Investigating the discursive interactions in the elementary science classroom

Yılmaz Soysal


This study explored three aspects of classroom discourse that was conducted in elementary science classroom by a Vygotskian manner. Disciplinary content of conversations was matter (atomic structure) and modelling. Through a validated analytical framework, communicative approaches, teaching purposes and patterns of interactions were analysed. It was found that the teacher enacted both authoritative and dialogic sides of teaching episodes. Regarding teaching purposes, the teacher guided the students for engaging in a travel between micro (part), macro (whole) and symbolic (communicative) dimensions by negotiating atoms and modelling. Regarding teaching purposes, the teacher directed the students to interrogate challenges to compose models that were expected to incorporate reality. Regarding patterns of interactions, teacher-student exchanges were pervasive among others (e.g., student-student). These findings were discussed by taking current theories of classroom discourse into account and recommendations were offered for teachers’ professional development.


Communicative approaches; Teaching purposes; Patterns of interactions; Classroom discourse; Modelling

Full Text:



Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174-193.

Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating Interpretive Inquiry: Reviving the Validity Debate and Opening the Dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 1338-1352.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1934). Discourse in the novel. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Trans. Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: University of Texas.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Buty, C., Tiberghien, A., & Le Maréchal, J-F. (2004). Learning hypotheses and an associated tool to design and to analyse teaching-learning sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 579-604.

Buty, C. & Mortimer, E. F. (2008) Dialogic/Authoritative Discourse and Modelling in a High School Teaching Sequence on Optics. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1635-1660.

Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated Recall: A Method for Research on Teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211-217.

Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.

Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. M., (2012). The Importance of Embedding Argument Within Science Classrooms. In M.S. Khine (ed.), Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 (pp. 39-53).

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.

Denzin, N. K., & Y.S., Lincoln (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duschl, R.A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37-73.

El-Hani, C. N., & Mortimer, E. F. (2007). Multicultural education, pragmatism, and the goals of science teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 657-702.

Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-484.

Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548-554.

Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9-27). the Netherlands: Springer.

Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (Eds.). (2009a). Multiple representations in chemical education. The Netherlands: Springer.

Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2009b). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1-8). the Netherlands: Springer.

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

Holquist, M. & Emerson, C. (1981) Glossary for the dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Ed. M. Holquist. Trans. M. Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: University of Texas Press.

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: a Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191-206.

Leontiev, A.N. (1981) The problem of activity in psychology. In: J.V. Wertsch (Ed.) The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk, N.Y., Sharpe.

Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-142.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwoord, NJ: Ablex.

Lincoln, Y. S., & E. G. Guba. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33-59.

Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.), (2008). Exploring classroom talk. London: Sage.

Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1-14.

Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430-445.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mortimer, E. F. (1998) Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: an example from theory of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 67-82.

Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Mortimer, E. F., Scott, P., & El-Hani, C. (2012). The Heterogeneity of Discourse in Science Classrooms: The Conceptual Profile Approach. In Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K. G., & McRobbie, C. J. (2012). International handbook of science education (Part one). Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg: London, New York. (pp. 231-246).

Nilsson, P. & Vikström, A. (2015). Making PCK Explicit-Capturing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) in the Science Classroom, International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2836-2857.

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, P. H. (1997). Teaching and learning science concepts in classroom: talking a path from spontaneous to scientific knowledge. In Linguagem, cultura e cognicao reflexoes para o ensino de ciencias. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Faculdade de Educacao da UFMG.

Scott, P. H. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-80.

Scott, P.H., Mortimer, E.F., & Aguiar, O.G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(7), 605-631.

Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Sunderland, J. (1996). Gendered discourse in the foreign language classroom: Teacher-student and student-teacher talk, and the social construction of children’s femininities and masculinities (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Lancaster University, UK).

Sunderland, J. (2000). New understandings of gender and language classroom research: Texts, teacher talk and student talk. Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 149-173.

Talanquer, V. (2011) Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179-195.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. W. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S.

Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology, (pp. 39- 285). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934).

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.




Creative Commons License
Elementary Education Online is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

ISSN: 1305-3515