Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Toward pervasive knowledge building discourse: analyzing online and offline discourses of primary science learning in Singapore

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Education Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research examined discourses in classroom and online learning environments where the Knowledge Building Community model was enacted to foster deep understanding in science learning in Singapore primary classes. This study posited that discourse is a fundamental form of learning that reveals how knowledge building is enacted and embodied by a community of learners. Discourses in classroom lessons and online postings were analyzed from both quantitative and qualitative views. Overall, the discourse analysis of the verbal activities in classroom lessons showed clear signs of IRE (Initiation–Response–Evaluation) patterns of discourse, while more diversity of ideas and questions were found in Knowledge Forum postings. However, online discourse showed some instances of incorrect group thinking and fear of appearing ignorant. In conclusion, we discuss implications of findings and future research directions for creating pervasive knowledge building discourse.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, D., & Taylor, P. C. S. (1995). The effect of culture on the learning of science in non-western countries: The results of an integrated research review. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 695–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,12(3), 307–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Cassells, C., & Hewitt, J. (1997). Postmodernism, knowledge building, and elementary science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P. (2001). Formative assessment and curriculum consequences. In D. Scott (Ed.), Curriculum and assessment. Open University, UK: Praeger/Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2002). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DD: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromberger, S. (1992). On what we know, we don’t know: Explanation, theory, linguistics, and how questions shape them. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cakici, Y. (2005). Exploring Turkish upper primary level pupils’ understanding of digestion. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caswell, B., & Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Knowledge forum: Altering the relationship between students and scientific knowledge. Education Communication and Information, 1(3), 281–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C. K. K., & Aalst, J. V. (2007). Socio-cognitive assessment and socio-cultural context in designing Knowledge Building. In Paper presented at the ICCE 2007, Hiroshima, Japan.

  • Cummings, M. (2003, April 21–25). Knowledge building discourse offline: A teacher’s perspective. In Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (Vol. 2). New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Emergence of progressive-inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6, 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, A., & Erhard, M. (2006). How much time do students have to think about teacher questions? An investigation of the quick succession of teacher questions and student responses in the German mathematics classroom. ZDM, 38(5), 388–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (1995–1996). Discourse, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational in Education, 21, 49–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, D., Ng, P. T., Koh, T. S., & Lim, S. H. (2009). The social practice of learning: A craft for the 21st century. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10, 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. M., & Fielding, N. G. (2004). Tools for qualitative data analysis. In M. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 529–546). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 72–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1996). A word for learning. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world (pp. 9–24). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (pp. 1370–1373). New York, NY: Macmillan Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (2005). Meaning making in high school science classrooms: A framework for analysing meaning making interactions. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. D. Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 395–406). Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smaling, A. (1992). Varieties of methodological intersubjectivity—the relations with qualitative and quantitative research, and with objectivity. Quality & Quantity, 25(2), 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • So, H. J., Bielaczyc, K., Looi, C. K., Tan, S. C., & Chai, C. S. (2007). Knowledge Building research in Asia Pacific. In Paper presented at the ICCE 2007, Hiroshima, Japan.

  • Tobin, K. (1986). Effects of teacher wait time on discourse characteristics in mathematics and language art classes. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 191–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 175–220.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. W., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in 9- and 10-year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 117–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Learning Sciences Laboratory, National Institute of Education in Singapore, to the second author (LSL 01/06 SHJ). Portions of this paper were presented at the International Conference for the Learning Sciences in 2008. We are indebted to the students, teachers, and collaborators who supported this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences Laboratory, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Hans Lossman & Hyo-Jeong So

Authors
  1. Hans Lossman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hyo-Jeong So
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyo-Jeong So.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lossman, H., So, HJ. Toward pervasive knowledge building discourse: analyzing online and offline discourses of primary science learning in Singapore. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 11, 121–129 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9063-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9063-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation