Science Students’ Classroom Discourse: Tasha’s Umwelt

Jenny Arnold

Published online: 28 September 2010# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Over the past twenty-five years researchers have been concerned withunderstanding the science student. The need for such research is still grounded incontemporary issues including providing opportunities for all students to developscientific literacy and the failure of school science to connect with student’s lives,interests and personal identities. The research reported here is unusual in its use ofdiscourse analysis in social psychology to contribute to an understanding of the waystudents make meaning in secondary school science. Data constructed for the study wasdrawn from videotapes of nine consecutive lessons in a year-seven science classroom inMelbourne, post-lesson video-stimulated interviews with students and the teacher,classroom observation and the students’ written work. The classroom videotapes wererecorded using four cameras and seven audio tracks by the International Centre forClassroom Research at the University of Melbourne. Student talk within and about theirscience lessons was analysed from a discursive perspective. Classroom episodes inwhich students expressed their sense of personal identity and agency, knowledge,attitude or emotion in relation to science were identified for detailed analysis of thefunction of the discourse used by students, and in particular the way students werepositioned by others or positioned themselves. This article presents the discursiveUmwelt or life-space of one middle years science student, Tasha. Her case is used hereto highlight the complex social process of meaning making in science classrooms andthe need to attend to local moral orders of rights and duties in research on studentlanguage use, identity and learning in science.

Keywords Positioning . Social psychology . Discourse analysis . Girls in science . Scienceclassroom practice . Video study . Classroom research

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259DOI 10.1007/s11165-010-9195-0

J. Arnold (*)International Centre for Classroom Research, Melbourne Graduate School of Education,The University of Melbourne, 109 Barry St, Carlton 3053, Australiae-mail: j.arnold1@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au

Introduction

“I don’t pay attention the whole time. Seriously! I haven’t heard about theArchimedes in the bathtub thing” (Tasha, lesson 2).

Tasha is a year seven student who participated in the video study at the focus of thisreport. Her statement above was made during class time. In analyzing the content of thisstatement from a cognitive perspective (Costa 1995; Harré 2006), we may find a clearexpression of Tasha’s own lack of knowledge. Her unfamiliarity with the legend ofArchimedes could reflect a lack of scientific cultural knowledge, suggesting some disparitybetween her life world and the world of science. Tasha’s portrayal of herself as someonewho doesn’t “pay attention” in science class the whole time, could be explained in terms ofthe implied difficulty of cultural disparity when crossing borders into the world of science.However, when the function of Tasha’s talk is taken into consideration it will becomeevident that the content of an utterance is not sufficient for an analysis of meaning. Tasha’sconstruction of herself here as not paying attention, as with any language use, is part of adiscursive practice used for a particular local purpose in conversation. We will return toTasha’s utterance later in the paper.

From an anthropological perspective, research based upon interviews with students andtheir relative success in school science has shown that the life-worlds of students can beincompatible with the culture of science. Such a perspective has been used to explain thevarying dispositions of students in relation to school science. Learning science has beenlikened to border crossing, and teaching to the enculturation of a diverse range of studentsinto the world of science (Costa 1995; Aikenhead 2001). Sensitivity to students’ culturalorientations outside school has prompted calls for humanistic approaches to sciencecurriculum (Roth and Barton 2004; Aikenhead 2005) and the re-casting of the role of theteacher (Aikenhead 2001, p. 186–7). From a sociocultural determinist perspective, students’use of language in science classrooms has been studied in order to classify studentsaccording to their discursive identity (Brown 2004). Student use of everyday language hasbeen interpreted as a sign of resistance to the scientific practice of using scientific terms andas the maintenance of cultural identities (Brown 2004; 2006; Brown and Ryoo 2008;Brown and Spang 2008; Brown et al. 2009). From a social constructionist viewpoint,students’ life experiences and resulting naïve explanations for phenomena have been shownto be underlying barriers to the learning of science, which in many instances can becounter-intuitive (Osborne and Freyberg 1985; Talanquer 2009). Teaching and learningscience from this perspective has been conceived in several studies as the exposure,interrogation and (re)construction of students’ cognitive schema. From the perspective ofsituated cognition, learning in science has been conceived as a process of identity formation(Brickhouse 2001; Lemke 2001; Kozoll and Osborne 2004). This perspective has beenutilised to interrogate the role of gender and economic status in science learning. In recentstudies focused on girls and students from communities with limited socio-economicresources engagement in science has been fostered in a variety of ways that are notnecessarily in alignment with conventional school science practice (Barton 1998; Bartonand Osborne 2001; Brickhouse and Potter 2001; Brickhouse et al. 2000). In instances wherenon-traditional ways of engaging with science have been supported in learning environ-ments the outcome has been significant in terms of the transformation of classroompractices and student participation in school science (Barton 2001; Barton and Tan 2009;Barton et al. 2008; Tan and Barton 2008).

234 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

The research reported here is unusual in its use of discourse analysis in socialpsychology (Wood and Kroger 2000) to contribute to an understanding of the way studentsmake meaning in secondary school science. Discursive psychology was drawn upon for thestudy because there has been convincing theoretical and empirical work in the socialsciences related to what has become known as the “discursive turn” (Kroger and Wood1998) or the “second cognitive revolution” (Harré 1992b) that calls into question many ofthe assumptions underlying some of this previous research, including:

1. Presupposing the existence of a culture of science as an attitudinal object.

From a discursive perspective, the variability in the construction of ‘science’ and ‘theculture of science’ for different social purposes in different contexts is acknowledged andthis variability becomes of central interest (Wood and Kroger 2000).

2. Assuming that student utterances are indicators of the presence of enduring, underlyingattitudes.

From the discursive perspective, attitudes are performatively constituted through actionfor specific local purposes. Instead of an underlying attitude, the function of attitudinaldisplays as a discursive practice in various contexts becomes the focus for research (Potterand Wetherell 2001).

3. Making translations from un-explicated student discourse to un-explicated researcher’sdiscourse, for example the translation of ‘language used by students’ to thecategorization of students according to ‘cultural affiliation’.

From a discursive perspective, language has a social function entailing a shift in focusfrom the content of utterances to utterances as speech-acts. Utterances have a locutionary orreferential sense, but also an illocutionary and perlocutionary force (Harré and vanLangenhove 1999a; Potter 2001; Cornejo 2004). In discourse analysis, the relevantcategories are those used by participants (Wood and Kroger 2000; Potter and Wetherell2001).

4. Ignoring student agency to treat students as passive entities in the culture of the scienceclassroom and holding the teacher as individually responsible for science classroompractices.

From the discursive psychological perspective, science classroom practices aremaintained or transformed relationally through interaction (Linehan and McCarthy 2000;Wood and Kroger 2000; O'Connor 2001; Harvey 2002). The focus from the discursiveperspective shifts from the role of students as passive receivers of curriculum imperativesand pedagogical moves to the discursive practices of students as they make meaning incontext, including the way they position themselves and are positioned by others (Daviesand Harré 1999).

The shifts to a discursive perspective: from a concern with what people are talking aboutto a concern with what they are doing in and with their talk; and from a concern with whathappened to a concern with how events are discursively constructed, require major shifts inthe specific kinds of research questions that are asked (Wood and Kroger 2000, p. 17).Through the study of discourse as social action, the focus of this study was how studentspositioned themselves as participants in science. Rather than seeking to apply predeter-mined categories to student discourse, this research identified the ways in which

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 235

participating students actively constructed and employed categories in their discourse whilstparticipating in and talking about science. The questions addressed by the research reportedhere include: How can discursive practices employed by students in their science classroombe described? How do students use psychological categories in their talk in and about theirscience classroom? How are students positioned, and how do they position themselveswithin science classroom discourses?

Theoretical Framework

“The rich fabric of social life is woven not by physical beings whose actions arecaused by mental entities harbored under their skulls, but rather by social beings who,by virtue of their capacity for language, are engaged in an endless “conversation” andso create and maintain their relations with each other (Harré & Gillet 1994). It is inthis realm that discourse analysis finds its home” (Wood and Kroger 2000, pxii).

Discourse is used here to refer to human meaning making using semiotic systems, bothverbal and non-verbal, spoken and written. The focus of the study is on student discourse inand about their science classroom and I have used the terms discourse and conversationbroadly to include all communication modes and talk more specifically in reference tospoken language use, although in the use of each term I am referring to situated, relationalmeaning making or language use as social practice.

