only for the kite flier, see rows 5, 7, and 8. However these claims were

 

‘8 The argument is that Benchmarks is based on empirical research about children’s ideas and is
therefore a developmentally appropriate set of standards. This argument is debated, but will not
be the topic here.

115

slightly inconsistent about the string. At times students thought that the string
allowed a user to control or steer the kite. Other times students seemed to
indicate that the string kept the kite from flying away (row 8). The common
thread in these ideas was the shared notion that the string enabled a human
agent to do something with the kite. This was slightly different than the idea in
row 9 that the string makes the kite stay in the air. Students seemed, in the
discussion to treat these as compatible (especially from the perspective of Grice
(1999)) since they did not challenge one another. It is unclear whether students
realized the importance of the string. Scientifically the string determines the
angle of attack (angle of the kite relative to the wind). The kite will not fly without
the string. However, human agency is required. The kite flier must align the kite
and the wind, as well as moderate the string and the angle of attack in order for
the kite to fly.

Connecting to Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for
the Advancement of Science, 1993), the ideas about the string relate to balanced
and unbalanced forces. These ideas help describe the motion of objects, and a
this level should be described in terms of pushes and pulls (American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993). Students were attempting to
coherently connect their experiences flying kites and the function of the string.
Yet they did not talk about the tug or pull a kite flier feels on the string. The result
was a sense of disjuncture between things that students thought the string was
important for and the role of the string in causing a kite to fly. Ultimately an

account that accurately relates string, angle of the kite, and the wind, in a

116

coherent and complete fashion would be a challenging even for a science literate
adult to construct. Thus the students’ account was not problematic.
Furthermore, it seems important that they intuitively included the string as
relevant and attempted to include this in the account. This supported them in
developing a practical of the things done to control the flight of a kite. Many
people would not even include the string as important in flying the kite. Therefore
in this sense the students’ account was more scientific because it attempted to
account for all relevant aspects of the phenomenon. However, as already
suggested, model-based scientific reasoning was not accomplished in this case.
As a result there are aspects of the account (such as the role of the string) that
seem inaccurate or incomplete.
WhaLaLeseedsZ

In the talk about seeds, represented in table 4.4, students attempted to
generate a definition for seeds. Students brought experiences with seeds into
the discussion. Furthermore they described patterns of plant life cycles.
However, their discussion focused heavily on human actions in planting and
caring for seeds and plants. Again bold sections are overlapping points, @M‘EIUTIQS
are points of disagreement between the accounts, and italics portions of the

accounts where specific claims are not included in the corresponding account.

Table 4 4 — Fvaluatinn of Accounts in What are Seeds. Talk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lines 2:22:21 £112:an Scientific Conception
1. 1 -28 Mi: What is The question Seeds are dormant
a seed? requests a embryonic plants. Many
definition of plants grow from
seeds. seeds. Some plants do

 

 

 

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lines £2332: effigeggn Scientific Conception
2. Annie: It grows Seeds grow into not produce seeds in
__ into a plant plants. order to reproduce.
3. Isaac: A seed is Plants start as
something that seeds. Plants
before it’s a are flowers and
plant, like a trees.
flower or a tree,
it starts as a
seed.
4. 100- Rodger: You Seeds require Seed germination begins
143 have to dig a big the appropriate plant growth. The seed
hole to plant big space to grow. requires things to grow.
__ seeds. planting depth, space,
5. Rodger; First and, moisture. I
the seed has MI
leaves and the II“ I ‘1 _
green little plant I: I’ The seed
comes from the uses food stored In the
seed but it also cotyledon as energy and
comes from the matter for growth -
__ stem. 59.. I I I ymt m
6. Erin: You plant Seeds need SOii transports
the seed and water to grow. water to the seed, from
give it water and Human agents rainfall of human
it grows into a provide seeds irrigation. Soil (in
plant and then water in order to germination) is a medium
__ into a flower. row. for root development and
7. Annie: A seed Seeds need water transport to the
needs water, water , . seed
light, and dirt. and
8. 144- Brittany: Not all 1;] ml}
150 seeds grow If? I I
flowers. I '
9. Erin: I know, I. I 305,6
flowers, plants plants do reproduce
and other Sthf- sexually and do not
require flowering parts.
10. 150- ML_E. : Where The question Sexually reproducing
195 are seeds from? asks students to plants produce seeds in
identify seed flowers. Pollen from the
__ oriqins. stamen fertilizes the eggs
11 Isaac: Nature in the ovaries. Ovaries

 

118

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lines 3:22:22 Cosrtggetizn Scientific Conception
12. Easterly: They Some seeds grow are located at the bottom
grow on trees on trees and fall of the pistil. The ovaries
and sometimes to the ground. swell, producing fruits
_ fall on dirt and the fruits contain
13 Annie: If you got Seeds from trees fertilized seeds.
a tree seed and grow into trees Common things like seed
you want to that grow more pods, maple leaf fliers,
grow it and that seeds. acoms, and most fruits
tree grows and vegetables are fruits
__ seeds. (ripened, swollen ovaries)
14. Annie: The seeds on Of flowers.
Sometimes trees grow in
those little food (e.g. fruit)
seeds grow into the fruit drops
food. The food and seeds come
drops and the out.
seeds come out.
15. 200 - Rodger: (to I s; l
230 Annie) How 71: ~‘ _‘*I -»‘ " Seeds
would all seeds grow into the same
grow into a type of plant that
_ flower? produced them. I
16 Annie: A tree Trees produce I II‘IIII
seed grows into seeds that grow II?
a tree. Then it into trees. . *II‘I‘i’ I 1 393’“
falls and grows 1‘4““ For example,
another tree like trees produce seeds,
a life cycle. but are not often
17. ML_E.I Rodger Do all seeds recognized as having
was asking if all grow into trees? flowers. However, "0t
seeds grow into all flowering plants are
__ trees. trees.
18. Annie: Some Some seeds are
seeds grow into tree seeds.
trees.
19. 231 — MLE: But The question SEE ABOVE: Key point
237 where do seeds asks students to seeds come from plants.
come from? identify seed
__ oriqins.
20. Annie: Stores Seeds are sold in
stores.

 

119

 

Students had limited understandings about plants as revealed in Table
4.4. However, for me as the teacher, the things that they did not seem to
understand were disappointing. Similar to the analysis above, this analysis will
look at students’ ideas in this discussion. National standards will continue to be
used as points of comparison in this analysis.

One idea that students seemed clear on was that plants grow from seeds
and that the seed determines the type of plant that grows (rows 2, 3, 8, 12, 13,
14, 15, and 18). This was at times confusing for students because they referred
to plants as flowers and trees (row 3). Thus their repertoire of plant types
included only plants, flowers, and trees. But the fundamental idea that a seed
grows into the same plant as the seed came from was consistent. This was an
example of consistency with Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993). According to this source,
students should have basic ideas about heredity, which they did in this
discussion.

Students revealed some naive ideas about plants when talking about
things a seed needs. They agreed that seeds need water (row 6 and 7), which
was attributed to actions of human agents (row 6). However seeds do not rely
on human agents exclusively to grow and are adapted to their biome so that such
nurturing support is not required to grow. I think a problem that students faced
was that many of their experiences with plants involve humans watering them.
They likely experienced parents watering lawns, trees, gardens, and house

plants. In fact, all the plants that we looked at in the classroom required humans

120

to water them. Therefore their claims about human agents watering plants was
likely coherent with the majority of their experiences. This raises another point to
consider, the completeness of the experiences students were considering.
Certainly they had experiences with plants that were not provided water by
people, but these experiences were not explicitly introduced in the context and
thus not part of the account students constructed.

Students also thought that seeds need soil and sunlight to grow (row 7).
This is a particularly interesting point because seeds do not need sunlight. Food
energy is stored in the cotyledon and seeds do no need sunlight to produce food
energy. However, the student in this utterance (row 7) has included a common,
accurate understanding that plants need sunlight. Similarly soil does transport
water to the seed, but again is not required to germinate the seed or grow.
However, these points are ones well beyond students abilities.

In this respect, students had aspects of a developmentally appropriate
scientific account. Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for
the Advancement of Science, 1993) suggests that students should know that
living things need air, water, and food to survive. Students indicated that they
knew that seeds and plants need water to survive. However, students thought
that humans provided water to plants, according to their claims (row 6). They did
not include natural sources of water such as rain or groundwater as sources of
water for plants. Furthermore, students did not mention air or food when talking

about plant needs. Thus they have partial understandings of the ideas included

121

in that Benchmark, but these ideas were incomplete and in some ways
inaccurate.

Finally, an interesting point that arose in the discussion was students’
considerations of flowering and non-flowering plants. Row 8 highlights that
students agreed that some plants do not have flowers. This is true; however, the
problem is that seeds usually come from fruits which come from flowers. Thus
seeds usually come from flowering plants. Students did understand the
connection between fruits and seeds (row 14). But they struggled with the
remainder of this idea because of their limited understanding of seed production.
Furthermore, the account that they constructed left out seed production in plants.
But it attempted to include plant Iifecycles (row 16). Since students did not have
understandings of seed production, their account was limited.

Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1993) does not include understandings of seed
production until middle school, so these were not appropriate ideas. However, in
this case the challenge of relevancy versus appropriateness arose. Students
should know about heredity at this age. They should understand that a
dandelion does not grow into an apple tree, which was the fundamental
challenge in this case. However, the problem is that a complete and accurate
account for this would involve long term experiences planting multiple sorts of
seeds (which is not feasible) or explanations of seeds coming from flowers and
sexual reproduction in plants (which is not appropriate). I am not convinced that

experiences planting seeds would be sufficient in this regard for students to

122

develop a scientific account. My hypothesis is that students would focus their
explanations on their actions planting and caring for seeds.

But in terms of this and the particular context, what was the quality of
students’ accounts? Students strove in this discussion to develop a coherent
account. They defined seeds as something that plants grow into. This led them
to needing to describe the things a plant needs to grow. From this, students
returned to a fundamental pattern of life cycles. Since many of the experiences
students introduced explicitly involved actions of humans controlling phenomena,
the experiences, patterns, and explanations that students were explicitly
considering, still fit their account, but would not fit a model-based account. Other
experiences, patterns, and explanations might have been helpful in developing a
more complete account. Some of these were appropriate for students while
others were not. Finally, explanations in their account might have not been
appropriate. As a result this account had qualities that made it important to
students participating in sense-making in science, but did not facilitate their
development of an accurate model-based scientific account.

Accounts for other selected discussions

 

For the remaining accounts, it is difficult to complete this kind of detailed
presentation of analysis and still keep this writing to a reasonable length.
Therefore I will highlight some important points in the other discussions, but not
in such detail.

The student account of clouds did not include an explanation of processes

of how water gets into the clouds. This was a problem the students worked on

123

and attempted to develop analogies to explain. However, since the students
were not familiar with and had not explicitly been taught about evaporation or
condensation and the relationship of this principle to clouds‘g, this challenge was
not surprising. This led the students into conceptual difficulties which they
attempted to resolve by creating or developing a mechanism to transport water
from the ground to clouds that described clouds as solid objects. The account is
interesting though because students engaged in an activity of attempting to
account for the experiences they had and provide a coherent and complete
account of phenomena related to clouds. Though the account struggled in terms
of accuracy, it was remarkable in terms of being coherent around different
phenomena and complete in attempting to introduce relevant phenomena.

The discussion about wind and wind vanes is interesting to consider for a
couple of reasons. The account provided by students was developmentally
appropriate. The causal explanation that the wind pushed the arrows was
appropriate, but to be scientific would need to offer some explanation about
unbalanced forces. However, the second point is somewhat more interesting.
The challenge that l constructed my wind vane better was actually interesting.
This presented an issue of technique and accuracy that is often considered a
hallmark of scientific activity. By challenging the technique the student was
raising an issue of the coherence of the experiences being discussed with the

patterns of observation that the account attempted to explain. So while the

 

‘9 Not teaching these concepts is consistent with the suggestions in Benchmarks for Science
literacy.

124

explanation might have lacked depth, the point that the student suggests that
students were engaged in scientific thinking.

Both discussions on light failed to include a fundamental concept that
students had experiences with in school; that light travels in straight lines. In the
discussion, ‘light spreads’ there was a hint that this was the students thinking,
especially Breanne, but it did not become clear. Furthermore, the student who
joined Breanne treated light as if it emanates only in two dimensions. In the
discussion about prisms, the notion of reflection was actually important to
explaining their observations. However it did not explain how light shining
through prisms created spectra. In addition, students treated light as matter in
this discussion, which was also inaccurate. There was a point in the discussion,
a student question revealed the weakness of the ball analogy. Similar to the
wind vane challenge, this challenge engaged students in scientific thinking in a
meaningful way.

The one remaining discussion about plants involved students’ discussion
of how seeds could be in flowers. This discussion arose based on a student
claim and then a peer question about that claim. This was interesting because
at most levels the student account was inaccurate according to science. Yet,
fundamentally, students attempted to work with a model or theory about the
location of seeds in a flower. Students struggled because they had incomplete
explanations of phenomena and as a result ended up posing inaccurate

explanations in order to satisfy an unstated quality of coherence in their account.

125

In summary for the most part students discussions lacked demonstration

of complete and accurate scientific understanding. In many cases the larger

 

problem was that my framing of discussions as the teacher did not adequately
consider the developmental abilities and knowledge of students. An additional
observation worth noting is that throughout the selections there were instances
when terminology inhibited the discussions in substantial ways. However, the
qualities of the discussions reflected that students wanted their accounts to be
coherent and make sense, including all the available experiences, patterns, and
explanations. Thus students were entering scientific practice through this work.
Chapter Summary

This chapter began by looking at the ways that students relied on shared
utterances to enable their participation. Implicit in students shared utterances
were semantic relationships and thematic sequences that revealed things about
the nature of the accounts that students found meaningful and useful. Looking at
patterns in the thematic sequences and descriptions of the accounts students
constructed suggested that students often relied on practical reasoning when

jointly constructing accounts of phenomena.

The focal discussions shared common patterns in students’ joint
construction that relied on human agency as sense-making strategy used to
develop claims and accounts. This is summarized in Table 4.5 including
generalizations about the nature of the thematic sequences that I tried to get
students to use as compared with the nature of the thematic sequences that

students used in the focal discussions. The table collapses both focal

126

discussions, not distinguishing between them. In the table, I include things that

did not happen, but desired to happen; these things are included in @I‘IIIII’IIT‘IQKDI II

Table 4.5 — Thematic Patterns in Joint Construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nature of Teacher Thematic Student Thematic

Cljaim Sequences Sequences

Experiences Silliallltsfl‘nems III ,Hil'li Statements that report actions
4: 1;l‘-i:;.;:>":i'.‘i;[as. iii-.3. @115 Lb) I’llell'zlrie‘ilf’tllizife€52.31, of human actors exerting
I‘ I II In control over phenomena.

5:1 l r I, my.

Patterns Descriptions that use laws or Descriptions of actions that
generalizations to relate have predictable outcomes,
observations in systems. assuming the agents follow

necessary procedures.
Descriptions of processes or
actions that do not necessarily
involve human agency.

Explanations Statements that offer reasons

 

 

why certain actions led to
certain outcomes.

 

The important thing to note in this table is that students most often

successfully constructed jointly claims when the thematic sequence relied on

utterances of human agency. I desired and at times succeeded in moving

students toward thematic sequences that relied on somewhat model-based

reasoning. However, I was only successful in doing this for certain

phenomenological patterns.

Other selected discussions included instances when the students began

to move toward model-based reasoning in their accounts (See ‘seeds in a flower’

and ‘clouds’ talks in Appendix A). However, these instances of model-based

reasoning were preceded by thematic sequences using practical reasoning.

127

 

In the next chapter I will offer explanations for these findings. This
suggests implications for teaching and learning science as well as directions for

future research.

128

Chapter 5

Accounts and activity in discussion contexts

Introduction

An early science teaching memory comes from after I had been teaching
about four weeks in a different third grade classroom. At the beginning of a
lesson, 3 student raised his hand and asked, “When are we going to start
learning science?” His question initially confused me because I thought we had
been learning science for the last four weeks. After asking some questions, I
learned that he, along with many of his peers, thought learning science involved
reading in books and learning definitions for scientific principles. For the next
lesson, I obliged the students by using books, leading a lesson that involved
reading and finding definitions. When they read the words that they had been
using so fluently, they realized that we were learning science, but not doing it the
way they assumed learning science occurs. The point of this story is that
students and teachers have ideas about learning science in school, what
constitutes science, and appropriate ways to engage with science ideas.
Therefore it is safe to assume that they might also have different ideas about
what will constitute meaningful and useful explanations of phenomena.

This study showed that a group of students and a teacher engaged in
whole group discussions had different, but sensible ideas about the kinds of
accounts and explanations that were meaningful and useful in science.

Furthermore, when students constructed accounts around statements of human

129

actions including actions of an indefinite “you” exerting control over phenomena
in the world, there was greater student involvement and joint construction.
However, when I attempted to shift the nature of students’ account to involve
claims about the material world free of human control, fewer students
participated and in many cases the discussion became triadic (Lemke, 1990).
This chapter explains this outcome by suggesting that the students and I had
different ideas about the nature of useful and meaningful explanations of
phenomena. This chapter also explores implications of this for science teaching
in lower elementary grades and makes suggestions for future research.

