Learning in the Third Space: A Sociocultural Perspective ... · I declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been submitted in any form for another degree or diploma at any

Learning in the Third Space: A Sociocultural Perspective on Learning With

Analogies

Thesis submitted by

Alberto Bellocchi BSc (Hons) BEd.

in August 2009

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in the Faculty of Education

School of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

Centre for Learning and Innovation in Education

at Queensland University of Technology

i

Keywords

Analogies, metaphor, chemistry, science education, discourse, hybridity, hybridization,

Third Space, merge, merged discourse, post-colonial, cultural theory, sociocultural

ii

Abstract

Research on analogies in science education has focussed on student

interpretation of teacher and textbook analogies, psychological aspects of learning with

analogies and structured approaches for teaching with analogies. Few studies have

investigated how analogies might be pivotal in students’ growing participation in

chemical discourse. To study analogies in this way requires a sociocultural perspective

on learning that focuses on ways in which language, signs, symbols and practices

mediate participation in chemical discourse. This study reports research findings from a

teacher-research study of two analogy-writing activities in a chemistry class. The study

began with a theoretical model, Third Space, which informed analyses and interpretation

of data. Third Space was operationalized into two sub-constructs called Dialogical

Interactions and Hybrid Discourses. The aims of this study were to investigate

sociocultural aspects of learning chemistry with analogies in order to identify classroom

activities where students generate Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourses, and to

refine the operationalization of Third Space.

These aims were addressed through three research questions. The research

questions were studied through an instrumental case study design. The study was

conducted in my Year 11 chemistry class at City State High School for the duration of

one Semester. Data were generated through a range of data collection methods and

analysed through discourse analysis using the Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid

Discourse sub-constructs as coding categories. Results indicated that student

interactions differed between analogical activities and mathematical problem-solving

iii

activities. Specifically, students drew on discourses other than school chemical

discourse to construct analogies and their growing participation in chemical discourse

was tracked using the Third Space model as an interpretive lens.

Results of this study led to modification of the theoretical model adopted at the

beginning of the study to a new model called Merged Discourse. Merged Discourse

represents the mutual relationship that formed during analogical activities between the

Analog Discourse and the Target Discourse. This model can be used for interpreting

and analysing classroom discourse centred on analogical activities from sociocultural

perspectives. That is, it can be used to code classroom discourse to reveal students’

growing participation with chemical (or scientific) discourse consistent with

sociocultural perspectives on learning.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.

Keywords i Abstract ii Statement of Original Authorship ix Acknowledgements x List of Tables xii List of Figures xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 Analogy in the Science Classroom 1 1.1 Analogical Misrepresentation 3 1.2 Student Difficulties With Learning Chemistry 5

1.2.1 Models and Modeling in Science Education: Instructional Analogies 6

1.2.2 The Use of Instructional Analogies in Science Education 7 1.3 Background and Context for the Study 8 1.3.1 Defining Teacher Research 8

1.3.2 A Theoretical Framework for Teacher Research 11 1.3.3 The Need for Further Research on the Use of

Analogies in Chemistry 12 1.4 Overview of the Study 13 1.5 Aims of this Study 15 1.6 Significance of This Research 16 1.7 Summary and Overview of the Chapters 17 CHAPTER 2 ANALOGIES IN SCIENCE EDUCATION:

A REVIEW OF THE LITERAUTRE 19

2.0 Introduction 19 2.1 Literature Review 19

2.1.1 Heuristic and Post-Festum Analogies 20 2.1.2 Cognitive Perspectives on Learning and Reasoning

With Analogies 20 2.1.2.1 Gentner’s structure mapping theory. 21 2.1.2.2 Analogy and similarity. 23 2.1.2.3 A naturalistic study from cognitive science on

analogies in use. 24 2.2 The Role of Analogy in Science and Science Teaching 26

2.2.1 Analogies in Science Textbooks 27 2.2.2 Research Findings on Use of Instructional Analogies 28 2.2.3 Structured Approaches to Teaching With Analogies 32 2.2.4 Teacher and Student Generated Analogies 33 2.2.5 The Conceptual Change Turn in Research on Analogies 38 2.2.6 Analogy and the Affective Domain 40

v

2.2.7 Sociocultural Studies of Analogy and Social Interaction 42 2.2.8 Summary 43

2.3 The Need for a Sociocultural Perspective on the Use of Analogies in Chemistry 43

2.4 Chapter Summary 44 CHAPTER 3 AN INFORMAL INQUIRY INTO MY TEACHING EFFICACY WITH ANALOGIES 46 3.0 Overview and Background 46 3.1 The Critical Incident 46

3.1.1 The Instructional Strategy: The Ham Sandwich Analogy for Stoichiometry 49 3.1.2 The Student Task 50 3.1.3 Description of the Informal Inquiry 50 3.1.4 Data Collection 52 3.1.5 Transcript Data Conventions 52 3.1.6 Data Analysis 53

3.2 Results of the Informal Inquiry 54 3.2.1 Insights Into Dialogical Interactions Dimension of Third Space 54 3.3.2 Insights Into the Hybrid Discourse Dimension of Third Space 56 3.2.3 Summary 58 3.2.4 Limitations of the Informal Inquiry 59 3.2.5 Conclusions and Implications 60

3.3 Chapter Summary 60 CHAPTER 4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 62 4.0 Introduction 62 4.1 Defining Discourse 63 4.2 Sociocultural Theory 64 4.3 Cultural Models for Investigating and Interpreting Social Interaction:

Hybridity and Third Space 70 4.3.1 Third Space and Hybridity in Post-Colonial Theory 71

4.3.1.1 A Bakhtinian perspective on hybridity. 74 4.3.2 Third Place: An Australian Perspective 76 4.3.3 Third Space in Educational Research 77 4.3.4 Summary 89

4.5 Critiques of Hybridity in Cultural Theory 90 4.5.1 Translating Critiques of Hybridity to

Educational Research 93 4.6 Operationalizing Third Space 95

4.6.1 Two Sub-Constructs of Third Space 98 4.7 Conceptualizing Hybrid Discourse 99

4.7.1 Personal Discourse 99 4.7.2 Chemical Discourse 100

vi

4.8 Conceptualizing Dialogical Interactions 101 4.8.1 Summary 102

4.9 Analogy and Third Space 102 4.10 Implications for the Study 104

4.10.1 Theoretical Implications 104 4.10.2 Methodological Implications 104

4.11 Chapter Summary 105 CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 106 5.0 Overview of the Study 106 5.1 The Case Study Design 107

5.1.1 Selecting Cases 110 5.2 Context for the Study 112

5.2.1 Classroom Context 113 5.2.1.1 The student task: an analogical role-play for

nerve-signalling and the stoichiometry analogy. 114 5.2.2 Access and Ethics 115

5.3 Design of the Study 117 5.3.1 Units of Analysis 117 5.3.2 Data Collection 118 5.3.3 Elements of the Study Design 121 5.3.4 Data-Sources 122

5.4 Methods for Data Collection 123 5.4.1 Principal Data Collection Methods 123

5.4.1.1 Video and audio recordings and transcript data. 123 5.4.1.2 Stimulated recall interviews. 124

5.4.2 Additional Data Collection Methods 126 5.4.2.1 Artefacts: Student scripts and notebooks. 126

5.4.2.2 Researcher field journal. 127 5.4.2.3 Questionnaires. 128

5.5 Data Analysis 129 5.5.1 Data Coding for Discourse Analysis: Categories and Examples 130

5.5.1.1 Coding of the Dialogical Interactions sub-construct. 131 5.5.1.2 Coding of the Hybrid Discourse sub-construct. 131 5.5.1.3 Coding other student interactions during

classroom activities. 132 5.5.1.4 Summary of data coding and analysis. 133

5.6 Quality Criteria Adopted in This Study 134 5.6.1 Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research 135

5.7 Chapter Summary 137 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS 139 6.0 Introduction and Overview 139 6.1 Results Relating to Proposition 1 142

vii

6.1.1 Assertion 1 142 6.1.2 Assertion 2 147 6.1.3 Assertion 3 151 6.1.4 Assertion 4 153 6.1.5 Assertion 5 156

6.1.5.1 Summary. 159 6.1.6 Assertion 6 162 6.1.7 Assertion 7 166

6.2 Results Relating to Proposition 2 170 6.2.1 Assertion 8 171 6.2.2 Assertion 9 172

6.3 Results Relating to Proposition 3 178 6.3.1 Assertion 10 178 6.3.2 Assertion 11 180

6.3.2.1 Summary. 195 6.3.3 Assertion 12 196 6.3.4 Assertion 13 200 6.3.5 Assertion 14 202

6.3.5.1 Summary. 205 6.4 Chapter Summary 206 CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION 207 7.0 Introduction 207 7.1 Review of the Aims, Research Questions, and Study Design 208

7.1.1 The Development of Merged Discourse During Analogical Activities: Addressing Research Question 1 209

7.1.2 Determining How Students Choose Analog Concepts for Analogies: Addressing Research Question 2 213

7.1.3 Determining Patterns of Interaction During Student Group Work: Addressing Research Question 3 216

7.1.4 Comparison of Research Findings Across the Informal Inquiry and This Study 220 7.1.4.1 Summary. 222

7.2 The Need for Merged Discourse: Revisiting the Literature 224 7.3 Tertiary and Quaternary Structure of Merged Discourse and Mutualism 227 7.4 Limitations of the Study 231 7.5 Implications of the Study 233

7.5.1 Implications for Teaching 234 7.5.2 Implications for Teacher Education 236 7.5.3 Implications for Theory and Research 238

7.6 Chapter Summary 241

viii

CHAPTER 8 STUDY OUTCOMES: SUMMARY AND NEW BEGINNINGS 243

8.0 Summary of the Study 243 8.1 Recommendations for Further Research 246 REFERENCES 248 APPENDICES 257 Appendix A Letter of Approval and Consent Package 258 Appendix B Instructions for the Stoichiometry Analogy 265 Appendix C Questionnaires 266 Appendix D Interview Questions 270 Appendix E Verb Coding Samples for Student Interactions: Comparison of

Three Activities for One Group 272 Appendix F Verb Coding Samples for Student Interactions: Three Group

Summary 273 Appendix G Transcript Data Conventions 274 Appendix H Sample Lesson Transcripts 275

ix

Statement of Original Authorship

I declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been submitted in any form for

another degree or diploma at any university or other institution of tertiary education.

Information derived from the published or unpublished work of others has been

acknowledged in the text and a list of references is given.

21-8-09

A. Bellocchi August, 2009

QUT Verified Signature

x

Acknowledgements

I left a research qualification in science to pursue a career in teaching and forever

abandon research. After the first year of my education degree, I was captivated by the

possibilities offered by research in science education for understanding learning and

teaching. So here I am, back again. Of course, I may not have embarked on a research

project in science education were it not for my supervisor Professor Steve Ritchie who

has encouraged me to engage in research since 2000. The word supervisor does not

capture adequately the role Steve has played over this time. His constant

encouragement, assistance, and patience have made this thesis a reality. I am forever

indebted for the feedback on drafts, suggestions for the design of the study, consultation

on writing, providing a sounding board for my ideas and theoretical developments, and

for providing an exemplary case of what it means to be a committed teacher. Thank

you.

My co-supervisor, Professor Campbell McRobbie has been instrumental in

providing feedback on the design of my study, drafts of this thesis, and the “finer

details” of writing. Thank you for your advice and valuable assistance on these matters.

I wish to thank colleagues from the Faculty of Education at Queensland

University of Technology. Dr. Gillian Kidman and Associate Lecturer Donna King

assisted me with access to audio recording equipment and provided encouragement and

support throughout this journey. I thank Associate Professor James Watters, Dr.

xi

Kidman, Emeritus Professor Peter Fensham and Dr. Debra Hoven for feedback on an

early draft of this thesis.

Some of the developments made in this thesis were inspired by the discussions,

advice, and feedback from colleagues and attendees of the Australasian Science

Education Research Association Conferences from 2002-2008. Specifically, I wish to

acknowledge Associate Professor Allan Harrison, Professor David Treagust, Associate

Professor Peter Taylor, and Professor Kenneth Tobin. I also wish to acknowledge

Lansdowne Professor Wolff-Michael Roth for some intensely philosophical e-mail

exchanges that helped me to think differently about the theoretical model I adopted in

this study.

This study would not have been possible without the support of my school

community. I thank the principal of the school for granting permission to conduct the

study and for the encouragement and support throughout its course.

Finally, I wish to thank my wife Trisha and my family for showing me

understanding when I entered “thesis mode.” Without their on-going support and

understanding, reaching the end would have been an evermore-arduous task. Here’s

what you’ve all been waiting for.

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Page No.

Table 1 Reconstruction of Zook’s (1991) Analogical

Misrepresentation Model 4

Table 5.1 Composition of the Focus Groups 112

Table 5.2 Design of the Study: Phase 1 119

Table 5.3 Design of the Study: Phase 2 120

Table 5.4 Split of Focus Groups for Phase 2 of Study 122

Table 5.5 Discourse Analysis- Coding Example 131

Table 5.6 Verb Coding of Transcripts for Student Interactions 132

Table 5.7 Verb Coding Summary Table for Cross-Case Analysis 133

Table 6.1 Student Responses to Analogy Questionnaire Item

Relating to Actual Choice of Analog 173

Table 6.2 Student Responses to Questionnaire Item Relating to

Hypothetical Choice of Analog Concept 174

Table 6.3 Summary of Student Actions During Stoichiometry Analogy

and Stoichiometry Challenge Activities 182

Table 6.4 Total Occurrences of Verb Coding for Three Groups in

Three Activities 186

Table 6.5 Student Perceptions of Personal and Group Member

Contributions to Class Activities 197

Table 6.6 Comparison of Instances of Hybrid Discourse and

Verb Categories 200

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page No.

Figure 6.1a,b Actors in their roles. 143

Figure 6.2 Extract from role-play highlighting use of word perso-ion. 146

Figure 6.3 Fergie’s line where she uses the word perso-ion in context. 146

Figure 6.4 Reproduction of Fergie and Liz’s

ice-cream cone analogy. 147

Figure 6.5 Max’s response to Analogy Questionnaire

illustrating Hybrid Discourse. 156

Figure 6.6 Page 2 of Fergie and Sara’s role-play script. 164

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Analogy in the Science Classroom

…(A)nalogies are more specific than metaphor and, despite their wide use in

everyday communication and reasoning, their use in teaching is often

problematic because the applicability of specific analogies is not negotiated with

students. (Aubusson, Harrison, & Ritchie, 2006, p. 1)

This succinct quotation presents two persistent aspects of analogy in science

education. The first aspect is the distinction between analogy and metaphor. Generally,

the science education community uses the term metaphor when referring to teaching

referents such as Teacher as Captain of the Ship and Teacher as Provocateur. To

elaborate, in operating from the teacher as provocateur metaphor, a teacher may

stimulate class discussion by questioning students and then providing a counter

argument thereby promoting a discussion. A teacher operating from a captain metaphor

may see his/her role as guiding students through uncharted waters of the curriculum. In

this role, the teacher would take charge of the class and steer it in the direction of the

intended curriculum. In contrast, a provocateur may be more inclined to provoke

discussion and other activities likely to extend the current thinking of the students,

continually cajoling them forward.

Analogy is different from metaphor. In the examples above, the metaphors have

the form A is B. Analogy can be represented as A is like B (Aubusson et al., 2006). For

example, the current flowing in an electric circuit is like the flow of water in pipes, is an

analogy. Here, the more familiar water pipes form the analog concept and the electric

current represents the target concept. An analogy is drawn when elements of the analog

2

concept are mapped to the target. For instance, current flow in the electric circuit is

mapped to the flow of water in the pipes.

Some authors use the term metaphor to mean the same thing as analogy, while

others provide a distinction between the two (Aubusson et al., 2006; Cameron, 2002;

Duit, 1991). In this study, I follow Duit’s (1991) definition of analogy. That is, analogy

is a similarity made between familiar objects, the analog concept (e.g., current of water),

and scientific concepts or theories, referred to as the target concept (e.g., an electrical

current). The process of drawing similarity between the analog concept and the target

concept is called mapping (Duit, 1991).

The second aspect of analogy represented in the quotation is concerned with

problems associated with their use for instruction. Specifically, if analogies are not

negotiated with students, problems with understanding can arise. Chapter 2 provides an

extensive discussion of how an analogy functions and is beyond the scope of this

section.