Discourse analysis in social psychology was developed from various movements in thesocial sciences including: the influence of Wittgenstein’s claims about the practicality andheterogeneity of language; Austin’s theory of speech-acts; Bahktin’s writings on themultivoicedness of discourse and the concurrent centripetal and centrifugal forces onlanguage; Goffman’s work related to the orderly production of discourse in interaction; andGarfinkel’s research on shared methods of practical reasoning for interpreting and acting inthe common-sense world of everyday life (Potter and Wetherell 1987; Wood and Kroger2000; Herritage 2001; Maybin 2001; Potter 2001). It draws upon the foundations laid byconversational analysts (Schegloff and Sacks 1973; Atkinson and Heritage 1984) and issimilar in that both offer qualitative analyses of the functional and sense-making propertiesof language (Wooffitt 2005, p. 71). However, discourse analysis is broader in its researchfocus and unlike conversational analysis is grounded in social constructionist ontology(Harré 1992a; Wood and Kroger 2000). Cartesian separations of inner mind spaces andouter social spaces are called into question because of the insight that persons and societycannot be separated but are always dialectically related (Vygotsky 1978; Harré 1984;Quigley 2001). A consequence of this is that rather than the inner mechanisms of individualminds or determining structures, discursive psychology is concerned with “the intentionaluse of symbolic systems by active, skilled human beings in public and private contexts, forthe accomplishment of various tasks and projects, jointly with others” (Harré and vanLangenhove 1999a, p. 3; Harré and Tissaw 2005).

The discourse analytic perspective emphasizes the need to work with recordings andrecords (not reports) of verbal and nonverbal aspects of discourse (Wood and Kroger2000, p. 64). Words, grammar and phrases contribute to the locutionary meaning of anutterance. However the illocutionary force of the utterance (what the speaker does with it)also depends upon the standing of the speaker and the way in which the speaker ispositioned within the ongoing interaction (Harre 1997, p. 188). Consideration of the

236 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

speaker’s relative positioning also affects an utterance’s perlocutionary force (its effectson the hearer). Therefore in order to interpret the social meaning, the analyst needs toextend his or her gaze beyond the single utterance to at least those preceding andfollowing it, and perhaps to a social episode (Harré and Secord 1972; Wood and Kroger2000). In summary, social meaning is made relatively determinate using three inter-dependent features of discourse: the conversational ‘storyline’; actors’ conversationallocations, or ‘positions’; and the content of the ‘act/action’. These three constructs arereferred to as the positioning triad (Harré and van Langenhove 1999a). Discourseaccomplishes social acts including the relative positioning of speakers and interlocutorsand the context for further action (the ongoing storyline). Woods and Kroger refer tothis as the scaffolding effect of speech acts; utterances both reflect and construct context(2000, p. 96).

A position denotes a person’s psychological location in a conversation (Harré and vanLangenhove 1999a, 2000), and certain positions imbue speakers with a sense ofresponsibility or duty. The linguistic device used for indexing responsibility for action inthe social world and speech-acts is pronoun use. Muhlhäusler and Harré (1990, p. 94) referto an “indexical progression” in reference to the varying degree that a speaker can takeresponsibility for utterances, ranging from statements not explicitly indexed to the speakerby way of the “unmarked first person” where there is only weak speaker commitment to thereliability of the remark, to the use of the first person and epistemic verbs such as ‘believe’,‘think’, ‘know’ and ‘understand’, which can also index the degree of commitment to thecontent that the speaker is prepared to make.

Use of the first person pronoun is an indexical feature of our language that locatespersonal responsibility for the content of the utterance to the speaker or marks the speaker’ssense of personal responsibility for the utterance itself. Use of the first person is a culturallyembedded practice, performatively realizing the speaker’s location amongst others as anindividual imbued with personal agency. Mead (1934, cited in Harré 2006, p. 234) made adistinction between ‘I’ and ‘me’ aspects of locating oneself in relation to others inconversation. The use of ‘I’ can be in reference to oneself as a process, a constant becomingand for indexing personal agency as true innovation. The use of ‘me’ can be reflexive andrefer to oneself as a product of the social context; the way the speaker sees themselvesthrough the eyes of others. In this way the ‘I’ is aware of the social ‘me’ and “the self isessentially a social process going on with these two distinguishable phases” (Mead 1934,cited in Harré 2006). Collective first person pronoun use can be used to diffuseresponsibility and signal a shared sense of responsibility with members of a group orcollective agency (Muhlhaüsler and Harré 1990). The use of the second person can often beused to deflect personal responsibility from the speaker and index it to public personae(Muhlhaüsler and Harré 1990). For example, “you have to listen to the teacher”, is an actionindexed to the public persona of the good student and indicates what the speaker views as acompetent public performance. Modal verbs, such as ‘must’, can also be used to deflect thespeaker’s responsibility for an action or obscure agency.

Other linguistic devices used for analyses of positioning include speakers’ use oftense. Biographical narratives are usually indexed using tenses other than the present, inwhich actions reported or imagined are indexed to the speaker as a character in past orfuture episodes (Harré and van Langenhove 1999b). It is important to note that theillocutionary and perlocutionary force of reported action cannot be reliably gauged.However, reported speech is also important as a device for positioning within ongoinginteractions, as is the use of emotive verbs and other psychological categories employedby speakers.

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 237

In speaking and acting from a position, people are bringing to the particular situationtheir history as they themselves conceive it, that is, the history of one who has been inmultiple positions and engaged in different forms of discursive practice (Davies and Harré1999, p. 37). This history is referred to as the person’s “Umwelt” (Harré 1990). Discursivepractices and the associated positions are seen to make up the human social Umwelt, thesocial world or life-space of the actor. The use of language or other techniques forpositioning are often so well rehearsed that conscious thought is no longer required on thepart of the actor in the context of moment-to-moment interaction, much like thedevelopment of a skill. Learning under this scheme is the expansion of an individual’sUmwelt to include new discursive practices.

Any action in the social world is intentional, used by the actor for a purpose and presupposinga response from an “other” (Coulter 1999, after Bahktin). The actor draws upon his or herUmwelt at the moment of participation and exercises choice. This gives rise to the possibilityof novel action in institutional contexts resulting in the transformation of practice. Novel actionin any situation risks unintelligibility but could result in new storylines and changes in relativepositioning if taken up by others at the site (Harré 1984). In institutional settings it is rare thatnovel positioning is recognized because of the matrix of practices that make up “the way wedo things around here” or “teaching as usual” (Schatzki 2002; Davies 2008).

Research Design

In secondary school many students become disengaged with science (Goodrum et al. 2001;Tytler et al. 2008). Year seven is the first year of secondary schooling in Victoria. A year-seven class taught by an experienced middle school science teacher who had beenrecommended by his peers as a highly competent teacher of science and who agreed toparticipate was chosen for the study. For most students year seven is the first time they havebeen taught science by a teacher trained in the discipline, and for many it is the first timethey have had a science lesson. However the research was conducted in term four; the lastterm of the school year, by which time students would have developed familiarity withsecondary schooling practices and practices specific to their science classroom.

Videotaped student discourse in and about their science classroom was the main datasource used in this study. The generation of suitable data was achieved with support fromthe International Centre for Classroom Research at the University of Melbourne. A team ofresearchers, including the author, contributed to the data generation and a large data set wasproduced with the purpose of satisfying the research aims of an encompassing researchprogram (Clarke 2009) and three PhD projects including the one reported upon here. Theteamwork required and the inclusive research design developed, as well as the level ofequipment imported into the classroom setting and its inevitable impact upon the site is notthe focus of this paper. However the use of one data set by different researchers for differentpurposes and using different theoretical frameworks constituted the primary rationale of theencompassing research program. Preliminary findings related to consequences andimplications of the multi-theoretic analyses have been presented elsewhere (Arnold 2009;Clarke 2009; Seah 2009; Xu 2009).

Filming was conducted over a four-week period. During this time, nine lessonscomprising a complete unit of work were recorded using four video cameras and sevenaudio tracks. The students in the classroom, with their parents’ approval, had agreed toparticipate. The research design was modeled upon the Learner’s Perspective Project(Clarke 2006), an international video study of mathematics classrooms that included the

238 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

videotaping of lessons using multiple cameras and audio tracks, and separate post-lesson,video-stimulated interviews with the teacher and selected students. Two groups of studentswere selected to participate in post-lesson interviews. Both groups were chosen inconsultation with the teacher after two familiarization lessons. These groups werecomprised of students who habitually worked together and who were identified asrelatively engaged in classroom conversations about science because of their contributionsto whole-class conversations or on-track conversations with their peers, and as articulate inthe interview setting. Tasha was a member of one of these groups. One member from eachgroup participated in a post-lesson interview after each lesson on a rotating basis. Therewere three girls in Tasha’s group. Therefore Tasha participated in three post-lessoninterviews.