This chapter revisits the theoretical framework developed in chapter two.
This framework was developed to investigate, and in this chapter, to explain
patterns of phenomena occurring in video-taped discussions. Chapter three
described how I used this model to reveal patterns in the data. These patterns,
reported in Chapter Four will be reviewed, highlighting the patterns in the data
and evidence I presented. The main thrust of this chapter concerns two issues.
For the patterns in the data, I will expand on and develop the explanation about
why they arose and also why they make sense. These explanations suggest
implications for research and teaching and offer directions for future research.
Theoretical Framework

The descriptive and analytic framework described in this study evolved
through repeated examinations of data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to allow insight
into patterns in the data. With utterances as the central units of analysis, this

study attempted to consider students’ utterances which I call shared utterances,

130

by teachers and students, as actions in discussion contexts that become parts of
jointly constructed accounts. Looking at the semantic relationship in the
utterances and the thematic patterns between utterances helped reveal how
utterances became claims as parts of accounts in an activity in a discussion
context. The discussion context, similar to Edelsky’s notion of the floor that
considers the psychological time and space that participants share, involves both
social and intellectual dimensions. Social dimensions consider how students
relate to one another in the group. Intellectual dimensions reflect the nature of
the sense-making that goes on in the group. My assumption and focus in this
study is that joint construction can take place based on actions in either or both
of these dimensions.

Chapter two presented the framework”, shown again here in figure 5.1,
that treated utterances and shared utterances as actions in a discussion context
that were part of an activity. Utterances and shared utterances become actions
that can individually or combined with other utterances become a claim. Claims
combine to form accounts, which can any of various sense-making strategies”.
Accounts are constructed in discussion contexts as a result of the activity of the
discussion. The point is that while accounts are being constructed, there is
simultaneous activity related to students’ and teachers’ social agendas. Thus
discussion contexts are nested or concentric contexts in which multiple goals and

agendas are being enacted by both teachers and students. These goals and

 

2° This framework was built on both theoretical and analytic dimensions. These are not
developed in this chapter. The theoretical dimensions are developed in Chapter Two and the
analytic dimensions are developed in Chapter Three.

21 However for joint construction to occur across utterances, it is most likely that the participants
will share sense-making strategies.

131

agendas serve to advance joint construction of accounts or to participate in

activities that support social, and potentially other, goals and agendas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students' social goals:
' tension between achiev' social
F'gure 51 status anti/making conneclfiins with
peers
Dis cuss ion
Con text
Teacher
academic Teacher
goals for social goals
students: for students:
tension tension
between between desire
application , an
and inquiryam’ willingness to
developing share ideas am,
canonical abilityto value
accounts and and respect
ways of other's ideas
speaking

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students' personal academic needs:
tension between understanding accounts
of phenomena uni explaining how to
control phenomena

The model is analytic and explanatory, I argue, which is supported by the
patterns in the data. showing that not only are sense-making strategies for
accounts and social agendas mutually existent, they are also contextually
connected. By this I mean that both the account plane and the activity plane can
support or constrain one another. Thus activities can heavily focus on the social
agendas in the context and as a result constrain the development of accounts.

A potential outcome is that activity focused on participation of members may fail

132

to develop a satisfying account”. Conversely a discussion context that is
concerned exclusively with an account can constrain the activity to limit social
goals and as a result limit participation of all students. A potential outcome of
this is that a limited number of participants develop an account that is meaningful
and useful to them. However, this account may fail to include the various ideas
and perspectives of all members of the group, and consequently it will not be
meaningful and useful to those members.
Revisiting the findings

Chapter four described patterns in the data revealing the nature of the
utterances and the nature of jointly constructed accounts”. There were two main
patterns. The first was that when accounts involved describing patterns in the
students’ experiences in learning how to control phenomena, students effectively
used and built on the prior comments of their peers. However, students did not
feel that it was important or useful to describe specific experiences or
observations related to those phenomena. As a result, students’ accounts often
sounded more like procedures to accomplish a desired result. The second
pattern was that when I attempted to scaffold students’ development of accounts
to avoid human agency or abstract characteristics of phenomena occurring in the
world, the result was that students’ joint construction deteriorated and primarily

became triadic dialogues between me and one or two students. Before offering

 

22 The question of what constitutes a satisfying account is important. This was addressed in
chapter 2, but the key notion that I rely on is that it is relevant and meaningful. These two
characteristics are criteria that draw from an individual’s sense making strategies.

23 The model also attempts to account for events in discussions that are not necessarily part of a
jointly constructed account. However this analysis has focused primarily on the sense-making
activity, or the development of an account.

133

explanations of these patterns, I would like to review the important features in
more detail. Following this I will discuss these results, which will lead to certain
implications for teaching and future research.

This study focused on a set of discussions in which I could clearly identify
that students talked about one another’s ideas. Barnes and Todd (1995) and
Gallas (1995) describe ways that students elaborate and expand on one
another’s ideas to jointly construct accounts. This study built on those findings to
identify the pattern that students were more likely to construct jointly accounts
when the accounts described how to do things. Looking at the thematic patterns
(Lemke, 1990) students used in their utterances provides a triangulated
perspective on this pattern. The students were capable of thematically
connecting utterances with their peers, but they were more successful when the
account being constructed focused on describing patterns in their experiences of
successful control over phenomena, or other humans exerting control over the
world. Thus joint construction of accounts seemed to rely on statements in which
students described the actions of a human actor on phenomena in the material
world.

Another pattern revealed in the data related to my attempts as the teacher
to help students learn to talk about phenomena without the presence of human
actors exerting control over phenomena. This is ultimately a goal of science
education, that students could construct accurate and decontextualized
statements of phenomena in the world that offer general explanations that do not

rely on human control. Science is fundamentally a study that seeks to describe

134

things in the world free of the actions and agency of humans (Latour & Woolgar,
1986; Traweek, 1988). Yet in this data, students seemed to be less interested in
abstracting characteristics of phenomena . Furthermore, as I attempted to
scaffold students in making such statements, their efforts to jointly construct
accounts decreased. In these instances, the discussions became dialogues
between one or two students and me.
Discussion of the results

Given the results, described briefly above and in detail in Chapter Four,
why do students seem more successful jointly constructing accounts that involve
control over phenomena in the world? Similarly, why does it happen that, when I
attempted to scaffold students’ use of more scientific sense-making, students’
joint construction decreased? This section attempts to offer an explanation of
those phenomena by suggesting and exploring the different ways that students,
science teachers, and scientists engage with phenomena in the world. I begin
with a description of my goals, purposes, and desires for student participation.
This allows an explanation of the nature of engagement with phenomena in the
world that I attempted to inculcate into students. I will compare this with the
things that l interpret that students wanted in the discussions. This inference
helps me explain how students described different patterns in their experiences
and pursued different accounts of phenomena. As a result, students’ shared
modes of engagement allowed them to jointly construct accounts that were
meaningful and useful to them, but that I found lacking based on my goals for

them. Finally, I will offer some explanations about why the students’ account

135

construction and my goals for the kinds of accounts that students constructed did

not match well.
What did I want for students and why did I want this?

As the teacher there were things I felt it was important for students to
learn. I felt it was important that students learned to jointly construct accounts of
phenomena. Whether you think about students in school or scientists in the
professional world, the construction of science knowledge relies on combining
personal experiences and observations with the observations of others to
develop larger data sets that allow increasingly abstracted and generalized
claims about phenomena. Thus, students need to learn how to engage
discussions that will help them learn to communicate about the data they
collected, interpret patterns in their own and others’ data, and develop
explanations of those patterns that could be seen as independent of their actions
in the phenomena. In summary, I wanted students to be able to participate in
sense-making discussions that reflected the norms, values and rhetoric of
science. Thus I had two important things I wanted for students; they needed to
learn to jointly construct accounts and these accounts should reflect the norms,
values, and rhetoric of science.

I wanted students to learn to talk to one another and use one another’s
ideas to develop accounts of phenomena in the world. To accomplish this goal, I
provided many chances for students to discuss their ideas and learn to build on
the comments of their peers. | modeled this activity for them by revoicing

(O'Conner & Micheals, 1996) and repeating (Cazden, 1988) the utterances of

136

students in the group to show students that this was an appropriate strategy for
engagement in discussions. Furthermore, I attempted to shift the sociodynamics
of discussions by taking a more participatory role than is normally taken by a
teacher. I feel that these were goals that were met by students as they began
jointly constructing accounts as seen in the data set. Furthermore, this seemed
to develop over time as there were increased instances of joint construction
toward the end of the data collection. I would argue that this is an expected
outcome of socialization into practices of discussion and joint construction of
accounts.

Fundamentally an important aspect of learning science considers the
experiences we have with phenomena and learning to make sense of our
experiences. I have described one model of scientific sense making that relies
on model-based reasoning which connects experiences, patterns in those
experiences, and ultimately explanations of why those patterns occur. In terms
of experiences, educators commonly think of hands-on learning as important to
science learning. From the perspective of model-based reasoning, an assumed
benefit of the hands-on learning is that students will individually, or with the help
of teachers, interpret from their experiences patterns and ultimately develop or
seek explanations of those patterns. The problem is that the model-based
reasoning can get lost in the activity. As a result, many educators prefer working
towards, ‘minds-on’ perspectives, which maintain focus on the reasoning activity

of learning. In the discussions that this study examined, the goal of the

137

discussion was to jointly engage the group students in a collective ‘minds—on’
activity that would help them learn to use model-based reasoning.

Ultimately the goal of students learning model-based reasoning was not
fulfilled in this study. The notion that students could jointly construct model-
based accounts based on their explanations of patterns in their experiences
simply did not occur. However, this study has shown that statements of human
agency were important joint construction of accounts by students. Students’ joint
construction did involve sense-making related to their experiences with
phenomena in the world. Thus I would argue that students were involved in
fundamentally scientific ‘minds-on’ activity, and yet not the kind of activity that
supported learning model-based reasoning. Therefore, assuming the goal that
students will learn to use model-based reasoning as part of their scientific sense-
making, it becomes important to think about the ways that students engage with
and use their experiences in discussions. Furthermore, we have to think about
the role and context of hands-on experiences in learning science as well as the
scaffolding and developmental of students’ sense-making in order to lead to
‘minds-on’ experiences that help students develop model-based reasoning.
What did students want to accomplish when they constructed accounts?

It is impossible to know exactly what the students wanted from their
accounts. However, in the data set and particularly in the focal discussions,
evidence suggests that the students did want to construct jointly useful and
meaningful accounts. One pattern described here and in the preceding chapter

showed that students were more interested in jointly constructing accounts that

138

involved human agency. This section clarifies an explanation that a main reason
students were interested in talking about human agency was within their abilities.
This is a product of their developmental ability and is a normal, predictable
sense-making strategy for young children. Another explanation is that students’
linguistic abilities can impact attempts to joint construction of an account.

It is not surprising to recognize, as shown in the analytic model of this
study, that whole group sense-making discussions are complex contexts that
require participants to have multiple abilities to act in a context. Such abilities
include, among other things, knowing and using appropriate vocabulary, relying
on a network of connected conceptual ideas and models, and being able to
describe experiences with relevant phenomena. Young students have limited
sets of abilities, which constrain their entrance into discussion contexts. As a
result, limited abilities there are impacts on students’ potential joint construction.
The consequence is that while students might want to participate, their
participation can be constrained.

An aspect of students’ utterances that became interesting in this analysis
was the role that human agency played in students’ use of one another’s
utterances. In both focal discussions, utterances that included human agency
became central in the students’ joint construction. In the May 15, 2001
discussion of Wind and Kites, Marquisha initially introduced human agency to
describe actions taken to fly a kite. There was significant joint construction
around Marquisha’s introduction of human agency. Similarly in the May 13, 2002

discussion of Seeds, Rodger introduced human agency to talk about planting

139

seeds. This initiated a thematic sequence about all the things a human agent
might need to do when planting and growing seeds. The interesting thing about
human agency is that it seemed to provide a focus of accounts that relied on the
resources that students had to jointly construct.

Students’ use of human agency as a thematic pattern also impacted
discussion contexts. I think that thematic patterns of human agency served to
balance students’ social goals and purposes with their academic needs. I am
suggesting that human agency helped manage a tension for students, some of
which had to do with language. Constructing semantically clear statements
about the world is not easy, especially if the criterion is that these statements be
abstracted from human action. This was confounded by the fact that we attempt
to have students talk about experiences. As a result they naturally talk about
their actions in their experiences. They are familiar and comfortable, possessing
appropriate linguistic ability to describe their experiences from the perspective of
acting in the context. Thus they situate themselves as knowing something and
being aligned with others (who have similar experiences). Thus human agency
facilitates their participation in the context, because it specifically relies on their
own lived experiences.

Developing an account of their experiences that leaves themselves out is
also intellectually challenging. Students’ life experiences may have given them
few occasions when this seemed like a worthwhile practice. Therefore, using
model-based reasoning did not readily have practical use or useful meaning in

students’ everyday experiences. In contrast, knowing how to do things, like write,

140

read, draw, ride a bike or fly a kite did have practical and meaningful uses in their
lives. Furthermore, their experiences were directly relevant in accounts that
described how to do things. Thus, removing themselves required a sort of
distancing from their everyday experiences and taking a relative perspective that
is quite intellectually challenging.

Another explanation related to the construction of accounts is that joint
construction of accounts can at times challenge students’ abilities. An example
is Rodger, a student who struggled and wanted to participate, but received
infrequent opportunities. He struggled because he stuttered and was self
conscious about his speech. However he made frequent attempts to join
discussions. In the May 13, 2002 discussion about seeds, Rodger attempted to
follow a strategy modeled by another student to evaluate a claim. He questioned
Annie about her claim that all seeds could grow into flowers. The problem was
that Annie never said seeds grow into flowers. In fact she made a general claim
that seeds grow into plants in the beginning of the discussion. She refuted his
challenge saying that she never said that. In response Rodger dropped his
challenge.

Rodger’s question attempted to follow a previously successful interaction
pattern. Rodger’s linguistic ability was limited and thus potentially impacted his
actions in the discussion. In the case described above, I think Rodger was
limited in his resources in that discussion context and thus the strategy failed to
gain him a participatory role in this discussion. He was listening and acting within

the context, but the context required him to manage too many things. Rodger

141

was attempting to manage his social position and status in the class, along with
the content of the discussion, the nature of the discussion context and the joint
construction of an account. As a result Rodger had many things to figure out in
the context and limited abilities to support entry into the discussion context.
Why the two desires conflict

While there was never outright conflict between the students and me, as
the teacher, there were embedded conflicts over what constituted a meaningful
and useful account. I encouraged and attempted to support students in jointly
developing accounts that connected their classroom experiences with patterns
and explanations of those experiences that did not directly involve students
actions in those classroom experiences. However, in joint construction of
accounts, students infrequently attempted to interpret or explain classroom
experiences. In addition, it is interesting to notice that students did generalize
about experiences; but this was done in order to describe effective means of
control over phenomena, rather than explaining causes for those phenomena.
As a result, my interpretation is that our desires for meaningful and useful
accounts were conflicting. This section considers the differences between the
students’ jointly constructed accounts and my desires for the accounts students
might construct.

It is interesting that the two focal discussions, selected for the number of
student uptakes, actually did not include experiences and did not even draw out
of particular experiences. They were general discussions in which students had

opportunities to propose and pursue explanations of phenomena. However,

142

students did have experiences related to each discussion. Before the May 15,
2001 VVlI‘Id and Kites discussion students had played with kites, built wind vanes,
observed how wind vane arrow direction correlated with the direction that
bubbles blew in the wind, and had read informational text about wind. Before the
May 13, 2002 discussion about seeds, students had dissected seeds,
germinated seeds in Ziploc bags, dissected plants, and read in books about
plants. Thus in each focal discussion students had multiple experiences with the
topics, and yet, only one utterance in three hundred sixty-two combined lines of
transcript referred specifically to students’ ‘hands-on’ experiences. In other
discussions there were specific references to school based experiences, but
these discussions did not lead to as much joint construction or collective
validation as compared with the focal discussions. Therefore, one possible
explanation is that experiences are not important. However, I think that is not the
case, the issue is how students talked about experiences.

I am referring to times in discussions when students used an indefinite you
to create hypothetical experiences with phenomena. Those instances, like
Marquisha telling how ‘you fly a kite’ and Rodger telling how ‘you plant a seed’
were vivid moments in which students gathered around the discussion, jointly
constructing claims and an account that many students could imagine or had
previously experienced. I think students’ prior experiences were potentially
based on real experiences, but described in imaginative ways in discussions to

establish thematic patterns. It allowed speakers and listeners to connect with

143

actions in a narrated context. This led to joint construction of accounts that
sound like procedures for how to do different things.

In contrast I tried to get students to make statements that described
phenomena free of the actions of human actors. In the flying kites example, I
asked Marquisha to explain, ‘how a kite flies.’ I asked her to shift her focus from
human actions at the center of her claims, to making phenomena central.
Fundamentally we disagreed about what was meaningful and useful to
communicate to others when constructing accounts. For students knowing how
to do things was important, in fact it was the basis of their successes in school.
They demonstrated their abilities of how to do in reading, writing, and
mathematics. These abilities were meaningful to students because they were
rewarded for successful performance. Similarly they were useful in reading
books and writing to communicate ideas. Thus asserting control and telling how
to do things was very important in their lived school experiences. In contrast, my
scientific expectations were not meaningful or useful to students. Being able to
explain the causes and effects that made kites fly was not nearly as useful as
knowing how to make the kite fly.

