Research ArticleOpen AccessGoogle Scholar indexed
Communication Practices and the Construction of Meaning: Science Activities in the Kindergarten
- 1
- 2
Creative Education·Volume 01 (2010)·Pages 81–92·Published 30 September 2010·DOI10.4236/ce.2010.12013
Copy link · social · email
Abstract
The paper presents a comparative analysis of communication practices used in two kindergarten classes in Greece during science activities related to magnets and magnetic attraction. Communication practices are classified as inter-active / dialogic, interactive / authoritative, non-interactive / dialogic, or non-interactive / authoritative. Moreover, the role of different communication practices in the construction of meaning is analyzed, at the ideational, interpersonal and textual level. The analysis of characteristic episodes of the two activities reveals that different communication practices produce significant discrepancies in the meanings constructed in each classroom.
KeywordsCommunication practicesConstruction of meaningDialogicityPreschool educationScience teaching
- L. Vygotsky, “Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,” Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, 1978.
- M. Bakthin, “Speech Genres & Other Late Essays,” University of Texas Press, Texas, 2002.
- A. Duranti, “Linguistic Anthropology,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
- S. Massey, “Teacher-Child Conversation in the Preschool Classroom,” Early Child Education Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2004, pp. 227-231.
- R. Engle and F. Conant, “Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom,” Cognition Instruction, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002, pp. 399-483.
- J. Lemke, “Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values,” Ablex, Westport, 1990.
- N. Mercer, “The Guided Construction of Knowledge,” Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 1995.
- P. Scott, “Teacher Talk and Meaning Making in Science Classrooms: A Vygotskian Analysis and Review,” Study in Scientific Education, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1998, pp. 45-80.
- D. Rose, “Sequencing and Spacing of the Hidden Curriculum: How Indigenous Learners are left out of the Chain,” In: J. Muller, A. Morais and B. Davies, Eds., Reading Bernstein, Researching Berntein, Routledge Falmers, London, 2004, pp. 91-107.
- E. V. Zee and J. Minstrell, “Reflective Discourse: Developing Shared Understandings in a Physics Classroom,” International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1997, pp. 209-228.
- G. Jones, “T-Zone, Target Students and Science Classroom Interactions,” Journal of Research on Science Teaching, Vol. 27, No. 7, 1990, pp. 631-660.
- R. Alexander, “Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education,” Blackwell, Oxford, 2001.
- P. Scott, E. Mortimer and O. Aguiar, “The Tension Between Authoritative and Dialogic Discourse: A Fundamental Characteristic of Meaning Making in High School Science Lessons,” Science Education, Vol. 90, No. 4, 2006, pp. 605-631.
- S. Kontos, “Preschool Teacher’s Talk, Roles, and Activity Settings during Free Play,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1999, pp. 363-382.
- G. Wenner, “Relationship between Science Knowledge Levels and Beliefs toward Science Instruction Held by Preservice Elementary Teachers,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1993, pp. 461- 468.