Immediately following each lesson, each interviewee (the teacher and two students) inseparate, concurrent interviews was asked to play sections from the lesson video that werepersonally important, and to explain their choice to the researcher. The interviews were semi-structured in much the same way as an ethnographic interview (Spradley 1979). Watchingsections of the video together with a researcher prompted conversational interviews in whichthe interviewee elaborated upon the chosen segments of the lesson from their point of view.Documents were also collected, including the teacher’s unit and lesson plan material andphotocopies of every student’s written work including practical reports, note taking and theend of unit test. The author, herself an experienced science teacher in secondary governmentand non-government schools, primary schools and in teacher education made writtenobservations of each lesson. The unit of work was The States of Matter, a unit that coincidedwith the usual curriculum at this school and which was being taught at the time of filming.

The audio tracks from classroom and interview videos were fully transcribed usingorthographic conventions. These transcripts were used for an initial reading (Wood andKroger 2000), the result of which were colour-coded transcripts showing conversationalcontexts and all episodes in which topics of conversation were identified as relevant to thestudy. Three contexts for student talk in the classroom were identified: public whole-classconversations, private small-group student conversations and private conversations betweenstudents and the teacher. Content of interest that was identified included student talk aboutscience and talk students engaged in whist doing science. In addition, episodes in whichstudents used first person pronouns, emotive or epistemic verbs were highlighted.

It became evident in the initial reading that Tasha often positioned herself as lessknowledgeable than her peers, yet she asked scientifically pertinent questions that were notconsistently taken up by others in the social episodes. I decided to focus on Tasha’s self-positioning to describe the way she was positioned or positioned herself in scienceclassroom conversations, explain why her positioning was taken up differently on differentoccasions and describe the discursive practices in which she participated.

The episodes identified in the initial reading were coded using pronominal coding. Utterancesin these episodes were analysed for their function, beginning with more detailed, phonographictranscription (Wood and Kroger 2000). The conventions used for phonographic transcription areincluded in Appendix A. Repeated viewing of the videos was necessary at this stage. Throughthe repeated viewing, consideration of what was said, the audience addressed, the responsesfrom interlocutors, voice intonation, gestures and any tool use, utterances were analysed fortheir force as social acts, including positioning and evolving storylines.

Private small-group conversations were chosen as the focus of the study to provide awindow into science classroom practices from the meaning-making perspective of thestudents. The following three conversational episodes have been chosen as representationalof the breadth of Tasha’s discursive practices. They have not been presented in

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 239

chronological order but have been arranged in progression of Tasha’s location withrespect to normative classroom practice, from positioning herself as an outsider to theculture of science, to becoming recognized as a competent participant in classroompractices.

Tasha’s Umwelt

The following three episodes illustrate the science classroom practices negotiated betweenTasha and her friends in small-group conversations. Each episode is presented in a table,which includes the transcript in the left hand column and an analysis using discursivepsychology in the right hand column. Contextual information to help the reader make senseof the conversational content in the episodes is provided in separate introductions.Following each episode is a discussion of the function of the discourse, including thepositions available to Tasha. The time frame of each episode is included at the beginning ofthe transcripts in square parenthesis. These times correspond to the amount of time elapsedin the lesson in minutes. The analysis has been placed intentionally to the right of thetranscript to visually maintain a reader’s focus on what was said and done by the students,reflecting the theoretical grounding of the study that talk is action, and to assist the reader inviewing the transcripts through the eyes of the researcher (Donmoyer 1990). The transcriptuses phonographic conventions (Appendix A) to represent the sound of the students’ talk,which is considered important in the analysis of meaning. In the analysis, pronoun use andother cues are highlighted as an index to the students’ psychological location in theconversation.

The three episodes include conversation between Tasha and her two friends, Kesar andAngie. The episodes span two lessons during which the students conducted a practicalactivity in small groups and wrote their practical reports. The practical activity was tomeasure the density of a candle and a marble. In order to measure the volume of theseobjects, students were required to place them into a measuring cylinder of water anddetermine the volume of water displaced. The instructions for the practical activity and thequestions used in their practical reports were provided to the students on the handoutincluded here as Appendix B. The first episode returns to Tasha’s statement quoted at thebeginning of the paper.

Episode 1—“I don’t Pay Attention the Whole Time”

Introduction

During a whole-class conversation in lesson 2 the teacher made an aside concerning thelegend of Archimedes. Tasha participated as a listener only, but other students displayedknowledge of the legend including her friend Kesar. Later in the lesson, Tasha tookpersonal responsibility for not knowing the Legend of Archimedes and positioned herself asexcluded from the community in which the Legend of Archimedes was shared knowledge.

The girls had returned to their desks after completing a practical activity. Their bookswere open and they had begun orientating themselves to writing up the practical report.Each had a copy of the handout (Appendix B), which they refer to in the conversation.Under the heading ‘Discussion’, the instructions included: “In your Practical Book, explainyour results using the particle model”. The transcript and analysis of this episode areincluded as Table 1.

240 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

Table 1 Classroom episode lesson 2

Lesson 2 [44:25–45:41] Analysis

Kesar [Finishes trimming the handout with a pair ofscissors, ready to stick it into her book. Turnstowards Tasha] So do we do a prac report? ...We’re using discussions as questions isn’t there(.) [looks at the handout] °oh yeah its here°.

Kesar addresses Tasha and Angie and positionsthem alongside herself as members of a groupusing the collective first person, ‘we’, and ascollectively responsible for following theinstructions on the handout. Her purpose in thisturn is to clarify what is expected of students bythe teacher in writing up the practical report.Kesar’s question positions Angie and Tasha ascapable of confirming her interpretation of theseinstructions, and in particular what was requiredin the ‘discussion’ section. Practical reportswere required to be written under the headings:Aim, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusionand Evaluation. Kesar appeals for confirmationthat answers to the questions on the handoutwas all that was required under the heading‘Discussion’.

Angie Huh? Angie responds to Kesar’s question and beginslooking through her workbook.

Tasha °Yeah those questions.°↑What is the particletheory?

Tasha responds to Kesar’s question andconfirms what is required.Tasha stresses theword ‘theory’. She freely articulates herperceived gap in knowledge. She is looking atthe handout whilst trimming it with a pair ofscissors and her question is most likelyaddressed to Kesar although she doesn’t look atKesar during the utterance.

Angie [Looks at the handout] (So the aim andmaterials and method is ↓he:re.1

Angie clarifies what is required in response toKesar’s question.

Kesar [Looks at Tasha] )(If you look in the back it willsay the meaning)2

Kesar responds to Tasha’s question by deferingto the authority of the information they havebeen given, perhaps notes from the board or aglossary.

Tasha But what is the theory? Tasha again stresses the word ‘theory’. It islikely that she is differentiating ‘particle’ (aword she is familiar with) and ‘the particletheory’. “The particle theory” is a reference tothe particular wording of the question on thehandout (Appendix B). Tasha is positioningherself as lacking the scientific knowledgeneeded to respond to the question.

Kesar [Looks at Tasha, smiling.] Kesar signals her engagement with Tasha’squery but she does not provide an answer.

Angie But Kesar isn’t- does that mean we have (.)doesn’t that mean you have to just draw thatagain? [Points to handout].

Angie calls for Kesar’s attention and appeals toher to confirm their obligations in completingthe practical report correctly. Her sense ofobligation is revealed in her use of ‘we have’and ‘you have to’; ‘we’ indexed to herself as amember of the group of students, and ‘you’indexed to the public persona of the studentdoing what is expected.

Tasha Yeah (.) but what is the theory Kesar? Tasha appeals to Kesar to respond personally toher question, positioning Kesar asknowledgeable.

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 241

Discussion

In this episode, Tasha published a biographical story in which she portrayed herself asexcluded from the classroom community of practice due to her lack of knowledge. She tookpersonal responsibility for her perceived lack of knowledge by positioning herself assomeone who does not always pay attention in class.

The biographical story was offered as justification for positioning Kesar as knowledge-able, and in particular more knowledgeable than Tasha. The need for an account arosebecause Kesar reflexively repositioned herself as not knowledgeable and not expected toknow. The function of the biographical story was face-saving for Tasha. Tashaacknowledged Kesar’s repositioning through a series of shifts to adjust Kesar’s standingin the conversation from ‘one who knows’ to ‘one Tasha had expected to know’(erroneously). After Kesar’s repositioning, it became inappropriate for Tasha to continueasking Kesar for information.