Implications and future research

There are a number of important implications these findings and
explanations raise to consider. In the following section I will consider the more
salient of these implications. One implication considers the value that science
and science learning places on being able to make general statements about

phenomena in the world using model-based reasoning. This questions the value

144

and importance of students’ joint construction around claims about human
agency. A further implication that is important to consider is the role of hands-on
learning in science, especially in the lower grades. This study suggests that
there are special considerations to take into account in regards to the kinds of
accounts that students construct based on hands-on experiences. Another
implication that all science educators often consider is that developmental
appropriateness of different topics. Finally, an implication that l have raised
involves the issue of students’ use of statements of human agency as resources
for participation and sense-making in the jointly constructed accounts.
Students Ieaming to make generalized statements in the wortd

Students’ accounts involving actions of an indefinite human agent
introduce a number of dilemmas for science teachers. In this study, students’
experiences, patterns, and explanations relied on the actions of a generic
human, and potentially in the mind of the listener, themselves, acting on things to
create the phenomenon in the world. Furthermore, students’ accounts were
contextualized in a specific experience in which the human agent and the
phenomenon were inextricable from one another. The result was that students
were not learning to make decontextualized statements about the world. Thus
from the perspective of the teacher, students are not learning to generate
scientific accounts. However, a teacher would also recognize that students were
developing other scientific abilities through their discussions. This involved the
ability to construct jointly accounts that were coherent and complete. All the

phenomena of concern in the data set can be considered in terms of what

145

humans are doing in that context. Thus students were Ieaming to manage those
human actions and respond to them in their accounts. Furthermore, the indefinite
human agent suggests some generality and thus students’ intent may have been
to generate generic accounts using indefinite actors.

The prominence of students’ use of human agency as a thematic pattern
in discussions also suggests things to think about in terms of learning science. In
the focal discussions human agency played an important role in joint construction
of accounts. The introduction of human agency supported students’
development of hypothetical experiences. These hypothetical experiences
created contexts in which students could imagine and participate in discussions
in multiple ways. Ultimately, the activity of science involves imagination making.
Nobel Physicist Richard Feynman describes the importance of imagination in the
following quote:

The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of

all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific

"truth.” But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are

to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws,

in a sense that gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create
from these hints the great generalizations — to guess at the wonderful,
simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment
to check again whether we have made the right guess. (pg. 2, Feynman,

1994)

146

One aspect of Feynman’s quote suggests that science process and construction

of scientific knowledge fundamentally involve the use of imagination. Students’

 

use of human agency suggests that students are imagining things as they
discuss and creating contexts in which they can think and act. Human agency
claims enabled joint construction across students and across discourse contexts.
However, in this particular discussion I want to think about how the introduction
of human agency as relying on imagination.

However, in this data set there never was a collection of sets of data
(multiple experiences) to reason about. Thus thinking about models in a
discussion might have been inappropriate. All the experiences included in the
data (the students set of experiences) led to the same investigations, the same
questions, and the same results. So there is no reason to generalize because
there are no general phenomena ever experienced. Therefore it makes perfect
sense for students to include human agency because all the data were collected
by them and anomalies are directly attributable to human agency in most cases.
However another interpretation of the same situation is that students were using

human agency as a way to imply generality. The indefiniteness of ‘you’ might be

 

a way students were signaling that they were talking about a phenomenon they
expected everyone to know about and thus it intended generality. It is difficult to
know a speaker’s intent. But it does seem important to continue to think about
how students were using human agency in discussions to make claims about

phenomena.

147

Students’ accounts and hands-on experiences

A dilemma that science teachers face is the challenges of connecting
hands-on experiences with discussions in science learning. If students rely on
statements about human agency as a thematic pattern and explanatory
framework, when students attempt to construct and validate joint accounts of
science experiences in school it is likely that they will focus on human actions, or
statements of human control in their explanations and accounts. Human agency
was important for this group of students making sense of phenomena, which
seems a likely problem for many classrooms. If we want students to develop
abilities to speak differently, than it might be important to think about how we
support students’ development of those abilities. However, as a teacher pushes
towards such decontextualized scientific accounts using model-based reasoning,
there is danger of shifting the discussion context so that students feel the goal is
to replicate certain forms of knowledge.

Teachers who engage in discussions in their science teaching will often
connect these discussions with students’ inquiries and investigations of the
world. I am suggesting that this practice is vital and yet also complex. It is vital
because it introduces students to the need to develop and make statements
about the world that are coherent, complete, and accurate. I feel that students
can better achieve this goal through joint construction of accounts that involve
experiences, patterns, and explanations. Hands-on experiences provide some of

the experiences used in those accounts.

148

 

 

Unfortunately it is not as simple as collecting data and then having a talk,
letting students develop theories to explain science phenomena. Students need
to learn the practices of negotiating experiences and patterns, which in some
ways students were doing in these discussions. Their efforts to make statements
of control assumed patterns without stating them explicitly. However, in these
data, students were not developing as much ability in knowing how reason based
on models or explanations of experiences with phenomena. One possibility is
because the patterns that students implied in their accounts of phenomena were
rarely made explicit. It is possible that this is a developmental path. Students
must first learn the practices and then learn the ways of constructing model-
based scientific accounts. But, an important question is whether learning the
model of scientific reasoning is best accomplished by connecting it with hands-on
experiences. Possibly we need to investigate other options for learning this

mode of speaking and acting in the world.
The developmental appropriateness of specific topics in science

A third dilemma is considering the developmental appropriateness of
topics. This was an issue that came up, especially in the May 15, 2001
discussion about wind and kites. The problem was that as soon as students
begin talking about their ideas, things start getting complicated. Students often
introduced naive and incorrect ideas about phenomena in the world. When
those ideas involved real-world contexts, discussions became even more
complicated. And yet if the subject matter were constrained, the result would

also likely constrain opportunities for joint construction. This creates a dilemma

149

 

 

for teachers in terms of thinking about students’ abilities and needs and
juxtaposing those with the value of real experiences with phenomena in the world
that are based on complex phenomena requiring complex accounts.

However, the conclusions for practice are far more interesting in my
estimation. When I have talked with teachers about classroom science
talks, many respond suggesting that it is a common part of their practice.
However, when visit their rooms, the complexity is either missing or goes
unexamined. They think they are having their students have science talks
or they ask me, so what do you think, what they should do next. Similarly

with pre-service teachers, I have struggled with the book, Talking their

 

way into Science (Gallas, 1995) because students read the book and fail to
understand the complexity of holding a science talk with students. In
either, in-service or pre-service teachers, one problem that I perceive is
that they focus on one of the dimensions of the theoretical model
described here, usually to the exclusion of the others. As a result they
oversimplify the context, leading to distorted participant frameworks that do
not adequately respond to the dynamic, flexible context that is a natural
part of learning contexts (Duckworth, 1996).

This problem is even more complex when thinking about the role of
human agency. Throughout this study my analysis often led me to becoming
critical of students accounts because of their introduction of agency. I tended to

interpret that since they were not using model based reasoning, then the account

150

was not scientific. This is inaccurate and also useless conclusion since
scientists are interested in practical accounts as well as model-based accounts.
However, I am an exception in thinking about students discussions. I think in-
service and pre-service teachers make similar faulty assumptions that by having
students talk and especially if they talk about their ideas, the result is scientific.
And yet these findings suggest that students do not engage in model-based
reasoning which is a goal for students in science learning (American Association
for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996). So
this is also not an acceptable outcome. In short, the key is that this is more

complex than we often think.
Students resources to jointly construct accounts

The final issue this writing has raised is considering the available linguistic
abilities that students bring to discussions. These abilities impact the ways that
students can participate, speak, and know in discussions. Students having more
resources are advantaged in the discussion context.

There is an implicit assumption that language is important to
understanding the world. Does this mean someone that speaks well knows
more? The problem is, especially with young students’ science learning, that
students lack vocabulary and may even lack the ability to use language to tell
what they think or understand. Thus students’ abilities with language become
resources for students in discussions. The important question in this study is
whether such resources influenced students’ abilities to participate. | raise this

as a question to consider because of tendency to want to focus on vocabulary in

151

 

 

science. The thinking is that students need those particular words to be able to
construct accounts of phenomena. However, this data suggests that this was not
the case. There were times when students might have benefited from having
more robust vocabularies. However, it did not seem to infringe on their ability to
communicate or act in a context.

Another resource in discussions involves thinking about the issue of the
representation used in the wind and kites talk. This seemed to support some
sense-making for students. My interactions in this context might have adversely
impacted the discussion context. However, I think the drawing was valuable for
students helping them manage portions of the account so that they could focus
on other portions of the account. Again this becomes a question of managing
dilemmas relevant to teaching. The question in terms of resources is; how
representations serve in different contexts to support student thinking?

Finally, the question of developmental appropriateness might have
important impacts in terms of resources. We know that students develop
different abilities over time. So the question is; do those abilities also impact the
ways that they can participate in discussions? This study does not necessarily
support this since the students represent a wide range of developmental abilities.
The data set included special education and gifted students in three grade-levels
talking to one another. Yet, this is a somewhat unsatisfying answer. We do
know that knowing some things helps you understand other things. The things
we know mediate our knowledge and sense-making. So it seems logical that the

ways of knowing that we possess and our development of ways of knowing

152

 

’.A L1]
,.

1?;1'; _ "

would impact the ways we can mediate new knowledge and different
explanations. But that is a question and theory that can not be answered in this
analysis.

Future Research

Describing the results of this study has raised a number of questions that
still need further research. In this section I will briefly review those. Each serves
as a bullet point of a larger set of research questions. Thus as with all inquiry
these are first, next steps, drawn from this study.

A question that has been recurrent in my thinking involves thinking about
strategies to help students learn to construct accounts. Some students were
particularly skillful at taking up the comments of peers and working themselves
into the discussion. This allowed them to situate their ideas in the context and
become key participants. Students, who did not seem to possess those same
uptake strategies, when they did speak, often introduced ideas that were not
within the on-going thematic sequence or were hard to situate in the discussion.
This raises a question about whether learning discussion strategies might
support their involvement in discussions. However, teaching students discussion
strategies may introduce a new challenge. The more students that participate,
the greater potential there is to introduce na'ive ideas. This becomes an
empirical question drawn from the preceding notion.

My thinking in this work was profoundly affected by the examination of
language. As I conducted analyses of semantic relationships and thematic

patterns, I began to understand differently how my students were making sense

153

 

of phenomena. As a result I began to wonder about the value of helping
teachers learn to use similar analyses as pedagogical tools to better understand
the sense-making of their students. This introduces a number of questions about
the practicality of learning and doing such analyses, the learning of teachers as
they participated in such activity, and similar kinds of questions.

Another issue that has been on-going throughout the work is thinking
about developmental trajectories of talk in science classrooms. Human agency
was influential for students in my classroom and study. They were young
elementary students. There is potential that human agency was a first step that
these students were taking toward emergent science literacy. Their view was on
the ways that human actions caused outcomes in the world. It might be possible,
through other study designs to consider how students’ language develops over
time and through experiences to see what the trajectory of talk in science
classrooms looked like.

Finally there has been the implication that mediation of complex accounts
of phenomena may require support by some knowledgeable other. In the case of
the wind and kites talk, I supported students with a drawing. It seems that it
would be important in research to begin to think more carefully about the different

ways that teachers can mediate learning in sense-making discussions in science

154

Bibliography

155

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993).
Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, C. (2001). Teaching for Understanding. Retrieved, 2003, from
the World Vlfide Web:
http://scires.educ.msu.edu/Science/Public/Assignments.htm

Anderson, C. W., Holland, J. D., & Palincsar, A. (1997). Canonical and
Sociocultural Approaches to Research and Reform in Science Education.
Elementary School Journal, 97(4).

 

Atkinson, P., & Hammersly, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant
observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative
Research (pp. 248-261). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Austin, J. L. (1999). How to do things with words. In A. Jaworksi & N.
Coupland (Eds), The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.

 

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres & other late essaALs (V. W. McGee,
Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited:
Making meaning through talk. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.

Barton, A. C. (1998). Teaching science with children: Pedagogy,
representation and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teachi&35(4),
379-394.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activig
of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

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(10), 1039-1065.

 

 

Bloom, J. (2001). Discourse, Cognition, and Chaotic Systems: An
examination of students' argument about density. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 10(4), 447-492.

 

 

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom Discourse: The Language of teaching
and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

 

 

Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and Situated Learning
Perspectives in Theory and Practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4-15.

 

Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1995). Constructivist, Emergent, and Sociocultural
Perspectives in the Context of Developmental Research. Paper presented at the

 

 

156

Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education, Columbus, OH.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The Teacher Research
Movement: A Decade Later. Educational Researcherg28(7), 15—25.

Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:
Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.),
Knowing, learning and instruction: Essgs in honor of Robert Glaser. (pp. 453-
494). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coulthard, M. (1985). An introduction to discourse analysis (Second ed.).
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J., & 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 Teachifl, 37(3), 237-258.

Darrelson, D. (1985). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. In H.
Rajchman & C. West (Eds.), Post-Analytic philosophy (pp. 129-143). New York:
Columbia University Press.

Duckworth, E. (1996). The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on
teaching and learning. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Edelsky, C. (1993). Who's got the floor? In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and
conversational interaction (pp. 189-227). New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Enfield, M. (2000a). Do you know what you are talking about? Teacher
content knowledge in elementary classroom discourses. Paper presented at the
National Association for Research on Science Teaching Annual Conference,
New Orleans, LA.

Enfield, M. (2000b). Who’s talking, who's listening: Social constructivist
science learning facilitated by classroom talk. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Feynman, R. P. (1994). Six easy pieces. Reading: Perseus Books.

 

Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s
questions and theories, responding with curricula (1 ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.

Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. M. a. K. Weiler (Ed.), Rewriting
literacy: Culture and the Discourse of the Other. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

157

Gee, J. P. (1997, March 1997). Science talk: Language and knowledge in
classroom discussion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National
Association fo Research on Science Teaching, Chicago.

 

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldnine.

Grice, H. P. (1999). Logic and conversation. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland
(Eds), The Discourse Reader.

 

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, life, and work in
communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hilton-Brown, B., & Kelly, G. J. (2001). Discourse studies of science
education: A review of the literature. Paper presented at the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO.

Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and
collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions.
Cotmition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.

Hulland, C., & Munby, H. (1994). Science, stories and sense-making: A
comparison of qualitative data from a wetlands unit. Science Education, 78(2),
1 17-136.

Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (1999). Perspectives on discourse analysis.
In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds), The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.

Kawagley, A. O., Norris-Tull, D., & Norris-Tull, R. A. (1998). The
indigenous worldview of Yupiaq culture: Its scientific nature and relevance to the

practice of teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2),
133-144.

Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing sciecne
as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(8).

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and
learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.

Kurth, L. A., Anderson, C., & Palincsar, A. S. (2002). The case of Carla:
Dilemmas of helping all students to understand science. Science Educatiog
@(3).

 

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of
scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

 

158

 

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Lee, 0., & Fradd, S. H. (1996). Literacy Skills in Science Learning among
Linguistically Diverse Students. Science EducationJ0(6), 651-671.

 

Lee, 0., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for All, Including Students from
Non-English-Language Backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12-21.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Lanmiage, learning and values.
NonNood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education
Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

 

O’Conner, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks:
Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse
learning, and schooling. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

 

Perkins, D. (1998). What is understanding? In M. S. VVIske (Ed.), Teaching
for Understanding: Linking research with practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Inc.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982).
Accommodation of scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change.
Science Education, 66(2), 221-227.

 

Quine, W. V. O. (1953). Two Dogmas of Empiricism, From a Imical point
of view (pp. 2046). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 

Rath, A., & Brown, D. E. (1996). Modes of engagement in science inquiry:
A microanalysis of students' orientation toward phenomena at a summer camp.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1083-1097.

Reddy, M., Jacobs, P., McCrohon, C., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1998).
Creating scientific communities in the Elementary classroom. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.

 

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes:
participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V.
Wertsch & P. D. Rio & A. Alvarez (Eds), Sociocultural studies of the mind (pp.
139-164). New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. New
York: Oxford University Press.

 

159

Scauble, L., Klopfer, L., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an
engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859-882.

 

 

Shapiro, B. (1994). What children bring to light: A constructivist
perspective on children's learning in science. New York: Teacher’s College
Press.

Smith, D. C., & Anderson, C. (1999). Appropriating scientific practices and
discourses with future elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 38(7).

 

Smith, E. L. (1990). A conceptual change model of learning science. In S.
Glynn & R.Yeany & B. Britton (Eds), Psychology of Learning Science (pp. 43-
63). Hillsdale: Lawrenece Erlbaum.

Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy
physics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Lanmrage. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Warren, 8., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-
Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday
senes-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.

Watson, 3., & Konicek, R. (1990). Teaching for conceptual change:
Confronting children's experience. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(9), 680-685.

 

Weiner, L. (2000). Research in the 90’: Implications for urban teacher
preparation. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 369-406.

160

Appendices

161

Appendix A
The following descriptions and transcripts of discussions constitute the
discussions that were analyzed in this study. Non-consenting students are
represented in the transcripts as “NC” or blank spaces in individual utterances.
This was done to preserve the sequence of the discussion and provide
anonymity for those students. From this set of selected discussions the two focal
discussions that were used in this dissertation are identified.

8) Cloud Talk — May 5, 2001

 

This discussion, on the nature and composition of clouds, lasted 20
minutes, resulting in 416 lines of transcript. The selection came from a longer
discussion about clouds that lasted over 40 minutes. The discussion began by
reading “The Cloud Book” by Tomi DePaula, which includes scientific and
cultural ideas about clouds. After establishing norms for the discussion,
Stephan was first to speak. He said that clouds are made of tiny drops of water
suspended in the atmosphere (line 4). This definition was a near identical
repetition of the definition provided on the first page of the cloud book. I restated

this definition of clouds in the next turn. In line 35, Darrel asked the question that

 

became the focus on the next 17 minutes. He wanted to know, “how could
clouds be made of water?”