The remainder of the chapter is divided into seven sections. In section 1.1, I

describe Zook’s (1991) analogical misrepresentation model that influenced my

classroom use of analogies and provides the instructional context for this study. Section

1.2 presents a discussion of students’ difficulties with learning chemistry leading into an

introduction to the use of analogies for teaching and learning science; it also introduces

the research literature that informed my classroom teaching with analogies that was

designed to assist my students with learning chemistry. In section 1.3, I discuss the

teacher-research nature of this study. The study is situated within a series of available

definitions of teacher research and the advantages and disadvantages of this form of

research are considered. A theoretical framework influenced by sociocultural theory for

3

my teacher-research study is then developed. Section 1.4 provides the overview of the

study. In this section, I outline the case study design and the use of the theoretical

models of Third Space and hybridity that informed my analyses of classroom discourse

and social interactions. The aims of the study are presented in section 1.5 and this is

followed in section 1.6 by an outline of the significance of this study to the research

literature on analogies. The chapter concludes in section 1.7 with a summary of chapter

1 and an overview of chapters 2 to 8.

1.1 Analogical Misrepresentation

Zook’s (1991) seminal work on analogy is widely cited. He proposed a model

for predicting the relative potential for analogical misrepresentation; that is, the extent to

which unsuitable features of an analog concept may be mapped to the target concept.

His model identified two loci that influence misrepresentation: 1) who generates the

analog concept and, 2) the selection or mapping that he referred to as analogical

process. A reconstruction of his model is represented in Table 1. In Table 1, high and

low refer to the level of misrepresentation. Thus, a high level of misrepresentation

occurs (quadrant I) when learners select the analog concept but the level of

misrepresentation due to mapping is low (quadrant II). Conversely, a low level of

misrepresentation occurs when teachers select the analog concept (quadrant III) but the

level of misrepresentation due to mapping errors is high (quadrant IV).

The model can be used to show that students have little difficulty in choosing an

appropriate analog concept but find the mapping process difficult. The corollary to this

is that students find teacher analog concepts difficult to relate to, but easier to map to the

target concept. This interpretation of Zook’s model led me to develop a teaching

4

strategy for use of analogies in my chemistry classroom (see chapter 3, sections 3.1.1

and 3.1.2 for a detailed account).

Table 1

Reconstruction of Zook’s (1991) Analogical Misrepresentation Model

Locus of generation Analogical Process

Selection Mapping

Learner High (I) Low (II)

Teacher Low (III) High (IV)

Note: I, II, III, and IV refer to the quadrants of the table.

As a beginning teacher, I witnessed first hand the difficulties my students

encountered when learning complex concepts in chemistry. When explaining the

concept of stoichiometry (the reacting quantities involved in chemical changes) students

expressed difficulties in understanding my chemical explanations of the concept.

Communicating with students using only chemical equations and chemical terminology

was insufficient in helping all students understand stoichiometry and enter into

meaningful discussion with me. However, students understood my explanations when

presented with an analogy for stoichiometry. This experience led me to investigate the

use of analogies in teaching and, becoming aware of the dilemma presented in Zook’s

analogical misrepresentation model, I designed a classroom activity to limit the extent of

analogical misrepresentation. I attempted to resolve Zook’s dilemma by presenting the

stoichiometry concept using a ham sandwich analogy (two slices of bread plus one slice

5

of ham to make one ham sandwich) and then asking student groups to write their own

analogies for the same concept (section 3.1.1). Because Zook’s fourth quadrant

indicates high misrepresentations of mappings between analog and target concept when

teachers choose the analog, I facilitate the mapping process with students during my

instruction. To overcome the problem noted in Zook’s first quadrant; that is, that

students find teacher analog concepts of low relevance, I asked students to develop their

own post-festum (Duit & Wilbers, 2006) analogies for stoichiometry. I describe the

student analogies as post-festum to indicate that students had written them after having

studied the stoichiometry concept. Duit and Wilbers (2006) distinguish between post-

festum and heuristic analogies, with the latter representing analogies used for problem

solving. The activity allowed me to monitor the groups’ emergent understandings of

stoichiometry by tracking the students’ mappings between their chosen analog and the

target concept.

This experience suggested that analogy might shape classroom interactions by

providing a common language through which students and I could converse about

chemical concepts. The experience I reported above in teaching chemistry was not

unique as student difficulties with chemical concepts are well documented and described

in the literature (Dori & Hameiri, 2003).

1.2 Student Difficulties with Learning Chemistry

Zoller (1990) attributed student difficulty with chemistry to the abstract,

unintuitive nature of concepts that are not directly interrelated. Other researchers echoed

these views as demonstrated in the following statement:

6

There is consensus [among the research community] regarding the fact that

students encounter difficulties in understanding scientific concepts, such as the

particulate nature of matter, the mole and the interpretation of chemical

symbols…. Chemical education … involves deep understanding of diverse

concepts and requires a mental transfer between several modes of representation.

(Dori & Hameiri, 2003, p. 278)

Similarly, students can experience difficulties understanding chemical

representations in the form of models. According to Justi and Gilbert (2006), this

difficulty was partly attributed to the task of translating macroscopic properties of matter

into models of sub-microscopic particles.

In the study of quantitative chemistry (such as stoichiometry), recognition of

these problems has led “ … researchers and practitioners to seek original approaches that

provide students with strategies for solving mole-related problems, which are based on

better understanding of quantitative chemistry” (Dori & Hameiri, 2003, p. 279). One

approach for dealing with student difficulties in chemistry has been the use of

instructional analogies.

1.2.1 Models and Modeling in Science Education: Instructional Analogies

Briefly, Coll (2006) and Justi and Gilbert (2006) have classified analogies in the

general category of models. In the case of teaching chemistry, Coll indicated that

educators commonly used analogies to explain concepts that students found

conceptually difficult. He went on to suggest that teaching students chemistry with

analogies followed scientific approaches for understanding complex phenomena.

Despite this, Coll found that few studies concentrated on the use of analogies for

7

instruction in chemistry. Furthermore, he claimed that self-generated student analogy in

classrooms is limited and suggested that potential existed for teachers to help students

understand chemical concepts through analogy use.

A number of authors have published structured approaches for teaching with

analogies in the science education literature (Glynn, 1995; Treagust, Harrison, &

Venville, 1998). These approaches are consistent with Justi and Gilbert’s (2006) views

that modeling with analogy should be taught to students explicitly.

1.2.2 The Use of Instructional Analogies in Science Education

Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive review on analogies. This section provides

an orientation of some key ideas from the review. Use of analogies for instruction in

science teaching is a well-researched topic (Aubusson et al., 2006; Duit, 1991). Early

studies on the role of analogy in learning tended to come from cognitive science

(Gentner, 1983; Gentner & Holyoak, 1997). In science education, the research focus has

been on how students, teachers and textbooks use analogies for instruction, how best use

is made of analogies for instruction and, on their use in achieving conceptual change

(Duit, Roth, Komorek, & Wilbers, 2001; Harrison & Treagust, 2006).

Treagust, Harrison, and Venville (1998) proposed the Focus, Action, Reflection

(FAR) guide as a structured approach for teachers to plan their use of analogies. Glynn

(1995) had previously developed the Teaching With Analogies (TWA) approach as a

guide for teacher use of textbook analogies. Both the FAR guide and the TWA

approach provide the kind of instruction to which Coll and Justi and Gilbert refer when

they argue that students need to learn explicitly about scientific models.

8

A synthesis of the literature review on analogies presented in chapter 2 suggests

analogy may work on an internal level at creating bridges between new information and

prior knowledge. In addition, analogy might also have a function on the social level

where it connects students’ personal discourses (i.e., signs, symbols, and language;

Lemke, 1995) with chemical discourses to help create transformative understanding.

1.3 Background and Context for the Study

In this thesis, I report a teacher-research study on group construction of analogies

by my Year 11 Chemistry classes in a suburban state high school (herein City State High

School). As a teacher researcher, I investigated the within-group interactions between

students as they constructed post-festum analogies. Classroom interactions were

interpreted from a sociocultural perspective (Lemke, 2001; Rogoff, 2003; Wertsch &

Toma, 1995) to give insight into how students learn in what can be called, the Third

Space, a space where discipline and everyday discourses come together (Calabrese

Barton & Tan, 2009; Gutierrez, 2008; Mojé et al., 2004).

1.3.1 Defining Teacher Research

There are a number of definitions of teacher research found in the literature

(Lytle, 2008; Richardson, 2004; Roulston, Leggete, Deloach, & Buckhalter Pitman,

2005). Two commonly used definitions of teacher research are action research and

practitioner inquiry. Teacher research is commonly associated with the ideas and work

of Stenhouse (1975). Stenhouse advocated the view that teachers should be responsible

for curriculum development and research. Action research is based on similar concepts

to Stenhouse’s model of teacher research. That is, action researchers are committed to

9

either personal or systemic change that involves collaboration between the researchers

and the researched (Altrichter, Kemmis, McTaggart, & Zuber-Skerritt, 2002; Hitchcock

& Hughes, 2001). Practitioner inquiry is research designed to generate or enhance

practical knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Lytle, 2008). Action research and

practitioner inquiry share the common goal of achieving social justice for teachers and

students and to bring about educational change. Other commonly used terms include:

practitioner research; action research; collaborative enquiry; critical enquiry and self-

study. These terms are often linked to research used in facilitating teacher and pre-

service teacher professional development and for promoting critical reflection and

reform in school settings (Roulston et al., 2005).

In this thesis, teacher research is used to describe formal research conducted by

classroom practitioners. According to Richardson (1994) the teacher as formal

educational researcher conducts research designed to generate knowledge. Teacher

research, as used in my study, shares similarities and differences with both action

research and practitioner inquiry. Like these forms of research, my study informed and

shaped my classroom practice although this was not a major focus in this study.

Engaging in formal study also improved my practice through learning about inquiry,

formal writing and through reading literature in science education. There were two main

differences between my study and action research and practitioner inquiry. First was the

lack of emphasis on social justice goals as intentional outcomes of the study. Second

was the focus on generating theory rather than changing practice.

Several authors (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Lankshear & Knobel, 2004;

McWilliam, 2004; Roth, 2007) have discussed the advantages and disadvantages of

teacher research. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), Lankshear and Knobel (2004),

10

McWilliam (2004), Roulston et al. (2005), and Zeichner and Noffke (2002) identified

common criticisms of teacher-research studies.

Each author generated categories for their own critiques and these are

summarised in the following list:

1) Teacher research can be perceived as atheoretical.

2) Teacher research may lack objectivity, as the researcher is too close to the

subjects.

3) Some teacher research studies lack a clear methodology.

4) Teacher researchers may lack critical views toward their own work.

5) The research can be exploitative of the researcher and students in the case

of classroom research.

6) The researcher may derive delusions regarding their work and this could

lead to stagnant practices and lack of change in practice.

At least part of these criticisms applied to teacher research can be attributed to

the lack of a single definition for this kind of research. While criticisms such as the lack

of theory and clear methodology can be applied to some classroom studies conducted by

teachers, they do not apply to formal studies such as those described by Richardson

(1994). Formal studies are conducted according to the stringent guidelines provided by

quality criteria (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Chapter 5

presents details of quality criteria used to design and judge my study.

Not all commentators are pessimistic about teacher research. Protagonists of

teacher research highlight the benefits of researchers being part of the very communities

in which they conduct their investigations. Common forms of support for teacher

research have suggested that: a) it is a useful form of professional development for

11

teachers, b) it provides teachers with a sense of professionalism and, c) teacher research

can be a way for teachers to make sound professional judgements autonomously

(Lankshear & Knobel, 2004; Roulston et al., 2005). A summary of the benefits of

teacher-research studies include:

1) Empowerment, greater voice, greater confidence, greater justice,

increased power for teachers, respect, greater motivation (Lankshear &

Knobel, 2004)

2) Promotion of critical reflection, change and reform in K-12 settings,

countering positivist top-down reform agendas (Roulston et al., 2005)

3) Creating partnerships between schools and universities (Crawford &

Cornett, 2000)

4) Contribution to research literature, being able to collect data over longer

periods than many educational studies, and using a range of data

collection strategies (Roth, 2007).

1.3.2 A Theoretical Framework for Teacher Research

One of the criticisms of teacher research presented in the previous section was

that studies tended to be atheoretical and lacked a clear methodology. This concern was

addressed in my study by framing it within a sociocultural perspective (see chapter 3 for

a detailed account). Briefly, a sociocultural perspective on learning focuses on both the

context for interactions as well as ways in which participants use and transform cultural

tools when enacting activities (Lemke, 2001; Rogoff, 2003; Wertsch & Toma, 1995).

Consistent with sociocultural perspectives on learning is the view that students

encounter a range of discourses within their homes, schools and communities. Learning,

12

from a sociocultural perspective, is seen as growing participation with the discourses of

communities. Different authors have provided varying definitions of discourse (Gee,

1990, 1999; Lemke, 2001; Wertsch & Toma, 1995). In this study, I define discourse as

the use of language and other symbolic systems of meaning making, and specialized

practices in specific settings or situations. Discourses are produced by the habits of the

communities in which they are developed (Lemke, 2001). Few studies on classroom use

of analogies have adopted a sociocultural framework for investigating social interaction

during analogical activity.

1.3.3 The Need for Further Research on the Use of Analogies in Chemistry

Reviews by Aubusson et al. (2006), Dagher (1995), and Duit (1991) indicated

that the focus of analogy research in science education has been student interpretation of

teacher and textbook analogies, cognitive theories of learning with analogies and

structured approaches for teaching with analogies. Harrison (2006) suggested that

research on analogy should turn to affective aspects of analogy use; that is, how and why

students choose certain analog concepts and which analogies they find most appealing.

Some authors have investigated analogy use by pre-service teachers (Yerrick, Doster,

Nugent, Parke, & Crawley, 2003; Wong, 1993a, 1993b) providing insights into how pre-

service teachers interpret analogies and use them to problem solve respectively. Yerrick

et al.’s (2003) study focussed on social interaction and thus provides a sociocultural

account of learning with analogies. A study by Duit et al. (2001) of year 10 students’

understandings and uses of analogies combined sociocultural perspectives with

conceptual change. Duit et al. found that analogies may be powerful tools to support

learning science viewed from a conceptual change perspective; that is, in moving from

13

student conceptions to canonical science conceptions of phenomena. However, they

also reported that post-festum analogies might interfere with students’ learning and

understanding phenomena from a canonical perspective. My study contributes to this

growing body of literature by focussing on classroom analogy use and investigating

social interaction from a sociocultural perspective.

1.4 Overview of the Study

Sociocultural studies of classrooms must foreground the context in which

classroom discourse develops as well as focussing on the social interactions taking

place. To this end, I present in chapter 2 the referents, or context, of my teacher-

research study. Specifically, these referents were analogy research literature and an

informal inquiry of student interactions during analogy writing activities. In the

informal inquiry, I used an instrumental case study (Stake, 1995, 2005) design to

investigate interactions of two student groups as they constructed post-festum analogies

to explain the concept of chemical stoichiometry. Results from the informal inquiry

indicated that student interactions differed when I used analogies for instruction when

compared with lessons where I did not use analogies. This suggested that analogies

might help transform student discourse. Identifying where this change in discourse

occurred could provide clues as to how students were constructing their understanding

of chemical concepts and growing competence in chemical discourse. The theoretical

model of Third Space (Bhabha, 1994; Gutiérrez, 2008; Mojé, Collazo, Carillo, & Marx,

2001) offered a useful framework for interpreting social interactions observed during the

informal inquiry. Briefly, Mojé et al. (2001) articulated the view that the:

14

… weaving together of counter scripts [student personal discourses] and official

scripts [school science discourses] constructs a Third Space in which alternative

and competing discourses and positionings transform conflict and difference into

rich zones of collaborative learning … (p. 487)

The informal inquiry informed my study in two ways. First, the cultural model,

Third Space, was conceptualized as consisting of two sub-constructs: Dialogical

Interactions (where speakers use the ideas and words of others in their own utterances as

thinking tools) and Hybrid Discourses (when speakers hybridize their personal discourse

with chemical discourse) and these were used as coding categories for transcripts in the

study. Secondly, it informed the design of the study and data collection methods used.

This study (chapter 5), investigated Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid

Discourses as viable models for interpretation of student interactions during analogy-

writing activities from a sociocultural perspective. The study involved in-depth

instrumental case study of two focus groups in my Year 11 chemistry class.

Instrumental case studies provide a research design that allows the refinement of theory

(Stake, 1995). Individuals within the groups became specific cases in the context of the

study. I adopted a two-phase design for the study with each phase focussing on a key

analogical-activity. Phase 1 was centred on a role-play analogy for nerve signalling in

the brain while a stoichiometry-analogy activity formed the key activity for Phase 2. In

both phases of the study, I tracked student interactions before, during and after the two

key activities. The two phases of the study covered one school semester (17 weeks).

15

1.5 Aims of This Study

The reliance of educational studies on cognitive explanations for understanding

learning with analogy has led to the development of models that focus on individual

cognition (e.g., Gentner, 1983). Studies employing a sociocultural framework could

inform our understanding of learning with analogies through the study of social

interaction and the different discourses students draw upon to construct analogies. Such

studies can provide interesting insight on social cognition centered on analogical

activities and complement models of learning with analogies based on individual

cognition.