Kesar’s repositioning resulted in a shift in storyline, including Tasha’s sense ofresponsibility in relation to the pursuit of scientific knowledge. At the beginning of the

Table 1 (continued)

Lesson 2 [44:25–45:41] Analysis

Kesar Huh?

Tasha What is the theory?

Kesar You’re ser(h)iously asking me ↓that Repositioning: In her use of the first person hereand laughter, Kesar repositions herself. Thisreduces her standing in the immediateconversation from one positioned as knowing toone who does not know and who is notpersonally responsible for knowing.

⋮Tasha Ye:s Tasha tentatively maintains her original

positioning of Kesar.

Tasha→ >↑Yeah (.) you should know- ah shouldn’t youknow the particle theory? I thought you did <(.)I don’t pay attention the whole time.

Via Tasha’s successive use of ‘you’, from “youshould know” to “shouldn’t you know?” to “Ithought you [would know]”, she adjusts herinitial positioning of Kesar from ‘one whoknows’ to ‘one whom I had expected wouldknow’.

→Self-as-process: Using the first person Tashareflexively positions herself as often not payingattention and in this way takes personalresponsibility for not knowing. Her reflexivepositioning is offered here as an explanation ofwhy she positioned Kesar as moreknowledgeable than herself.

Kesar Hah hah

Tasha→ Hah (.) seriously! I haven’t heard about theArchimedes in the bathtub thing.

→Biographical Story: Drawing upon abiographical story and the specific example ofthe legend of Archimedes Tasha strengthens herpositioning of knowing less than Kesar, and lessthan most class members.

242 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

episode, Tasha pursued the knowledge she perceived herself as lacking by persistentlyquestioning Kesar. However, after Kesar repositioned herself alongside Tasha as notknowing the particle theory and not being expected to know, Tasha accepted this poisoning,aligned herself in relation to it and did not continue to pursue the knowledge she lacked. Inaddition to this, Kesar did not share her own knowledge on the legend of Archimedes inresponse to Tasha’s expressed lack of knowledge. A storyline in which Tasha and Kesarwere not expected to know was established in this way. Subsequent action on the part ofboth girls maintained this storyline. They did not pursue the question, “What is the particletheory?” further.

Episode 2—“Yeah, but the Wire Might Add Some Water”

Introduction

During the practical activity in lesson 2 Tasha worked in a small group with Kesar andAngie to measure the volume of a candle according to instructions on the handout(Appendix B). During this episode Angie, Kesar and Tasha developed a shared purpose andpositioned themselves as collectively responsible for carrying out the practical instructionswithin the time-frame set by the teacher. Finishing practical work on time was a theme oftenalluded to in the classroom discourse by both the teacher and the focus students, forexample during the teacher’s instructions to the students in a whole-class conversation theteacher said, “If you finish quickly enough, you can spend the rest of the lessoncommencing your report”.

Of particular interest in this episode are Tasha’s utterances that are in alignmentwith the scientific practices of evaluating one’s experimental methods and beingsensitive to appropriate degrees of accuracy in experimental work. The episode beginswith Tasha, Angie and Kesar at their workbench following the instructions on thehandout. The equipment they needed for the practical activity was already on thebench. The transcript and analysis of this episode are included as Table 2.

Discussion

In this episode, Tasha positioned herself in many different and occasionally contradictoryways, and her positioning was variously taken up. Contrary to positioning herself initiallyas less capable of interpreting the instructions than Angie, she provided an accurateinterpretation in stressing “>we have to make it <(.) down”. She positioned herself as aperformer of the instructions by picking up the candle and submerging it into the water inthe measuring cylinder, but the other group members instructed her as she did this, limitingTasha’s capacity to be positioned as independently capable of following the instructions.She positioned herself, along with her peers as evaluators of the experimental method, butthe other group members did not take up this positioning and she was silenced by Angie.She positioned herself as an evaluator of her peers’ measurement practices but she wasneither acknowledged nor did it influence subsequent action.

Dominant storylines and positionings that were mutually realized in this episode were:the authority of the instructions; the students’ collective obligation to follow theinstructions; the immediate group purpose of measuring the volume of the candle; Angie’sauthority as the interpreter and performer of the instructions; and Kesar’s positioning as thereader of the volume. Although these storylines were occasionally overlapping or

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 243

Table 2 Classroom episode lesson 2

Lesson 2 [31:11–33:50] Analysis

Angie [Picks up the measuring cylinder.] >Okay weneed to fill this with water.< (15) [Fills themeasuring cylinder at the tap at their bench].Okay that’s good ↓enough hh

Using the collective first person, ‘we’, Angiepositions herself as a member of the small groupand displays a sense of shared responsibility.

She authoritatively decides on the water level,but her pronouncement “that’s good enough”coupled with an expression of mirth suggests alaissez-faire approach to the scientific practice ofaccuracy in measurement.

Kesar Hah Kesar laughs in response to Angie’s lastcomment and expression of mirth.

Angie It says we’ve gotta (.) it says it <eh> we’ve gottagen- (.) carefully slide in the object.

Angie’s use of “we’ve gotta ”, as in “we have gotto”, sets the immediate shared purpose for thesmall group of following the instructions. Shepositions herself as an interpreter of theinstructions and a performer of these instructions.

Angie’s use of ‘it’ is indexed to the handout.Drawing on the authority of the handout shepositions herself as collectively obligated toperform certain actions.

Tasha Carefully (.) so what’s object? Tasha accepts Angie’s positioning and takes upthe storyline of collective responsibility forfollowing the instructions on the handout. Shedoes this by reading the instructions andsignaling endorsement by repeating Angie(“carefully”). Tasha’s question, “What’s‘object’?” positions Angie as a capableinterpreter of the instructions.

Angie Oh isn’t it <initial> volume of water (.) don’t wehave to <write down> what the water level isnow? And then put the marble in and see whatthe level is ↑now?

Angie does not take up Tasha’s positioning.Instead, Angie asks questions to confirm her ownunderstanding of the instructions. Here Angieappeals to Tasha and Kesar to confirm that beforeputting the object in, they are required (“we haveto”) to read the initial volume in the measuringcylinder.

Tasha >How do you know this stuff!< Tasha repositions Angie as individually capableof following the instructions, as though she hasknowledge beyond Tasha’s own knowledge orunderstanding. She also appeals to Angie toaccount for her greater knowledge

Kesar Is that sixty (.) one? Kesar takes up Angie’s suggestion that the initialvolume needs to be read. In doing this, sheconfirms Angie’s positioning within the group asthe interpreter of instructions and contributes tothe developing group purpose. Kesar tentativelyreads the initial volume as 61 ml by expressingher reading as a question.

Angie Really? I have- I’ve gotta put it back then. [Pourswater out of measuring cylinder].

Angie responds to Kesar’s reading of the waterlevel as though Kesar is questioning her accuracyin filling the measuring cylinder (rather thanstating her tentative reading of the initialvolume). She adjusts it so that it is 60 ml. In thisway Angie reveals her unspoken intention to fillthe cylinder to 60 ml. Here she takes personalresponsibility for interpretation of the

244 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

Table 2 (continued)

Lesson 2 [31:11–33:50] Analysis

instructions, 60 ml being an arbitrary volume.She acts contrary to her lassiez-faire displayabove (that’s good enough) in adjusting thevolume to 60 ml more accurately.

⋮Angie >Okay that's sixty <(.) but the thing is you guys

(.) but don't we have to jot down how muchwater we put in?

Here Angie uses the collective first person andthe phrase “jot down” to repeat her suggestionabove (“don’t we have to write down… the waterlevel…”). Using the collective first person toinvoke shared responsibility she positions eitherKesar or Tasha as obligated to record the initialmeasurement.

Kesar Yep. Kesar takes up the responsibility to record theinitial volume. This response has theperlocutionary force of confirming Angie’sinterpretation of the instructions and contributingto the ongoing negotiation of the group purpose.

Tasha How much is that? Likewise Tasha writes down the initial volume.

Angie Sixty (.) millimeters Angie repeats her reading of the initial volume asshe too records it on her handout. Her stated unitsof measurement are incorrect for a reading ofvolume.

Tasha ↓Millilitres= Tasha corrects the units of measurement used byAngie. However, the conversation between Angieand Kesar continues without acknowledgementof Tasha’s contribution.

Kesar =ºYou sureº Kesar’s question here is an appeal to Angie forconfirmation of the ‘initial reading’ as 60, againinvoking the importance of accuracy.

