Creating a Taken-As-Shared Understanding for Scientific Explanation: Classroom Norm Perspective

Yilmaz Saglam, Emre Harun Karaaslan, Alipasa Ayas
3.028 691

Abstract


The study aimed to investigate whether classroom norm perspective influence the studentsâ capability of elucidating a natural phenomena and beliefs about scientific explanation. In particular, our objective was to explore the process by which the norm for scientific explanation was established and discover how the studentsâ explanation and their beliefs about scientific explanation altered in this process. A case study approach was adopted and a total of 51 students participated in the study. The data has included videotapes of classroom periods for an entire school semester, individual interviews with the students conducted at the beginning and at the end of the semester, and studentsâ written responses collected in the middle and at the end of the semester in the year of 2012. In creating a sociocultural norm for scientific explanation, the teacher, in the class, was seen declaring his own expectation, negotiating the meaning by making comments on and legitimizing studentsâ accounts, and calling the studentsâ attention towards the important parts of an acceptable explanation. The results indicated that towards the end of the semester, the studentsâ explanation and their beliefs about scientific explanation have considerably improved.

Keywords


Scientific explanation, classroom norm, taken-as-shared understanding

Full Text:

PDF (Türkçe)


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.43595

References


. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy. (Online). Available: http://www.project2061.org/.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic İnteractionism. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Braaten, M & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education, Science Education, 95 (4), 639–669.

Cartwright, N. (1997). The truth doesn’t explain much. In D. Rothbart (Ed.), Science, reason, and reality: Issue in the philosophy of science (pp. 161 – 166). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Cobb, P., Yackel, E. & Wood, T. (1993). Theoretical orientation. In T. Wood, P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & D. Dillon (Eds.) Rethinking elementary school mathematics: insights and issues. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1989). Young children's emotional acts while doing mathematical problem solving. In D. B. McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective (pp. 117-148). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Friedman, M. (1974). Explanation and scientific understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 5 – 19.

Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Princeton University, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135 – 1

Kitcher, P. (1997). Explanatory unification. In D. Rothbart (Ed.), Science, reason, and reality: Issues in the philosophy of science (pp. 167 – 186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000. Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in europe: critical reflections. London: King’s College. Salmon, W. C. (1978). Why ask “Why?” An inquiry concerning scientific explanation. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 51(6), 683 – 705.

Voigt, J. (1995). Thematic patterns of interaction and socio-mathematical norms. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfield (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning (pp.163-203). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Voigt, J. (1992, August). Negotiation of mathematical meaning in classroom practices: Social inter-action and learning mathematics. Paper presented at the Seventh International Congress on Mathematical Education, Quebec City.

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

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

Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and automony in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477.

Yackel, E., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Beliefs and norms in the mathematics classroom. In G.C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Toerner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 313–330). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Yackel, E. (2004). Theoretical perspectives for analyzing explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. Journal of the Korea Society of Mathematical Education Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, 8(1), 1-18.




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