The three aims of this study were to investigate sociocultural aspects of learning

when students construct analogies for chemical concepts, to identify classroom activities

where students generate Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourses, and to refine the

operationalization of Third Space. Three research questions guided the study:

1: To what extent do analogical activities foster the development of Hybrid

Discourses?

2: How do students choose analog concepts when generating post-festum

analogies in chemistry?

3: To what extent do patterns of interaction differ in activities where

students construct analogies compared to activities where they solve

mathematical problems in chemistry?

16

1.6 Significance of This Research

This study advances the fields of science education and chemical education by

providing a new theoretical model, Merged Discourse, for interpreting analogical

activities from a sociocultural perspective. Few studies of analogy in science classrooms

have adopted sociocultural perspectives on learning. To this end, this study contributes

to this growing field of research.

As the study unfolded, I reviewed the Third Space model initially developed

from Bhabha (1994) and Mojé et al. (2001) and developed a new model, Merged

Discourse, in chapter 7 in light of research findings and a subsequent literature review.

Merged Discourse presents a significant theoretical advancement as it provides a model

and interpretive tools (i.e., Merged Words, Merged Utterances, and Merged Practices)

specific to investigating classroom discourse during analogical activities. The model

goes beyond my earlier, naïve readings of Bhabha’s Third Space and hybridity that were

based on the duality of student personal discourse and chemistry discourse. The Merged

Discourse model offers researchers a new way of tracking students’ growing

participation with science discourse during analogical activities. Merged Discourse also

provides a means for theorising social interaction during analogical activities that is

different from models based on conceptual change (i.e., restructuring of student

conceptions to be consistent with those of canonical science).

Although this thesis set out to make a theoretical contribution to the field of

analogy research, it also has potential to contribute to teaching practice. Research

findings relating to how students chose analog concepts in this study could help teachers

in planning their own analogies for instruction. That is, student choices of analog

concepts can provide general categories from which teachers can choose their own

17

analog concepts. I also provide a possible teaching sequence for analogy instruction

informed by the Merged Discourse model. Practitioners could benefit from an

understanding of the kinds of talk that can develop in classrooms surrounding analogical

activity and how to use this talk to mediate classroom interactions.

1.7 Summary and Overview of the Chapters

In this chapter, I have positioned my study as teacher research employing an

instrumental case study design. Within available definitions of teacher research, this

study represents formal research; that is, a teacher-research study designed to contribute

to the research literature in the field of science education. Instrumental case study is a

suitable research design for testing and revisiting the theoretical models (i.e., Third

Space and hybridity) adopted in this study. In this chapter, I outlined the sociocultural

framework that influenced the design of the study. Learning science from a

sociocultural perspective involves students’ growing participation in science discourse

(i.e., the symbols, language, and practices of science). Few studies have focussed on

sociocultural aspects of learning with analogies. In this chapter, I have suggested that

research on analogies from a sociocultural perspective can contribute to our current

understandings of how analogy works. Psychological studies focussing on individual

interpretation of analogies have strongly influenced research literature on learning with

analogies (e.g., Gentner, 1983). Sociocultural perspectives that focus on social

interaction can contribute a different perspective complementing that offered by

psychological studies. This chapter also presented the theoretical models of Third Space

and hybridity used in the study to analyze student discourse and interactions during

analogy-writing activities. These models have their roots in cultural theory and provide

18

analytical lenses consistent with the sociocultural framework of this study. In this study,

I tested the viability of these constructs as interpretive lenses and refined them in light of

empirical findings.

Chapter 2 presents a literature review on analogies in science education. This

literature review informed an informal inquiry (chapter 3) I conducted as a beginning

teacher on my teaching efficacy with analogies. The informal inquiry informed the

teacher-research study described in chapter 5. Chapter 4 provides a more

comprehensive literature review than chapter 2 by establishing links to sociocultural

theory and cultural theory, providing a detailed discussion on Third Space and hybridity

theory. A tentative operationalization of Third Space that informed the teacher-research

study is provided at the end of chapter 4. The research design and procedures for the

study are elaborated in chapter 5 after which the results are presented in chapter 6. In

chapter 7, I discuss the results of the study and present the theoretical contributions to

development of the Merged Discourse model. Chapter 8 reports the conclusions of the

study.

19

CHAPTER 2

ANALOGIES IN SCIENCE EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.0 Introduction

The study reported in this thesis focussed on my classroom use of analogies and

the interpretation of classroom discourse from a sociocultural perspective (see chapter

1). In this chapter, I survey the landscape of the literature on analogies to provide a

backdrop for my study. I begin in section 2.1 by extending the definition of analogy

provided in the last chapter to describe the types of analogies used in my classroom

teaching. These additional definitions are based on Wilbers and Duit’s (2006) models of

heuristic and post-festum analogies. A discussion of Gentner’s (1983) structure

mapping theory is also presented that informed my understanding of how analogy

operates through the process of mapping elements of the analog concept to the target

concept. Then, in section 2.2, the role analogy plays in science and science teaching is

discussed. Section 2.2 provides a review of instructional analogies used in textbooks,

structured approaches for teaching with analogies, use of analogies by teachers and

students, and the role analogies might play in achieving conceptual change. Section

2.2.6 provides an account of Harrison’s (2006) suggestions that further research is

required on affective and sociocultural dimensions of learning with analogies.

2.1 Literature Review

This study is informed by literature on the use of instructional analogies in

science education. In this section, I extend the definition of analogy presented in chapter

1 providing additional terminology used in this study. A cognitive model for explaining

how analogy works is also presented.

20

2.1.1 Heuristic and Post-Festum Analogies

The terms analogy and metaphor are sometimes used synonymously and at other

times used differently in the literature (Aubusson, Harrison, & Ritchie, 2006). In

chapter 1, analogy was defined as a similarity between familiar concepts (e.g., water in

pipes) with less familiar concepts (e.g., electric current in a wire). The water in pipes is

the analog concept and the electric current in wire is the target concept. An analogy is

drawn when features of the analog concept are mapped to the target concept. Here I

distinguish between heuristic and post-festum analogies to extend the definition

presented in chapter 1. Wilbers and Duit (2006) define heuristic analogies as those used

to understand a concept or develop solutions to a problem; that is, as tools for learning.

Post-festum analogies refer to analogies used, for example, by teachers who understand

a target concept and use an analogy for instructional purposes (Wilbers & Duit, 2006).

In this study, I presented a post-festum analogy for chemical stoichiometry and then

asked students to develop their own analogies for the same concept (see sections 3.1.1

and 3.1.2). Thus, from one perspective, the task my students undertook also represented

a post-festum analogy because they had familiarity with the target concept. It is noted

that this view rests on the assumption that the students had developed a level of

competence and understanding of stoichiometry equal to my own or better. Throughout

this study, I adopted Wilbers and Duit’s terminology.

2.1.2 Cognitive Perspectives on Learning and Reasoning With Analogies

The view of how analogy operates at the cognitive level adopted in this study

was based on Gentner’s (1983) structure mapping theory and Gentner and Markham’s

(1997) studies on analogy and similarity. Gentner’s (1983) structure mapping theory

21

influenced my understanding of how we use analogy to construct new understanding of

unfamiliar science concepts. This influenced the instructional strategy reported in this

study (section 2.6.2) by focussing my attention on the mapping process when using

instructional analogies in my classroom.

Outside of the field of research of science education, much research on analogies

has come from cognitive science. Such studies have tended to inform our understanding

of how analogy operates in generating understanding of target concepts. There are five

major theories that have informed research perspectives on analogy in cognitive science.

These are Brown and Clement’s (1989) bridging analogies, Fauconnier’s (2001)

conceptual blending, Gentner’s (1983) structure mapping theory, Holyoak and

Thagard’s (1997) multi-constraint theory, and Lakoff’s (1992) cross-domain mapping.

Much of the research in science education relating to analogy has adopted Gentner’s

structure mapping theory (1983) and Brown and Clement’s bridging analogies. This

review focuses on Gentner’s model as it directly informed my understanding of the

cognitive function of analogy.

2.1.2.1 Gentner’s structure mapping theory.

The human experience of familiarity stems from the mind’s ability to find or

create connections between past experience and a new experience (Gentner, 1983;

Gentner & Markham, 1997). These similarities between past and new experiences,

allow one to categorise objects and events. Analogy is one mechanism by which mental

categories may form (Gentner, 1983; Gentner & Holyoak, 1997; Gentner & Markham,

1997). The analog concept acts as a model for making inferences about new situations

by operating through a mapping process.

22

According to Gentner’s (1983) structure mapping theory, an analogy such as ‘T’

is like ‘B’ defines a mapping between T and B where T is the target (the domain being

explicated) and B is the base (the analog concept). B serves as a domain that is the

source of knowledge. Then B and T can be said to consist of object nodes designated by

the symbols b1, b2,… bn and t1, t2,…tn respectively. The process of analogy then, maps

object nodes of B onto T, where M in the relationship below refers to mapping.

M: bi ti

The domains B and T in this relationship are considered as a system of objects

(b1, t1 etc.), object-attributes, and relations between objects. Gentner provides three rules

for mapping. Rule 1 is that object attributes are discarded. For example, in the popular

solar system analogy for describing atomic structure, the fact that the Sun is yellow is an

irrelevant feature of the analog because it has no equivalent in the target. Rule 2 is that

relations between objects in a domain are preserved (i.e., the relation between b1 and b2).

Using the solar system analogy, this means that electrons are attracted to the nucleus as

the planets are attracted to the Sun. Rule 3, called the Systematicity Principle, states that

to decide which relations are to be preserved, systems of relations must be chosen. To

elaborate, the relation ‘Sun attracts planets; planets orbit Sun’ forms a system of

relations analogous to ‘electron is attracted to the nucleus; electrons orbit nucleus.’

Together these relations pertaining to the analog and target concepts respectively form a

system of relations.

Gentner provides three categories for domain (analog and target) comparison

processes: 1) literal similarity, 2) analogy, and 3) abstraction. In the first category,

literal similarity, a large number of object attributes can be mapped from the analog to

the target. The second category, analogy, involves comparisons where few or no object

23

attributes can be mapped from base to target but in which relational structures can. For

example, this category describes my instructional strategy of using a recipe for a ham

sandwich (two slices of bread plus one slice of ham makes one sandwich) to describe

proportionality and ratios in stoichiometry. In this example, few attributes (e.g., size and

appearance) of the ham, bread, or sandwich map to the target of chemical elements and

compounds in a reaction (e.g., as when two molecules of hydrogen gas react with one

molecule of oxygen gas to produce two molecules of water). But the relationship

between slices of ham and bread in the analog concept, hence the 2:1 ratio in which they

go together, has relational mappings to the ratios in which elements and compounds go

together in chemical equations (e.g., like the 2:1 ratio of hydrogen gas to oxygen gas).

The third category of domain comparisons is called abstraction. This category is similar

to analogy because the analog domain becomes an abstract relational structure. That is,

the 2:1 ratio represented in the sandwich recipe is a specific example of the more

generalized concept of ratios and proportions; thus, the abstraction to the category ratio

and proportion.

Gentner’s work informed my instructional use of analogies as awareness of

structure mapping theory led me to negotiate the mappings between analog and target

concepts with my students and to focus on the relational similarities while ignoring

irrelevant attributes.

2.1.2.2 Analogy and similarity.

There is yet another dimension to thinking with analogies that extends the

previous discussion. The process of alignment, whether in similarities or analogies, also

brings to attention the differences between the analog and target concepts that are of

24

most importance to an individual. In the sandwich analogy, alignable difference refers

to the fact that the bread and ham are solids while the hydrogen and oxygen are gases

(Gentner & Markham, 1997). Alignable differences do not interfere with the relational

structure between analog and target concepts (in my case the similar ratios in the

sandwich and chemical equations). A second category, non-alignable differences, refers

to differences that have no corresponding aspects between the analog concept and target

concept (Gentner & Markham, 1997). For example, it is irrelevant that bread and ham

are eaten whereas one breathes oxygen gas and hydrogen gas. This difference does not

affect the relational similarities in the ratios represented in the recipe and the equation.

2.1.2.3 A naturalistic study from cognitive science on analogies in use.

Cognitive studies on analogy have been critiqued for reliance on laboratory-style

investigations that focus on individual cognition (Aubusson et al., 2006; Dagher, 1995;

Duit, 1991; Podolefsky & Finkelstein, 2006). One study by Richland, Holyoak, and

Stigler (2004) investigated analogy use in a mathematics classroom. This study is

reviewed before presenting naturalistic studies of analogy in science education research.

Richland et al. (2004) investigated analogy use in natural settings by observing

25 year 8 mathematics classrooms in the US as part of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Their study contrasted findings from

laboratory studies on analogy where participants in those studies did not easily notice or

use analogies until prompted (Richland et al., 2004). The researchers categorised almost

one quarter of analogies used in the mathematics classroom as far distance analogies.

Far distance analogies were those where the analog concept was taken from a domain

outside of mathematics. The ham sandwich analogy used in my instruction falls into this

25

class. Richland et al. (2004) also found that teachers were more likely to generate

analogies than students, and attributed this to the teacher/expert-student/novice nature of

interactions.

The study reports that teachers chose non-mathematical analog concepts when

preparing analogies or using analogies for socialising purposes. When the teacher

sought to teach procedural aspects of mathematics (i.e., steps to solving problems), they

generated non-contextualised mathematical problems analogous to the problems

students were learning. The implication of this finding was that teachers chose analog

concepts in more complex ways than previously identified through laboratory studies.

In addition, the use of far distance analogies gives rise to questions of what kinds of

mappings students are able to make between the analog concepts to the target concepts.

In the observed lessons, teachers carried out all of the intellectual work involved with

mapping, thus, the question remained unanswered. It was also found that teachers used

procedural analogies when a student difficulty arose with a mathematical problem.

Richland et al. (2004) concluded that a range of analogies were generated and

presented by teachers, who, adopting constructivist referents (i.e., that learners construct

viable knowledge rather than acquire it; Ritchie, Tobin, & Hook, 1997), involved

students in the development of comparisons between analog and target concepts.

However, teachers did not involve students in the evaluation of analogies nor did they

involve students in the process of choosing an appropriate analog bearing structural

similarity to a target concept.

Podolefsky and Finkelstein (2006, 2007a, 2007b) noted that cognitive studies

have provided evidence of the beneficial effects of analogy for instruction but the study

of analogy in naturalistic settings was limited. Podolefsky and Finkelstein (2007a)

26

suggest that this is problematic because there are differences in the ways in which expert

scientists and analogy experts use analogy for reasoning when compared to student use

of analogies for reasoning. Thus, theories such as Gentner’s (1983) structure mapping

may not apply wholly when interpreting students use and understanding of analogy.

Furthermore, current models on analogy fail to explain why analogies are only

sometimes effective in influencing student reasoning (Podolefsky & Finkelstein, 2007a).

While Richland et al.’s (2004) study provides one example of a cognitive study

on analogy use in naturalistic settings, a large number of studies from the science

education community have focussed on instructional analogies in these settings.

2.2 The Role of Analogy in Science and Science Teaching

Heywood (2002) summarised the role of analogies in science education as

follows: “The core purpose of analogy as a strategy deployed in teaching is that of

developing an understanding of abstract phenomena from concrete reference” (p. 233).

This role reflects the influence of cognitive studies presented in the last section that

define analogy as the process of mapping aspects of a more familiar analog concept to a

target concept.

Sutton (1993) also recognized analogies as significant to science and science

teaching. He described language as a medium of interpretation and persuasion and not

just a system of descriptive labelling. In science, language is used as a persuasive

measure to convince members of the scientific community of results of studies, new

theories and thinking. Central to this role of language in science is the use of (metaphor

and) analogy. The most useful analogies to science are those that may be elaborated into

models from which testable predictions can be derived. With time however, these

27

analogies become dormant. That is, the natural evolution of analogies seems to be that

eventually they become so ingrained or internalised in people’s talk and thought that

they are eventually treated as labels rather than analogies. From the point of view of the

student and teacher, this can be problematic if ignored. Students may end up learning

models (analogies), such as the planetary model of the atom, as if it were reality rather

than a model. Teachers may inadvertently teach models as if they were reality. The

implication for instruction is to reawaken these dormant analogies through explicit

teaching. Students must use a line of thinking that considers how scientists came to be

using and accepting particular models and analogies (Sutton, 1993).

While Sutton recommended analogy use as mind-leading activities, they come

with a warning label. Some studies have shown benefits of using analogies during

classroom instruction (Dagher, 1995; Duit, 1991), whereas other research has also

shown that analogy can be a double-edged sword leading to alternative conceptions

(Glynn, 1995; Wilbers & Duit, 2006; Zook, 1991). Poorly constructed analogies can

spur growth of alternative conceptions (Aubusson et al., 2006; Duit, 1991; Harrison &

Treagust, 2000a, 2000b). Researchers and practitioners have sought to address these

issues through various approaches to using analogies for instruction. The following

sections review some of these instructional approaches.

