Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Discourse Analysis in Integrated STEM Activities: Methods for Examining Power and Positioning in Small Group Interactions

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is becoming increasingly common in K-12 classrooms, and small group activities are ubiquitous to STEM instruction. This article includes both theoretical and practical descriptions of a microethnographic approach to critical multimodal discourse analysis that we used to explore power and positioning within a mixed-gender group of students working together on an engineering design challenge. We drew upon social semiotics, positioning theory, and activity theory to ground this work and utilized three phases of data analysis: microethnography to develop individual and group storylines, critical multimodal discourse analysis of key events, and the integration of storylines and discourse analysis. This multi-phase approach granted us insights into our data that would have otherwise been lacking. Microethnography revealed the significance of the shift between science and engineering activities in relation to power and positioning within the group. Multimodal analysis revealed that the introduction of new physical artifacts influenced power and positioning within the small group, with different modes of communication having different intensities across the unit. We argue that our approach is useful in analyzing complex small group interactions within science classrooms and highlight key methodological decisions for researchers interested in employing a microethnographic approach to critical multimodal discourse analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Anonymized transcripts available upon request.

References

  • Bezemer, J., Diamantopoulou, S., Jewitt, C., Kress, G., & Mavers, D. (2012). Using a social semiotic approach to multimodality: Researching learning in schools, museums and hospitals. National Centre for Research Methods.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloome, D. (1989). Beyond access. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and classrooms (pp. 53–106). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloome, D., & Bailey, F. (1992). From linguistics and education, a direction for the study of language and literacy. In R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multiple disciplinary perspectives on language and literacy research (pp. 181–210). Urbana: NCRE and NCTE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2016). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 23-37). New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education. Arlington: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, W., & Lam, P. (2012). Prosody in discourse. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 271–284). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayman, S. E., & Gill, V. T. (2012). Conversation analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 120–134). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J., & Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 161–195). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumperz, J. J. (1986). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 445–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, S., Walker, J., & Flom, B. (1995). Growing smart: What’s working for girls in school. New York: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt, C. (2013). Multimodal methods for researching digital technologies. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of digital technology research (pp. 250–265). London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. G., Brader-Araje, L., Carboni, L. W., Carter, G., Rua, M. J., Banilower, E., & Hatch, H. (2000). Tool time: Gender and students’ use of tools, control, and authority. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 760–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, J., & King, S. S. (1998). Boys and girls in the performance-based science classroom: Who’s doing the performing? American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 477–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, J. B., Parker, L. H., Rennie, L. J., & Riley, D. (1993). Gender differences in science education: Building a model. Educational Psychologist, 28(4), 379–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883–915.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, C., Binns, I. C., & Bloom, M. A. (2016). The emergence of STEM. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 13–22). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowal, S., & O’Connell, D. C. (2013). Transcription as a crucial step of data analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 64–78). London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2003). Perspectives on making meaning: The differential principles and means of adults and children. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 154–166). London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O. (2003). Equity for linguistically and culturally diverse students in science education: A research agenda. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 465–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (2008). Identity, development and desire: Critical questions. In C. R. Caldas-Couthard & R. Iedema (Eds.), Identity trouble: Critical discourse and contested identities (pp. 17–42). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mewborn, D. S. (1999). Creating a gender equitable school environment. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2(2), 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K–12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in precollege settings: Synthesizing research, policy and practices. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. E., Hull, G. A., & Roche-Smith, J. (2008). Taking, and mistaking, the show on the road: Challenges of multimedia self-presentation. Written Communication, 25(4), 415–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. (2006). Multiparty interaction: A multimodal perspective on relevance. Discourse Studies, 8(3), 401–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochs, E. (1999). Transcription as theory. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 168–182). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, H., & Yoon, C. (2004). Early adolescents’ motivation during science investigation. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 319–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rinke, C. R., Gladstone-Brown, W., Kinlaw, C. R., & Cappiello, J. (2016). Characterizing STEM teacher education: Affordances and constraints of explicit STEM preparation for elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 116(6), 300–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, S. M. (2002). Student positioning within groups during science activities. Research in Science Education, 32(1), 35–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E. (2000). How gender influences learners working collaboratively with science simulations. Learning and Instruction, 34(6), 463–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepardson, D. P. (1996). Social interactions and the mediation of science learning in two small groups of first-graders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 159–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, A., & Howe, C. (1993). Gender and dialogue in secondary school physics. Gender and Education, 5(2), 191–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 14–31). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 642–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. (2001). Coding scheme for the analysis of classroom discourse. Resource document. https://people.ucsc.edu/~gwells/Files/Courses_Folder/documents/CodingManual.pdf Accessed 8 August 2019.

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieselmann, J. R. (2019). Student participation in small group, integrated STEM activities: An investigation of gender differences (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (22582613).

  • Wieselmann, J. R., Dare, E. A., Roehrig, G. H., & Ring-Whalen, E. A. (2019). Participation in small group engineering design activities at the elementary and middle school level: An investigation of gender differences. In Proceedings from the 126th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Tampa, FL: American Society for Engineering Education.

  • Wieselmann, J. R., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2020). "I just do what the boys tell me": Exploring small group student interactions in an integrated STEM unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(1), 112–144.

  • Wohlwend, K. E. (2011). Mapping modes in children’s play and design: An action-oriented approach to critical multimodal analysis. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Code Availability

Not applicable

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 00039202 and DRL-1238140.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teaching & Learning, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA

    Jeanna R. Wieselmann

  2. Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Khomson Keratithamkul & Gillian H. Roehrig

  3. Department of Teaching and Learning, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

    Emily A. Dare

  4. Education Department, St. Catherine University, St. Paul, MN, USA

    Elizabeth A. Ring-Whalen

Authors
  1. Jeanna R. Wieselmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Khomson Keratithamkul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily A. Dare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth A. Ring-Whalen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gillian H. Roehrig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeanna R. Wieselmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

Not applicable

Disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wieselmann, J.R., Keratithamkul, K., Dare, E.A. et al. Discourse Analysis in Integrated STEM Activities: Methods for Examining Power and Positioning in Small Group Interactions. Res Sci Educ 51, 113–133 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09950-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09950-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation