Abstract
One of the challenges for analysing science classroom discourse is a better understanding of intercontextual relationships in the learning process. In this paper, we used orientations from ethnography in education to organise and propose an analytical metaphor called the hourglass approach. It involves three phases of analysis that correspond to the parts of the hourglass. The first phase involves obtaining a continuous cross section of classroom history and the intersections between sociocultural contexts and the science learning contexts, throughout this track record. The second phase involves discourse analysis of few selected events is the vertex of the hourglass. Finally, in the third phase, the analysis of interactions is focused on intercontextual relationships for the interpretation of science learning opportunities. We illustrate this approach based on interactions during science lessons in a first-grade class. In particular, we discuss, in greater detail, how a meaningful intercontextual element in the participants’ group (i.e. the gender norm), intermingled with the engagement of students in practices from the conceptual, epistemic and social domains of scientific knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
08 November 2021
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10031-9
Notes
To identify ethnicity, we used the criteria adopted by IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), which resulted in the categories: white (W), black (B), indigenous (I) and undeclared (UD). In the family income field, “NI” corresponds to no income and “M” corresponds to the Brazilian national minimum wage.
An event is understood as a theoretical construct. This is a heuristic for the construction of analyses that seek to understand how people interact and negotiate meanings by acting and reacting to each other (Bloome et al. 2008).
At this stage, we watched videos when information in the notes were unclear or incomprehensible.
Science education researchers used this approach for analysing discursive interactions in classrooms (for a recent discussion, see Kelly and Green 2019).
Symbols used in the chart: ↑ (rising intonation at the end of the speech); vowel+ (long vowel); non-verbal behaviour in italics; I (pause).
According to Butler (1993), the norm regarding gender regulates our cultural intelligibility, on establishing a hierarchy between male and female, and compulsory heterosexuality. The norm only exists for as long as it is updated in our social practice and constantly reinstituted in our social rituals. There is no ontological status regarding this norm. Therefore, there are possibilities for deconstruction of notions like that of “true” masculinity or femininity.
References
Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: Conceptualizing a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891–1912. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1514543.
Blommaert, J. (2015). Chronotopes, scales, and complexity in the study of language in society. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014035.
Blommaert, J. M. E., & Backus, A. (2013). Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies, v. 67. King’s College. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/ldc/publications/workingpapers/67.pdf.
Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Madrid, S., Otto, S., Shuart-Faris, N., & Smith, M. (2008). Discourse analysis in classrooms: Approaches to language and literacy research. Nova York: Teachers College Press.
Bloome, D., Beierle, M., Grigorenko, M., & Goldman, S. (2009). Learning over time: Uses of intercontextuality, collective memories, and classroom chronotopes in the construction of learning opportunities in a ninth-grade language arts classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 313–334.
Brickhouse, N. (2011). Scientific literacy for bringing in the outsiders. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. A. Roberts, P. O. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. Mackinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy. Nova York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York: Routledge.
Castanheira, M. L., Crawford, T., Dixon, C., & Green, J. (2001). Interactional ethnography: An approach to studying the social construction of literate practices. Linguistics an Education, 11(4), 353–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(00)00032-2.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in 3-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371.
Erickson, F. (2008). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Franco, L. G., & Munford, D. (2018). Investigating Discursive Interactions in Science Lessons: “contextual lenses” on Research in Science Education. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 18(1), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2018181125
Franco, L. G., & Munford, D. (2020). Inquiry-Based Science Teaching under Construction: Possibilities of Articulations Between Conceptual, Epistemic and Social Domains Within Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 20, 721–753. https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2020u721753
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Nova York, Harper & Row.
Gómez Fernández, R. G. (2019). Translanguaging and equity in groupwork in the science classroom: Adding linguistic and cultural diversity to the equation. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(2), 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09919-w.
Green, J. L., & Wallat, C. (1981). Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood: Ablex.
Green, J. L., Skukauskaite, A., & Castanheira, M. L. (2013). Studying the discursive construction of learning lives for individuals and the collective. In O. Erstad & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Identity, community and learning lives in the digital age (p. 237). Cambridge University Press.
Green, J. L., Baker, W. D., Chian, M. M., Vanderhoof, C., Hooper, L., Kelly, G. J., Skukauskaite, A., & Kalainoff, M. Z. (2020). Studying the over-time construction of knowledge in educational settings: A microethnographic discourse analysis approach. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 161–194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x20903121.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies (1st ed.). Cambrige University Press.
Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, J. (eds) (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, New York: Holts Rinehart & Winston, pp. 35–71.
Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024.
Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (Eds.). (2019). Theory and methods for sociocultural research in science and engineering education. New York: Routledge.
Lee, S. C., & Irving, K. E. (2018). Development of two-dimensional classroom discourse analysis tool (CDAT): Scientific reasoning and dialog patterns in the secondary science classes. IJ STEM Ed, 5(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0100-0.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language learning and values. Norwood: Ablex.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3%3C296::AID-TEA1007%3E3.0.CO;2-R.
Levrini, O., Levin, M., Fantini, P., & Tasquier, G. (2018). Orchestration of classroom discussions that foster appropriation. Science Education, 103(1), 206–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21475.
Mitchell, J. C. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In R. F. Ellens (Ed.), Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. New York: Academic Press.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., Jong, Ton de, Van R., Siswa A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.
Rex, L. A. (Ed.) (2006). Discourse of opportunity: How talk in learning situations creates and constrains. Cresskill: Hampton Press Inc., p. 135.
Schiebinger, L. (1993). Nature’s body: Gender in the making of modern science. Beacon Press, Boston.
Shea, M. V., & Sandoval, J. (2020). Using historical and political understanding to design for equity in science education. Science Education, 104(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21555.
Skuskauskaite, A. (2019). Constructing transparency in designing and conducting multilayered research in science and engineering education – Potentials and challenges of ethnographically informed discourse-based methodologies. In G. J. Kelly & J. Green (Eds.), Theory and methods for sociocultural research in science and engineering education (pp. 234–255). New York: Routledge.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing “science practice” in learning settings. Science Education, 99(6), 1033–1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21191.
Vertovec, S. (2010). Changing communities, contexts and conditions of diversity. International Social Science Journal, 61(199), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01749.x.
Vrikki, M., Wheatley, L., Howe, C., Hennessy, S., & Mercer, N. (2018). Dialogic practices in primary school classrooms. Language and Education, 33(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1509988.
Wagner, C. J., & González-Howard, M. (2018). Studying discourse as social interaction: The potential of social network analysis for discourse studies. Educational Researcher, 20(10), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18777741.
Funding
This study was funded by CNPq - National Council for Scientific and Technological Development — Brazil and CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The paper is part of a research project approved by the Ethical Committee of the institutions (university and school) and the people involved were also consulted and signed a consent form.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised: A modified version of the Funding section is provided. Full information regarding the correction made can be found in the erratum/correction for this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Franco, L.G., Munford, D. The Hourglass Approach: Analysing Science Classroom Discursive Interactions Through Intercontextual Lens. Res Sci Educ 51, 13–33 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09976-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09976-0