2.2.1 Analogies in Science Textbooks

Cameron’s (2002) work focussed on how learning occurs through interaction

with ideas presented in written or spoken texts. She proposed that analogies: “may be

used pedagogically as a stepping stone in the reduction of conceptual alterity, or to

prompt conceptual restructuring” (Cameron, 2002, p. 676). In the context of science

28

education, alterity is the gap between a student’s conceptions of a target concept

compared with scientists' conceptions. A teacher may estimate the size of this gap and

look to ways of reducing it (Cameron, 2002).

Dagher (1995) reviewed studies on text and teacher-based analogies. Results

indicated that better retention from text use was achieved when analogies were included.

Not all studies reviewed by Dagher returned positive results however. One study

showed no improvement between groups using analogy-based text and those using

expository texts. Dagher concluded that teacher instruction must support text-based

analogies.

Glynn (1996) and Glynn and Takahashi (1998) also reported on the use of

analogy in science textbooks. These authors found that students who learnt from

textbooks when teachers used a systematic approach to analogies, called the Teaching

With Analogies (TWA, Glynn, 1995) approach, demonstrated better retention of target

concepts. They concluded that analogies might serve as initial mental models from

which new understanding can stem.

2.2.2 Research Findings on Use of Instructional Analogies

While early studies have indicated limited success and poor teacher attitudes

existed toward analogies, work that is more recent shows that students benefit when

teachers systematically plan analogy use. Two major reviews of analogies in science

education literature were published in the last decade, one by Duit (1991) and the second

by Dagher (1995). Major findings of both reviews are used here to lead into work in the

field that is more recent. In addition, original work was cited for a more in-depth

account where necessary.

29

Duit (1991) reviewed major contributions to the study of analogies in science

teaching over a period of 15 years. In this time, research indicated that specific

conditions must be met for analogies to be of use, rather than of detriment, to students.

Merely presenting analogies or having students read them from a text is not sufficient to

aid learning processes (Dagher, 1995; Duit, 1991; Sutton, 1993). It is clear that in order

for analogies to be of use, the analog concept must be something that is part of students

lived experiences (Dagher, 1995; Duit, 1991; Glynn, 1995, 1996; Harrison & Treagust,

2000a, 2000b; Sutton, 1993). Teachers must make clear that analogies are

representations of target concepts and not the target itself, as students often take it to be.

In addition, mapping similarities and differences between target and analog becomes

most important (Duit, 1991; Sutton 1993; Zook, 1991). Students must see that the

analogy eventually breaks down and is no longer sufficient as a representation of the

target concept. Work done by Glynn (1995), Harrison and Treagust (1998), Justi,

Souza, and Ferreira (2005), Sutton (1993), and results from Dagher (1995) and Duit’s

(1991) reviews indicated that multiple models are required to represent fully a target

concept due to the breakdown of single analogies.

Harrison and Segal (2003) and Harrison and Treagust (1998) have provided

insight into the use of multiple models as a necessity for analogy instruction. Work

conducted with Year 11 Chemistry students indicated that one student was able to use

multiple models successfully to represent molecular structure (Harrison & Treagust,

1998). The student demonstrated deep understanding of the role-played by various

molecular models in explaining significant aspects of chemical bonding. The authors

concluded that use of multiple models might enhance students’ conceptual

understanding of target concepts. Bryce and MacMillan (2005) investigated use of

30

bridging analogies (which involves use of more than one analogy/model at a time).

They reported that analogies were effective and students were able to map successfully

aspects of the analog to the target. Results indicated that using bridging analogies for

instruction was more effective than didactic approaches. The authors attributed these

observations to students having to think for themselves, rather than being told about

scientific ideas, and saw these as positive aspects of analogy use for instruction.

Various studies reviewed here drew on Zook’s (1991) work that illustrated how

analogies lead to misrepresentation or alternative conceptions. Zook (1991) developed a

model for predicting analogical misrepresentation (Table 1, chapter 1). His study began

by identifying two ways that analogy can be presented: 1) through students self-

generated analogy; and 2) teacher generated or textbook presented. He further identified

two conditions necessary for students to make meaningful relationships through analogy

use. One condition was that surface similarities must be ignored while the second

condition was the need to attend to the mappings between the analog and target (Zook,

1991). Zook’s conditions are similar to Gentner’s (1983) explanation that analogies

work through relational similarity while few or no object attributes of the analog and

target can be mapped. Research that is more recent has shown that problems exist with

the mapping process during analogy use.

Justi and Ferreira (2005) found relatively high levels of misunderstandings

among teachers and students regarding the mapping of analog to target concepts as well

as low levels of critical understanding regarding various aspects of the analogies used.

The study investigated 99 Brazilian students and 43 Chemistry teachers’ understandings

of various models for the atom (i.e., planetary model, plum pudding model). One third

of students correctly identified the relationship between the planets and electrons and the

31

sun and the nucleus concerning the planetary model for the atom. When asked to

explain the limitations of the model for explaining atomic structure, 16.2% of students

found adequate limitations while 10.1% stated that there were limitations but could not

articulate them. More than half the students (57.6%) said the model had no limitations.

Results from the teacher study showed that 62.8% identified limitations, 9.3%

identified inadequate limitations and 27.9% said there were no limitations. The authors

concluded that it is necessary for teachers to show students how to map analog and

target concepts (Justi & Ferreira, 2005). However, it was not indicated how the 27.9%

of teachers who saw no limitations might do this. Perhaps the study is an indication that

teacher education should involve some instruction on use of instructional analogies.

The two types of analogy, student generated or teacher generated, pose different

and opposing problems for student learning. Zook (1991) found that students have

difficulty with selecting an appropriate analog sharing relational structure with a target.

However, students find it easier to map their own analogies than teacher-generated ones.

On the other hand, students find it easy to understand teacher-generated analogies but

they map these onto the target poorly (see Table 1, chapter 1).

While the majority of studies reviewed by Duit (1991) indicated positive results

from instructional analogy use, some negative aspects, such as the development of

alternative conceptions, were reported (see also Zook, 1991). A series of systematic

approaches for structuring teacher generated and textbook analogies have been devised.

Studies by Glynn (1995) and Harrison and Treagust (1993, 1998) indicated that

systematic approaches involving careful planning of analogies seem to reduce problems.

32

2.2.3 Structured Approaches to Teaching With Analogies

Two structured approaches to teaching with analogies commonly cited in the

literature are the TWA approach (Glynn, 1995) and the FAR guide (Harrison & Coll,

2008; Treagust, Harrison, & Venville, 1998). Glynn (1995) developed the TWA model

based on teacher use of textbook analogies. It consists of six steps to planning effective

analogies: 1) introduce target, 2) cue student memory of the analog, 3) draw connections

between analog and target, 4) map the similarities 5) indicate where the analogy breaks

down, 6) draw conclusions about the target concept. Treagust et al. (1998) modified the

TWA model for use in planning teacher-generated analogies and reduced it to three

steps. They named it the FAR guide. From observations of teachers using the TWA

model, Treagust et al. (1998) noted they adapted the model in their own ways and

derived the FAR guide from these observations. The first step was Focus. This referred

to the preparation stage where, for example, the teacher makes considerations such as

what elements of the target concept are difficult and whether or not students are familiar

with the analog. The second step, Action, refers to identification of similarities and

differences between analog and target, mapping shared attributes and showing students

where the analogy breaks down during instruction. The third step was Reflection.

Reflection involves the teacher considering the usefulness of the analog and possible

modifications for improving the analogy. Essentially, both the TWA model and FAR

guide provide a framework of considerations and steps for teachers to follow in

preparing and implementing analogies in class.

33

2.2.4 Teacher and Student Generated Analogies

An early study by Treagust, Duit, Lindauer, and Joslin (1989) on teacher use of

analogies indicated that many teachers were reluctant to use verbal analogies despite use

of diagrammatic ones such as graphs and diagrams (Harrison & Treagust, 1993;

Treagust et al., 1989). Another study found many alternative conceptions arose during

model use by students from years 8-10 (Harrison & Treagust, 1996). Student difficulty

with various models, including analogies, indicated that the intellectual demand of some

classroom models was quite high for some students. Suggestions on the better use of

such models included overt discussion and negotiation of their meaning (Harrison &

Treagust, 1998). This notion was extended to use of instructional analogies.

Research on teacher-generated analogies reviewed by Dagher (1995) indicated

best results were achieved when multiple analogies, student-generated analogies and

bridging analogies (Glynn, 1995) were used in combination. Harrison and De Jong

(2005) explored one teacher’s use of multiple models for teaching chemical equilibrium

in a senior chemistry class. Results of the study indicated that, while students enjoyed

the teaching, they developed variable mental models (i.e., personal models that different

from canonical science) of equilibrium and some of their analogical mappings were

unreliable. In addition, some students did not recognize all of the analogical processes

in the instruction and did not see the multiple models as a set of explanations for the

target concept. In addition, use of masculine analogies (e.g., those relating to cars) did

not appeal to female students. Harrison and Treagust (2006) further explored the use of

multiple analogies and recommended their use in science instruction.

Despite these affirmative recommendations, Wilbers and Duit (2006) have raised

a concern regarding the use of analogies and multiple analogies for instruction. They

34

warn that mapping of these analogies with students may complicate learning and

increase the complexity of learning concepts (Aubusson et al., 2006; Wilbers & Duit,

2006). Past findings also suggested complexity of the analogy compared with target

concepts determined usefulness of the analogy (Dagher, 1995). Some studies reviewed

by Dagher showed students were able to recall facts with the help of analogies but they

failed to assist in constructing generalized understanding.

Pitman (1999) reported that there were few studies of the efficacy of spontaneous

student-generated analogies. Spontaneous student-generated analogies are analogies

developed by students without external stimulus provided by teachers or researchers.

Studies by May, Hammer, and Roy (2006) and Ritchie (1998) did identify student-

generated analogies in primary science classrooms. Ritchie studied a student-generated

analogy for electric circuits in a Year 6 classroom. One student developed a Thomas the

Tank Engine analogy to explain circuits to two classmates. The student-generated

analogy proved useful in helping other classmates advance their understanding of

circuits toward a scientific explanation. The study indicated that these other classmates

not only adopted the Thomas analogy, but they also modified it. This spontaneous

student analogy also allowed the teacher to track student understanding of circuits and

address any alternative conceptions that developed. Ritchie found that students’

understanding of circuits was transformed successfully, in this episode, to a model more

consistent with canonical science.

May et al. (2006) studied student-generated analogies in K-8 settings. For

example, one student in a Year 3 class studying earthquakes and volcanoes likened ice

cubes making water levels rise in a glass to rocks from a volcano falling into lava and

causing levels of lava to rise. Another student in the class then adopted and extended the

35

ice cube analogy, while others identified the limitations of it. Their study revealed that

spontaneous student-analogies were common. As with other studies presented in this

literature review, some students developed alternative conceptions about scientific

phenomena through their analogy use. The authors noted that despite the generation of

alternative conceptions in some cases, students demonstrated some advanced skills in

choosing analog concepts that would map to the target as well as other students

evaluating and critiquing their classmates’ analogies.

Studies of spontaneous student-generated analogies are rare in high school

settings (Coll, 2006; Harrison & De Jong, 2005). In relation to student-generated

analogies in chemistry Coll (2006) argued: “(s)elf-generated student analogy is very

limited and I feel there is real potential here for us to help students better understand

complex bonding theories by judicious use of analogy during teaching” (p. 74). This

was reinforced by findings in Harrison and De Jong’s (2005) study where only 1 out of

10 analogies identified in the two hours of lesson observation was generated by a

student, the others were generated by the teacher. Coll (2006) states that chemistry is a

difficult subject and teaching chemistry to students requires teaching students about

chemistry models, including analogies, and their use. Coll’s indication that student

analogies are uncommon, suggests that further research in the use of analogy is needed

to identify student-generated analogies and understand the processes by which they are

generated. Some researchers have investigated student-generated analogies where

instructors (teachers or researchers) have asked participants to construct analogies for

instructional purposes. These analogies are not spontaneous because participants in

such studies were required to use analogies by the instructors. Examples of these studies

are provided below.

36

Wong (1993a, 1993b) studied student-generated analogies from 11 students in a

teacher education program at a major university. The participants were recruited from a

range of subject areas, some in the sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology) and

others from English and foreign language studies. Participants were issued a task

involving the explanation of air compression relating to a syringe. They were required

to provide explanations for their observations of compression and decompression, and

then had to identify any problems they had in developing their explanations in the first

part of the task. In the second part of the task, they were required to devise analogies to

understand better the phenomena of compression and decompression. The researcher’s

intention was that the analogy be used as a heuristic for solving the problems the

students had identified in the first part of the activity. Wong (1993a, 1993b) defines this

use of analogies as generative analogies. He contrasts generative analogies to the way

analogies are conceptualized in cognitive psychology by stating that cognitive science

has focussed on analog concepts that are exact matches for target concept so that they

lead to analogical problem solving of the type A is to B as C is to D. Participants in

Wong’s study were required to evaluate the analogy by comparing the analog and target

concepts and then modify the original analogy if it was a poor representation of the

target. This process was repeated so that the participants’ analogies evolved over time.

As such, these analogies initially were not exact matches for the target as those used in

cognitive studies.

Results of Wong’s study indicated that two major changes in the participants’

understanding of air-pressure took place: 1) the construction of new explanations, and

2) the emergence of important questions. Wong described five different elements of

generative analogies that make them useful tools for conceptual growth. The five

37

features included: 1) fostering evolving and meaningful problems, 2) enabling problem

solving from a base of understanding, 3) triggering associated memories, 4) providing a

different perspective, and 5) stimulating carry-over from analog to target concept.

Wong concluded that it was also essential for multiple analogies to be used as a single

analogy became deficient in his participants’ endeavour to explain the phenomena. His

views echo, for example, Brown and Clement’s (1989) notions of bridging analogies

where a number of analogies are used to teach a concept, with each building a closer

picture of the target concept so that one’s thinking hops from analog to analog until

reaching the target concept. While not all students in Wong’s study developed

conceptions consistent with canonical science of air-pressure phenomena, all students’

understanding changed from their initial conceptions, and some developed significant

questions relating to what they did not understand about the phenomena.

Aubusson and Fogwill (2006) and Aubusson, Fogwill, Barr, and Perkovic (1997)

studied teachers and students’ use of simulation role-play in science classrooms. These

researchers defined simulation role-plays as analogical activities because the actors did

not represent other people as in other forms of role-play. During simulation role-plays

in science classrooms, the actors represent scientific concepts like electrons or food in

digestion. Other authors have referred to simulation role-plays as analogical role-plays

(Harrison & Treagust, 2000). Aubusson and Fogwill (2006) reported that simulation

role-play where students generate the play is less common than role-plays where

teachers designate roles for students to play. According to Aubusson and Fogwill

(2006), simulation role-play can contribute to “…enable students to generate deeper

understanding” (p. 94), simulating theory, bringing student understanding of concepts to

the fore, and students sharing different views through social interaction while

38

constructing the plays (Aubusson & Fogwill, 2006). Aubusson et al. (1997) concluded

that simulation role-plays enhanced learning, improved classroom atmosphere and

catered for student differences. In addition to these benefits, Aubusson and Fogwill

added that engaging in role-plays encourages scientific thinking through analogical

reasoning and fosters discussion and learning in subsequent lessons.

In this review, few studies investigating student-generated analogies (or role-

plays) like those of Aubusson et al. (1997), Aubusson and Fogwill (2006), and Wong

(1993a, 1993b) were identified. Wong’s study not only provides an example of research

on analogies generated by university students but also offers undertones of another

branch of research on analogies, conceptual change, which is concerned with how

analogies could assist in restructuring student conceptions to be consistent with

canonical science.

2.2.5 The Conceptual Change Turn in Research on Analogies

Several studies have researched analogy from a conceptual change perspective

(Brown & Clements, 1989; Coll, France, & Taylor 2005; Dagher, 1994; Dilber &

Duzgun, 2008; Duit, Roth, Komorek, & Wilbers, 2001; Duit & Treagust, 2003; Harrison

& Treagust, 2001). While this has been a fertile ground in research on analogies, the

outcomes of these studies are less salient to the aims of my study and thus a

comprehensive review of this literature is beyond the scope of this section. One

example from this field that is somewhat relevant to my research is the study by Duit et

al. (2001) because these authors used discourse analysis and sociocultural theory to

study conceptual change from the use of analogies. A brief review of this study is

39

provided to define conceptual change and describe how these researchers applied

discourse analytic techniques to the study of analogies.

The following quotation from Duit et al. summarizes the connection between

research on conceptual change and analogy:

Conceptual change perspectives have shown to be fruitful particularly in science

education where everyday views of phenomena are often incommensurable with

canonical views. Learning processes therefore often require major restructuring

of students’ already existing conceptions. Analogies can play a central role in

this restructuring of students’ conceptual frameworks. (p. 285)

Duit et al. studied analogy use by a physics teacher (i.e., Komorek) and his

students when representing chaotic systems. The researchers employed a discourse

analytic framework to provide a microanalysis of analogical processes in this Year 10,

German classroom. Specifically, these researchers investigated analogical reasoning by

establishing how student’s constructed observational descriptions of post-festum

analogies provided by the teacher and how students generated analogical relations for an

unknown target concept. Within the framework of discourse analysis, these researchers

studied observational sentences, intersubjectivity, and theoretical sentences.