Stephan responded first to this question. He began telling about how “rain
isn’t just from clouds (Iine35),” but explained that “clouds [...] raise up water” that
can’t be seen (line 40). This idea about raising water was repeated throughout

the discussion by Stephan and Darrel (lines 49, 111, 275, 282,286, 287, 294, and

162

300). They both talked about ways the water rose without being seen (lines 49,
309, and 311). | restated my interpretation of Darrel’s question, “where does the
water come from (line 63)?” Darrel responded asserting, “That water come from
the lakes and the ocean (line 69).” Stephan joined, to repeat his ideas describing
the movement of water from the ground to the atmosphere (line 72). Bobby
asserted that water comes from Jesus (line 85).

Many students focused on phenomena associated with clouds. Stephan
introduced rain saying, “when the cloud gets clumped up with too many rain
drops, then it rains (line 50).” Lora interpreted Stephan’s idea saying that clouds
get “really heavy with water” and then rain (line 95). Darrel mentioned rain 12
times and snow (line 223) as coming from clouds. In contrast, Darrel talked
about how “the cloud sucks up the water once it gets real cool it starts to rain
(line 111).” Darrel added additional phenomena, saying dark clouds led to rain
(line 175-177) and claimed that it rains mostly at night. Rodger also talked about
rain (line 182) telling how it came at night and made the ground muddy.

An interesting portion of this discussion was the analogies for clouds (and
potentially rain) that students developed. All of these analogies involved actions
of human agents and treated clouds as semi-solid objects that absorb and
precipitate water. Stephan initiated the analogies by talking about making
brownies (line 120) to explain how clouds could overflow, which Darrel accepted
(line 124). Stephan altered the analogy to a sponge (line 125). I asked students
to say whether a cloud was more like a sponge or a bowl. Darrel thought it was

both, and while explaining his analogy added a third possibility, cotton (line 133).

163

 

I“

tunic-4%

However, the sponge analogy seemed most resilient. Bobby validated the notion
that sponges and clouds both hold water (line 146 & 149). Stephan built on the
sponge analogy describing how it explained water movement to clouds and

clouds holding water (line 151 & line 163-167). Darrel held to his idea that

 

sponges and bowls were necessary to explain clouds (lines 171-177). Darrel
was not satisfied with the analogy and developed another analogy, that a
spaceship with a sucking straw as an analogy for how water got into clouds (lines
275-294). But Stephan rejected this, asking, why “you do not see all that water
being sucked up (line 304).” Darrel countered Stephan saying that, “I’m just
going with your idea (line 308),” referencing Stephan’s explanation about water
being sucked up.

At the prompting of a question by Mrs. C., which came after Darrel’s claim
about temperature (line 203), the students began talking about the relationship
between temperature and cloud formation. Darrel was confident that it needed to
be cold (lines 204, 206). Marquisha disagreed, though not publicly (line 215),
simply saying “warm.” Stephan included warm and cold temperatures as

necessary to cloud formation (line 218). Later he used examples of precipitation

11..

in summer and winter as evidence that the temperature was not relevant (line
290). Lora produced the most scientific response to Mrs. C.’s question,
explaining that her mother told her that warm and cold air “comes together and it
turns into rain (line 228).”

At the end of the discussion there was no clear conclusion about the

students’ explanations of clouds. They developed a series of analogies that each

164

had weaknesses. The final portion of the discussion involved Stephan

challenging Darrel’s spaceship analogy. Stephan challenged a portion of

Darrel’s analogy, which as Darrel pointed out was built on Stephan’s claim.

Darrel and Stephan dominated this discussion, most of the student

utterances. Furthermore, most of the shared utterances also referred to Stephan

and Darrel’s utterances, most of which came from one another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Line Speaker Utterance
1. Mr. E. So we are going to talk one person at a time
2 M and try to say short things so that everyone has a
. r. E.
chance to talk. //
3. Mr. E. Stephan
4. Stephan filouds are made of little drops of water or ice
angrng In the arr/
5. Stephan in the atmosphere
6. Mr. E. OK
7 M So Stephan says clouds are made of little drops of
. r. E. . . . .
water or Ice hanging In the arr
8. Stephan the atmosphere
9. Mr. E. in the atmosphere //
10. Mr. E. Marquisha is that what you were going) say also"
11. Marquisha I don’t know
12. Mr. E Does anybody
13. unknown you don’t know some other talk
14. Rodger Well why did you raise your hand"
15. Mr. E. OK / has something else
16. Bobby No she don't without permission to speak
17. NC
18. Mr. E. I’m sorry you have to stop a minute//
19 Mr E I don’t think that anybody is listening to but
' ' ' maybe Stephan and Marquisha and Octavia l/
Rodgerl and Bobby and Kelvin I need to
20. Mr. E. focus your attention on listening to right
now//
21. Mr. E. Go
22.-25. NC
26. Mr. E. OK
27. Mr. E. talked about what clouds tell us//

 

 

165

 

fr:

 

But right now lets focus just on/ lets try to think

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28. Mr. E.
about
29. Mr. E. what are clouds are made of//
30 M Stephan said clouds were made of tiny drops of
. r. E. . .
water and Ice "1 the atmosphere]!
31 Mr E How many people agree with that" some students
' ' ' raise their hands
32. Darrel I got something
33. Mr. E. Great/ OK Darrel you have something else"
34. Darrel I agree with Stephan/ because that ll—
35. Darrel how could / long pause/clouds be made of waterA
36. Mr. E. OK ll
37. Mr. E. Darrel’s got a great question /
38. Mr. E. “how could clouds be made of water“ /I
39. Mr. E. StephanA
40. Stephan Because sometimes umm when it I umm I rains the
rain leI t just from the clouds//
Clouds sometimes umm raise up water but you
41. Stephan can’t see it because it is very light and it comes up
and when it gets umm
42. Mr. E. Stephan you need to wait a minute/l
43. Mr. E. Lie/re is a little rustling over here that is distracting
44. Mr. E. So I just wanted you to wait/
45. Some management and arranging of students
46. Mr. E. 0k Stephan /try again//
47. Stephan How // How water drops get up in the air in the
atmosphere IS because when It/
48. Stephan during the day /
clouds they bring up little drops of water clouds that
49. Stephan are so small that you can’t see them and they go so
fast that you can’t see them either
and so when a cloud ets clum ed u with too
50‘ Stephan many rain drops/ thengit rains/I p p
51. Some more management
52 Mr E So those people that are having a hard time talking I
' ' ' I’m going to start sending back to their desks//
53. Mr. E. That means listening and talking/l
54. Mr. E. Bobby did you want to say somethingA
55. Bobby How come Kelvin got all those pencils"
56. Mr. E. Because Mrs. Corbin has asked him to put them

 

 

away and he hasn’t followed her instruction/l

 

 

166

 

So I am going to give him one minute and if he
doesn’t put the other two pencils in the center and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57' Mrs. C' start paying attention he will be going back and
writing sentences/I
58. Mrs. C. In the center of the carpet response to Kelvin’s
move
59. Mr. E. I think there are three pencils/I
60. Mr. E. So we have this idea that there’s water l/
61. Mr. E. could you sit down"
62 M We have this idea that clouds are made of waterl
. r. E.
long pause / small drops of water /
63. Mr. E. but where does that water come from"
64. Mr. E. Is there just water in the air?
65. unclear Ovenapping chorus NO
66. NC
67. Mr. E. Response to NC student
68. Mr. E. Where is that water coming from"
69. Darrel That water come from the lakes and the ocean
70. unclear the clouds
71. Darrel because Stephan had said its like
72. Stephan the water comes so fast its in tiny pieces and you
can t see It
73 Multiple overlapping voices make it difficult to make
ou.
74. Mr. E. Just a minute/l
75. Mr. E. Darrell
76. Mr. E. we have little conversations going /
77. Mr. E. and I know that you have some ideas/
78 Mr E but we need to make it so that everybody can hear
' ' ' everybody’s comments”
79. Rodger Bobby’s know it
80. Mr. E 80/ Bobby you waited /
81 M Bobby what were you going to say about clouds / or
. r. E
the water"
82. Mr. E zgfitrrere going to say something about the water I
83. Bobby Yep
84. Mr. E. What were you going to say"
85. Bobby Water comes from / pause / Jesus.
86. Mr. E The water comes from Jesus ll
87. Mr. E OK
88. Darrel Jesus"
89. Mr. E. Jesus//
90. NC
91. Mr. E. Lora

 

 

 

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

92. multiple overtapping talk
93. Lora [ln audible, overtapping talk]
I’m sorry I didn’t hear you said something
94. Mr.E right in the middle of what you were saying so I
couldn’t hear you
95. Lora I really don’t know what I’m talking about
96. Mr.E.. That’s alright most of us don’t
97. Mrs. C. But I l I thought what you said was interesting so try
to say It again [I
98. Mrs. C. because I was writing it down
99 L When the clouds are really heavy with waterl umm it
. ora .
starts to ram”
100- Mr. E. When the clouds are really heavy with water is
starts to ram“
101. gesture from Lora to agree
102. Mr. E. OK
103. Darrel Oh I think I know why it have [I Oops
104. Mr.E. Yeah Darrel
105. Darrel I think I know why it has water in it/l
106. Darrel I mean it rains.
107. Darrel Its almost like the idea of Stephan had//
108 Darrel But I drew a picture here about what Stephan had
' said land I thought about it / and was//
109. Darrel Its kind of like kind of l Lora’s and Stephan’s
110. Darrel but I think /when the water sucks up/
111 Darrel I mean the cloud sucks up the water once it gets
' real cool It starts to rain and when Its l
112. Darrel when like/ when like the water’s done/ it just//
113 Darrel It turns dark when the water comes up then it turns
' lrght It floats Irke Into / In the cloud/l
114. Darrel Then when it /starts raining/l
115. Darrel Then when the clouds get light there’s / it’s gonna
be sun/l
116. Darrel I don’t know what I’m talking about here//
117. Mr. E. That sounded good//
118. Mr. E. what Stephan“
I think what Darrel is trying to say is that the clouds
119. Stephan get filled up with too much /too much rain drops/
they over flow drawn out //
120. Stephan like lets say you are making brownies and you
overflow Id
like you overflow something like a faucet it’s the
121' Stephan same thing as water overflowing
122. Stephan and umm/ the water falls into little drops

 

168

 

 

So you’re saying the cloud is like a big bowl that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

123. Mr. E.
holds water“
124. Darrel Yea, like a bowl that holds noodles and something.
125. Stephan Yea,its like a big sponge/l
126. Darrel Its like a big sponge/l
127. Bobby Its like a big sponge
128. Mr. E. Hang onl/
129. Mr. E. OK so there is one idea of a bowl//
130. Mr. E. And then Stephan threw in this idea of a sponge,
whrch one seems
its both because it holds water and then it could
131. Darrel squeeze and it could and water could come out of
because
132. Mr. E. Hang on, let’s let
133. Darrel its real like umm/ its almost like cotton/
134' Darrel once you/ like how when you get a cotton ball and
dump water on It/
135. Darrel and you squeeze it/
136. Darrel some water will come outl
but if you don’t squeeze it there’s still water coming
137. Darrel out and it will have water still on it and water will
come out.
138 Mr E People that are scribbling in their books right now /
' ‘ that really distracts me//
139 Mr E If you are taking notes in your notebook I am very
’ ' happy about that
140. NC
141. Mr. E. If you are scribbling that really is distractinégll
142. Mr. E Bobby/
143. Mr. E gag/u are drawing pictures of clouds that would be
144 Mr E If you are drawing pictures of little boys and girls
' ' doing different things that’s not going to help//
145. Mr. E Bobby/ what were you waiting to say“
146. Bobby Sponges can hold water//
147. Mr. E. Sponges can hold water//
148. Rodger Sure can
149. Bobby Some overlapping talk and clouds can too//
150. Mr. E. OK Stephan
I think a cloud is more of a sponge because if you
151. Stephan put a sponge in water its not going to get no water in
WI
152. Stephan But if you squeeze it in the water
153. Mr. E. Just a minute/ I’m sorry can you wait“
154. Mr. E. Rodger

 

 

 

169

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

155. NC
156. Mrs. C. Maybe Rodger needs to go back and write
sentences/l
157. Rodger nuh-uhh
158. Mrs. C. This is your last chance//
The next time you are disturbing somebody / or
159. Mrs. C. anybody is disturbing anybody / you will be writing
sentences/l
Now I / before Stephan goes on I I know everybody
160. Mr. E. here knows a lot about clouds l but we only have
about five people talking/I
So I think that some of the rest of you could help us
161. Mr. E. .
figure this out”
162. Mr. E. Stephan / go ahead
umm / I think a cloud is more of a sponge because if
163' Stephan you just lay a sponge in water it just floats /
164. Stephan Egg/you squeeze rt / It goes In the water and rt
165. Stephan As it is sinking it soaks up the water//
Then if you take the water out I then it will still drip
166' Stephan because of the water that is outside of it”
But if you squeeze it I umm /all the water will
167' Stephan squeeze out and it will look like sort of like rain//
168. Mr. E. Ok I Darrel
169. Rodger l was next
170. Mr. E. Darrel was waiting first
Its like/ I think it’ like both of them / a bowl and a
171 . Darrel sponge / /
Because once it gets the water from the ocean or
172' Darrel the lake it becomes like a bowl
173 Darrel And it’ll do something and then it’ll turn into a
' sponge it’ll like make it rain because when it//
174. Darrel I don’t know what I am saying /
175. Darrel but when it umm gets dark and stuff/ like dark /
176. Darrel like it mostly rains at night.
177 Darrel When it gets dark at night I then the clouds I like the
' clouds get dark and black and it starts raining
178. Mr. E. OK / Rodger / you wanted to say something a
minute ago
179. Bobby I made it thunder once shooting fireworks
180 Mr E You need to wait because Rodger has been waiting
' ' ' patiently to talk
Umm lone time / sometimes when clouds break I it
181' Rodger starts raining /
182. Rodger And then in night time I it be soaking wet //

 

 

 

 

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

183. Rodger And then be mud puddles/l
184. Mr. E. And then what happens in the day to the mud
puddles?
185. Rodger Huh“
186. Mr. E. What happens in the day to the mud puddles“
Umm I if the sun show up lthey dry up / but it still be
187. Rodger mu d dy/I
188 M So there is something going on with the sun that is
. r. E. .
Important too I guess.
189. -
190 NC
191. Mr. E.
192. NC
193. Mr. E. OK //
194. Mr. E. So / that’s another idea//
195. Mr. E. Yeah Marquisha
196. Marquisha Are we talking about how to make clouds“
197 Mr E Well right now I was hoping we could talk about
' ' ' what are clouds are made of II
198 M And thenl hang on Marquisha I am going to finish
. r. E. . .
answering your question//
And then once we figure out what clouds are made
199. Mr. E. of / then we can try to figure out a plan to try to
make a cloud.
200. Marquisha To make a cloud“
We are going to see if we can make a cloud inside
201 . Mr. E. our classroom// lots of overtapping talk not the
whole room //
202. Mr. E. bdrm/l? we could try to make a cloud maybe in a
203. Mrs. C. I wonder if it have to be warm for clouds to be made
or does It have to be cold“
204. Darrel It has to be cold
205. Mrs. C. Or either one
206. Darrel It has to be cold to make the clouds/l
207. Mr. E. OK Darrel / you are yelling out //
There were three people that wanted to talk at the
208 Mr E same time because I saw Marquisha’s hand go up
' ' ' and then come back down and then Lora’s hand
now is going up //
209. Mr. E. Mrs. Corbin has a really great question//
210. Mrs. C. I honestly don’t know the answer to it//
211. Mr. E. Who wants to take on MrsCorbin’s question“
212. Stephan What was the question again“

 

171

 

 

 

 

My question was a wondered if it had to be warm to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

213. Mrs. C. make clouds / or cold to make clouds or do both
kinds of things need to happen //

214 Mr E Let’s start with Marquisha because she hasn’t had a

' ' ' chance to talk much yet/l

215. Marquisha warm //

216. Mr. E. warm //

217. Mr. E. Uhh Stephan/l

218. Stephan 1 don’t really think it matters what the temperature is

219 Stephan because in summer we have clouds and in winter
also have clouds and get snow/I

220. Mr.E. OK / Darrel

221. Darrel I think it rains I

222 Darrel I mean I think its cold because if it gets cold / like
real cold I
if it was below something I zero below something /

223' Darrel it’ll start to snow//

224. Darrel But it will if it is above 40 it will rain and snow
because rain turns Into snow/l

225. Mr. E. OK / Lora

226. Lora I have a different question/l

227. Mr. E. Ohh / let’s hear it”

228. Lora You know the cold air and hot air“

229' Lora 1t comes together I it comes together and it turns
Into ram”

230. Mr. E. Where did you learn that“

231. Lora My Mom//

232. Mr. E. Oth

233. Mr. E. the cold air and the hot air comes together and it
makes rain/l
Bobby and Rodgerl I don’t/ I’m not sure that what

234. Mr. E. you’re doing is right on target with what we are
doing//

235. Rodger We drawing clouds/l

236. Mr. E. Stephan

237. Stephan l have something for wind //

238. Mr. E. For what I for wind“

239. Stephan l have something about wind/l

240. Mr. E. We are going to do wind/l

241. Mr. E. Yea we’ll do wind/l

242. Mr. E. Molefi

243. Mr. E. After a pause “

244. -

249 NC

 

