Classroom Discourse

According to Von Aufschnaiter et al (2008), research focusing on classroom discourse during the teaching and learning of science only emerged in the 1990s. This study too has as its main focus the conversations or speech that occurs in

34

the natural science classroom. Anderson et al (2007) claim that influential people in education also prioritise talking science over reading and writing science. Vygotsky is one such person who advocates the principle that meaning making during learning comes through shared discourse between the learner and a more capable peer (Rollnick 2000) or the teacher. The more capable peer or teacher assists the novice/less capable learner in learning to talk science. Socio-cultural views of classroom discourse place social interaction in the centre of meaning making and learning (Anderson et al 2007). During learning students are expected to talk in ways that are appropriate to the discipline studied (Gomez 2007). When learning physical science they are expected to talk differently than in life sciences. This is with reference to the semiotic resources and formations they use.

The chatter students engage in during natural sciences lessons include everyday language, yet they are expected to use mostly the scientific language. Students are said to use everyday discourse when they use colloquial, non-scientific, yet descriptive ways when talking about phenomena (ibid.42). It is the duty of the science teacher to help the students engage with the scientific language, and also to translate the scientific discourses into everyday conversation. By so doing the science teacher helps the students move from the proximal end of the continuum of conceptual understanding to the distal end. The proximal end is marked by the use of life/world vocabulary and explanations whereas the distal end is marked by the use of more abstract discourse.

Green (2007) identifies two types of interactions that occur in natural sciences classrooms: monological and dialogical interactions. Monological interactions are “one-way” kind of reasoning while dialogical interactions involve multiple and contrasting kinds of reasoning. Examples of monological interactions are discussions and explanation and of dialogical interactions, argumentation interactions. Disputes are one kind of constructive interaction that natural sciences teachers should teach and encourage since they increase students’

35

conceptual understanding (Von Aufschnaiter et al 2008). They have elements such as data, claims, warrants, backings, qualifiers and rebuttals. Such debate facilitates student-student and student-teacher classroom discourse. Monological interactions usually lead to dialogical interactions, such as, a story being narrated by a natural science teacher to natural science students (monological interactions) resulting in a debate or argument in the classroom (dialogical interaction). An argument is a dialogue between two or more people holding opposing views (Green 2007).

The two kinds of interactions (monological and dialogical) mentioned above are both substantive and multi-voiced. An interaction is described as substantive provided it is based on disciplinary knowledge and multi-voiced when it involves two or more participants. Both of these terms apply to interactions occurring in a natural science lesson. The interactions are substantive because they are always about the subject content. I observed student-student and student-teacher interactions all of which were multi-voiced. Observing those interactions was not complicated for me (the researcher) as there were no serious cultural, social or linguistic differences among the students, or the teacher. All the students and their natural science teacher had SiSwati as their mother language and the same culture. The natural science teacher, therefore, did not have trouble modifying classroom instruction so as to accommodate cultural, social and linguistic differences among the natural science students. But the natural science teacher’s instructional strategies had to vary to cater for the students’ different learning styles and modalities.

The natural science classroom discourse should encourage students on when and how to embrace, not reject, classroom science talk. It should encourage science students to progress from everyday science discussion to extended scientific discourse (Gomez 2007). This enables them to communicate their science understanding using a science vocabulary. Their communicative

36

competence improves so long as they practise the scientific language extensively (Rollnick 2000) during natural science lessons.

2.3.4 Summary

Chapter two began by giving an overview of the literature reviewed. The review was given under three subheadings, namely, social skills development in natural sciences lessons; student discourse in a natural science classroom; and language, identity and science. After discussing some of the pertinent literature relating to this study, then proposed a conceptual framework to guide the study. The conceptual framework is divided into three subheadings which are social constructivism; classroom discourse and resources and formations. Integrating literature on these three subheadings, I was able to identify the key concepts and approaches to use for data collection and analysis.

37

CHAPTER THREE

3.1 Introduction

McMillan (2004) defines research as a disciplined inquiry of gathering, interpreting and reporting information using acceptable principles to verify that a knowledge claim is reasonable. In education research is applied to educational problems and questions. Janes (1999) defines research as a way of trying to answer a question about the nature of things in an organised, recognised and replicable way. The results of the research should also be acceptable to the intended audience. For this research I accepted the latter definition (that by Janes) since with this study I have answered a question about the nature of things in my school; not tried to verify a knowledge claim. The definition by McMillan & Schumacher (1997), that research is a systematic process of collecting and logically analysing data for a specific purpose is also suitable for this study.

In the present study a problem was identified by the researcher in the field of education, which was that of poor performance in the sciences by students in Form 5 (exit point in school education system in Swaziland) external examinations. Questions arose in the researcher’s mind as to what could be the causes of the problem. This research was then embarked on to find answers to the questions. These answers would finally be the solutions to the perceived educational problem. The approaches the researcher used during the research in a bid to gather data are known as research methods. These are the techniques for finding answers to the research questions (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2002).

38

McMillan & Schumacher (1997) define research methods as those systematic and purposeful procedures the researcher employs during data collection and analysis in a bid to yield information on the research question(s).

By research design is meant a blue print of the research project (Mouton & Marais 1990). It is the arrangement of conditions for the collection and analysis of data beforehand. The research design aims at maximising the validity of the research findings through careful planning and structuring of the research project (ibid. 33). It involves rational decision-making by the researcher. For this study the researcher opted for approaches which maximise the validity of the findings by selecting and using the best-fit-for-purpose methods and making rational decisions at every stage of the project, bearing in mind that the design of a qualitative research evolves during the study.