Observational sentences were defined as linking language and the world that language is

about. Intersubjectivity refers to all witnesses to an event generating the same

observational sentences, which then leads to observations being taken as matter of fact.

Theoretical sentences are sentences that represent concepts from the view of canonical

science. Conceptual change from this perspective can be understood as the change of

student observational sentences to theoretical sentences.

The researchers concluded that analogies might foster conceptual change but

40

they may also interfere with learning of canonical perspectives of scientific concepts.

They surmised that teachers not only have to develop analogical relations between

analog and target concepts with students but also develop the context in the desired

direction (i.e., canonical science). The reason being that, in Duit et al.’s study, students

and the teacher developed different observational sentences regarding the analogy. Due

to the vast number of possible observational sentences in the analog and target domains,

students may follow a different mapping path to that intended by the teacher, leading to

development of unintended theoretical sentences.

The discourse analytic approach allowed these researchers to identify

affordances and constraints of learning science with analogies. The first point was the

possibility of students to use discourse grounded in their everyday experiences to

generate observational sentences of physical concepts that were otherwise inaccessible

to students. However, if the observational sentences developed by students did not

match a scientific view of the target concept, this could constrain their ability to

understand the analogy drawn between analog and target concept. This study brought

together conceptual change and sociocultural perspectives of learning and in doing so,

provides an example of the multiple theoretical perspectives that Harrison and Treagust

(2001) called for in the study of conceptual change in classrooms.

2.2.6 Analogy and the Affective Domain

Coll (2006) indicated that studies on affective outcomes from analogy use in

instruction are scarce despite extensive use of analogies in teaching chemistry. Harrison

(2006) reviewed recent research on the affective dimension of analogies for instruction

before concluding that further research into affective aspects of learning with analogies

41

is necessary. This movement in analogy research stems from the abundance of literature

on scientific, empirical and cognitive studies of analogy while aspects relating to

motivation and interest have been ignored. Harrison argued that previous studies failed

to reveal the reasons why students and teachers are inclined to use analogies. Examples

were provided of studies on analogy instruction indicating that analogy can interest

students if it is contextually, intellectually and socially familiar. Harrison makes the

following recommendations for analogy instruction:

…teachers need a rich and varied set of analogies that stimulate their own and

students’ creative imaginations….Second, teachers need a systematic strategy for

presenting analogies….Third, it is important that we study which analogies

interest students, why students are interested in these analogies and which

concepts are best developed using these analogies. (p. 62)

Harrison’s investigation of affective aspects of analogy use demonstrated that

analogies interested students if they were contextually, intellectually, and socially

familiar. He offered three recommendations relating to teacher use of analogies: 1) use a

rich and varied set of analogies that stimulate teacher and student imagination; 2)

teachers need a systematic strategy for presenting analogies; and 3) it was necessary to

study which analogies interested students, why they found such analogies interesting and

which concepts were best developed through these analogies. Harrison goes on to

suggest that classrooms are inherently social settings that can be understood through

studies of social interaction within a Vygotskian sociocultural framework. He calls for

the application of such an approach to the study of analogies.

42

2.2.7 Sociocultural Studies of Analogy and Social Interaction

The role analogy may play in shaping social interaction is not well documented

(Yerrick, Doster, Nugent, Parke, & Crawley, 2003). Yerrick et al. (2003) provided one

study of preservice teachers’ interpretation of instructional analogies as part of a Physics

by Inquiry course of study. The goals of the study were to determine how pre-service

teachers used analogies for constructing arguments, and this was achieved through fine-

grained analysis of small-group discourse. It was found that analogies played an

important role in the “individual and collective construction of scientific knowledge”

(Yerrick et al., 2003, p. 457). Specifically, students used analogies to introduce and

debate prior knowledge and experience, negotiating a social climate for substantive

scientific discourse and the analogies allowed for joint construction of knowledge.

Group activities also allowed students to participate in problem solving and promoted

the use of higher-order thinking skills. One interesting observation was made with

regard to the development of alternative conceptions. It was found that one group of

students who refrained from argumentation developed alternative conceptions through

misapplication of analogies. Furthermore:

Not only did group members demonstrate a strong tendency to overgeneralize

analogies and map irrelevant features from the analogy to the target concept,

they also engaged in the generation of their own analogies that emerged first as

personal theories, many of which were poor conceptual matches for the target

concept. (Yerrick et al., 2003, p. 458)

Yerrick et al.’s (2003) study demonstrated that analogies could play a role in

shaping classroom discourse and social interaction. These researchers found that there

was an increase in authentic engagement “…in problem solving, promoting higher-order

43

process skills, and negotiating a social climate necessary for substantive scientific

discourse” (pp. 457-458).

2.2.8 Summary

In this literature review, few studies were found that focussed on how analogies

influence classroom discourse and how student, teacher and science discourses merge

into fertile learning grounds. While Yerrick et al. (2003) provided some insights into

social aspects of learning; the study focussed on pre-service teachers and not high school

students in naturalistic settings. Studies are also required that investigate how students

generate analogies in chemistry (Coll, 2006). While there are obvious undercurrents

running through the literature in terms of analogies creating connections to students’

prior knowledge, sociocultural aspects of learning with analogies have not been treated

explicitly with respect to discourse change. The new direction for analogy research

suggested by Harrison (2006) addresses the affective dimension of learning with

analogies and suggests that future directions need to address all elements of the social

dimension of learning. Furthermore, Podolefsky and Finkelstein (2006, 2007a, 2007b)

and Richland et al. (2004) noted that cognitive studies on analogy tended to use

laboratory environments for studying analogy. Sociocultural studies on analogy in

naturalistic settings can address these current limitations in the literature.

2.3 The Need for a Sociocultural Perspective on the Use of Analogies in

Chemistry

Reviews by Aubusson et al. (2006), Dagher (1995), and Duit (1991) indicate that

the focus of analogy research in science education has been student interpretation of

44

teacher and textbook analogies, psychological aspects of learning with analogies and

structured approaches for teaching with analogies. Yet, as Van Boxtel (2004) argues,

studies focussing on individual cognitive process ignore the contextual, situated nature

of learning. Only by assuming a sociocultural perspective on research can the situated

nature of learning be accessed. More recently, Harrison (2006) provided a study into the

affective aspects of learning with analogies to understand better, how students choose

analogies, and which analogies do and do not appeal to them.

Yerrick et al.’s (2003) study investigated preservice teachers’ social interactions

while interpreting instructional analogies. Wong’s (1993a, 1993b) studies investigated

student-generated analogies with university-age students. While Yerrick et al.’s and

Wong’s studies provided useful insights into aspects of social interaction and student

generated analogies in naturalistic settings respectively; few studies were found that

investigated social interactions of high school students constructing analogies in

chemistry. Duit et al. (2001) provided one study that combined research on conceptual

change with a sociocultural approach. More work is needed from a sociocultural

perspective to inform theories on analogical reasoning and studies of classroom

discourse practices by studying social interaction.

2.4 Chapter Summary

In the literature review presented in this chapter, it was established that wide

consensus exists in the science education community relating to the benefits of analogy

use for instruction. The key positive outcomes reported in the review include that

analogies can help students move from personal views or conceptions to conceptions

more consistent with canonical science. However, this celebration of the benefits of

45

instructional analogies comes with a warning; the use of analogies can also lead to the

development of alternative conceptions. Various approaches have been devised to

minimize the possibility of alternative conceptions developing. For example, the FAR

guide proposed by Treagust et al. (1998) offers one way of structuring and planning

classroom instruction that is based on analogies. In my teaching, I designed an

instructional strategy involving analogy based on Zook’s (1991) analogical

misrepresentation model reported in chapter 1. My study presents an investigation of

classroom discourse centred on this analogical activity from a sociocultural perspective.

The literature reviewed in this chapter indicated that few studies have focussed on

sociocultural dimensions of learning with analogies.

In chapter 3, I present the background and results of an informal inquiry on the

efficacy of my analogy instruction when I was a beginning teacher. This informal

inquiry was guided by my naive understanding of sociocultural theory at that time. The

inquiry was important nevertheless because it informed the design of my teacher-

research study described in chapter 5. After presenting the informal inquiry in chapter 3,

I develop a more sophisticated theoretical framework based on sociocultural theory,

Third Space and hybridity in chapter 4.

46

CHAPTER 3

AN INFORMAL INQUIRY INTO MY TEACHING EFFICACY WITH ANALOGIES

3.0 Overview and Background

This section provides the historical background and context to the informal

inquiry in my Year 11 chemistry class by detailing a critical incident that occurred in my

years as a beginning teacher. The discussion is critical to developing the context,

methods, and theoretical framework that informed the design of my teacher-research

study detailed in chapter 5. In section 3.1, I present the critical incident that led to the

development of this study and present the Third Space model that was used to interpret

classroom interactions from a sociocultural perspective. Section 3.2 presents the results

of the informal inquiry and identifies implications for my study.

3.1 The Critical Incident

Chapter 1 outlined problems that students encountered with my chemical

explanation of stoichiometry. In response to these issues, I developed a ham sandwich

analogy (see section 3.1.1) to clarify explanations (also in Harrison & Coll, 2008).

Students responded positively to the analogy, encouraging me to continue use of this

analogy in subsequent years of teaching. As well, I devised activities where student

groups wrote their own analogies for stoichiometry.

In subsequent years of teaching, I noted that when discussing the sandwich

analogy with students, both the students and I developed utterances where language

from the analog concept and the target concept were hybridized in single utterances. In

one lesson, for example, I used the word slices instead of the chemical term, mole (a

quantity representing 6.02×1023 particles), to refer to the amount of chemical reactants in

47

a particular reaction. Slices referred to the analog concept from the sandwich recipe. I

found that students also generated such hybrid utterances themselves when they wrote

their own, post-festum analogies for stoichiometry. Being familiar with the literature on

analogies in science education from my pre-service studies, I recognized that this

phenomenon had not been previously studied. This prompted me to initiate classroom

observations more purposefully as I implemented the informal inquiry. An excerpt from

my reflective journal, which I maintained through my teaching career, indicates the

interest I had at the time relating to teaching with analogies.

Extract 3.1

During these instances [when using the analogy], the stu. & I were able to

discuss the relevant concepts in a language they later claimed to understand.

What I noticed is that in those cases we had a metalanguage to talk about the

Chem. that we both understood. (Teacher Journal entry)

When I questioned students about the discrepancy noted in Extract 3.1, they

explained that it was because the language and symbols used in chemistry were not part

of their everyday experience. Their comments reminded me of the view that science is

like culture, having its own language, practices, and values (Roth & Lawless, 2002).

From this view, I researched cultural models and found that Bhabha’s (1994) Third

Space model seemed to capture the notion that when students enter the chemistry

classroom their personal worlds collide with that of chemistry.

Bhabha (1994) described Third Space as a space where meaning is not fixed by

cultural norms but rather, where all meaning and culture is hybrid. He explains the

concept as follows:

48

The pact of communication is never simply an act of communication between the

I and You designated in the statement. The production of meaning requires that

these two places be mobilized through a Third Space, which represent both the

general conditions of language and the specific implication of the utterance in a

performative and institutional strategy of which it cannot ‘in itself’ be conscious.

What this unconscious relation introduces is an ambivalence in the act of

interpretation. (Bhabha, 1994, p. 36)

I interpreted Third Space, in the context of communication, as representing a

space where different discourses (i.e., the language and other symbolic systems for

making meaning in specific situations and settings) become hybridized. What results is

a hybrid of the two perspectives or discourses. The ambivalence of the meaning of this

hybrid is captured in the following quote:

It is that Third Space, though unrepresentable in itself, which constitutes the

discursive conditions of enunciation that ensure meaning and symbols of culture

have no primordial unity or fixity; that even the same signs can be appropriated,

translated, rehistoricized and read anew. (Bhabha, 1994, p. 37)

This quotation highlights the ambivalence and lack of fixity of meaning that is

generated from passage through the Third Space that results in the production of hybrid

meaning. Bhabha’s descriptions of Third Space and hybridity resonated strongly with

my classroom observations of the hybrid sentences generated during the analogy-writing

activities. Third Space provided a potential theoretical tool for interpreting and

understanding social interaction and classroom utterances. Its origins in cultural theory

provide an analytical sensitivity that allows for interpretation of social interaction and

classroom discourse.

49

The focus of the informal inquiry was on identifying hybrid discourses as a way

of establishing whether students were generating Third Spaces, which have been

identified as desirable learning spaces by some authors (e.g., Gutiérrez, Baquedano-

López, Alvarez, & Chiu, 1999; Mojé, Collazo, Carillo, & Marx, 2001). The Third Space

model was a likely candidate for investigating analogy from a sociocultural perspective

because the model was developed from cultural theories and referred to generation of

culture and meaning.

3.1.1 The Instructional Strategy: The Ham Sandwich Analogy for Stoichiometry

To provide the context for the informal inquiry, a description of the ham

sandwich analogy for stoichiometry is required. Chemical stoichiometry describes the

ratios in which reactants in a chemical reaction combine to form the products. For

example, in the reaction;

2H2 + O2 2H2O,

the reactants (H2 and O2) combine in a ratio of 2 to 1 to form the products. The ratio of

H2 to H2O is 1 to 1 while the ratio of O2 to H2O is 1 is to 2. Such quantities can be used

to determine the mass of water produced when a given mass of H2 and O2 react.

I represent the reacting quantities concept using the ham sandwich analogy as

follows:

H + 2B HB2,

where H represents ham, B represents bread and HB2 the sandwich.

Having presented my analogy, I then asked students to complete a range of

questions relating to the ratio of ham to bread from which I developed the concept of

stoichiometry as the ratio of reacting quantities in a chemical change. Having

50

established the concept, I then invite students to compare the analog to a chemical

reaction and to identify the similarities and differences between the analog and target

concepts.

3.1.2 The Student Task

After the instructional lesson involving the sandwich analogy, student groups

were asked to present their own analogies for stoichiometry and present these to the

class. As such, these were possibly post-festum analogies for the students as they had

already studied that target concept in the earlier instructional lessons. The task required

that students write their analogies, identify where the analogies stopped representing the

target concept and to write sample problems relating to their analogy. For example, I

had asked the students to determine the number of sandwiches that could be made from

six slices of bread and three slices of ham. Students were then required to share their

analogies with the class.

3.1.3 Description of the Informal Inquiry

The informal inquiry investigated student interactions when writing post-festum

analogies for chemical stoichiometry. The study was conducted in a suburban secondary

state high school (City State High School) with a student population of approximately

1450 students. My Year 11 chemistry class consisted of 20 students, 13 females and 7

males. One female student identified herself as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Student grades in this class ranged from As to Es (A being the highest level of

achievement, E being the lowest). The aim of the informal inquiry was to identify

whether students generated Third Spaces during the activity and to test the viability of

51

the Third Space model in interpreting classroom discourse from a sociocultural

perspective.

The following research questions guided the informal inquiry:

1. Do analogies foster development of Third Spaces?

2. Can the Third Space model be used in interpreting classroom interactions

centred on analogical activities?

To ensure that the research adhered to departmental requirements for conducting

research in a school, a number of steps were followed. Roth (2007) presents a series of

guidelines for establishing teacher research within a school. Among his criteria are:

students have the right to refuse participation, that all students have the right to

participate in the activities conducted by focus students, explaining there is no

disadvantage in not participating in the study and ensuring there is a third party that the

students can refer to if they encounter problems as participants. The principal of the

school granted permission on behalf of the education department for this informal

inquiry. Clearance was granted according to similar guidelines as those used in the

teacher-research study described in chapter 5. Student recruitment requirements for the

informal inquiry were modelled on the ethical guidelines provided by universities for

doctoral studies. This ensured that all requirements mentioned by Roth (2007) were met

and that the research artefacts could be used for publication purposes. To this end,

students and parents completed consent forms for the collection of data from my Year

11 Chemistry class. Both students and parents were notified that their child could

withdraw from the study at any time and that participation was voluntary. The school

principal acted as an independent contact from the researcher for students and parents.

52

3.1.4 Data Collection

Data included a lesson transcript of the focus group’s stoichiometry-analogy

activity and stimulated recall interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). A group of two

students, pseudonyms Sven and Pietro, became the focus group for the research. The

students were friends who often worked together on class activities. Other students,

Aaron and Marissa, featured on the recordings of interactions between Pietro and Sven,

as student groups were free to interact. As such, Aaron became involved with the study

at the interview stage.