 

 

172

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

250. Mr.E. OK / Lora
251. Lora What makes lightning?
252. Mr. E. What makes lightning/l
253. Mr. E. That’s a big question//
254. Mr. E. You know what“
255. Mr. E. We’ll try to figure that out//
256. Mr. E. Let’s focus just on clouds right now//
257 Mr E Mrs. Corbin, asked a really important question I
' ' ' think about does it have to be warm or cold
258. Kelvin jumping in cold
259 M Now Kelvin says cold several other students jump in
. r. E.
and call out answers
260 M Let me see hands for people who think it has to be
. r. E.
warm to make a cloud//
261 M Let me see hands for people who think it has to be
. r. E.
cold to make a cloud//
262. Mr. E. Well Jasmine, your hand stayed up both times”
263. Why do you...
264. NC
265. Mr. E. Redirect to NC student
266. Mr. E. Just a minute Stephan
267. NC
268. Mr. E. Redirect to NC student
269. Mr. E. Stephan/l
It needs both because if it was only warm then there
270 Stephan would be no such thing as snow because snow is a
' cold temperature and you would need a cold
temperature to make snow/l
271. Mr. E. OK / so Stephan has an example/l
272 Mr E Stephan has given us an example as evidence for
' ' ' why you need both//
273. Darrel I think I know why
274. Mr. E. Darrel
You know how spaceships have this thing to umm/
275. Darrel like special types of laser things to bring people up
in their spaceship“
276. Darrel Like that“
277. Stephan He’s talking about alien ship on the Nil
278. Darrel Yeah /
279. Darrel But I thinkl
280. Darrel This is weird
281. Darrel but I think they have a straw like a straw to rain out
282 Mr E 0th so the straw brings the water up / so you are
' ' ' making the laser beam like a staw //
283. Mr. E. Is that what you are saying“

 

173

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

284. Darrel Yeah I
285. Darrel not the laser beam but like a straw because I drew a
picture lrke thrs/l
286 D And here goes the earth and its sucking some water
. arrel . . .
up from It and once rt gets real filled up In here/
once it ets about half wa filled lthe straw comes
287‘ Darrel up and?t starts to rain/I y
288. Darrel the straw comes up and it starts to rain//
289 Darrel And then that’s why they get floods and stuff/
' because it sucks up too much water and rain/l
290. Darrel You didn’t hear what I said MrsCorbin“
291. Mrs. C. No I was trying to talk to Bobby//
292. Darrel You know how they have spaceships on TV“
293. Darrel C‘s/r; they have those laser things/ to bring people
I made something like this shows his drawing that
has got a straw I like / got a straw to suck out water
294. Darrel to get up in here once it has to get full it starts to
pour out rain and stuff all over that’s why it becomes
floods and stuff//
295. Mr. E. What does the laser part do to the water“
296. Bobby Sucks it up
297. Darrel Sucks it up//
298. Darrel It makes like / It makes the water pump like little II
299. Darrel A whole bunch of water coming up//
300. Darrel And once it gets all filled / it starts to pour out//
301. Mr.E. So I yeah
302. Stephan But Darrel / if there was like a little straw from
303. Darrel imaginag straw
ohh /a cloud and it soaked up a whole bunch of
304. Stephan water I then how come you could never see that
whole bunch of water “
305. Darrel huh“
How come you would never be able to see that
306' Stephan whole bunch of water“
307. Darrel You said it comes up like //
308. Darrel I’m just going with your ideal]
Because you said that it goes up real fast because I
309' Darrel like there could be a
310 Audio glitch, at the same moment Darrel and
‘ Stephan talk over one another
311 Darrel But it will go up fast / for people won’t see it I it’s real
' light like you said lyou said the water is real light“
312. Stephan But what I meant by that was it was just tiny drops

 

 

and they went one by one/I

 

 

174

 

 

But if it were gathered upl it would make a stream of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31 3. Stephan
water//
314. Darrel labial?! I said it will go up like little drops of water a_t
315. Mr. E. Just a minute/ lets let them figure this out
316. Darrel it was / it will suck up a little drop of water at a time.
317. Mr. E. He’s using the straw as a l I think as a metaphorl
318. Mr. E. what you might call a metaphor/l
319. Mr. E. So we know what a straw is ll
320. Mr. E. And we can get an idea in our head
321 . Multiple overlapping
322. Darrel when you drink something
323. Stephan science journals
Like when you drink some water I you have to have
324. Darrel a straw I because the ice will melt into water and
that’s how you II
325. Darrel I think this is how they make ice//
326. Darrel From clouds with snow l/
327 Darrel And they / put some water on the clouds to make it
' lrke real hard lthey had to put it in the freezer II
328. Mr. E OK / we have got to wait a minute //
Because has been waiting a very long
329. Mr. E time/ and I think she wants to get into this
conversation about the straw/l
330. Mrs. C. And LaDale too//
331. Mr. E. Oh I LaDale too
332. Mrs. C. He’s got an idea he wants to ask/l
333. Rodger I do too/l
334. Mr. E. “
335. NC
336. Mr. E.
337. -
339 NC
340. Lora Response to NC student question
341. Stephan Response to NC student question
342. Lora I don’t know/l
343. Mr. E. It’s a good point/l
344. Mr. E. We will try to explain that II
345. Darrel Its time for lunch now//
346. Mr.E. LaDale l lets listen to LaDale/l
347. LaDale inaudible
348 Mr E I don’t think people heard you / your question so I
' ' ' need everybody to be quiet/l
349. Mr. E. Because LaDale doesn’t have a big voice like some

 

 

of you do ll

 

175

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

350. Mr. E. But LaDale has an important question/l
351 M So lets all listen and LaDale use your biggest voice
. r.E. . .

to say the questron agarn

352. LaDale How do you make snow“

353. Darrel How do you what“

354. Multiple Make SNOW .

355. Darrel You make snow like how

356. Stephan raise your hand

357. Mr. E. Thank you Stephan/l

358. Mr. E. Darrel

359. Darrel Stephan had his hand up first so he can go”

360. Stephan gang: l/ll don’t think you can really make snow on
but I believe / umml snow I from a cloud is made

361' Stephan from I if it’s a really cold temperatures//

362. Stephan As the water drop falls / it freezes /

363. Stephan but as it gets closer to ground / the fasterfloes/
the more ice of it melts away and it starts to turn into

364‘ Stephan like a puffy type thing/l

365. Mr.E. OK / Darrel

366. Darrel you know how that book said

367. Rodger I had one too

368. Darrel continuing there was like snow on mountains “

369. Darrel I think its almost the same thing I
like the picture I drew over here / sa in that there’s

370' Darrel a straw sucking up the waterl y g

371. Darrel but this page I put it like heigo the mountain I
pointing to science journal and its just that you

372' Darrel know how they say north pole“

373 Mr E Mmm-hmm I you need to talk to LaDaIe though /

' ' ' because LaDale asked this question I I didn’t

directed at LaDaIe You know how they talking about

374. Darrel the north pole“

375. Darrel I don’t know what I’m talking about

376. Multiple laughing

377. Mr.E. OK / lets see we can

378. Rodger interrupting I got one

379. Mr. E. Just a minute I I want to say something real fast //
We’re going to do three more people I Marquisha/

380' Mr. E' and Rodger/l

381. Mr. E. Now the problem is we are running out of time/l

382. Mr. E. And also people have been sitting a long time/l

383. Multiple lots of student overlapping talk

384. Mr. E. trying to regroup Marquisha what’s your comment 95

 

 

question

 

 

176

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

385. NC

386. Marquisha umm / l was thinkigg about something I I forgot it

387. Mr. E. We’ll come back to you / Rodggwhat’s yoqu“

388. Rodger :larpdrzl I got something about the ice part that Darrel

389. Mrs. C. Darrell he’s talking about something your idea ll

390. Mrs. 0. Listen to what he said ‘

391. Rodger picking up in the middle said about the ice”

392. Rodger OK ll long pause

393. Rodger :ce is made of water and then you put it inside the
reezer/l

394. Rodger Because the water is cold ll

395. Rodger And in the freezer its cold/l
So the freezer make the water turn into because

396' R°dge' they both is solids/l

397. Darrel jumping in They made the snow from the l they
made water from snow/l

398. Darrel They made water from snow/l

399. Bobby without permission snow will turn into water

400. Mr.E.

4406'; NC I’m going to add something to Darrel’sll

406. Mr.E. OK / Marquisha

401 Marquisha Umm lwhen Stephan was talking about [unclear] it
was [unclear]

408. Marquisha How to make ice I or something like thatl

409. Marquisha and put err the ice trayl
you put it in the freezer and it would freeze and you

410. Marquisha take it out and it makes ice and it’s the freezer and
its really cold /I

411. Marquisha You put this water in it and then

412 Darrel jumping in I got a question / I got a question for you

‘ Marquisha

413. Darrel What made water “

414. Marquisha God

415 Mr E We’re asking big questions there is an eruption of

' ' ' talk from several students.
416. Mr. E. We have to stop now/I

 

 

 

 

9) \Nrnd and wind vanes — May15, 2001

 

This selection lasted about 10 minutes, generating 73 lines of transcript.

This selection was part of a longer discussion that attempted to help students

177

 

l

 

 

learn to describe wind direction and consider how wind affected objects.
Students observed the effect of air movement on wind vanes in the context of the
discussion. Since this was to be a teaching instance, I facilitated observations in
the discussion to help students learn to read the wind vanes and understand that
the wind vanes provided a way to describe wind direction.

In the context of the discussion Darrel (lines 8-13) stated that the wind
vanes blew in the same direction. Breanne converted Darrel’s statement to
make the wind an active force on the wind vanes (line 46). Later, she returned
to this generalization. In between these points Kelvin contributed to the
discussion an element of human agency (line 37). He said the reason one wind
vane might operated better was because I made it better.

Similar to the clouds discussion this discussion had no clear outcome.
However, it was substantially different in a phenomenon (fans blowing on wind
vanes) present for students to observe. Kelvin was the only student to introduce
human agency in the discussion. However, the larger problem with this
discussion was that only four students participated and of those only three

received uptake.

 

line Speaker Utterance
1 Mr E I noticed that most of the time they were pointed
' ' ‘ towards which direction“

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Darrel That pointing no I mean this way

3. - multiple This way gesturing

4. Mr. E. And which way was the fan pointed“
5. Darrel T_h§

6. Margursh straight

 

Mr E So were they going different directions or the same
' ' direction as the fan“
Darrel different

 

 

 

 

 

 

178

 

gnu-am u—ugfl
h.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance

9. NC

10. Darrel Well the fan was pointing this way gesturing
11. Darrel and they are pointing this way gesturing

12. Mr. E. So is it the same or different“

13. Darrel Same
14.-

16 NC

17. Margursh The fan was We

18. Mr. E. what would you like to say?
19.-

29 NC

21. multiple huh / what“

22. Mr. E. tighter wave“

23. Margursh tighter wave“

24. NC

25. Mr. E. Oh, the hole is looser there“

26. NC yes

27. Mr. E. OK

28. Mr. E. Come back down

29. Mrs. C. The others were tighter and yours was looser.
30. NC

31. Mr. E. Any other ideas“

32. Mr. E. Let me ask a diff...

33. unknown mmm

34. Mr. E. Oh Mari...

35. Mr. E. Oh my gosh

36 M Kelvin first and then we’ll hear what Breanne has to

. r. E. say

37. Kelvin The red one it’s a loose

38. Kelvin cause you kind of make yours better than ours
39. Mr. E. OK

40. Mr. E. So you’re saying its because I made it better
41. Mr. E. How about Breanne“

42. Mr. E. Breanne what were you going to say“

43. Mrs. C. Breanne what were you going to say“

44. Breanne The way the wind was blowing

45. Breanne The way the wind was blowing l

46. Breanne umml that’s the way that the things were going.
47 Mr E The way the wind was blowing is the way that the

’ ' ' things were going.

48. Mr. E. Now sometimes when scientists have an ideal
49. Mr. E. we just made an observation

 

179

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
and if we had a little more time I would make you go
50. Mr. E. . . .
get your journals to wrrte rt down/l
51. Mr. E. You notice how
52. unclear e_we
53. Mr. E. I said if we had more time
54. Mr. E. You notice how I used my journal this morning
55. Mr. E. That’s what I was doing
I use my journal to help me remember information
56. Mr. E. .
from observations
58. Mr. E. So we might write it down/l
59. Mr. E. But another thing we can do is we could sayl
60. Mr. E. I agree with what Breanne said
That the arrows blew in the same direction as the way
61. Mr. E. .
the fan was blowrng.
62. Breanne Cause if the wind is going that way gesturing
63. Breanne then the things is not going to go that way gesturing
64. Breanne because the wind is going that way gesturing
They are not going to turn this way hold hand up flat in
65. Mr. E.
front of myself
because the wind is blowing this way point into the
66. Mr. E.
palm of my hand
and it pushes them back around move my flat hand to
67. Mr. E. . . .
parallel wrth porntrng hand
68. Mr. E. is that what you are saying“
69. Breanne Mm-hmm
70. Mr. E. Is there anybody that disagrees with that“
71. Darrel Yes
72. Mr. E. How do you disagree with it Darrel“
73. Darrel emphatically I said agree

 

10)V\find and kites — May 15, 2001 - Focal Discussion One

This selection concluded the last 11 minutes (125 lines of transcript) of the

discussion about wind vanes. This discussion intended to help students

recognize that wind affects objects. To prepare for this discussion, I had created

opportunities for students to play with kites during recess. Therefore all the

students had multiple experiences with kites prior to this discussion.

180

 

l initiated the discussion asking students, “How do those kites work (line
4)?” The group gave a choral response “wind!” I responded that I needed to
know more than wind, asking them to explain more. Bobby began saying that
the string was important (line 13). Marquisha built on this delivering an extended
narrative including human agents that described what sounded like a procedure
for kite flight (lines 21-29). When I asked her to elaborate on her assertions, she
got exasperated with me and said, “it just flies (line 29)!” Lora began (line 37)
describing the roles of human agency in flying a kite. However, she converted
this, combining preceding utterances, to say that when you have a string, the
string prevents the kite from flying away (line 45). Rodger repeated this idea in
an even more decontextualized statement (line 58).

At that point, I shifted the discussion asking students to consider a
hypothetical situation of kites flying. I drew a kite and person on the board and
asked students to describe the wind direction. Kelvin began, saying “this way”
including a gesture (line 90). Darrel (line 96) and Felicity (line 114) made gesture
based claims about the wind direction. However, the claims did not agree, so I
suggested that we test our theories (line 122). This ended the discussion.

There was no resolved theory about kites and wind in the discussion.
Several statements indicated the importance of human agency. However, this
portion of the discussion involved significantly more student involvement. Seven
students participated and six received some form of uptake in the discussion.
This is roughly double the participation of the preceding portion of the discussion

about wind vanes and double the number of students received uptake.

181

 

I I'Lfl Inn—‘-
is i

This became the first focal discussion, occurring on May 15, 2001 about kites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and wind.
line Speaker Utterance
What has everybody been playing with that is so
1. Mr. E. exciting and always want to take out at recess when
we go outside“
2. Darrel kites
3. Marquisha kites
4. Mr. E. How do those kites work?
5. multiple WIND
6. Mr. E. Tell me a little more
I mean just the wind doesn’t tell me how the kite
7. Mr. E.
works
8. multiple overlapping talk, lots of excitement
9. Mr. E. I need you to raise your hand
10. Mrs. C. Raise your hand
he’ll call on you if you are sitting flat and you have
11. Mrs. C. .
your hand rarsed
12. Mr. E. Bobby / how
13. Bobby the string
14. Mr. E. What about the string“
15. Mrs. C. Did you hear the question Bobby“
16. Bobby when the wind is running unclear, interruption
17. NC
18. Mr. E. So something about the string/l
19 Mr E I’m not quite sure I understand but maybe we can
' ' ' keep working on it
20. Mr. E. Marquisha
21. Marquisha The reason how a kite flies audio disruption
22. Marquisha beginning in middle of utterance you make it
23. Marquisha and then put the string and stuff on it
24. Marquisha you get the string and you wind it in a big ball
25. Marquisha and you hang on to it

 

182

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
26. Marquisha and then you just run
27. Marquisha and it goes up in the air by the wind
28. Marquisha the wind blows and goes up in the air
29. Marquisha and it’s flying
30. Mr. E. OK you’ve told me a good story about how
31. Mr. E. But I still don’t understand how the kite is flying
32. Marquisha It just flies
33. Mr. E. Lora you had your hand up a minute ago”
34. Mr. E. Did you want to say something“
35. NC
36. unclear All the kite
37. Mr. E. to Lora
38. Lora The wind /
39. Lora the string controls the kite
so when you want to move it in different directions
40. Lora you have something to make it move in different
directions
41. Mr. E. So the string sort of helps you to control the kite“
42. Mr. E. Is that what you said“
43. Mr. E. Just a minute Rodger
44. Lora If you want to fly a kite you have to have string
45. Lora When you have string it doesn’t make it fly away
46. Mr. E. OK
47. Mr. E. I want to say something right now
48. Mr. E. Just a minute Rodger
49 Mr E A lot of you get frustrated when somebody says
' ' ' what you wanted to say/l
50. Mr. E 3:11;th you know whats really great about talks lrke
51. Mr. E You can gol

 