Angie ↑Yep.

Kesar But where would you write it? Kesar’s use of ‘you’ is indexed to a publicpersona and is concerned with acting as expectedfrom this position. She scans the handout withher pencil and writes the initial volume downwithout receiving a reply to this question.

Tasha→

[Picks up the candle] can I (.) dunk the candle↓in.

Tasha appeals to Angie and Kesar for approvalbefore picking up the candle in order topersonally carry out the instructions. In seekingapproval from the group she conforms to andmaintains the storyline of collectiveresponsibility.

Repositioning: However, by picking up thecandle she repositions herself in relation to thestoryline in which Angie is the performer of theinstructions.

Angie [Picks up measuring cylinder and tilts it] >YOUGOT TO ↑CAREFULLY< (.) PUT IT=

Angie positions Tasha as personally responsibleto follow the instructions correctly in, “you gotto”. Angie accepts Tasha’s positioning as aperformer of the instructions conditionally. Angietilts the measuring cylinder to ensure Tasha slidesthe candle in carefully.

Kesar =<Slide> it. Kesar endorses Angie’s positioning of Tasha asobligated to follow the instructions correctly.

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 245

Table 2 (continued)

Lesson 2 [31:11–33:50] Analysis

Angie You got to slide it in. (.) And if it floats (.) wehave to push it in with a- (.) damn it! We have topush it in with a (.) [picks up paper clip] >pieceof wire< (.) [straightens out paper clip]<stretched>.

In restating the instructions beginning with, “if itfloats”, she maintains the storyline of collectiveresponsibility using “we have to” and herpositioning within the group as the interpreter ofinstructions.

Angie, unlike Tasha, does not seek approval fromother group members before picking up the paperclip to perform the next instruction.

Kesar Do we check if the water has risen? >or rose orwhatever<

With the completion of the instruction tocarefully slide the object (the candle) into thewater, Kesar appeals to the others to confirm thenext instruction.

Tasha→

Nah (.) ‘cause >we have to make it< ((.) down1 In saying, “we have to make it down”, meaning,“we have to submerge the candle”, Tasha showsunderstanding of the procedure to advise Kesarthat the candle needs to be fully submergedbefore the volume is measured.

Repositioning: Tasha repositions herself as aninterpreter of the instructions.

In her use of the collective first person shepositions herself as a member of the group withshared duties, maintaining the storyline offollowing the instructions correctly.

Angie )Hey, it has!2 Despite Tasha’s referral to the correct procedure,Angie responds to Kesar’s question by checkingthe water level. She expresses surprise andinterest in the observation that the water level hasrisen. Angie positions herself uniquely within thegroup as having the capacity to make personalobservations.

Kesar Coz it's (.) sixty (.) three. Kesar confirms Angie’s observation by readingthat the volume has increased and in doing soendorses Angie’s capacity to perform acts that donot comply with the instructions. The actsachieved by Angie and Kesar here reduce theillocutionary force of Tasha’s referral to thecorrect procedure. Tasha is repositioned as afollower of instructions, rather than an interpreter.Angie’s positioning as interpreter isperformatively maintained.

Angie I can't push it down >I have I have ah< (.) Ohgod (.) this is=

The conversation is orientated to the practicaltask of submerging the candle using the wire,which Angie performs.

Tasha =>Hey hold on no< pick it up again (.) and we'llput it down and we'll just dunk it in (.) °dunk itº

Tasha’s suggestion here is not taken up.

Kesar Oh right.

Tasha Hook it! Ho:ok it!

Angie I ca:n't!

Kesar It's (hard.1

Tasha )Here2 (.) can I ↑try?

Kesar It's like a(h) game now hah

Tasha Can I try hooking it? Tasha appeals to the group to endorse an

246 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

Table 2 (continued)

Lesson 2 [31:11–33:50] Analysis

opportunity for her to attempt to submerge thecandle.

Angie [Holds candle down with the looped end of thewire]. Oka:y

Tasha’s request is not taken up as Angiecontinues performing the task and eventuallysucceeds.

Kesar >Okay<

Angie there we go (.) what is it? Upon successfully submerging the candle withthe wire, Angie appeals to the group members toread the ‘final volume’, which Kesar does(below).

Tasha→

Yeah (.) but the wire might add some water. Repositioning: Tasha repositions herself as anevaluator of the instructions by making astatement that poses a problem of accuracy forthe group’s measurement. Her meaning here isthat the wire Angie is holding in the water tokeep the candle submerged may add to themeasured volume of the candle. With her use of“might”, she appeals to the other group membersto consider this as a possibility.

Kesar [Bangs her chin on the bench]. Ouch hah hah (.)(si:xty (.) four1

Tasha’s suggestion is not taken up. Kesarperforms her reading of the volume while Angieholds the candle down. There was urgency inperforming the reading due to the precariousnature of holding the candle submerged with thewire and this could explain why Kesar bangedher chin in the process of making the reading.

Tasha )yeah but what if the wire adds=2 Tasha repeats her statement, this time as aquestion. Her phrase “what if” asks the groupmembers to respond to the hypothetical eventthat the wire’s volume will make theirmeasurement inaccurate.

Angie =Shut up (.) tsk hah In saying, “shut up”, she rejects Tasha’spositioning of group members as evaluators ofthe instructions. The illocutionary force of herstatement is an admonishment of Tasha’srepositioning and in this way she maintains thestoryline that it is their responsibility to followthe instructions.

Kesar (<Sixty three:>1 probably (.) >oh no< (.) yeah (.)sixty three (.) <point>

Kesar continues with her reading of the “finalvolume” as per the instructions. In this way shecompletes Angie’s social act, maintaining thestoryline in which they are positioned asobligated to follow instructions.

Tasha )Tsk (.) °imbeciles°2 Tasha speaks light-heartedly in response toAngie’s admonishment and laughter to accusethose choosing not to engage with her question ofbeing “imbeciles”.

Angie (Five.1 Angie completes the measurement begun byKesar.

Kesar )Five.2 Kesar and Angie read the volume together andspeak in unison.

Tasha (Sixty-three point five1. Tasha accepts Angie and Kesar’s reading.

Kesar )Oh well (.) does(h)n't2 look like a point so(h) it's Kesar expressed doubt over their accuracy and

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 247

competing, actions that did not contribute to the realization or maintenance of thesestorylines lacked illocutionary force. Tasha’s evaluation of the experimental method and hercritique of the degree of accuracy in the group’s measurements would have been consideredlegitimate actions within scientific discursive practices. It is therefore marked that theseactions lacked illocutionary force in this situation.

The discursive practices collectively realized by the students established a context foraction that did not support Tasha in positioning herself or being positioned as scientificallycompetent. The imperative to follow the instructions can be viewed as a centrifugal forceoperating throughout the episode. Its function was the maintenance of normative order,realized in conversation between the students through such phrases as “we have to”. In thiscontext, Tasha’s actions critiquing the method and calling the students’ degree of accuracyinto question were innovative in the way Bahktin described centripetal forces (Maybin2001), pointing to the heterogeneity of discursive practices. In other words, the practice offollowing instructions was normative (intuitively accepted and acted upon as what-we-do-around-here) and reflected the wider context that the student’s conversation occurred in aclassroom with equipment provided by the teacher for a set amount of time to do an activitychosen by the teacher.

In further actions, Tasha did not raise the possible effect of the use of the wire on theirmeasurements again either in the small group setting or in other conversational contexts andshe did not include it in her practical report even though the students were required to writean evaluation. Also, despite Tasha’s scientifically valid critique, the “final volume of water”for the candle was recorded by each member of the group to two decimal points. Tasha alsorecorded the measurement to two decimal points in alignment with the negotiated practicesof her group. Rather than learning how to participate in scientific practices, defined in termsof a generalized scientific community, Tasha learnt how to act appropriately as a studentdoing a practical activity.

In her actions, Tasha displayed competency in scientific practices beyond what wasrequired of the students to follow instructions. Despite this, Tasha lacked the ‘capacity’(Burkitt 2002) to reposition herself as scientifically competent. Instead, she conformed tothe practices negotiated in conversation with her peers.

Table 2 (continued)

Lesson 2 [31:11–33:50] Analysis

sixty three point (.) ↑three (.) heh (.) >two five<(.) make it a-

suggests the reading of sixty-three point two-five.Her position closest to the measuring cylinderadds illocutionary force to her pronouncement.

Angie Sixty (.) three point ↑two (.) five heh Angie accepts Kesar’s reading as she writes itdown on her handout. Her rising inflection on‘two’ and laughter may indicate she is consciousof the measurement’s superfluous accuracy.