Video and audio recorders were used to collect data on Pietro and Sven’s

interactions. The students were videotaped in one 40-minute lesson. A series of general

interview questions were developed upon initial analysis of lesson transcripts. Suitable

times were arranged with Pietro, Sven and Aaron for stimulated recall interviews where

lesson transcripts and video recordings were used to stimulate student recall of

classroom events. Students were asked to comment on interactions and provide their

own explanations for the exchanges that took place as they reviewed and listened to

parts of the video where I had identified interactions significant to the study.

3.1.5 Transcript Data Conventions

Data obtained from videotaping of classroom interactions were viewed several

times during the transcription stage to ensure accurate representation of the

conversations taking place. Video data were transcribed according to conventions used

in conversation analysis (Psathas, 1995). For the reader’s convenience, the conventions

are summarised in Appendix G.

53

3.1.6 Data Analysis

Transcript data were analyzed through discourse analysis informed by the Third

Space construct. Following Bhabha (1994), I conceptualized Third Space as consisting

of Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourses. As the aim of the study was to

interpret the social interactions when Third Spaces were generated, an inclusive

framework was required for data analysis. As Van Boxtel (2004) stated, “whereas

authors adopting a constructivist perspective on learning merely focus on knowledge

construction as an individual cognitive activity, the sociocultural perspective provides us

with an understanding of learning as a social and situated process” (p. 137).

Constructivist perspectives of learning give importance to ways in which individuals use

their prior understandings to interpret new situations and develop new understandings.

Sociocultural perspectives focus on interactions between individuals as well as the

contexts for these interactions in mediating understanding. Social interactions during

the analogy activity were interpreted from this perspective.

Two coding categories were developed from the Third Space model. The first

category, Dialogical Interactions, represented exchanges where students used the ideas

of others in their own utterances. The second category, Hybrid Discourse, represented

utterances where students hybridized language pertaining to the analog concept with that

of the target concept. As well as using the categories for interpreting data, the categories

themselves were being tested for viability as an interpretive framework. Thus, the

second important goal for the study was to evaluate and refine these categories in light

of empirical data.

54

3.2 Results of the Informal Inquiry

The results of the informal inquiry were reported as assertions corresponding to

the categories used for data analysis. Section 3.2.1 reports results relating to the

Dialogical Interactions while section 3.2.2 reports results relating to Hybrid Discourse.

The following two assertions were developed from the informal inquiry:

Assertion 1 Pietro, Aaron and Marissa developed Dialogical Interactions

when they discussed their analogies

Assertion 2 Pietro, Aaron and Marissa developed Hybrid Discourse when they

discussed analogies.

3.2.1 Insights Into the Dialogical Interactions Dimension of Third Space

Assertion 1 Pietro, Aaron and Marissa developed Dialogical Interactions when they

discussed their analogies

After completing their analogy, Aaron and Marissa discussed their human body

analogy that involved the number of arms, legs, torso and head that make up one body.

Pietro overheard Aaron and Marissa’s analogy and criticized it saying he thought their

analogy was worse than his. Pietro and Sven had written an analogy based on the

number of goldfish in a goldfish bowl. Pietro’s interruption generated an exchange

mainly between Aaron and Pietro, where they criticized elements of one another’s

analogies as seen in Extract 3.2. Pietro and Aaron developed Dialogical Interactions

during these exchanges. They were dialogical because the students incorporated one

another’s ideas in their own utterances. For example, in Extract 3.2, Pietro introduces

the term deformities to talk about Aaron’s analogy in Turn 1. Aaron adopted the term

deformities in Turn 2.

55

Extract 3.2

1. Pietro: But you’re also forgetting birth deformities…a baby can be [born from

birth

2. Aaron: But … I’m sure that you have deformities in the elements of a chemical

reaction. (Pietro & Sven, Analogy Lesson Transcript, p. 2)

Dialogical Interactions were also observed when Marissa joined the discussion

between Pietro and Aaron as shown in Extract 3.3. The episode in Extract 3.3 began

with Pietro criticising Aaron and Marissa’s analogy. Aaron starts to argue, in Turn 1,

that his analogy is more sensible than Pietro’s. In Turn 2, Marissa made up the

acronyms “GF” for goldfish and “BGF” for goldfish bowl based on Pietro’s goldfish

bowl analogy. Her construction of these acronyms was interpreted as Dialogical

Interaction because she had used Pietro’s goldfish bowl idea to develop the acronyms.

Marissa was not merely communicating information; rather, she was integrating Pietro’s

ideas with her own to construct her argument against his criticisms.

Extract 3.3

1. Aaron: {To Pietro} You need 2 legs to make a body.[ {Marissa interjects } yeah

but see with your gol- goldfish you can have one goldfish[ {Pietro interjects}

2. Marissa: Yeah what 2 GF equals BGF {making acronyms for the goldfish

analogy}. (Pietro & Sven, Analogy Lesson Transcript, p. 2)

During the analogy-writing activity, Pietro and group member Sven argued about

Pietro’s analogy. Dialogical Interactions were not identified during these exchanges.

For Pietro, Aaron and Marissa, discussing the analogies provided opportunities to

56

develop Dialogical Interactions. I concluded that these students had entered a Third

Space in communication as they developed Dialogical Interactions.

3.2.2 Insights Into the Hybrid Discourse Dimension of Third Space

Assertion 2. Pietro and Aaron developed Hybrid Discourse when they discussed

analogies.

Hybridization of meanings between communicators represents Third Space

according to Bhabha (1994). Aaron developed a Hybrid Discourse while he debated

with Pietro over their analogies. In Extract 3.4, Aaron uses the expression “The formula

for a cow is four legs plus a body plus a head plus the tail” (Pietro & Sven, Analogy

Lesson Transcript, p. 3) in Turn 4. Aaron was responding to Pietro’s criticism of his

analogy explained in Extract 3.2.

Pietro (Turn 1) suggests that Aaron and Marissa’s human body analogy was not

sensible because not all bodies consist of a torso, a head, two legs and two arms. His

argument was that there were such things as five legged cows (Turn 1) that do not fit

Aaron and Marissa’ body recipe, which conformed to a “normal” body structure. Aaron

generated another Hybrid Discourse in Turn 7 with the expression “deformities in the

elements of a chemical reaction” (Pietro & Sven Lesson Transcript, p. 3). Turns 4 and 7

represented Hybrid Discourses because they involved the combination of two different

discourses to generate one utterance.

In Turn 4, Aaron combined the discourse of cows with that of formulas in a

single utterance. In terms of the students’ analogies, cow belonged to the analog concept

(from the body analogy) while formula belonged to the target concept of chemical

57

reactions. Thus, the expression formula for a cow is a hybrid of the analog and target

discourses.

Extract 3.4

1. Pietro: No no have you ever heard of a five-legged cow?

2. Aaron: But this is not a cow this is a person

3. Pietro: But what if it was a cow…{Marissa interjects}

4. Aaron: The formula for a cow is four legs, plus a body plus a head[ plus the tail

5. Pietro: But. But you’re also forgetting birth deformities (2) a baby can be [born

from birth

6. Aaron: But see when you have [a chemical reaction{I interject, students

continue}

7. Aaron: But I’m sure that you have deformities in the elements of a chemical

Reaction. (Pietro & Sven Analogy Lesson Transcript, p. 2-3)

Similarly, in his expression: deformities in the elements of a chemical reaction in

Turn 7, he combined the analog discourse of bodies (represented by deformities) with

the target discourse elements of a chemical reaction.

Marissa generated Hybrid Discourse in Extract 3.3 (section 3.2.1) with her use of

GF and BGF to replace the words goldfish and goldfish bowl respectively. Here she

was using the common way of representing chemical elements by letter symbols (for

example, O for Oxygen) and applying it to the goldfish and the goldfish bowl. This

hybridization of a practice common to the discipline of chemistry with the analog

concepts, goldfish and goldfish bowl was subtler than Aaron’s hybridizations. Rather

than combining words from the analog discourse in utterances about the target discourse

58

as Aaron had done, she combined a chemical practice with the analog discourse of

goldfish bowls. Marissa’s hybridization is not surprising because when I presented the

ham sandwich analogy, students were required to suggest symbols for the ham and bread

so that the recipe for the sandwich could be represented by a chemical equation (sections

3.1.1 & 3.1.2). Pietro, Aaron and Marissa had entered a Third Space in communication

as they developed Hybrid Discourses.

3.2.3 Summary

The results presented in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 indicated that Pietro, Aaron and

Marissa developed Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourses when discussing

analogies. This result indicated that these students entered a Third Space in

communication. Dialogical Interactions were manifest through students’ use of the

ideas of others in their utterances while Hybrid Discourse were produced by hybridizing

the language of the target concept with that of the analog concept.

Two types of Hybrid Discourse were identified in section 3.2.2. The first type

exemplified in Aaron’s utterances where he talked about the analog concept using

terminology pertaining to the target concept and vice versa. The second example was

the use of a chemical practice, namely assigning symbols to elements to describe an

analog concept as illustrated in Marissa’s utterance “..2GF equals BGF” where she

spoke of the analog concept using symbols (GF and BGF) and referring to them using

the word equals.

Interpretation of findings from sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 led to development of an

analytical tool for investigating analogies from a sociocultural perspective. By referring

to language that described the analog concept in student interactions as analog-specific

59

language, and the language referring to the target concept as target-specific language it

is possible to identify Hybrid Discourses in utterances such as those in Turns 4 and 7 of

Extract 3.2. Evidence of Third Space generation by students may be identified by

searching for instances of Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourses. The data

presented in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 suggested that these two categories are likely to be

observed when students write analogies.

3.2.4 Limitations of the Informal Inquiry

There were a number of limitations to the informal inquiry. Firstly, the

interpretations presented were taken from one lesson centred on an analogy-writing

activity with only one student group as the focus for study. Other lessons where

students were working on different activities were not recorded and thus it was

impossible to conclude that the analogy-writing activity was responsible for the presence

of Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourses. Secondly, while it was fortunate that

Aaron and Marissa had become involved with Pietro and Sven during the lesson,

initially Pietro and Sven’s group were the only focus group in the study. More than one

group needs to be studied, as one group’s interactions may not reveal evidence of Third

Space, as was the case with Pietro and Sven. In addition, it is not possible to determine

how common these interactions are. The recordings did not contain information about

how Aaron and Marissa interacted with one another when they wrote their analogy.

Thirdly, it remains unclear whether the argument that broke out between Pietro and

Aaron was a contributing factor in the Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourses.

Pietro and Sven also argued over Pietro’s analogy, but their interactions did not contain

evidence for Third Space. Considerations regarding methods and procedures for the

60

study include use of recording equipment such as MP3 players on multiple students, use

of multiple data collection methods including student written work (of analogies and

other classroom activities), multiple interviews, and use of questionnaires to check

emergent themes from analyses of focus group interactions with the whole class.

3.2.5 Conclusions and Implications

Despite the limitations of the informal inquiry, it was possible to generate a

tentative operationalization of Third Space that could inform the teacher-research study.

The research questions were answered in part as the Third Space model proved useful in

interpreting social interactions. Evidence of Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid

Discourses were found when Pietro, Aaron and Marissa argued over their analogies,

indicating that Third Spaces were generated. However, no evidence was found of

Dialogical Interactions or Hybrid Discourses when Pietro and Sven were writing their

analogy. This may be because the two did not work co-operatively on the activity.

Further research is required in order to establish whether students enter Third Spaces

when writing analogies co-operatively and whether other classroom activities such as

mathematical problem solving foster Third Space.

3.3 Chapter Summary

Through the informal inquiry presented in this chapter, a tentative model for

Third Space was developed. Two sub-constructs, Hybrid Discourse and Dialogical

Interactions were identified. The results of the informal inquiry indicated that analogies

may influence classroom discourse in two ways. Firstly, analogies may provide

conditions by which students hybridize their personal discourses with chemical

61

discourse (i.e., generating Hybrid Discourse). Secondly, analogies may foster the

development of interactions where students use the ideas of others’ thinking tools in

their own utterances (i.e., generating Dialogical Interactions).

A more comprehensive review of literature (chapter 4) on discourse and cultural

theory, relating to Third Space, was conducted subsequent to the informal inquiry to

develop further the theoretical assumptions of the model and the Hybrid Discourse and

Dialogical Interactions sub-constructs (section 4.2). Thus, chapter 4 presents the

theoretical framework for my teacher-research study.

62

CHAPTER 4

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

4.0 Introduction

Everybody has a body. No body is immaterial. Nobody can escape that fact.

That being the case, all human action, every individual and collective practice, is

situated. Or, because of our corpo-reality, because of our material embodiment,

there is always a thereness, a somewhereness, a here-and-nowness to practice.

There are absolutely no human practices - scientific or otherwise - that are not

embodied, situated practices. No exceptions - past or present. (Pred, 2005, p.

142)

That somewhere-ness of my teacher-research study was represented, in part, by

the literature review on analogies in chapter 2 and the informal inquiry in chapter 3. I

situated the study within the literature on analogies and contextualized it through my

teaching experiences and an informal inquiry as a beginning teacher. Of course, that

somewhere of my study is both place and space. My classroom and the time in which

the study was conducted represent the place. The space is metaphorical, and the

research endeavours that have preceded my study constitute the space in which it is

situated. In this chapter, I develop the intellectual space of my study.

Two major themes were identified based on the informal inquiry. The first

theme was my growing tendency to interpret and understand classroom interactions from

a cultural perspective. The second theme was that student interactions and discourse

were central to these perspectives. These emerging influences were not represented in

63

the literature reviewed in chapter 2. The present chapter establishes the theoretical

framework that guided my study: my intellectual space.

This chapter begins by establishing the definition of discourse used throughout

this thesis in section 4.1. The sociocultural framework for the study is developed in

section 4.2. In section 4.3, research based on the Third Space model is reviewed.

Section 4.4 presents the operationalization of Third Space for the study. This

operationalization is developed from the literature review and results from the informal

inquiry.

4.1 Defining Discourse

In order to study analogy from a sociocultural perspective it is necessary to

understand the discourses that operate in classroom settings. Discourse has been defined

in a number of ways in the literature, thus the word carries with it a range of meanings

influenced by each author’s perspective. It is necessary to clarify its use in my study in

order to situate the study within the available range of definitions. Two commonly used

definitions are those adopted by Gee (1990, 1999) and Lemke (1995).

In this study, I adopt Lemke’s (1995) definition of discourse. Lemke (1995)

defined discourse as “…the social activity of making meanings with language and other

symbolic systems in some particular kind of situation or setting” (p. 6). Due to an

individual’s inner dialogue, Lemke asserts that all discourse is social and communicative

as an individual’s thoughts interact with those of others such that the individual may

always consider viewpoints countering their own even without direct communication

with another. Lemke also uses discourse in a second way. That is, he refers to

particular kinds of discourses “which are produced as the result of certain social habits

64

that we have as a community” (p. 7). He provides the example of the different

discourses we have in society about sexuality such as biological discourses, medical

discourses, and psychoanalytical discourses. While Lemke, like Gee (1990, 1999),

views discourse as more than conversation (hence as Discourse), unlike Gee he defines

discourse as a social activity (Lemke, 1995). This social dimension to the definition of

discourse was significant to this study because I focussed on discourse generated

through social interaction thus individual perspectives were less salient to the goals of

the study.

Lemke’s focus on the social dimension of discourse provides the basis for

investigation of human social interaction within specific types of activity. This

perspective allows me to develop concepts such as chemical discourse, which is

understood as meaning making through the social activity of enacting chemistry, and to

distinguish this from students’ personal discourses, which are the ways of making

meaning (speaking, thinking, acting, doing), within personally relevant contexts (e.g.,

part-time jobs, hobbies).

4.2 Sociocultural Theory

I adopted a sociocultural perspective of learning in this study (Jakobsson,

Mäkitalo, & Säljö, 2009; Lemke, 2001; Rogoff, 2003; Wertsch, Del Rió, & Alvarez,

1995; Wertsch & Toma, 1995). From this perspective, “learning science… means being

socialized into scientific ways of reasoning and acting” (Jakobsson, Mäkitalo, & Säljö,

2009) and “engaging in a community of practice, marked by one’s growing ability to use

the discourse of that community and enact identities valued within that community”

(Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2009, p. 352). Learning chemistry involves growing

65

engagement with chemical discourse. Chemical discourse consists, in part, of

specialized symbolic representations (e.g., symbols for representing elements, equations)

that are used to enact activities such as communicating information about reactions and

using chemical equations to determine reacting quantities of macro-scopic objects such

as reagents. Learning such concepts involves growing mastery and use of these

representational systems from a sociocultural perspective. Social interaction is central to

the explanation of how one’s mastery of discourses, such as chemical discourse, grows.