183

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance

52. Mr. E. You know whatl I agree with so and so

53. Mr. E. I agree with Lora she had a great idea ll

54. Mr. E. So instead of getting frustrated when and say /

55. Mr. E. You can say I agree

56. Mrs. C. that’s right

57. Mr. E. Rodger / what were you wanting to say“

58 Rod er The string control the kite because for the kite to
' 9 stay up in the air

59. Rodger First they make it out of wood

60. Rodger Then they get a / make a T or something

Then / like those other kites / they just have a little

61' R°dge' bit of thing

62. Rodger Then the last time had one of those I mine fall apart

63. Mr. E. I will have to bring in more kites to show you ll

64. Mr. E. l have a lot of kites

65. unclear how many

66. Mr. E. I just have six

67. -

77. NC

78. Mr. E. Which direction is the wind blowing“

79. Mr. E. Let me draw a picture ll

80. Mr. E. And I want people

81. multiple overiapping talk

82. Mrs. C. Don’t call out I listen to Mr. E.

83. Mr. E. Here is a picture

84. Mr. E. I’m a great artist

85. Mr. E. Here’s me lthis is me

86. Marquisha that’s a stick person

87. Mr. E. I said I was a great artist what do you want

88. Mr. E. There’s my kite

 

 

 

184

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
89. Mr. E. Now / which direction is the wind blowing“
90. multiple several students waving their hands
91. Mr. E. I see that Kelvin has his hand up
92. Mr. E. Which direction is the wind blowing“
93. Kelvin this way
94. Mr. E. Which is this way“
95. Mr. E. Is it blowing this way“
96. Mr. E. draws on board is it blowing like this“
97. Kelvin its this way gesturing
98. Darrel naa /
99. Darrel its blowing that way
100. Mr. E. So I should have my arrow pointing over here“
101 . Darrel yes
102. multiple overlapping talk
103. Mr. E. Thumbs up for people that agree
OK people that don’t agree raise your hand and
104. Mr. E . . .
give a different idea/l
105. Mr. E. Felicity
106. Mr. E. Oh you had a thumb up“
107. Mr. E. Anybody that disagrees“
108. Mr. E. OK So we all know that the wind is blowing that way
109. multiple voicing agreement and disagreement
110. Mrs. C. Raise your hand if you think it goes a different way
1 1 1. Mr. E. Lora
112. Lora The wind goes anyway it wants
113 Mr E But in this picture I in this situation lwe all agree
' ' ' that the wind is going this way/l
114. multiple no we didn’t
115. Mr. E. Raise your hand if you don’t agree//
116. Mr. E. Felicity
117. Felicity It goes this way gestures opposrte the direction of
the arrow
118. Mr. E. Felicity says
119. Mr. E. I’m going to draw it different

 

185

 

 

line Speaker Utterance

120. Mr. E. Felicity says the wind is going this way

121. Mr. E. no we didn’t

122. multiple overiapping talk

overiapping talk (it’s coming that way I it’s coming

 

 

 

 

1 23. multiple

 

 

 

 

 

right on the back)
124. multiple several students talking
125. Mr. E. Hmm we’re going to have to test this out

 

 

11)Light spreads — January 7, 2002

This discussion lasts 13 minutes, including 161 lines of transcript.
Students completed a worksheet prior to the discussion designed to assess
students’ understandings of particular district objectives. Since use of
worksheets was not a common practice in the classroom or in science, this
distinguished this discussion.

At the beginning of the discussion I told the students that I knew that the
worksheet was hard. I also explained that it was sometimes good to be
challenged. I explained that we have not talked about how light moves or travels.
Then I asked the students to describe how the light “gets from that light bulb to
my eyes (line 3).”

Breanne was the first to respond. She repeated another student’s ideas
about wire inside the glass and light shooting from the wire (line 7). But she
added description of the how the light “shoots [...] and it spreads (line 9).” I
jumped in, asking her to clarify what she meant by spreads (line 10). The
remainder of the discussion focused on describing how light spreads.

Breanne described the light spreading and connecting (line 23). In doing

so, she restated, in a slightly different arrangement, all the prior claims about the

186

nature of light movement. I explained that we are still talking about spreading,
and I wanted to know what they mean by ‘spreading’ (line 30). Breanne
attempted a response with an example, talking about a specific light source in the
classroom (lines 31-37). Annie wanted to join the conversation, but first asked
me to repeat the question (line 46). l recapped the main points I interpreted in
the discussion: spreading and connecting light (lines 47-50). Annie then
described an analogy for spreading by talking about her arms outstretched (lines
51-54). Breanne jumped in, adding comments about light shooting from the wire
in the bulb (lines 63-68).

Next, Isaac asked about ‘how the light bulb spreads all round’ (line 85).
This led to a series of claims, examples, and analogies. Isaac, based on
prompting from me, called on students to help him understand spreading.
Breanne attempted to respond by offering and example of turning on a single
light and it ‘fill[ing] up some’ of the room, but not all (104). At this point, it
seemed to me that Isaac was not listening, so I called on him. He in turn asked
me to explain what I thought the students were talking about with spreading (line
113). The selection ends here because the discussion focuses on me trying to
explain using multiple analogies, Breanne’s statement about light spreads. . The
remaining lines all focus on me explaining and developing analogies for the
different theories that students posed earlier in the discussion.

This discussion included a lot of student talk, but only three students were
talking. Those same three students experienced uptake from one another.

However, the result was that Breanne solely developed the account, Annie

187

offered minor support, and Isaac asked questions. Breanne did introduce some
human agency, but it was limited. Furthermore her thirty-eight utterances, of the
one hundred five total utterances, were almost all repetitions of prior statements.

Therefore this discussion on closer analysis had limited joint construction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
1 M I want to talk about how the light gets from there to our
. r. E.
eyes/l
2. Mr. E. So there is light coming from that light bulb//
3. Mr. E. How did the light get from the light bulb to my eyes“
4. Annie jumping in uggh / look at it
5. Multiple overiapping with Annie, unclear
6. Mr. E. Breanne I did you trails off
7. Breanne Because there’ 3 a wire inside the light bulb and it I
from the wire it shoots out the light bulb when you pull
8' Breanne the string or turn the thing//
9. Breanne It shoots out from the light bulb and it spreads”
10. Mr. E. What do you mean it spreads“
11. Mr. E. Say more
1 2. U nknown inaudible interruption
13. Mrs. C. Just a minute let her say/l

 

Mr E I have a feeling there are people that aren’t listening to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14' Breanne right now/l
15. Mr. E. And that really worries me/l
16. Annie To TaBreanne“
17. Mr. E. To l Breanne ll
18. Mr. E. Listening lto l Breanne
19. Mr. E. Could we all give our attention to Breanne right now
20. Annie I can’t see
21 M when she explains what she means by the light
. r. E.
spreads //
22. Annie I can’t see
23 Breanne The light spreads from the wire inside of the l umml
' light bulbs//
24. Breanne and it connects/l
25. Breanne But when you put [uncleafl
26. Annie I can’t see
27 Breanne continuing[unclear at first] light shoots from the wire
' and goes out through the glass of the light bulb//
28. Breanne And then it spreads/l
29. Mr. E. We are still stuck with it spreads//

 

 

 

188

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
39 M Can somebody help us / help me understand what this
. r. E.
smeads“
light spreads because if you turn on one light its
31' Breanne brighter in that area/l
32. Breanne If you turn on like I
33. Breanne if you have three litl
34. Breanne and you turn on all three of them /
35. Breanne then they spread and they connect together/l
36. Breanne See that light bulb light is connecting to that one l/
37. Breanne And that light is connecting to that one //
38. Mr. E. Can you call on somebody to speak next “
39. Breanne pointing
40. NC
41. Mr. E. OK / you need to call on someone else/l
42 M If you want to speak you really need to raise your
. r. E.
hand clearly/l
43 Mr E If you do like this gestures with hand hanging over
' ' ' head its hard to know/l
44.-
45. NC
46. Annie What was the question that you asked“
Well one thing that Breanne said that I don’t really
47. Mr. E. understand for sure is that light spreads from the light
bulb//
48 M The other thing she said is that it comes together with
. r. E. .
other lights//
49 Mr E But I was just going to wait on that one because I
' ' ' didn’t quite understand this spreading/l
59 Mr E So there were people that thought they could help me
' ' ' understand the spreading idea/l
51. Annie Ohh / I think what she means is sometimes I
52 A . you know how we go like this“ sticks arms out to the
. nnie sides
53. Annie that we are spreading our arms out/l
54 Annie It means spreading around like this gestures moving
' arms in a circle around her body
55. Mr. E. Like all in a circle“
56. Annie No
57. Mr. E. Orl no / just in one direction“
58. Annie All around
59. Breanne It shoots from all on the side and the top it shoots out/l
60. Mr. E. So like in a big ball“
61 . Breanne yeah
62. Mr. E. OK

 

 

 

189

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
63. Breanne Except it goes farther/l
64. Breanne Like I like some of it spreads faster than otherl
65. Breanne some of it spreads closerl
66. Breanne but not like [unclear] a circle /
67. Breanne but like uneven edges /
68. Breanne Elena/re kind of like uneven like zig zag / straight I and
69. Mrs. C. It does all those different things“
nodding It can because when you turn it on some of it
70. Breanne comes like I in the wires are lined when you want it it
comes out and then /
long pause the umm l cord that’s like when you pull itl
71' Breanne and light come out from the cord II
The first half of it I the light I when you turn it offl is
72' Breanne like the light is still/l
73' Breanne ms; you turn it off [unclear] the light shoots in the
74. Breanne It goes through the glass kind of/ it like//
75. Breanne Electricity ll
76. Breanne The wire past the glass / kind of through the glass l
77 B and that l and then the water comes out the light or
° ’eanne flashli WI
9
78. Breanne Except the flashlight has Males/l
79. Mr. E. OK /I
Breanne we need to stop you and interrupt you
80. Mr. E. because there were two people that I know, Isaac and
Rodger, who hadn’t had a chance to talk//
And then Brittany also wanted to say something and
81. Mr. E. she / we didn’t get to hear all of what she had to say
either//
82. Mr. E. So do any of the three of you still want to talk“
83. NC
84. Mr. E. Isaac“
85 1 I don’t understand how it I how the light bulb spreads
. saac
all around
86. NC
87. Mr. E. Just a minute
88. Mrs. C. Wait just a second motions to Breanne
89 Mr E Was there anyone that feels like they could help Isaac
' ' ' understand this spreading all around idea“
99 Mr E Isaac / why don’t you call on someone and see if they
' ' ' can help you understand that/l
91. Isaac

 

 

 

190

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
92- She means when it spreads it goes all around the
NC
94. place/l
95. Mr. E. Does that help“
96. Mr. E. Or do you need to ask someone else“
97. Isaac Ask someone else//
OK lkeep raising your hand because we have got to
98. Mr. E. .
help Isaac understand this/l
Toward Isaac Call on someone you think can help you
99. Mr. E. .
understand this
100. Isaac Breanne
101. Breanne softly The lig ht comes
192 Mr E Speak really loud because its kind of loud over there
' ' ' and I can’t hear you/l
103. Breanne The lig ht is / when it spreads it like I
When you turn on one light / it doesn’t fill up the whole
104' Breanne place but it does fill up some of itll
195. Breanne [unclear] Its like one of them / that light cant light the
whole room/l
interrupting talking to Isaac who doesn’t seem to listen
106. Mr. E. . . .
to Breanne Isaac are you listening to this“
107. Mr. E. does this help you“
108. Isaac umm l yes
109. Mr. E. What did she just say about the light“
1 10. Isaac I forgot
111. Mr. E. OK / lets try again ll
I feel like there is a lot of squirming and not very much
112. Mr. E. . .
listening/l
l / I’d like Mr. Enfield to say it because I am good at
113' Isaac hearing him//
114. Mr. E. Ohh / OK / You want me to explain it“
1 15. Isaac nods
116. Mr. E. I think what they’re saying ll
Let me try to see if I responding to Breanne who still
117. Mr. E.
wants to talk
118. Mr. E. Imagine my fist is the light bulb //
And what people are saying is that everywhere around
119. Mr. E.
my fist /
120. Mr. E. each little spot that you can imagine/
121. Mr. E there is a little bit of light coming out II
122 Mr E And it goes out in straight lines all the way around it in
' ' a big circle all the way around in all directions/l
123. Mr. E So it gets bigger
124. Isaac What do you mean about light beams“
125. Mr. E Light beams / that’s the

 

 

 

191

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance

126. NC jumping in LIGHT BULBS light bulbs

127. Mr. E. Waitl

128. Mr. E. Isaac asked me to explain and so you’re jumping inll

129. Mr. E. I’m imagining that the light is in straight lines/l

130. Mr. E. That’s the way I imagine itll

131. Mr. E. So it’s like your finger l/

132 Mr E If this was the light bulb l and little lines coming off of it
' ' ' /that’s what I’m imagining/l

133. Isaac Could it be like I you mean its

134. Breanne Except it spreads

135. Mr. E. It spreads in all directions//

136. Isaac So you mean like your fingers are the lines“

137. NC

138. Mr. E. Or like umm I has anybody ever seen a koosh ball“

139. Mr. E. Do you know what that is“

140. Multiple Laughter

141. NC

142. Isaac What is that“

143. Mr. E. I don’t know if I have one still

144. Mrs. C. I might still have one

145. Mr. E. Like a pom-pom on your / like a little ball on your

stocking cap”

146. Mr. E. Does anybody have one of those“

147. Bobby Yeah

148. Rodger Yeah

149. Multiple Ooh I got one

159. Mr. E. And the little fuzz sticks up in all different directions/ all

around/l

151. Multiple yeah / I’ve got one

152. Isaac You mean how it looks like

153.-

154 NC

155. Mr. E. \rl1\(l)h“c1>/a/Whoalwe got a bunch of talking going on

156. Mr. E. You got a ball like that at daycare“

157. Bobby You can squeeze it

158. Mr. E. Where things stick straight out in all directions/l

159. Isaac yeah I guess//

160. Alexoaindr It can be all different colors

161. Alexandr That’s called a kooshiel/

 

 

 

192

 

12)Light reflects — January 9, 2002

This selection lasted approximately 21 minutes, resulting in 254 lines of
transcript. The selection included observations of spectra created when a prism
was held above an overhead projector in a darkened room.

The initial 60 lines include students’ utterances as they made observations
of the spectra. This included primarily descriptions of observations and
expressions about the images. Isaac theorized that a particular part made the
rainbow (line 10). I asked students to explain what was happening to the light to
make this happen (line 21). Brittany observed and speculated that the reason
two spectra were produced was because there were two sides to the prism (line
23). Some student continued to describe observations later in the discussion.
Breanne reported detailed observations of the spectra (line 142) during the
discussion about reflection.

Once the classroom lights were turned on, I asked the class to explain
“what does the prism do (line 65)?” Annie began saying, “the bright lights makes
that thing make a rainbow (line 73).” After this lsaacjumped in saying, “its
probably reflecting (76).” I asked what he meant by reflecting (line 78). The
remainder of the discussion concerned explaining reflection. Isaac began to
explain reflecting saying that it was like a line, making gestures to explain his
idea (line 83). I attempted to clarify his idea by drawing a picture to represent the
bouncing light on the board. Isaac and I shared the floor to explain the reflecting

idea for a number of turns.

193

 

‘ ‘ m-

I invited other students to join the discussion to see if other people had
ideas about bouncing light or light in the prism (line 132). Isaac jumped in saying
that “it’s like its going fast and bouncing fast (line 134).” Isaac added to the
analogy saying it was like a ball bouncing (line 166), comparing light (line 174) to
the ball and that it was the light reflecting. A non-consenting student asked Isaac
a question. In the process of answering the question, Isaac decided that the ball
analogy failed to account for two rainbows from one light source. Breanne joined
this discussion, attempting to reconcile the ball analogy and account for two
rainbows. However, her assertions become confusing because she mixed in
human agency and multiple gestures.

There was no conclusion in this discussion to account for how light is
refracted in a prism to produce spectra. This selection also had limited
participation of students, with only five students speaking in the selection. In
addition, only four students had their ideas receive uptake. Similar to the light
spreads talk, this selection was dominated by one student, Isaac who took made
twenty-six utterances and was taken up nineteen times. Breanne made a large

number of utterances (thirty-eight) but received uptake only six times.

 

line Speaker Utterance

The class is looking at refracted light by a prism, lights
1. are low and students are collected on the floor writing
in their joumals

Mr E How does the rainbow get the rainbow get there and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2' back behind it“

3. Annie Can you move your body“
4. Mr. E. If the light is going up there“
5. Mr. E. What do you say Brittany“
6. NC

7. Mr. E. OK/

8.