Tasha→

But that’s way too accurate= Repositioning: Tasha explicitly evaluates theaccuracy of the measurement, repositioningherself in relation to the storyline in which she ispositioned as a follower or instructions.

Kesar =but where do I write it exactly? Kesar does not respond to Tasha’s evaluation.Here she is concerned with the correct place onthe handout to record the measurement.

248 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

Episode 3—“Did You Answer Your Thought?”

Introduction

In a whole-class conversation at the beginning of lesson 3, the teacher explained thatfloating objects had a density less than one and objects that sank had a density of greaterthan one. He pointed out that some of the students’ practical results for the density of acandle and marble were correct because they conformed to this scientific rule but that somewere not. He instructed the students to assess whether or not their results were correct and ifnecessary to offer a written explanation for why theirs were not correct under the heading‘Evaluation’ in their practical reports. He posed the question;

Do your results match what the theory suggests (2) and if it doesn’t (1) why doesn’t itmatch that ↓theory.

before providing the following instructions to the students:

I’m going to give you the opportunity to now go back with a bit more information (1)and <maybe> think about what you’ve written in your report…>I don’t want you toredo your ↑report< (2) but obviously in the evaluation section, you might want tosuggest how you could improve so that you don’t get results (.) that clearly don’tseem to be right (.) okay- but remember it’s okay to get wrong results in ↑science (.)as long as you can ↑explain (1) ↓why.

Later in the lesson the students were working individually on these practical reports whenTasha posed a question to her peers that correctly interpreted the teacher’s question in terms oftheir practical results. The students were sitting at their desk in a row. Kesar sat between Tashaand Angie. The episode includes Tasha’s question in the first turn. The transcript and analysisof this episode are included as Table 3.

Discussion

Tasha identified the problem that their practical results did not conform to the rule thatfloating objects have a density of less than one. In questioning her peers, she positionedthem as capable of and obligated in accounting for their result. Both Kesar and Angie tookup this positioning. However their responses did not conform to the teacher’s storyline andinherent logic that their result was “wrong”. Their speech-acts in response to Tasha’squestion reduced their standing in the conversation, signaled by Tasha’s lack of uptake oftheir suggestions and in Angie’s case also by Kesar’s response. Tasha did not offer anaccount and nor was she asked to by the others. Tasha questioned her peers as though theirideas were resources for a purpose that she had identified and for which she expressedpersonal responsibility (“that’s what I mean”).

Kesar acknowledged Tasha as individually responsible for the “thought” or “question”.In enquiring, “have you answered your thought” Kesar appeared to be questioning Tasha asa resource for writing her own individual response. In replying to Kesar, Tasha offered anaccount that she qualified as adequate for her purposes using the phrase “I’m just going towrite…”. Phrasing her explanation in this way had the perlocutionary force of closingdiscussion. Indeed there was no further discussion about their erroneous result.

Both Kesar and Angie responded to Tasha’s question and in this way legitimized Tasha’squestion as relevant to their current practice. Tasha’s capacity to position herself as

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 249

Table 3 Classroom Episode Lesson 3

LESSON 3 [24:26–28:52] ANALYSIS

Tasha Hey (.) why did our candle get mo:re? Tasha expresses realisation in her use of ‘hey’.Her use of ‘our’ is indexed to her small group,reflecting her collective sense of responsibilityfor the experimental results. Here Tasha isidentifying a problem with their results for thedensity of the candle.

Kesar Our candle got less. Kesar interprets Tasha’s use of ‘more’ aspertaining to the density of the candle in relationto the marble.

Tasha No more than one. Tasha clarifies her meaning. The girls hadcalculated the density of a candle using theirexperimental results to be more than one.

Kesar <Oh right> Kesar expresses her understanding of theproblem, but does not offer an explanation.

Tasha >That’s what I mean< (.) >more than one.< Self-as-process: Tasha’s use of the personalpronoun indexes personal responsibility for thequestion to herself.

Tasha °Kesar° Tasha gains Kesar’s attention.

Kesar ↑°Huh° Kesar stops writing and looks at Tasha as sheutters ‘huh’, signalling for Tasha to continue.

Tasha Why hh why was it hah more than ↓one Tasha again appeals to Kesar to comment on theproblem that their result for their candle’s densitywas more than one. Her laughter here expressesopenness to Kesar’s answer and perhaps somehumility in recognising that their results areerroneous.

Kesar <Um (.) because maybe the size.> hah <I don'tknow> (.) Maybe because=

In saying, “I don’t know”, Kesar reduces herpersonal commitment to her suggestion that sizewas a factor in their result and expresses apersonal lack of knowledge. In terms of themathematical formula for the calculation ofdensity, a smaller volume could result in a largerdensity (if the mass were constant).

Tasha =because it floated. In response to Kesar’s suggestion, Tasha drawsupon the shared observation that their candlefloated. The illocutionary force of saying“because it floated” is to evaluate Kesar’ssuggestion as inadequate for her purposes.

Tasha Hey Angie (.) Angie (.) why was- why was the (.)candle more than ↓one (.) and not less than one?

Tasha gains Angie’s attention by calling hername. Angie is sitting on the other side of Kesarto Tasha. After gaining her full attention, Tashaposes the problem she has identified to Angie.Her phrasing of the question is more detailed.Angie had not been involved in the previousexchange between herself and Kesar. Tashaindicates ‘less than one’ as what would have beenexpected.

Angie >I ↓dunno< .hh because it's ↑lighter? >Becausewe had a really small< (.) >we had a reallysmall<

Angie responds to Tasha’s positioning byreducing her standing in the conversation from‘one who is capable of providing the answer’ to‘one who does not know the right answer’. Theillocutionary force of “I don’t know” is to flagher response as a guess. Angie’s reasoning that

250 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

Table 3 (continued)

LESSON 3 [24:26–28:52] ANALYSIS

“it was lighter” does not explain a result largerthan expected. Her subsequent description oftheir candle as “really small” is taken as offeringevidence that their candle was lighter.

Kesar >No we(h)<= Kesar appears to be expressing rejection ofAngie’s hypothesis.

Angie =>We had a really< small candle. Angie continues, drawing upon the sharedobservation that their candle was smaller thansome of the candles used by other groups.

Kesar And it was greater than one? Hah (.) >I mean<[taps her pencil on the table].

Kesar emphasizes that the problem is their resultis greater than one, a result higher than expected.Her laughter reflects the lack of explanatorypower of Angie’s hypothesis, and could beinterpreted as ridiculing it. Her statement, “Imean”, softens the mode in which she rejectedAngie’s hypothesis. Following this she expressesagitation in tapping her pencil.

Tasha <Yeah> (.) >probably I don’t know< Tasha responds to tension in the conversationcaused by Kesar’s rejection of Angie’ssuggestion and positions herself alongside Angieand Kesar as not knowing. The illocutionaryforce of Tasha’s statement here is to alleviate anyobligation to answer the question i.e. to retractthe question, ending the discussion.

Angie °I don’t know.° Angie’s quiet statement here expressesthoughtfulness. She repositions herself as alsonot knowing.

Kesar→

Did you answer your thought? Kesar attributes ownership of the question toTasha by referring to the question as “yourthought”. Indexing the question personally toTasha in this way is in contrast to the sense ofcollective responsibility indexed through the useof the collective first person displayed by thegirls earlier in this excerpt.

Tasha Wha:t? Tasha signals her attention to Kesar, but itappears that she does not know what Kesar isreferring to by “your thought” here.

Kesar Did you answer your thought (.) your (.)↓question.

Kesar appeals to Tasha to provide an explanation.

Tasha >Kind of< (.) hah <kind of> Tasha interprets Kesar’s meaning of “yourthought” “your question” correctly and signalsthat she has thought of an answer, but flags it astentative or incomplete.

Kesar What did you put? Kesar explicitly requests for Tasha to tell herwhat she wrote to account for their erroneousresult.

Tasha→

>This is kind of tough< (.) [writing as shespeaks] said the <water> >must have donesomething to it < hh (.)< the water> (.) >yeah I’mjust gonna write the water did something to it<hh(.) >the water must have got into the hole<.

Self-as-process: Tasha provides an explanationthat she takes personal responsibility for. Usingthe word, “just” Tasha conveys a sense that herexplanation is adequate for her purposes andreduces the degree of reliability she places on itas correct.