Vygotskian perspectives of learning have influenced development of

sociocultural theory (Wertsch, 1995). According to Vygotsky (1962), children use

symbols jointly with peers through dialogical interactions but eventually children

appropriate the use of symbolic tools. Thus, what was initially culturally-mediated

mental processing became self-mediated mental processing (Lantolf, 1994). This

perspective, as with Lemke’s (1995) definition of discourse, gives priority to social

action as shaping individual cognition as opposed to individual cognition shaping social

action (as in Gee’s 1990, 1999 formulation). In relation to cognitive development of the

child, Vygotsky (1962) held the view that thought and word connections originate,

change and grow as thought and speech grow. In the following paragraphs, I review key

works that influenced the sociocultural perspective I have adopted in this study.

Sociocultural views on thinking, remembering, reasoning and solving problems

have been uncommon among studies of development (Hatano & Wertsch, 2001).

According to Hatano and Wertsch, one exception has been the work of Rogoff (2003).

Studying development from a sociocultural perspective requires the study of people’s

use and transformation of cultural tools and technologies and their involvement in

cultural institutions. Participant observation and anthropological studies can provide

66

insights into culturally-mediated cognition (Rogoff, 2003). According to Rogoff,

humans develop through changing participation in sociocultural activities of their

communities. Rogoff (2003) suggested five orienting concepts for understanding

cultural processes:

1) Culture consists of institutional and community values and traditions,

practices, and technologies,

2) Cultural processes can be heavily ingrained in community practices being

taken as unquestioned assumptions,

3) Cultural practices are interconnected, not singular entities,

4) Cultural communities change continually as do individuals, so individuals

in a community are not homogenous in terms of their practices and,

5) There is no “one way” that is right in terms of cultural practices.

In order to understand development, Rogoff (2003) argued, it was necessary to:

…examine the meaning and function of events for the local cultural framework and

goals, conscientiously avoiding the arbitrary imposition of one’s own values on another

group” (p. 17).

This view emphasises people’s lived experiences rather than the interpretations

of the researcher. As well, the focus placed on local cultural frameworks reflects

Vygotsky’s (1962) recognition of peer influence and culturally mediated action on

cognition.

Rogoff (2003) argues that as well as understanding development from

perspectives of other communities, development within communities, exemplified by

insider/outsider communication is also essential. While Rogoff does not define the roles

of insiders and outsiders, from her view of culture, I interpret these roles as being those

67

of people who hold certain practices and values of a community (the insiders) and

people who do not hold these practices and values, or are not yet familiar with them (the

outsiders). In Rogoff’s work, it was not assumed that insiders had exclusive rights to

knowledge and understanding of a community, and there was recognition that

individuals participated in a range of communities. As such, the term insider was

somewhat diffuse. Rogoff suggested that people’s participation in a range of

communities is a more useful way of understanding development than treating an

individual as having membership to a singular community. She asserted: “…working

together, insiders and outsiders can contribute to a more edifying account than either

perspective would by itself” (Rogoff, 2003, p. 26). Under this view, both emic (insider)

and etic (outsider) perspectives best inform sociocultural studies of learning. As a

teacher researcher (see chapter 1), the boundary established between an etic and an emic

perspective is blurred. In my role as teacher recording my impressions, I offer an emic

account of classroom life. Student participants in this study provide the principal emic

account. As researcher, I translate my perspectives and those of my students into etic

accounts. Within this methodological context, a teacher researcher is well placed for

conducting sociocultural research; the reason being, that a teacher researcher can provide

the insider/outsider perspective Rogoff sees as necessary to sociocultural research.

Lemke (2001) elaborates the sociocultural research agenda as follows: “In a

research perspective it means, first of all, formulating questions about the role of social

interaction in teaching and learning science and in studying the world, whether in

classrooms or research laboratories” (p. 296). He emphasizes the need to maintain the

Vygotskian perspective that social interaction is central, not peripheral, to learning.

From this perspective, classroom dialogue is a small feature of the social organizations

68

that give rise to the social tools (e.g., belief systems, pictorial representations,

specialized discourses and practices) we use for engaging in different kinds of activities.

Lemke (2001) proposes that what counts as a sociocultural analysis of science education

and the learning and doing of science are “the cultural traditions of what kinds of

discourses and representations are useful and how to use them, far more than whatever

brain mechanisms may be active…” (p. 298) when engaging in these activities.

The concept of culture is central to the descriptions of sociocultural research

described so far in the works of Lemke (2001), Rogoff (2003), and Wertsch and Toma

(1995). In this study, I adopted the cultural model Third Space and the associated

concept of hybridity (Bhabha, 1994; see section 4.3) to interpret student interaction

within a sociocultural framework. There are various uses of the concept of culture in

academe (Sewell, 2005), and this warrants a definition of the concept as used in this

study.

Hatano and Wertsch (2001) define culture as a “special medium of human life”

(p. 79) constituted by artifacts such as “…physical tools, common sense knowledges and

beliefs, social organizations, and conventional patterns of behaviour associated with the

physical, symbolic and social tools” (p. 79). Participation in different practices provides

us with skills for performing those practices. From this view, cognition varies with the

different cultural practices in which one participates. Some authors have described

science as a culture. Collini (2000) provides one example in the introduction to a recent

edition of Snow’s (2000) classic book The Two Cultures when he states that work in the

social history of science has defined science as “…merely one set of cultural activities

among others…” (Collini, 2000, p. xLix). Roth and Lawless (2002) support the view of

science as culture. They assert that science is a form of culture because it consists of

69

“…it’s own creeds, language, material practices, perceptions, theories, and beliefs”

(Roth & Lawless, 2002, p. 1). In their view, learning science involves a growing

participation in this culture. It follows that chemistry, being a subset of science, is also a

form of culture, more specialised than the broader science culture but also sharing

common elements. In this discussion, the term culture does not refer to individual

ethnicity or nationality. Rather, culture equates to the practices and traditions of

communities (Rogoff, 2003), a view that is consistent with the sociocultural framework

adopted in this thesis.

Adopting a sociocultural framework to the study of analogies, can inform our

understanding of cognition from a viewpoint that is different from that provided by

cognitive studies as these two fields of research reside within different paradigms

presenting different views on what counts as knowledge and knowing and how humans

develop these skills (Roth, 2008a). Cognitive studies are commonly situated within the

positivist paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, 2003; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Pring,

2004). Thus, research in this field assumes a realist ontology that assumes there exists

an objective reality; that is, a dualist epistemology (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), which

assumes reality is accessible through use of certain data collection methods. Finally,

these approaches are informed by an interventionist methodology that removes the

context from phenomenon of study. Thus, the researcher and the object of the research

are regarded as separate entities. As discussed in the literature review in chapter 2,

numerous cognitive studies of analogy were conducted in laboratory situations, and

some authors (e.g., Richland et al. 2004) have recognized that models developed from

such studies may not be sufficient for informing or explaining classroom use of

analogies.

70

4.3 Cultural Models for Investigating and Interpreting Social Interaction: Hybridity

and Third Space

Hybridity thus makes difference into sameness, and sameness into difference, but

in a way that makes the same no longer the same, and the different no longer

simply different. (Young, 1995, p. 26)

To escape the hegemonies that arise from the ontology of the same…I ground the

notion of diaspora in the ontology of difference. Difference and heterogeneity

are the norm, not something less than sameness and purity. This ontology allows

framing … hybridity, and heterogeneity as positive concepts for theorizing the

experiences of learning science and identity …[as] the experience of native

speakers who, in science classrooms, find themselves (temporarily) at home

away from home. (Roth, 2008b, p. 891)

For the purpose of this review, works were selected where the concepts of Third

Space and hybridity have been extensively theorized. The premise of this study is that

in order to study analogy from a sociocultural perspective, the theoretical framework of

the study requires a focus on cultural perspectives of learning and interaction. It was

established in section 3.3 that a sociocultural perspective focuses on the products and

contexts of interactions within a cultural framework. To this end, I have focussed on the

different discourses present in my chemistry classroom as part of the cultural and

discourse practices of the classroom. A model that offered insights consistent with the

observations I was making of student interactions during analogy writing activities is

Third Space (Bhabha, 1994; Gutiérrez, 2008; Mojé, Collazo, Carillo, & Marx, 2001;

Mojé et al., 2004; Wallace, 2004). Third Space has been used as a way of describing

both culture in the post-colonial world (Bhabha, 1994; Young, 1995) and desirable

71

classroom environments (e.g., Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2009; Calabrese Barton, Tan, &

Rivet, 2008; Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, Alvarez, & Chiu, 1999; Mojé, et al. 2001,

2004; Wallace, 2004).

Versions of Third Space and hybridity have appeared in a range of research

fields including politics, postcolonial theory, geography, second language learning,

general education and science education. This broad usage of the various models of

Third Space warrants a clarification of its use in this study. This is achieved by

presenting a review of its use in cultural studies (section 4.3.1) followed by its usage in

educational research (section 4.3.2). The studies reviewed from the educational research

literature have largely adopted the Third Space model without consideration of the

various critiques (especially with Bhabha’s, 1994 model) applied to it in cultural

research literature. Thus, in section 4.5, I present a review of these critiques and offer

ways in which these critiques might inform sociocultural research in science education

(section 4.5.1). In section 4.6, I present an operationalization of Third Space as used in

my study for interpreting social interaction and classroom discourse within a

sociocultural framework.

4.3.1 Third Space and Hybridity in Post-Colonial Theory

I begin with Bhabha’s (1994) work on Third Space and hybridity because this

was the key text that informed my study. Bhabha described certain characteristics of

hybridity and Third Space in his book, The Location of Culture. Bhabha questions the

very idea of culture as a singularity, an organic or unitary culture, or a simple

representation of self and other. He uses the concept of hybridity to foreground the

ambivalence in claims to authority represented in colonial (authoritative) text. For the

72

purpose of the discussion, I will use colonial and authoritative discourse to mean similar

things. This allows for extension of cultural theory to classroom research where the

teacher is seen as the authority on classroom discourses such as chemistry.

By taking the position that culture is plural and hybrid, this disrupts claims made

by proponents of views that one can define pure or original cultures (Bhabha, 1994).

Cultures here are understood as different ethnicities but also as the discourses produced

by cultural groups and their societies. In cultural theory, this hybridity allows the

colonised and the cultural critic (such as Bhabha) to question the power and authority of

colonial discourse by highlighting its double-voice (due to its hybrid nature), thereby

disrupting its claim of being pure and authoritative. Thus, there can be no cultural

singularity or pureness to culture as all culture is hybrid. To explain cultural hybridity,

Bhabha invokes a Third Space that:

…makes the structure of meaning and reference an ambivalent process, [and]

destroys… [the] mirror of representation in which cultural knowledge is

customarily revealed as an integrated, open, expanding code. (Bhabha, 1994, p.

37)

Here Bhabha challenges the notion constructed by disciplinary actions of writing

(e.g., by producing ethnographies), which assert that cultural knowledge is synchronous

and evolving over time, a critique he extends to cultural meaning. Young (1995)

captured this point when he stated that:

… hybridity becomes the moment in which the discourse of colonial authority

loses its univocal grip on meaning and finds itself open to the trace of the

language of the other, enabling the critic to trace complex movements of

disarming alterity in the colonial text. (p. 22)

73

The critic here refers to the researcher or cultural-studies critic who is able to

trace the voice of the colonized in the, purported, authoritative colonial discourse. The

alterity of the colonial text or discourse implies its otherness. It is through the act of

tracing the voice of the colonized in the discourse of the colonizer that, according to

Bhabha (1994), reveals the ambivalent and violent nature of the authoritative, colonial

discourse.

According to Bhabha, due to hybridity, the meanings and symbols of culture

have “…no primordial unity or fixity; … even signs can be appropriated, translated,

rehistoricized and read anew” (p. 37). “Hybridity is a problematic of colonial

representation [signs, symbols, texts, discourses, practices], an individuation that

reverses the effect of the colonialist disavowal, so that other ‘denied’ knowledges enter

upon the dominant discourse and estrange the basis of is authority” (Bhabha, 1994, p.

114). I have interpreted Bhabha’s work in the context of classroom discourse to mean

that we cannot assume to understand an utterance without the context in which it is

generated and this context is dependent on both the speaker and the temporal dimension

in which the utterance is generated. Thus, an utterance is significant in the context in

which it is uttered but not outside it. This concept is captured by Bakhtin’s (1981)

heteroglossia as being the set of contextual conditions that ensure an utterance has

situated meaning. A person’s situatedness in time and space allows meanings to remain

fluid and for multiple interpretations to take place in retrospective readings of the

utterance. In Bhabha’s terms, the passage through a Third Space ensures the power of a

dominant discourse is challenged, as meanings are open to interpretation. Thus, culture

and cultural discourses can be re-historicized and read anew in readings that might

represent a different relationship to the dominant view.

74

Essentially Bhabha’s Third Space transcends theory that would interpret cultures

from perspectives of colonizer and colonized by interpreting both as hybrids. In the

formulation of the Third Space model I present in section 4.6, I embraced the duality of

student personal discourse and chemical discourse as separate entities in my chemistry

class for pragmatic, analytical reasons, and interpreted these categories using Third

Space and hybridity as lenses. However, I have come to a more sophisticated view of

hybridity through this study, and I present this view in chapter 7.

There are various uses of the term hybridity in the research literature. In the next

section, I present Bakhtin’s (1985) use of hybridity to lead into a discussion of the

differences between his model and Bhabha’s (1994) model that I used in my study.

4.3.1.1 A Bakhtinian perspective on hybridity.

Bakhtin (1981) provided two categories of linguistic hybrids in The Dialogic

Imagination. He introduced the idea that all language is double voiced and provides

three categories of language as used in the book: 1) hybridization, 2) dialogized

interrelation of languages, and 3) pure dialogues. This discussion focuses on the

hybridization category. Bakhtin (1981) defines a hybrid as:

…a mixture of two social languages within the limits of a single utterance, an

encounter, within the arena of the utterance, between two different linguistic

consciounesses, separated from one another by an epoch, by social

differentiation or by some other factor. (p. 358)

Here I interpret linguistic consciousnesses as multiple discourses, although

Bakhtin’s usage relates to social languages that refer to languages of different social

strata. In his framework, what is commonly understood as language (i.e., English,

75

Italian) is referred to as National Language. Bakhtin provides a third category,

alien/other’s language, to describe a language that is not one’s own at any level (i.e.,

social, national). Bakhtin notes that the mixing of social languages in novels is an

artistic device employed by the author. He distinguishes between intentional hybrids

and organic hybrids. Organic hybrids are unintentional and unconscious hybrids found

in all culture and, as Bakhtin asserts, responsible for evolution of languages. Intentional

hybrids are used to unmask the voice of one language through the other.

According to Young’s (1995) interpretation of Bakhtin (1981), authoritative

discourse cannot be hybrid because if it were, this would undermine its single-voiced

authority. In contrast to authoritative discourse, Bakhtin describes the internally

persuasive discourse where one retells a text in their own words and with their own

“accents, gestures and modifications” (p. 424). Thus, internal discourses are dialogic

hybrids where two points of view are deliberately set against each other, by the author,

where they “...fight it out” (p. 360) on the territory of the utterance.

Bakhtin does not attribute this property to organic hybrids. Organic hybrids

remain “opaque and mute”, not consciously putting two languages into opposition.

Young (1995) extends Bakhtin’s hybrid in a commentary on cultural hybrids. He

classes Bakhtin’s categories of hybrids as dialectic where the organic hybrid (which

tends toward fusion of cultures) is in dialectical conflict with an intentional hybrid where

cultures contest one another dialogically (Young, 1995).

In comparing Bakhtin’s (1981) hybrids with Bhabha’s (1994) cultural hybridity,

there appears a distinction between the two uses. First, Bhabha’s hybrids could be

classed as organic, thereby lacking the agency attributed to the author of intentional

hybrids by Bakhtin. However, Bhabha places the agency to disrupt the authoritative

76

discourse with the critic who, being aware of cultural hybridity, uses it to question

colonial authority (which I have interpreted as the dominant discourse of the classroom).

Young (1995) asserts that the difference in Bakhtin’s hybrid and Bhabha’s hybrid is that

for Bakhtin, the undoing of authority remains represented in the concrete, social

dimension of language. Bhabha proposes that the undoing occurs by passage through a

Third Space where meaning and culture do not remain as singularities, but exist in flux.

In this section, I have essentially presented the intertextuality of hybridity

through review of some of its uses by two key scholars. This intertextuality of hybridity

suggests that multiple readings of hybrid discourses and texts are possible, so there

cannot be a claim to a single account of hybridity. In the discussion of this thesis

(chapter 7), I present one interpretation of the texts produced in my chemistry class and

understand that different perspectives on hybridity, and discourse, will yield different

readings of these same texts.

Scholars in the educational research community have also adopted concepts of

hybridity and Third Space (or third place) in their studies with slightly different

interpretations from Bhabha and what I have presented above. I review this scholarship

before offering a critique of Third Space in cultural and educational theory and research.