Mr. E. Repeated NC Student

 

194

 

 

___....l_l I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
9. Mr. E. Isaac
19 l Maybe it’s because of the lthe behind it is still part
. saac . .
where it has the rainbow
11. Mr. E. The behind it is still pa_rt
12 l l’mt_alking_comes up to point at the overhead (the light
. saac , . . . . .
source) I in talking about this srde painting
13. NC
14. Breanne Its fading out
15. Mr. E. What about this side“
16. NC
17. Isaac I think that’s the spot that’s making the rainbow
18. Mr. E. What is that spot doing?
19. Breanne The rainbow is fading... bending up
20. Multiple Overlapping talk
21. Mr. E. What is happening to the light to make this happen“
22. Mr. E. Brittany
23' Brittany 31%;: the light shines from two different sides on the
24. Multiple Overiapping talk
25. Mr. E. You’re saying from two different sides of this“
26. Mr. E. points at prism on this side and this side“ OK
27. Mr. E. That’s probably a pretty important observation/l
28. Isaac I can see two rainbows
29. Mr. E. There’s one there and one there points
30. Mr. E. What else do people see“
31. Mr. E. Umm l Brittany
32. NC
33. Mr. E. Yea there is a rainbow straight above
34. Alexoandr There is bigger rainbow up there
35. Mr. E. Umm / Shanice
36. NC
37. NC
Mr. E. adds books to the overhead in order to make a
38. slit of light. Several students start expressing oohs
and aahs.
39. Annie Yelling out Ahh sweet
40. Brittany Look at that one behind you Mr. E.
41. Mr. E. Huh“
42. Brittany Look behind you Mr. E.
43. Annie Yelling look behind you
44. Mrs. C. :llrIéE. I think you want them thinking aboutjust this
45. Mr. E. I want you thinking just about the one over there //

 

 

195

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance

46. Mr. E. The one behind is OK too //

47. Jordan That one is skinny

48. Mr. E. The one straight above

49. Mr. E. There’s not much lightl

50. Mr. E. see how if I take this one away /

51. Mr. E. there is just a slit of light coming out straight above//

52. Mr. E. There is just a little bit of light coming out [I

53. Mr. E. Now when I put the prism up

54. Multipl Overlapping voices

55. NC

56. Multiple Overiapping voices

57 Students writing observations. Mr. E. then tums the

' lights on

58. Annie There still is one

59. Mr. E. turns off the overhead projector

60. Alexoandr Now there’s not

61. Mrs. C. I noticed a lot of kids were writing Mr. E.

62. Mrs. C. They are kind of excited about this

63. Mr. E. comes and sits on the floor with students

64. Mr. E. So what do you think is happening“

65. Mr. E. What does that prism do“

66. Mr. E. What’s the prism do“

67. NC

68. Mr. E. Repeated NC student idea

69. Mr. E.

70. NC

71 . Mr. E. Repeated NC student idea

72. Annie You know what“

73. Annie The brightlights makes that / umm lthat thing umml
make a rainbow

74. Mr. E. OK/

75. Mr. E. Isaac

76. Isaac It’s probably reflecting

77. Mr. E. It’s probably reflecting l

78. Mr. E. what do you mean by reflecting“

79. Isaac Its like

80. Mr. E. Hang on Isaac I just wait a minute
I want to make sure everybody is listening because

81 Mr E Isaac is trying to tell us something important about

' ' ' reflecting and there are some kids that are squrrmrng

//

82. Mr. E. Try again to Isaac I’m sorry

 

 

 

196

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
Its like / Its like I Its like I Its like a line and if it is
83' Isaac touching that it will just go back
84 Isaac See like reflecting like ding cling pointing with his
' hands to show the movement of the light coming back
85. Annie I don’t understand
86. Isaac it’s umm reversim
87. Mr. E. _O_K
88. Mr. E. so I’m going to draw what I think Isaac is talking about
89. Mr. E. and he’s going to tell me if its right
99. Mr. E. He’s saying the light is coming like this drawing on
board
91. Mr. E. and it hits/
92. Mr. E. I had the prism like thisl
93. Mr. E. and it goes up in here it reverses that way ll
94. Mr. E. Is that what you’re talking about“
95. Isaac Walking to board no I am talking about like this
96. Isaac Takes pen and begins drawing on board
97. Mr. E. Can you reach up there “ its kind of far ll
98. Isaac It’s doing this
99. Annie I still don’t understand
100. NC
101. Mrs. C. Well it’s a slight be of difference
102. Mr. E. There’s some difference
103. Mrs. C. Between his idea and Mr. E.’s
104. Annie I still don’t understand
105. Mr. E. Hang on I
106. Mr. E. let me make sure everybody understands
107. Annie I don’t
108. Annie I don’t understand a bit
199 M Imagine I that we’re looking at it this way // holds the
. r. E. . .
prism up showrng the end
110. Mr. E. This is what we are talking about /
111. Mr. E. we were looking at the end
112 Mr E And actually lets move it down here to this paper so
' ‘ ' we got some big drawing here/l
113. Mr. E. And so this is what the end of it looks like
114. NC
115. Mr. E. It looks like a big triangle like that //
116. Mr. E. And Isaac says that the light comes here II
117. Mr. E. And can I draw it off that way Isaac“
118. Mr. E. is it OK if it reflects that way“
119. Isaac mm-hmm
120. Mr. E. And goes off this way
121. Mr. E. So this is the lightl

 

 

 

197

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance

122. Mr. E. I’ll put an arrow on it

123. Mr. E. and l §_a_ig

124. Annie Ohh see that looks different

125 Mr E I said that the light was coming this way and going

' ' ' through and when l hits this side it bounces this way

126. Mr. E. Can it do both things“

127. Multiple yes

128. Annie So turning to Isaac

129. Isaac You don’t have to be so mean about it Annie

130. Annie I wasn’t

131. Some unclear overiapping talk
What other ideas do people have about the way the

132. Mr. E. light is going through the prism or in the prism“ or
bouncing off“

133. Mr. E. Does anybody else have a different idea“

134. Isaac Its like its going fast and bouncing fast because fast
makes it reflect

135. Mr. E. Isaac says fast is important I

136. Mr. E. I’m going to put thatl

137. Mr. E. I’ll put fast right here //

138. Mr. E. Breanne what did you want to say“

139. Breanne If lthe I when you lwhen the rainbow was up on the
ceiling

140. Mr. E. Uhh-huh

141. Annie I died

142. Mr. E. Annie let Breanne talk please
It/ umm / when the rainbow was up on the ceiling it

143' Breanne kind of like umml changed different colors like from
Like when it was orange blue and purple and green I

144' Breanne the orange turned in to red or off-white

145. Mr. E. They turned into different colors“
And Ius one was like ll uhh ll kind of like the color of

146' mean“ the drier but except a little bit lighter r/

147. Mr. E. :23; are you OK“ OK you look like you didn’t feel
But except one that was over there / it was square I

148. Breanne except there was light like that color pointing to the big
paper at the front

149. Mr. E. Light like what color“

159' Breanne lignli'ng up to point directly at the prism This its kind of

151. Mr. E. Its clear“ is that what you mean

152. Breanne Yup

153. Breanne but except those were lighter

 

198

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance

154. Mr. E. OK

155. Breanne Yea but there was a little bit of white in it

156. Mr. E. OK Annie

1 57. Announcement
Speaking to Isaac who is walking to the front Isaac l

158. Mr. E. need you to sit still because Annie was waiting to talk
II

159 M Annie moves the microphone Thank you Annie / what

. r. E. .

were you wanting to say“

160. Annie gliervaarsn’t actually white I like this / it was pineapple

161. Mr. E. Pineapple clear“

162. Annie Mm-hmm

163. Mr. E. OK I Pineapple clearl

164. Mr. E. Now Isaac what did you want to say “

165. Mr. E. watch out when you walk up here

166. Isaac Its like it’s a ball holds his a hand up

167. Isaac here’s the wall holds other had up and this is a ball

168. Mr. E. What’s the ball“

169. Mr. E. Turn around and tell them
Here’s the wall gestures with Iefi hand held straight up
here’s the ball holds right hand in a fist opposite his

170. Isaac left hand and its like mmm moves right hand toward
left and bounces off left hand making noises to
represent movement mmm / mmm

171. Mr. E. What’s the ball“

172. Isaac The ball“ its my hand emphatically

173 M No but what do you thi- I what are you saying the ball

. r. E. . . .

is when you are talking about this

174. Isaac THE LIGHT very emphatic

175. Mr. E. The light is like a ball // Is that what you are saying“

176. Isaac yea

177. NC

178. Isaac Response to NC student

179. Multiple Lots of overiapping voices

180. Mr. E. Do people understand what Isaac is saying“

181. Multiple Simultaneous no

182. Mr. E. So why don’t you ask him questions

183. NC

184. Mr. E. And try to clarify /l
Isaac can you call on some people to ask you

185. Mr. E. questions because I think you have an interesting idea
that they need to understand

186. Isaac

 

 

 

199

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
187. NC
188. Isaac I can’t actually hear well means he doesn’t understand
189. Mr. E. Well just a minute/
199 Mr. E. I am listening to Darquise because I think I understand
hrs questron
191. Mr. E. Talking to Isaac stay right here I
192. Mr. E. do you want to sit here“ offers him his seat Isaac
accepts
11993; Mr. E. Repeats NC student question
199. Isaac hmm
200. Breanne I think I know
201. Mr. E. Just a minute let’s let Isaac have a chance and then
202. Annie I don’t understand
203. Isaac Picking up the prism it bounces off this
204. Mr. E. Uhh-huh
205. Isaac Pointing then it will hit like the ceiling or something
206. Mr. E. right
207. Isaac So I guess it will only hit one direction
80 you are saying there could only be one if it’s a ball
208' Mr. E' l is that right “
209. Isaac I will call it a light now
210. Mr. E. You’ll call it a light now / OK
211. Mr. E. But that balll
212. Mr. E. So ’s / what he noticed
213. Mr. E. this is important I
214. Mr. E. hang on /
215. Mr. E. everybody catch up here II
This is really important / because what did is
216. Mr. E. said I noticed something different that what
Isaac was noticing //
217 M And he was trying to get Isaac to explain his evidence
. r. E. .
tool he saw two rainbows
218 Isaac But I couldn’t understand I because he doesn’t give I l
' can only hear a little louder vorces
219. Mr. E. Talking to Isaac Well I was trying to help him explain
229 Mr E Breanne thought she could explain your ball idea of
' ' ' bouncing and still work about the two rainbows II
221. Mr. E. Can you tell us that“
222. Annie I don’t under-
Comes to the area where Isaac and Mr. E. are sitting
223. Breanne then picks up prism the light went kind of like heading
that way because when you put it I
224. Breanne when you put that thing down /

 

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance

225. Breanne the light was kind of like heading that way and umm
Interrupting can you turn around and show other

226. Mr. E. people because I know what you are talking aboutl
but I don’t think they do
Tums around to the group holding the prism and

227. Breanne pointing throughout the light was facing this way and
when it was facrng this way it went on one of these
sides I

228. Breanne I don’t know which one I

229. Breanne but on one of these sides I and when it was on it I

230. Breanne it made like a umm ll like a rainbow

231. Breanne 31:: tittien when it like it hit this the light hit that and

232. Breanne but except it was going like this except its going to
hitted it I

233. Breanne when it comes back off it wentl

234. Breanne it hit and then it went up and it made two

235. Breanne and from that shadow up there and they //

236. Breanne from that shadow up there it made umm rainbows l

237. Breanne two rainbows /

238. Breanne when he was turning it I it made two rainbows

239. Mr. E. Taking the prism so you’re saying that

249 Mr E responding to Isaac who comes to take the prism

’ ' ' hang on Isaac I want to see ifl understand

241. Isaac I understand

242. Mr. E. To Isaac I want to see if I understand / OK
You’re saying that when it was like this Breanne it

243. Mr. E. came up and it could go out this way or this way
gesturing

244. Breanne Yea

245. Mr. E. OK

246. Breanne Ezgzpt it went / you had turns the prism in Mr. E’s

247. Mr. E. Lets hold it like this I and the light is coming here

248. Breanne The light was like / you had it way down

249. Mr. E. No I had it like this [I

250. Breanne OK I
when ou had Ii ht that was like facing that way

251' Breanne gesturing againgit started doing like this I

252. Breanne like hitting l

253. Breanne and it went off an up and cause this thing

254 B It kinds of like make a rainbow and it bends like the

. reanne

 

 

rainbow / like a real rainbow

 

201

 

 

13)What is a seed? May 13, 2002

This selection lasted almost 15 minutes, yielding 237 lines of transcript. It
was part of a lengthy discussion about plants and preceded the selection, Seeds
in a Flower (see below). This discussion came at a point in the year when I
attempted to have students moderate the discussion. Students had some role in
managing turns. l initiated the discussion, asking “what is a seed (line 1)?”

Annie asserted that, “It’s something that grows into a plant (line 9).” Isaac
repeated this idea (line26), but altered the statement to be a relationship rather
than a model of growth. Breanne added to this line of the account (lines 129-
132) describing stages in plant growth. Annie, building on Rodger and Erin,
modified their ideas to revoice their claims avoiding human agency, “A plant
seed, a seed needs water, light, and umm dirt (line 140).”

After several turns from non-consenting students, Rodger entered the
discussion and described planting a seed (lines 104-107). Rodger’s
contributions focused on the things a human agent needed to do when planting
seeds. Erin repeated many of Rodger’s ideas about human agency in planting
seeds (lines 136-138). Brittany asked Erin about her statement that “all seeds
grow into flowers (line 146),” which was a statement made by Rodger, Annie, and
Breanne. Rodger asked this same question to Annie (line 201). Annie
responded to this with another account of human agency that if you plant a tree
seed it grows into a tree (line 205).

l revisited my interpretation of the general ideas that seeds grow into

plants (line 159) and then asked the class where seeds come from (line 168).

202

Isaac responded that seeds come from nature (line 171). Beverly added that
seeds grow on trees (line 179) and then fall (line 180). Annie added to this to
include how fruit comes from trees and that there are seeds in fruit (line 193).
Picking up on her human agency description, Annie shifted to explain a complete
life cycle of a fruit bearing tree (line 213-218). But when | asked her where seeds
come from, she responded “stores sometimes (line 234).

The first portion of this discussion seemed to resolve the point that seeds
were things that grow into plants. Furthermore there was little debate that there
were certain things seeds needed. However, students were less sure about my
question, “where do seeds come from?” This uncertainty was carried into the
next selection. There were two points to mention. First there was significant
number of references to human agency. Second, eight students actively

participated and of these six received uptake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
1. Mr. E. What is a seed“
2. Mr. E. Let’s start with what is a seed“
3. Mr. E. And so remember that we are going to call I
4. Mr. E. we’re going to call on people /
5 M like I’ll call on Annie and Annie will call on the next
. r. E.
person]!
6. Mr. E. So what is a seed“
7. Annie umm
8. Mr. E. Annie
9. Annie It’s something that grows into a plant
10. Mr. E. OK opens journal to make notes
1 1. Annie Isaac
12. NC
13. Isaac A seed is like somettmgthat
14. Mr. E. Umm / I’ll put mine away OK“
15. Mr. E. How’s that I is that fair“
16. Rodger jumping in NO
17. NC
18. Rodger I want to write

 

 

 

 

203

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance

19. Mrs. C. Let’s just talk first

20. Mr. E. Who did you call on Annie“

21. Isaac _m_e

22. Mr. E. I was distracted

23. Annie Isaac

24. Mr. E. What did you say Isaac“

25. Isaac A seed is like I is s... I is something I

26. Isaac is something that before it its’ a plant /

27. Isaac like it’s a flower or a like tree

28. Isaac it starts out as a seed

29. Isaac Darquise

30.-

33 NC

34. Bobby What did he say“

35. Mr. E. Ask him a question

36. Rodger Umm Darquise then raises his hand

37 Mr E several students with hands raised Are these

‘ ' ' questions for Darquise or more statements“

38. Rodger For Darquise points at Darquise

39. Mr. E. OK

49 Mr E Darquise there are some people that have

' ' ' questions for you so you need to ask them

41. Bobby Look at Breanne

42. Mr. E. So you need to ask those people that have

questions first

43. Mr. E. I heard Bobby say one but he didn’t ask it
44. NC

45. NC
46.-

47 NC

48. Mr. E. Is there more questions for “

49. Rodger Umm/ what do you mean like
50. NC

51 . Rodger wait / wait I wait

52. Rodger This what you said the first time

53. Rodger Umm lyou had said first they put it inside the

ground

54. Rodger yeah the ground

55. Rodger then you said feed the seed

56. Rodger and yeah that is feed the seed

57. Mr. E. Did you say feed the seed Darquisie“

58. NC

59 Mr. E. Maybe you said something that sounded like feed

 

 

the seed

 

204

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance

60. Bobby I heard feed the seed

61. NC

62. NC

63. Mr. E. fill pour the seeds in the ground

64. Bobby mu got to water them

65. Mr. E. and then water the seeds

66. Rodger pour the seeds in the ground

67. Bobby How you going to pour the seeds in the ground“

68. NC

69. Rodger yeah

70. multiple overiapping

71. Jordan Like dumping them out of the bag

72. Rodger Ohh

73. Bobby I thought he was talking about

74. Mr. E. Erin do you have a question for “

75. Annie I do
Let’s try to wrap up the questions for Darquise

76. Mr. E. because there are other people that have things
they want to say

77. NC

78. Annie Umm l plants / seeds /

79. Annie you don’t pour them you plant them

80. Annie not pour

81. Mr. E. Hang on

82. Mr. E. Everybody put your hands down first

83. Rodger Pour them out of the bag Annie

84. Mr. E. OK

85 Mr E We clarified that what Darquise was talking about

' ' was pouring the seeds/I

86. Mr. E. If you have a big bag of seedsl

87. Mr. E. you can actually pour them

88. Mr. E. just like you pour water

89. Mr. E. because little bits of seeds will go out ll

99. Mr. E. But Annie wanted you to say plant them in the
ground/l
But one thing that we are having a problem with is

91. Mr. E. that people need to ask questions to clarify what
somebody says

92. Mr. E. So you could have asked

93. Mr. E. What do you mean by pour the seeds
And that is what we were having this discussion

94. Mr. E.
about

95. Mr. E. So that will help us a little bit

96. Mr. E. Let’s move on to let other people talk / OK

 

