Science learning in the context of discourse

Abstract

The original article by Kamberelis and Wehunt (2012) discusses an interesting and important research subject in science education as it focus on classroom interactions and the characteristics of the discourse production of interlocutors. The authors start from the premise that discourse heterogeneity is constitutive of social activities, which is supported by others like Mikhail Bakhtin (Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981) and Erving Goffman (Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harper and Row, London, 1974). They also present the definitions of three key elements that organize hybrid discourse: (a) lamination of multiple cultural frames, (b) shifting relations between people and their discourse, and (c) shifting power relations between people. Finally, the authors analyze how these three elements organize students’ science discourse in the classroom and how it contributes to the creation of a micro-community of practice capable of helping the emergence of a disciplinary knowledge that is legitimized by and strengthens the identity of the group. In the present commentary, I discuss how Michael Foucault’s (1970) concept of discursive procedure may help us to analyze the (often neglected) teacher’s role in the development of hybrid discourse practices.