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 251

innovative in her thoughts was successful in this episode because she was able to act inalignment with the teacher’s discursive practices and, in particular, the logic of accountingfor results that do not conform to known scientific theory. Both Kesar and Angie displayedtheir sense of obligation to account for their results in responding to Tasha’s question.Indeed it was a requirement of the practical report that they complete an evaluation section.

The students’ practice in this episode was of an individually displayed sense of responsibilityto write a practical report for submission. Tasha questioned Angie and Kesar, and Kesarquestioned Tasha. In other words, the students’ practice included using each other’s ideas asresources, but writing the reports as individual projects. Tasha’s expression of “just going towrite”, and a lack of subsequent discussion suggest completion was a high priority in theirpractice. If the students had adopted scientific discursive practices, then argumentation or ajustification of reasoning would have been reasonably expected, or even the suggestion ofrepeating their measurements. In this episode Tashawas positioned as competent with respect tothe practice of independently writing up a practical report and as personally responsible foridentifying the criterion that erroneous results needed to be accounted for.

Conclusion

The focus of this paper was on particular students’ discursive practices in their science classroom.However, the findings are supported by discourse studies in social psychology and theoreticaltreaties related to the discursive turn in the social sciences. The findings provide insights intoresearch concerned with students in secondary science and are summarized as follows:

1. Student action in science classrooms cannot be explained in terms of individualattributes such as attitudes towards science or knowledge as an individual possession,but in terms of locally negotiated practices. The study of Tasha’s meaning makinglends empirical evidence to theories of agency as a cultural psychological phenomenon(Ratner 2000; Harvey 2002). Tasha positioned herself as collectively responsible foractions orientated towards doing the practical activity, and she conformed to locallynegotiated practices. In this way her recording of the volume measurement to twodecimal places, for example, does not reflect her personal knowledge but a localpractice, in which certain displays of knowledge were valued (by the studentsnegotiating the teacher’s rules) and others were not.

2. The view that learning in science classrooms is the enculturation of students into theculture of science, or a process of legitimate peripheral participation in the practices ofscience needs to be problematized. The mutually realized storylines in the episodespresented were displays of the students’ ongoing interpretation of “what we do aroundhere” or the local practices. Rather than viewing these practices as predetermined andin alignment with scientific practice, the analysis focused on the co-constructedmeaning made by the students. Other studies have shown that students employ avariety of discourses in the negotiation of their participation in science learningenvironments and that the discourses determining their negotiated practice are notnecessarily the “official” discourses (O’Connor 2001). In some cases unofficial, orhybrid-space discourses have been shown to foster student engagement with scientificknowledge and practice (Barton and Osborne 1998; Barton 2001; Barton et al. 2008;Tan and Barton 2008; Barton and Tan 2009; Tang et al. 2010). This study shows that ina classroom where the official discourse was ostensibly the language and practices ofscience, not only were the students’ classroom practices and their concurrently

252 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

developing ‘identities in practice’ (Wenger 1998) not necessarily scientific, but neitherwas the official discourse. The students’ psychological location in the episodes wasrevealed through their expressed sense of responsibility and duty. In episode 2, thestudents’ sense of duty (“we have to”) during the practical activity was to correctlyfollow instructions in order to complete the activity within a limited time frame. Inepisode 3, Tasha displayed a personal obligation to construct an evaluation of theirpractical work (“I’m just going to write”) in order to complete the practical report as arequired form of assessment. Tasha’s actions here reflected the official discourse of theteacher that practical results not conforming to known scientific rules were wrong andneeded to be accounted for as wrong. Students developing competency in thisdiscursive practice cannot be thought of as legitimately participating on the peripheryof scientific practice, but on the periphery of doing (or developing competency in) aparticular variety of school science (O’Connor et al. 1998).

3. Students’ small stories (Bamberg 2004), such as Tasha’s construction of herself in, “Idon’t pay attention the whole time. Seriously! I haven’t heard about the Archimedes inthe bathtub thing”, are told because of their particular function in a conversation. Theydo not reveal an inner self, as has been argued from theoretical (Harré and vanLangenhove 1999c) and empirical (Bamberg 2008) perspectives. In episode 1, thepurpose of Tasha’s small story was for repair and to reestablish solidarity with herfriend as a student positioned as ‘not knowing and not expected to know’. Tellingautobiographical tales, expressing emotion, articulating a scientific theory (and so on)are situated discursive practices, constituted at the intersection of purposes andcontingencies, and in a space afforded by (and maintaining or transforming) individualumwelten and particular discursive contexts.

The knowledge that can be contributed by this research must be phrased discursively. Inorder to communicate the “so what” of this research, a shift in discursive practice needs tobe made. Discourse in science education research has been concerned with students’conceptions, attitudes towards science, cultural sub-groups and use of scientific language.Therefore the expectation of many researchers and practitioners is that behind discourseanalysis a contribution to these traditional discourses must be made in order for the researchto be useful. The strength of the research can only be understood if we believe in the“reality” (Harré 1992a; Potter 2000) of discourse and the lack of a need to look behind it.The questions that are now possible to ask include: What do we now know about Tasha’sumwelt? What problems were identified? What suggestions can be made about addressingthese problems? What future actions are needed, either in researching our efforts totransform practice or in researching student agency in the future?

Tasha’s umwelt, illustrated here in three discursive episodes, is bound by a strongcontingency to satisfy official discourses. The moments where Tasha was able to positionherself successfully (i.e. in ways that were taken up by others) included actions whichcontributed to finishing practical activities expediently and according to the instructions,and to the completion of an individually produced assessment product (the practical reportin this instance). Those actions and related positionings that were ratified by others affectedaction in the future, and those that were not did not. For example, Tasha’s critique of thedegree of accuracy adopted was not acknowledged and did not contribute to ongoingstorylines. The students did not take responsibility for critiquing the experimental method.However, Tasha’s question in episode 3 (why was our candle more than one?) wasacknowledged because the students did take responsibility for evaluating their practicalresults in light of known scientific rules. Tasha was positioned as capable of providing a

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 253

viable explanation in the unfolding conversational storyline, and in the post-lessoninterview she positioned herself as personally responsible for the question and personallyinvested in the logic of her explanation.

The problems identified include the lack of uptake of Tasha’s actions that could have beenconsidered scientific. The lack of uptake suggests discursive practice and related purposes thatwere not orientated towards participating in scientific practice. On the outset, one would expectparticipation in scientific practice to be a fundamental goal of science education, and indeedthis is reflected in many assumptions about school science classrooms (Aikenhead 2001;Brown 2004) and in science curricula. But the problem is complex (O’Connor et al. 1998;Wenger 1998, pp. 264–277; O’Connor 2001) and the questions remain, were these studentsparticipating in valued science-learning practices? How reasonably can discourse in scienceclassrooms be compared to scientific discourse? Is it possible in science classrooms tofacilitate the expansion of students’ umwelten to include scientific discourses, including theirsense of purpose and responsibility (or are the desired discourses concerned with learning,reasoning or argumentation for example)? The answers to these questions affect how wemight choose to go about addressing the problem identified in Tasha’s classroom discourse.

This research highlights agency as a cultural psychological phenomenon. The possibilityfor transformation of practice and expansion of student umwelten has been shown todepend upon the way in which others respond to innovation. Therefore positioning and theethics of responsibility (Davies 2008) can be highlighted as an important research andteaching focus in the improvement of school science.

Appendix A

Table 4 Transcript notation

Lesson 3[24:26–28:52]

Extract headings refer to the segment of the lesson shown in the transcript. It includesthe lesson number and an interval corresponding to minutes from the start of the lesson.

some (talk1 Square brackets between lines bracketing two lines of talk indicate the onset and end ofoverlapping talk)overlap2

end of line= Equal signs indicate latching between utterances.

=start of line

(.) Untimed pause

(1.2) Times pause to the nearest tenth of a second

bu- A dash shows a sharp cut off of speech

Under; pie Underlining indicates emphasis

CAPITALS Capital letters indicate talk that is noticeably louder than surrounding talk

°soft° Degree signs indicate talk that is noticeably more quiet than surrounding talk

>fast< Less-than and greater-than signs indicate talk that is noticeably faster or slower than thesurrounding talk<slow>

ho:me A colon indicate an extension of the sound or syllable that it follows

↑rising ↓falling Upward and downward pointing arrows indicate marked rising and falling shifts inintonation in the talk immediately following

. , ? ! Punctuation marks are used to mark speech delivery rather than grammar. A periodindicates a stopping fall in tone; a comma indicates a continuing intonation; a questionmark indicates a rising inflection; an exclamation mark indicates an animated oremphatic tone.