205

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
97. Mr. E. So Darquise could you call on someone else“
98. Annie It’s me
99. Mr. E. No you asked a question for Darquise
100. NC
101. Rodger Umm
102. Rodger well
103. Rodger I got like some real big seeds
104. Rodger And if you dig a smalrhole
105. Rodger that won’t work for it
106. Rodger if it is a real big seed
107. Rodger you got to dig the hole real deep so it will grow good
108 Mr E I noticed some people were really listening carefully
' ' ' to what Rodger had to say
199 M and some people were not doing such a good job of
. r. E. . .
carefully listening/l
110. Mr. E. Rodger you need to call on somebody OK
111 M There are a couple of people that have been
. r. E. . . .
waiting a long time
112. Rodger Umm / Isaac
113. Bobby you got your hand up
1 14. Rodger Ohh I then
1 15.-
121 NC .
122. Mr. E. OK Call on somebody that hasn’t had a chance yet
123. Isaac I didn’t hear what Rodger said
124. Mr. E. Rodger sfl
125. Jordan Ohh my gosh
126. Mr. E. Hang on just a minute
127. Mr. E. to Isaac Let’s let somebody else
128. Isaac Breanne
129. Breanne A seed even grows into a plant
130. Breanne First it has leaves
131 Breanne and the green little plant comes from the seed but it
' also comes from the stem too
132. Mr. E. OK a couple more people are still waiting
133. multiple overiapping talk
134. Mr. E. quickly
135. Breanne Erin
136. Erin First you plant the seed
137. Erin 31:31 :vhen you give a seed water it grows into a
138. Erin and you keep on watering it and then it grows into a
ower
139. Erin Annie

 

 

 

206

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance

149. Annie StiIglant seed / a seed needs waterl light I and umm

141. Mr. E. OK now we are talking about the things a seed
needs

142. Mr. E. cause some people are waiting to talk

143. Annie Brittany

144. Brittany l have a question for Erin

145. Brittany I mean I have a comment for Erin

146. Brittany not all seeds grow into flowers

147. Erin I know

148. some whispering

149. Erin flowers and plants and other kind of stuff

150. Mr. E. Do you agree with that still“

151. Mr. E. do you want to call on somebody else“

152. Brittany Brittany

153.-

157 NC

158. Mr. E. Me“

159 M So what I hear is that it seems like everybody

. r. E. .

seems to agree that a seed grows into a plant

160. multiple multiple overlapping speech, some agreement

161. Mr. E. Wait

162. Mrs. C. One at a time

163. Mr. E. I’m talking

164. Mr. E. a plant or tree or a flower or something like that

165. Mr. E. everybody seems to agree that a seed will grow into
those things

166. Mr. E. just wait a minute

167. Mr. E. I’ll let you ask questions

168. Mr. E. fBrtliin what I want to know is where the seeds come

169. Mr. E. Cause that’s sort of confusing to me

170. Mr. E. Isaac l where do seeds come from?

171. Isaac Nature

172. Mr. E. But where in nature“

173. Mr. E. I need something a little better than just nature

174. Isaac Now I’m getting confused

175. Isaac Beverly

176. Mr. E. OK

177. Mrs. C. what did you say Isaac“

178. Mr. E. He said nature

179. Beverly They grow on kinds of trees

180. Beverly and then fall

181. Beverly and sometimes they fall on the dirt

 

 

 

207

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
182. Mr. E. Keep talking / let’s let other people talk
183. Mr. E. see if I can get sorted out
184. Mr. E. Beverly you need to call on somebody else//
185. Beverly Annie
186. Mr. E. Rodger is your hand up“
187. Mr. E. mist" you need to scoot out so she can see knows
188. Mr. E. It looks like you are running your hand
189. Annie Trees have audio glitches
190. Annie If you got a tree seed and you want to grow it
191. Annie and that tree grows seeds
192. Annie and umm and it
193. Annie they get to little seeds and sometimes those little
seeds grow into food
19 4. Annie :3? the food drops and some of the seeds come
195. Annie plant another tree
196. Annie Brittany
197. NC
198. Rodger Umm not all seeds
199. Bobby jumping in grow
200. Rodger Annie / I got a question for you
291. Rodger Like you said how would a all seeds grow into a
umm flower
202. Rodger That’s what you said
203. Annie huh-uhh
204. Annie Here’s what I said
. If you have a umm tree seed and you plant it and it
205' Annie grows and if has
206. Annie some trees have
207. Rodger I don’t get it
208. Annie then they grow little seeds on them
209. Annie and then they grow food
210. Annie and sometimes the food falls off
211. Annie and it the seed
212. NC
213. Annie the seed it will fall off
214. Annie and food will fall down they might drop
215. Annie and then they fall out of the fruit
216. Annie and it will grow into a new tree
217. Annie and it will start all over again
218. Annie like a life cycle
219 several people including Mr. E. have hands raised.

 

 

Many students whisper, Mr. E.

 

208

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line Speaker Utterance
220. Mr. E. Anybody / he can call on anybody
221. Mr. E. Darquise is your hand up“
222. Mr. E. You need to put it up to its clear
223. Mr. E. and Beverly’s hand is up too
224. Mr. E. Me
What I thought Rodger was saying was that it
225. Mr. E. sounds like you are saying Annie that all seeds
come from trees//
226. Mr. E. Is that what you mean“
227. Annie I just mean some seeds
228. Mr. E. Some seeds come from trees
229. Mr. E. So where does
230. Rodger jumping in Like what kind of
231. Mr. E. Well maybe we don’t need to know what kinds//
232. Mr. E. Like where do other seed come from“
233 M If not all of them come from trees where do other
. r. E.
ones come from “
234. Annie Stores sometimes
235. Annie umm / I don’t know what they come from
236. Annie I just / I don’t know what they come from
237. Mr. E. OK

 

14)Seeds in a flower — May 13, 2002 — Focal Discussion Two

 

This selection lasted about 13 minutes, resulting in 236 lines of transcript.

The discussion was selected out of a longer talk about plants. The discussion

began when I asked one student to draw a picture of the claim her earlier

assertion that there are seeds in sunflowers. She drew this on chart paper so
that everyone could see. After the drawing was complete, Breanne (line 45)

asked “how can there be seeds in a sunflower?” This question remained the

main topic of discussion for the following 10-11 minutes of discussion.

Several students attempted to answer Breanne’s question. However,
Breanne and one other student were not satisfied with the students’ answers.

Breanne’s assertion was that seeds and flowers are different, but interdependent

209

 

objects that exist simultaneously throughout the life of a plant. She started with
“the sunflower grows” (line 34), which led to her question. Later she added that
the seed was underground and responsible for plant growth (lines 53, 66, 68, 75,
and 203), which suggests that the seed cannot be in the flower (lines 46 and 77).
'She claimed that the seed is in the ground and “that’s how the flower grows (line
76).” Breanne never included human agency in her description of seeds.

Brittany described that seeds were in a flower so it could, “grow up out of
there (line 91).” This explanation followed a structure-function idea. She thought
the seed served a particular function, plant propagation. She summed this up
saying, “It’s up there so when the wind blows some of the seeds are down and
you can grow another seed (line 92).” So she focused on the Iifecycle of a
flowering plant. Her explanation does not account for how the flower produced
the seed, but this did not seem to be a problem for her. It was especially
interesting in her account that she introduced human agency in line 92, which
was not included in her earlier utterances. This suggests that she thought
something is required to complete the process.

One explanation, which received little attention and limited uptake, was
that “bees make seeds and put it [seeds] in flowers (line109).” Students did not
take up this explanation until the last minutes of the discussion. Furthermore, my
reaction (line 113) to the idea did not encourage others to discuss the idea. It is
notable though because Rodger, who made repeated attempts to join the
conversation, tried to challenge this assertion (line 236). However this challenge

was limited to two turns in the entire discussion.

210

Annie offered another explanation built off prior comments from non-
consenting students. This was that seeds, once they sprout roots and grow a
stern, go up the stem, break apart in the flower and make new seeds (line 156-
159). This explanation came late in the discussion, however when given the
chance, Breanne revisited this claim stating that she “want(s) to know how the
seed can go up [the stem]” (line 233).

Just as in preceding discussions, there was no resolution to the question
and students did no end with a single account. This discussion was considerably
improved in terms of participation, including eleven students. But students’
uptake of ideas was not as good. There were only seventeen uptakes in 137
analyzable utterances, twelve of which focused on Breanne’s claims.

Furthermore, only four students’ utterances were taken up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Line Speaker Utterance
1. Mr. E. What is a seed“
2. Mr. E. Let’s start with what is a seed“
3. Mr. E. And so remember that we are going to call I
4. Mr. E. we’re going to call on peoplel
5. Mr. E. like I’ll call on Annie and Annie will call on the next person/l
6. Mr. E. So what is a seed“
7. Annie umm
8. Mr. E. Annie
9. Annie It’s something that grows into a plant
10. Mr. E. OK opens joumal to make notes
11. Annie Isaac
12. NC [requests to use science joumals]
13. Isaac A seed is like something that
14. Mr. E. Umm / I’ll put mine away OK“
15. Mr. E. How’s that / is that fair“
16. Rodger jumping in NO
17. NC
18. Rodger I want to write
19. Mrs. C. Let’s just talk first
20. Mr. E. Who did you call on Annie“

 

 

 

211

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21. Isaac me

22. Mr. E. l was distracted

23. Annie Isaac

24. Mr. E. What did you say Isaac“

25. Isaac A seed is like / is s- / is something I

26. Isaac is something that before it its’ a plant/

27. Isaac like it’s a flower or a like tree

28. Isaac it starts out as a seed

29. - NC

100.

101 . Rodger Umm

102. Rodger well

103. Rodger I got like some real big seeds

104. Rodger And if you dig a small hole

105. Rodger that won’t work for it

106. Rodger if it is a real big seed

107. Rodger you got to dig the hole real deep so it will grow good

108. Mr. E. I noticed some people were really listening carefully to what
Rodger had to say

109. Mr. E. and some people were not doing such a good job of carefully
listening/l

110. Mr. E. Rodger you need to call on somebody OK

111. Mr. E. There are a couple of people that have been waiting a long
time

112. Rodger Umm / Isaac

113. Bobby you got your hand up“

114. NC

127.

128. Isaac Breanne

129. Breanne A seed even grows into a plant

130. Breanne First it has leaves

131. Breanne and the green little plant comes from the seed but it also
comes from the stem too

132. Mr. E. OK a couple more people are still waiting

133. multiple overlapping talk

134. Mr. E. quickly

135. Breanne Erin

136. Erin First you plant the seed

137. Erin and when you give a seed water it grows into a plant

138. Erin and you keepbn watering it and then it grows into a flower

139. Erin Annie

140. Annie A plant seed I a seed needs water / light / and umm dirt

141. Mr. E. OK now we are talking about the things a seed needs

142. Mr. E. cause some people are waiting to talk

 

212

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143. Annie Brittany

144. Brittany I have a question for Erin

145. Brittany I mean I have a comment for Erin

146. Brittany not all seeds grow into flowers

147. Erin I know '

148. some whispering

149. Erin flowers and plants and other kind of stuff

150. Mr. E. Do you agree with that still“

151. Mr. E. do you want to call on somebody else“

152. Brittany NC

153. NC

157.

158. Mr. E. So what I hear is that it seems like everybody seems to
agree that a seed grows into a plant

159. multiple multiple overlapping speech, some agreement

160. Mr. E. Wait

161. Mrs. C. One at a time

162. Mr. E. I’m talking

163. Mr. E. a plant or tree or a flower or something like that

164. Mr. E. everybody seems to agree that a seed will grow into those
things

165. Mr. E. just wait a minute

166. Mr. E. I’ll let you ask questions

167. Mr. E. But what I want to know is where the seeds come from

168. Mr. E. Cause that’s sort of confusing to me

169. Mr. E. Isaac l where do seeds come from?

170. Isaac Nature

171. Mr. E. But where in nature“

172. Mr. E. I need something a little better than just nature

173. Isaac Now I’m getting cbnfused

174. Isaac Beverly

175. Mr. E. OK

176. Mrs. C. what did you say Isaac“

177. Mr. E. He said nature

178. Beverly They grow on kinds of trees

179. Beverly and then fall

180. Beverly and sometimes they fall on the dirt

181. Mr. E. Keep talking / let’s let other people talk

182. Mr. E. see if I can get sorted out

183. Mr. E. Beverly you need to call on somebody else/l

184. Beverly Annie

185. Mr. E. Rodger is your hand up“

186. Mr. E. Well you need to scoot out so she can see knows that

187. Mr. E. It looks like you are running your hand

 

 

 

213

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

188. Annie Trees have audio glitches

189. Annie If you got a tree seed and you want to grow it

190. Annie and that tree grows seeds

191. Annie and umm and it

192. Annie they get to little seeds and sometimes those little seeds grow
into food

193. Annie and the food drops and some of the seeds come out

194. Annie plant another tree

195. Annie NC

196. NC

197. Rodger Umm not all seeds 7

198. Bobby jumping in grow

199. Rodger Annie / I got a question for you

200. Rodger Like you said how would a all seeds grow into a umm flower

201. Rodger That’s what you said

202. Annie huh-uhh

203. Annie Here’s what I said

204. Annie If you have a umm tree seed and you plant it and it grows
andifhas

205. Annie some trees have

206. Rodger I don’t get it

207. Annie then they grow little seeds on them

208. Annie and then they grow food

209. Annie and sometimes the food falls off

210. Annie and it the seed

21 1. NC

212. Annie the seed it will fall off

213. Annie and food will fall down they might drop

214. Annie and then they fall out of the fruit

215. Annie and it will grow into a new tree

216. Annie and it will start all over again

217. Annie like a life cycle

218. several people including Mr. E. have hands raised. Many
students whisper, Mr. E.

219. Mr. E. Anybody / he can call on anybody

220. Mr. E. NC

221. Mr. E. You need to put it up to its clear

222. Mr. E. and Beverly’s hand is up too

223. Mr. E. Me

224. Mr. E. What I thought Rodger was saying was that it sounds like
you are saying Annie that all seeds come from trees/I

225. Mr. E Is that what you mean“

226. Annie I just mean some seeds

227. Mr. E. Some seeds come from trees

 

214

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

228. Mr. E. So where does

229. Rodger jumping in Like what kind of

230. Mr. E. Well maybe we don’t need to know what kinds/l

231. Mr. E. Like where do other seed come from“

232. Mr. E. If not all of them come from trees where do other ones come
from “

233. Annie Stores sometimes

234. Annie umm / I don’t know what they come from

235. Annie I just / I don’t know what they come from

236. Mr. E. OK

 

 

 

215

 

Appendix B

Coding Schemes Used in Analysis

Each student utterance was coded for several different attributes. These
attributes reflect the theoretical and analytic framework described in Chapter
Two. It is important to note that these codes were developed through a constant
comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), reflecting a emic perspective as
arising from the data rather than being imposed on the data.

Participation: How can students’ participation in joint construction of accounts be
described in terms of claims and accounts?

Coding for participation involved two descriptions of students’ utterances.
The first looked at the nature of the utterance to describe whether the utterance
was a new claim or whether it was a shared utterance. If the utterance was
shared, the second coding identified the lines that the speaker referred to. In
order to consider the different ways that students might share utterance, coding
for the nature of utterances included the following codes. These codes were
useful in determining percentages of participation, but were not included in the
methods described in Chapter Three or the findings described in Chapter Four.

1. Revoice — involves repeating an utterance making small changes.

2. Regea_t— involves repeating exactly an utterance of a prior speaker.

3. Re-state - involves repeating an utterance giving credit to the person who
initially made the utterance

4. Combine - means connecting two or more prior utterances.

5. Extension — involves adding to a prior utterance.

216

Language: How does the language students use support joint construction of

accounts and also reveal something about the nature of the accounts that

students construct?

Coding for language focused on describing the semantic relationships and

thematic patterns students used in discussions to communicate ideas and

explanations about phenomena. These codes initially followed the codes

described by Lemke (1990), but developed additional codes to reflect the data.

Semantic relationships involve two words in combination to communicate some

idea. The codes described below represent halves of semantic relationships.

1.

2.

8.

9.

ije_ct — identifies things other than human actors.

Material - identifies components or compositions of objects

Afici- identifies the inclusion of human agents in the utterance.

Medium — identifies context in which a phenomena takes place.

Process — describes the action that takes place in an utterance.

Egg - describes a process that correlates the process with an outcome.
Attribute — describes particular features relevant to objects, actors, or
media in an utterance.

Location — specifies places that objects, actors, or processes occur.

Event — specifies occurrence of a process and related outcomes.

10. Manner — describes the nature of a process.

217

Combinations of the semantic relationships occurred in patterned
relationships. This led to creation of codes for the nature of thematic patterns
that students used to construct claims and accounts. These were:

1. Circumstames/Characteristics - involved utterances whose semantic

 

relationships claimed things about the conditions required for some
phenomena to occur or qualities of phenomena that could be expected
to occur regardless of context.

2. Process — involved describing or explaining the ways phenomena
occur

3. my involved describing human agents asserting control over

phenomena in the world.

Content: What is the nature of the accounts that students jointly construct and
how does this reveal the nature of students’ sense-making about phenomena in

the worid?

Coding for the nature of the account that students jointly constructed
involved looking at the claims that students made. These claims were coded to
describe whether students were talking about:

1. Experiences — involve statements of observation or recounts of personal

 

experiences that students determined were relevant to the phenomena
being discussed.
2. Patterns — describe the ways that multiple observations relate to one

another in a predictable way.

218

3. Explanations — offer reasons why patterns and experiences make sense

 

given theories or laws of phenomena in the natural world.

 

 

 

219

' iiiiiiiiiijiiiiliiiiiiiiiliiiiii