Abstract
In this article, we discuss the negotiation of the situated common ground in classroom conversations. Decision making on socioscientific issues (SSI) includes norms of diverse funds of knowledge and interests. Arguments and justification may include warrants that cannot necessarily be weighed on the same scale. We discuss Roberts’ Visions 1 and 2 of scientific literacy as framing the common ground of classroom discussions. Two teacher–student dialogue sequences with 11th grade students from the Norwegian research project ElevForsk exemplify the negotiation of the situated common ground and the students’ deliberations. Our analysis examines what goes on in the thematic content, as well as at the interpersonal level of language use. Further, we suggest that different framings may complement each other and provide a space for the students’ emerging scientific conceptual development as well as for deliberation as a form of emerging procedural knowing.
Highlights
In order to address the development of instructional strategies for group discussions in socioscientific issues (SSI) inquiry, this article discusses the situated common ground for warranting arguments in SSI inquiry
The dialogue sequences illustrate two different ways of framing student argumentation in an SSI inquiry: 1) The negotiation of the situated common ground is framed by science-subject conceptual knowledge and participant roles, with roles defined as someone possessing knowledge and others who do not
2) The negotiation of the situated common ground draws on broader topical resources and a diversity of knowledge domains from the public debate
Summary
In order to address the development of instructional strategies for group discussions in socioscientific issues (SSI) inquiry, this article discusses the situated common ground for warranting arguments in SSI inquiry. The common ground provides the language resources for justification in a particular situation on the relevant topic. The situated common ground refers to presuppositions, the shared knowledge, and meaning constructed, construed, and negotiated, depending on the speaker and the audience as well as a shared understanding of the default address of communication, i.e., the “mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, mutual assumptions, and mutual awareness” Such framing is important to instructional strategies in terms of which aspects of argumentation are foregrounded.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
