The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons
Science Education, 90 (4):
605--631 (2006)DOI: 10.1002/sce.20131
Abstract
In this paper, we draw upon a framework for analyzing the discursive interactions of science classrooms (Mortimer & Scott, 2003, Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms, Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press), to probe the movement between authoritative and dialogic discourse in a Brazilian high school science class. More specifically, we argue the point that such shifts between communicative approaches are an inevitable part of teaching whose purpose is to support meaningful learning of scientific knowledge. We suggest that a necessary tension therefore exists between authoritative and dialogic approaches as dialogic exchanges are followed by authoritative interventions (to develop the canonical scientific view), and the authoritative introduction of new ideas is followed by the opportunity for dialogic application and exploration of those ideas. In these ways, one communicative approach follows from the other, authoritativeness acting as a seed for dialogicity and vice versa. We discuss how this analysis, in terms of shifts in communicative approach, offers a new and complementary perspective on supporting “productive disciplinary engagement” (Engle & Conant, 2002, Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–484) in the classroom. Finally we consider some methodological issues arising from this study. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed90:605–631, 2006
Description
An interesting article which how looks at how teachers mix authoritative and dialogic discourse to help high school science students move from an everyday to a scientific view of different phenomena. The authors argue science is and authoritative dscourse and help is required to appropriate the tools of scientific reasoning. Dialogic discourse helps the transfer from an everyday view of the world, to a scientific one, and is motivating for students. This concurs with Hanarahan's findings (Higlighting hybridity, 2009) from CDA of science classrooms, although she gives the impression that authoritative discourse should be kept to a minimum.
The authors seem to be more accepting of IRE than Alexander depending on the purpose of the interaction. They discuss the use of chains of interaction which although often are initiated by the teacher can be directed more by students as knowledge develops.