Wghord “gh” within a word indicates guttural pronunciation

254 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

Table 4 (continued)

Lesson 3[24:26–28:52]

Extract headings refer to the segment of the lesson shown in the transcript. It includesthe lesson number and an interval corresponding to minutes from the start of the lesson.

heh or hah Indicate laughter

.hh Audible inbreath

Hh Audible outbreath (sometimes associated with laughter).

Rilly Modified spelling is used to suggest pronunciation

(word) Transcriber’s guess at unclear material

( ) Unclear speech or noise

[talks whilewriting]

Brackets enclose contextual information

… Horizontal ellipses indicate talk omitted from the data segment

: Vertical ellipses indicate intervening turns omitted from the data segment

→ A horizontal arrow in the left margin points to an utterance discussed in the text

Repeated symbols indicate, for example:

::: greater elongation

°° more quiet

Hhhh longer outbreath

Adapted from the system developed by Jefferson (Wood and Kroger 2000, p. 193)

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 255

Appendix B

256 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

References

Aikenhead, G. S. (2001). Students’ ease in crossing cultural borders into school science. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 85, 180–188.

Aikenhead, G. S. (2005). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Arnold, J. (2009). A dialogic/performance analysis of student identity and agency in middle school scienceclassrooms. Fostering communities of learners: 13th Biennial conference for research on learning andinstruction. Amsterdam.

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis.Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bamberg, M. (2004). Talk, small stories, and adolescent identities. Human Development, 254, 1–4.Bamberg, M. (2008). Twice-told tales: Small stories and the process of identity formation. In T. Sugiman, K.

J. Gergen, W. Wagner, & Y. Yamada (Eds.), Meaning in action (pp. 183–204). New York: Springer.Barton, A. C. (1998). Teaching science with homeless children: pedagogy, representation, and identity.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 379–394.Barton, A. C. (2001). Science education in urban settings: seeking new ways of praxis through critical

ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 899–917.Barton, A. C., & Osborne, M. D. (1998). Marginalized discourses and pedagogies: constructively

confronting science for all. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 339–340.Barton, A. C., & Osborne, M. D. (2001). Marginalised discourses and pedagogies: Constructively

confronting science for all in classroom practice. In A. C. Barton & M. D. Osborne (Eds.), Teachingscience in diverse settings: Marginalized discourses and classroom practice (pp. 8–32). New York: P.Lang.

Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73.

Barton, A. C., Tan, E., et al. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middleschool girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68–103.

Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: a feminist perspective on learning. Journal for Research inScience Teaching, 38(3), 282–295.

Brickhouse, N. W., Lowrey, P., et al. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of schoolscience identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441–458.

Brickhouse, N. W., & Potter, J. T. (2001). Young women’s scientific identity formation in an urban context.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 965–980.

Brown, B. (2004). Discursive identity: assimilation into the culture of science and its implications forminority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 810–834.

Brown, B. A. (2006). “It isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff”: language, identity and appropriatingscience discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 96–126.

Brown, B. A., & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: a “content-first” approach to scienceteaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 529–553.

Brown, B. A., Ryoo, K., et al. (2009). Pathway towards fluency: using ‘disaggregate instruction’ to promotescience literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1465–1493.

Brown, B. A., & Spang, E. (2008). Double talk: synthesizing everyday and science language in theclassroom. Science & Education, 92(4), 708–732.

Burkitt, I. (2002). Technologies of the self: habitus and capacities. Journal for the Theory of SocialBehaviour, 32(2), 219–237.

Clarke, D. J. (2006). The LPS research design. Chapter 2. In D. J. Clarke, C. Keitel, & Y. Shimizu (Eds.),Mathematics classrooms in twelve countries: The insider’s perspective (pp. 15–36). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

Clarke, D. (2009). The need for multi-theoretical research into science classrooms. Paper presented atFostering Communities of Learners: 13th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning andInstruction. Amsterdam.

Cornejo, C. (2004). Who says what the words say?: the problem of linguistic meaning in psychology. TheoryPsychology, 14(1), 5–28.

Costa, V. B. (1995). When science is “another world”: relationships between worlds of family, friends, schooland science. Science & Education, 79, 313–333.

Coulter, D. (1999). “The epic and the novel: dialogism and teacher research.” Educational Researcher 28(3).Davies, B. (2008). Re-thinking ‘behavior’ in terms of positioning and the ethics of responsibility. In A. M.

Phelan & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Provoking absences: Critical readings in teacher education (pp. 173–186).Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 257

Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1999). Positioning and personhood. In R. Harre & L. van Langenhove (Eds.),Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalizability and the single-case study. In E. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.),Qualitative inquiry in education: the continuing debate. New York: Teachers College Press.

Goodrum, D., M. Hackling, et al. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science inAustralian schools, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Harre, R. (1997). Forward to Aristotle: the case for a hybrid ontology. Journal for the Theory of SocialBehaviour, 27(2–3), 173–191.

Harré, R. (1984). Personal being; a theory for individual psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Published Limited.Harré, R. (1990). Exploring the human Umwelt. In R. Bhaskar (Ed.), Harré and his cristics: essays in

honour of Rom Harré with his commentary on them. Oxford: Blackwell.Harré, R. (1992a). What is real in psychology: a plea for persons. Theory Psychology, 2(2), 153–158.Harré, R. (1992b). Introduction: the second cognitive revolution. The American Behavioral Scientist, 36(1), 5–7.Harré, R. (2006). Key thinkers in psychology. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.:SAGE.Harré, R., & Gillet G. (1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Harré, R., & Secord, P. (1972). The explanation of social behaviour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Harré, R. and M. A. Tissaw (2005). Wittgenstein and psychology : a practical guide. Aldershot, Hants,

England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub. Co.Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999a). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove

(Eds.), Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999b). The dynamics of social episodes. In R. Harré & L. van

Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999c). Reflexive positioning: Autobiography. In R. Harré & L. van

Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory. Oxfordshire: Blackwell.Harvey, D. L. (2002). Agency and community: a critical realist paradigm. Journal for the Theory of Social

Behaviour, 32(2), 163–194.Herritage, J. (2001). Goffman, Garfinkel and conversation analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates

(Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp. 47–56). London: Sage.Kozoll, R. H., & Osborne, M. D. (2004). Finding meaning in science. Science Education Review Online, 3

(1–4), 72–85.Kroger, R. O., & Wood, L. A. (1998). The turn to discourse in social psychology. Canadian Psychology, 39

(4), 266–279.Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal for

Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.Linehan, J., & McCarthy, J. (2000). Positioning in practice: understanding participation in the social world.

Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(4), 435–453.Maybin, J. (2001). Language, struggle and voice: The Bakhtin/Volosinov writings. In M. Wetherell, S.

Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader. Sage: London.Muhlhaüsler, P., & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people. Oxford: Blackwell.O’Connor, K. (2001). Contextualization and the negotiation of social identities in a geographically

distributed situated learning project. Linguistics and Education, 12(3), 285–308.O’Connor, M. C., Godfrey, L., et al. (1998). The missing data point: Negotiating purposes in classroom

mathematics and science. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematicsand science learning. Mahwah: Lawence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Auckland:Heinemann.

Potter, J. (2000). Post-cognitive psychology. Theory and Psychology, 10(1), 31–37.Potter, J. (2001). Wittgenstein and Austin. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory

and practice: A reader. London: Sage.Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. Newbury Park: Sage.Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (2001). Unfolding discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates

(Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader. Sage: London.Quigley, J. (2001). Psychology and grammar: the construction of the autobiographical self. Theory

Psychology, 11(2), 147–170.Ratner, C. (2000). Agency and culture. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(4), 413–434.Roth, W. M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and

change. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.

258 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259

Seah, L. H. (2009). How teacher’s use of language afforded and constrained students’ construction ofscientific meaning: The systemic functional linguistics perspective. Fostering communities of learners:13th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction. Amsterdam.

Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: the case of ‘structure of matter’.

International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123–2136.Tan, E., & Barton, A. C. (2008). From peripheral to central, the story of Melanie’s metamorphosis in an

urban middle school science class. Science & Education, 92(4), 567–590.Tang, X., Coffey, J. E., et al. (2010). The scientific method and inquiry: tensions in teaching and learning.

Science & Education, 93(1), 29–47.Tytler, R., J. Osborne, et al. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary-

secondary school transition, Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text

/ by Linda A. Wood. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction.

London: Sage.Xu, L. H. (2009). Student difficulties in learning density from two theoretical perspectives. Fostering

communities of learners: 13th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction.Amsterdam.

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:233–259 259