Epistemological norms and companion meanings in science classroom communication

Abstract

ABSTRACT:In this paper, we describe two central epistemological norms related to the importance of making investigations and to scientific language and its logic. These norms have been identified in empirical material consisting of 200 video-recorded lessons in three different science classes. With regard to the learning of science and socialization, we discuss and problematize these norms in the context of science learned at school and the nature of science. A methodological approach has been developed and used to analyze and identify the role that teachers' actions play in which epistemology students adopt in their meaning making and to highlight which view of science this usage represents. The approach consists of a combination of three methodologies: practical epistemology analyses, epistemological move analyses, and analyses of companion meanings. This combination produces communication analysis of companion meanings. The theory is based on pragmatism, sociocultural approaches to learning, and the later works of Wittgenstein. The companion meanings described in the empirical material indicate that if students learn the identified norms without any explicit problematization, they will only view science as rational and inductive in character and exclude alternative views from the practice.

Knowledge and power in the technology classroom: a framework for studying teachers and students in action

“…Thus, the student groups are expected to independently reach a conclusion about how to build the bridge, relying on their reasoning rather than the teacher or textbooks, thereby producing meaning in a specific way. Taken together, this could be interpreted as the teacher socialising the students into a rationalistic norm, that you can reach a solution to the problem through pure reasoning (Lundqvist, Almqvist and Ö stman 2009). As discussed by Lundqvist, Almqvist and Ö stman (2009) this norm belongs to a classic epistemological tradition, that somewhat paradoxically also includes the inductive norm.…”

“…Taken together, this could be interpreted as the teacher socialising the students into a rationalistic norm, that you can reach a solution to the problem through pure reasoning (Lundqvist, Almqvist and Ö stman 2009). As discussed by Lundqvist, Almqvist and Ö stman (2009) this norm belongs to a classic epistemological tradition, that somewhat paradoxically also includes the inductive norm. In this norm experiences are viewed as the source of knowledge and, thus, making investigations becomes fundamental for knowledge construction.…”

Beyond Subject Specific Approaches of Teaching and Learning: Comparative Didactics

“…In the following two decades, this program was also complemented and transformed by classroom investigations on the interplay between the intrapersonal, interpersonal and institutional dimensions of meaning making (Klaar and Ö hman 2012;Ö hman and Ö stman 2007;Ö stman and Ö hman 2010), where both the cognitive and normative dimension of teaching and learning are taken into account (Garrison et al 2014;Jakobson and Wickman 2008;Lundqvist et al 2009;Ö hman 2010;Ö stman and Almqvist 2010). An important part of this development was the design of specific methods for in situ analyses of both the process and the content of learning-practical epistemology analyses (Wickman and Ö stman 2002)-and the role of the teacher in students' learning: epistemological move analyses (Lidar et al 2006).…”

Approaching the space issue in Nordic curriculum theory: national reflections of globalisation in social studies/citizenship textbook pictures in Sweden, England and Germany

“…In order to illustrate this, the largest publishing houses in Sweden Á Liber, Gleerups and Natur & Kultur Á market their most recent citizenship books by claiming that they are related to the newest curricula (Lgr 11). (Lundqvist, Almqvist, & Ö stman, 2009;Selander, 2003). Consequently, the triangle is a fertile analytical model which can be used in order to display the contextuality of educational practice.…”