4.3.2 Third Place: An Australian Perspective

Lo Bianco, Liddicoat, and Crozet (1999) suggested that intercultural interaction

requires creation of spaces where two cultures interact with neither culture assimilating

the other. They describe these spaces as third places and the role of the participant in

these interactions is that of experiencer rather than observer (Lo Bianco et al., 1999). In

their view, the participant in an intercultural interaction does not need to adopt a new

77

cultural frame. The concept of third place is useful, however, in describing and

interpreting interactions where participants are engaging with a new culture. Success in

creating third place can be an indicator of the extent to which one has understood, or

adopted, practices of the new culture. As these authors construct it, third place is “…a

point of interaction, hybridity and exploration” (Lo Bianco et al., 1999, p. 5). This is not

unlike definitions of Third Space mentioned earlier and it resonates with Mojé et al.’s

(2001) work that focussed on identifying whether or not students’ personal worlds were

included in science classrooms.

4.3.3 Third Space in Educational Research

A number of researchers in the education community have adopted models of

hybridity and/or Third Space in their studies of classroom interactions (Calabrese Barton

& Tan, 2009; Calabrese Barton, Tan, & Rivet, 2008; Gutiérrez 2008; Gutiérrez, et al.,

1999; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995; Hanrahan, 2006;

Kamberelis, 2001; Mojé et al., 2001, 2004; Wallace, 2004). Among these studies, some

researchers have based their models on Bhabha’s Third Space (e.g., Wallace, 2004)

while Gutiérrez (2008), more recently describes Third Space in terms of Vygotsky’s

zone of proximal development. Mojé et al. (2001) cite both Gutiérrez et al.’s (1999) and

Bhabha’s (1994) conceptualizations of Third Space. As most authors in educational

research adopting Third Space refer either to the works of Bhabha, Gutiérrez et al.

(1999) or Mojé et al. (2001), this review will focus on studies by these authors. Studies

that present different conceptualizations of Third Space from the above stated authors

are also detailed.

78

Gutiérrez’s (2008) work relating to Third Space spans a decade (e.g., Gutiérrez et

al., 1999; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez et al., 1995). Her research focus has

been on investigating literacy practices in American classrooms with English as second

language (ESL) students. Gutiérrez et al. (1995) developed the model they call Third

Space by constructing two categories, the official script and the counter script, to explain

how the teacher’s monologic, official-script can dominate classroom discourse. A

student’s counter script is generated when students subvert the teacher’s script.

According to these authors, Third Spaces are generated when the teacher’s script and

student’s counter scripts intersect. The outcome of this was described as follows:

When a true dialogue between students and teacher occurs, rather than random

associations between their scripts, a new transitional, less scripted space- a third

space - is created. Within this space, there is more than a random association of

script and counterscript; an actual merging of the teacher and student world

views occurs. (Gutiérrez et al., 1995, p. 452)

This third space was seen as productive and empowering for students because the

official script of the classroom was abandoned and students did not merely adopt the

official script into their own scripts. In her more recent formulation, Gutiérrez (2008)

defines Third Space as follows:

… I push on popular notions of the related concept of the zone of proximal

development (ZPD; Vygotsky, 1978) and the ways the learning sciences account

for learning and development of youth from nondominant communities. (p. 149)

79

She then elaborates further:

First, we can document in Third Spaces a reorganization…of everyday concepts

into ‘scientific’ (Vygotsky, 1978) or school-based concepts. Second, leading

activities significant to individuals’ subsequent development, specifically play

and the imaginary situation, learning, and affiliation, reorganize everyday

functioning—the movement—in the Third Space. And third, we can account for

development as the transformation of the individual, the individual’s relation to

the social environment, and the environment itself… (p. 152)

In this account of Third Space, it appears that Gutiérrez’s initial position

(Gutiérrez, et al., 1995) has changed to one where, as illustrated by the first point in the

quote, the students do adopt the official classroom script. Gutiérrez (2008) also includes

play and the imaginary situation as significant elements of Third Space and the idea of

development being represented by changes in the individual with respect to their

environment.

Mojé et al. (2001, 2004) have drawn on Bhabha’s (1994) and Gutiérrez et al.’s

(1995) models of Third Space in their studies of non-English speaking background

(NESB) students and literacy learning in secondary school content areas such as science.

Mojé et al. (2001) based their Third Space model on that proposed by Gutiérrez et al.

(1999), and construct it as follows: “[the]…weaving together of counter scripts [student

personal discourses] and official scripts [school science discourses] constructs a Third

Space in which alternative and competing discourses and positionings transform conflict

and difference into rich zones of collaborative learning…” (Mojé et al., 2001, p. 487).

80

Mojé et al. (2001) investigated the influence of inquiry-based curriculum on

NESB students. They provided the following suggestions for developing congruent

Third Spaces:

1) Draw on students everyday discourse and knowledge,

2) Develop awareness of these discourses and knowledges,

3) Connect everyday discourses and knowledges to scientific discourses of the

class and scientific community and

4) Negotiate understanding of discourses and knowledges so they merge to

form new discourses and knowledges. (p. 489)

The steps mentioned above are reminiscent of planning sequences suggested for

developing analogies by the TWA model and the FAR guide presented in chapter 2

(Glynn, 1995; Treagust, 1993). Briefly, these structured approaches emphasise the need

to focus student attention on target and analog concepts, draw connections between the

concepts, map similarities and differences and identify where the analogy breaks down.

Perhaps, then, analogy can serve as a teaching tool for constructing Third Spaces.

Alternatively, Third Space may be generated when students and teachers construct

analogies. As indicated in the literature reviewed on analogy (chapter 2), there are

abundant examples of the role of analogy in connecting student worlds and canonical

science or classroom worlds.

Mojé et al. (2004) reported a second, ethnographic, study employing the Third

Space model where 7th and 8th grade students were observed and interviewed over a five-

year period. This study investigated literacy learning in the content area of science. The

researchers used the concepts of funds of knowledge and Discourse (Gee, 1996) to

extend their work on Third Space conducted in 2001. Funds of knowledge referred to

81

factors such as home, peer groups, other systems and networks of relationships that

shape students’ written and oral texts (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzo, 1992; Vélez-

Ibáñez & Greenberg, 1992). Mojé et al. observed students in school and home contexts

to establish a bank of funds that students accessed throughout their schooling and out-of

school lives. Their goal was to identify whether teachers used student funds of

knowledge in the classroom during science lessons to create Third Spaces.

Following Bhabha (1994) and Gutiérrez, et al. (1999), Mojé et al. (2004) defined

Third Space as:

…the integration of knowledges and Discourses drawn from different spaces

[allow] the construction of a ‘third space’ that merges the ‘first space’ of

people’s home, community, and peer networks with the ‘second space’ of the

Discourses they encounter in more formalized institutions such as work, school,

and church. (p. 41)

Similar to the model they presented in 2001, this concept of Third Space relies on

defining a first space or script (Gutiérrez et al., 1999) and a second space or

counterscript. Mojé et al. indicated that the classification of first and second spaces was

arbitrary and could be switched around depending on one’s perspective (i.e., student or

school/teacher).

Thus, Third Space represents the hybridization of the first and second spaces.

These models of Third Space offer a starting point for analysis by providing categories,

hence the first and second spaces, that can be used to trace student activities and texts

when they engage in school activities. Mojé et al. (2004) found that while a number of

funds of knowledge outside of school were available to students for creating Third Space

in the their science class, these funds were rarely accessed by teachers or made available

82

by some students to other students. While some students were observed making

connections between their funds of knowledge and Discourses and the Discourse of the

science lesson, Mojé et al. observed these as isolated instances, at times observed in

class, at other times only available to the researchers through interviews. They

suggested that curriculum designers and teachers needed to be aware of students’ funds

of knowledge and Discourses, and needed to access these in the classroom in order to

generate Third Spaces.

According to Mojé et al., (2004), their study did not provide an investigation of

student understanding of their content area or what effects the generation of Third

Spaces might have on literacy learning, and this was highlighted as an area requiring

further study. Mojé et al. developed three versions of Third Space from of their study.

The first version was of a hybrid space that scaffolds linkages between traditionally

marginalized funds of knowledge and Discourse. The second version referred to a space

of navigation where expertise and competence in negotiating different Discourses is

gained. The third version described hybrid spaces as spaces that destabilize and expand

the boundaries of traditional school Discourse.

More recently, Calabrese Barton and Tan (2009) investigated student discourse

and funds of knowledge in an ethnographic study of a 6th grade science class in a low-

income school in New York. They adopted a sociocultural framework based on situated

cognition that assumes that learning is achieved through legitimate peripheral

participation where new members are inducted into a community through

apprenticeship. Qualitative data analysis and grounded theory were used to investigate

student funds of knowledge and Discourses (e.g., Mojé et al., 2004). Calabrese Barton

and Tan (2009) appropriate Gee’s (1990, 1999) definition of Discourse as ways of

83

speaking and doing used to enact identities or activities. For the purpose of this

discussion, I will use the upper case D for Discourse to represent Calabrese Barton and

Tan’s use of it in their study. I will use lower case d discourse to represent its use in my

study that was defined in section 4.1 as the social construction of activities through use

of language, symbols, and practices (Lemke, 1995). Following Mojé et al. (2004),

Calabrese Barton and Tan (2009) studied what funds of knowledge students brought to

their 6th grade science lesson on levers, how these funds supported deeper engagement is

science, and in what ways the incorporation of student funds into a science lesson

impacted on discourse and engagement in the classroom. Results of the study indicated

that students created hybrid spaces and Discourse by using their funds of knowledge to

enact classroom activities. They suggest that this was possible because the teacher

encouraged use of student funds of knowledge during discussions and activities.

Calabrese Barton and Tan (2009) presented a three-part model to explain how hybrid

spaces in this classroom were transformed. The first part was political, which was

represented by more equal student-participation in lesson activities. The second was

physical, which was represented by students transforming classroom spaces moving out

to different spaces. The third was pedagogical, which was represented by the relevance

of classroom activities to student world outside of class, classroom activities mirrored

out of school activities, and the teacher acting as facilitator.

In a previous study, Calabrese Barton et al. (2008) used hybridity to interpret

participation of female students in the same school context of their 2009 study.

Calabrese Barton et al. (2008) found that girls in their study generated Third Spaces

through hybridization of their worlds with the world of their science classrooms. Some

girls gained authority in the classroom through role-playing scientists in their assessment

84

tasks. They also found that teachers aided the process of blending the girls’ personal

practices with school science practices by employing strategies such as learning about

the girls’ lives outside of school as well as including role-play and song writing as

legitimate activities in the science classroom.

Kamberelis (2001) studied discourse practices of elementary school students. He

developed a theoretical model called hybrid discourse practices reliant on notions of

hybridity similar to those espoused in the studies so far reviewed above. His study was a

response to the need for studies of social practices that produce, distribute and consume

discourse. According to Kamberelis:

In classrooms, hybrid discourse practice involves teachers and students

juxtaposing forms of talk, social interaction, and material practices from many

different social and cultural worlds to constitute interactional spaces that are

intertextually complex, interactionally dynamic, locally situated

accomplishments. (p. 86)

He elaborates this notion by stating that hybrid discourse practices create spaces

for students and teachers to create new identities and knowledges by fusion of

authoritative and internally persuasive discourses (Bakhtin, 1986). In Kamberelis’s

study, authoritative discourses are used to describe the teacher’s discourse as dominant

over the students. Internally persuasive discourse is discourse we own and is interwoven

with other internally persuasive discourse to make it seem like natural ways of thinking,

talking and acting. There is tension between internally persuasive and authoritative

discourse. Hybrid discourse practices exploit this tension and “…these linkages can

exert powerful and pervasive effects on developing classroom (micro)cultures and on

students' (and teachers') ongoing thinking and social practice” (p. 87).

85

Unlike the studies reported above on Third Space and hybridity, Kamberelis

(2001) provided an operationalization of hybrid discourse practices. Two categories

were created under his operationalization: 1) Social Languages, and 2) Power

Relations/Subject Positions. Social languages referred to a speaker’s projected self in

relation to the language he/she uses. A power relation referred to who gets the turn to

speak, to whom, from what perspective or in what circumstances.

Kamberelis’s research was organised around provision of empirical data to

support the theoretical model he purported and not structured around research questions.

He provided two examples of classroom discourse to substantiate his model of hybrid

discourse practices. Transcripts from two-year-long ethnographies of a 4th grade and a

5th grade class were presented as data sources. Kamberelis’s interpretation of these

transcripts in terms of supporting the hybrid practices model rested on two separate

events occurring in the two classes. The first instance of hybrid discourse practices he

describes is where a teacher involved a personal narrative during a lesson to assist

students in understanding a concept. The second instance involved two male students

enacting a science activity where they regularly drew on popular culture in their talk and

actions. In each case, Kamberelis noted a power shift during interactions from

authoritative individuals (e.g., the teacher in the first instance) to others who were not

positioned as authorities in the classroom. For example, this power shift occurred when

the classroom discourse shifted to the teacher’s personal narrative or when the two boys

used popular culture references in their interactions. In sum, his data sources

demonstrate that hybrid discourse practices existed when students or teachers insert their

personal ways of doing, being or speaking (internally persuasive discourse) into the

usual authoritative structure of regular classroom discourse.

86

While Kamberelis heavily theorized hybrid discourse practices, there was no

attempt to reformulate the model in light of empirical data. Observations were used as

confirmatory evidence that his model was represented in classrooms he observed. Thus,

it is unclear whether the model is initially purely theoretical or grounded in classroom

observation. While there were definite shifts in the power of the classroom and in the

footings appropriated by the individuals in them, his first example of the teacher

including her personal story in the authoritative literacy activity was not interpreted as

another case of teacher-directed activity. Children were able to change their roles and

ways of talking through the activity but students’ personal worlds were not directly

accessed; instead, they immersed themselves in the teacher's story. I would argue that

the models he has adopted in these hybrid discourse practices are discourse models that

are not necessarily grounded in cultural theories.

Wallace (2004) also used Third Space in developing a theoretical framework for

the study of language and literacy in science education. In her interpretation of

Bhabha’s (1994) work, Wallace (2004) described Third Space as: “… an abstraction of a

space/time location in which neither the speaker’s meaning nor the listener’s meaning is

the ‘correct’ meaning, but in which the meaning of the utterance is hopeful for either co-

construction of interpretation or new hybrid meanings” (p. 908). Wallace provided an

example of content analysis that she used to represent students working in the Third

Space. Her study looked at how 10th grade students in a United States science classroom

constructed meanings about osmosis. Written data were collected and analyzed for

evidence of students connecting their everyday language and ideas with scientific

language, practices, and ideas (science discourse). In her study, students had been

investigating the effects of vinegar on the shell of submerged eggs. Part of the text is

87

reproduced here to illustrate how utterances can be interpreted to identify Third Space:

“I think the vinegar began pickling the egg making it absorb the water. Then the syrup

caused the egg to push out the water due to the pressure of the syrup” (Wallace, 2004, p.

909). In her analysis of the text, Wallace indicated that this student’s use of

authoritative language (target-specific language) such as pressure is blended

(hybridized) with the student’s own meaning/s such as pickling and push out. This was

taken as evidence that the student has created a Third Space. Aaron’s use of the word

deformities in an utterance from my informal inquiry (Extract 3.3, section 3.2.1)

represented a similar instance. Such evidence in transcript data may indicate the

generation of Third Spaces. When applied to analogies, students may hybridize analog-

specific language (personal discourse) with target-specific language (chemical

discourse), in ways similar to the blending described by Wallace where the student’s

personal discourse was blended with science discourse.

In some of the studies reviewed, there is an underlying assumption that only

students from non-English-speaking backgrounds encounter hybridity or Third Space.

Taking a broader view of culture as I have done in my study, releases the potential to

study mainstream classrooms from a cultural perspective. That is, regardless of

ethnicity, students in mainstream science classes may encounter and experience

scientific discourse differently from their everyday, out-of-school experiences (or as

Roth, 2008b, put it, “at home away from home”). Such a view of culture foregrounds

the view of science as a discourse and can lead to theorizing hybridity in a way that is

more general than what has been used by either Gutiérrez (2008) or Mojé et al. (2001,

2004). Kamberelis (2001) and Wallace (2004) go some way further toward such a

generalized perspective of hybridity than either Gutiérrez or Mojé et al. do in their

88

studies. Greater generality of hybridity leads to the broader application of the concept to

classroom research as Mojé et al. (2004) suggest. Like Kamberelis, Gutiérrez (2008)

provides extensive theoretical development of Third Space; however, the model seems

to evolve for her in a theoretical manner with little suggestion as to how empirical data

informs this development. Finally, the perspectives of hybridity presented in Gutiérrez’s

and Mojé’s studies are based only on researcher interpretations and theoretical models,

and do not present the subjects’ perspectives on their own interactions. By working with

high-school-age students, I was able to identify these students’ views on their

interpretations of classroom exchanges, and use these views when reviewing and re-

conceptualizing theory.

Despite heavy theorising of Third Space in the initial sections of their papers, it

remained unclear to me how Gutiérrez (2008), Gutierréz et al. (1999), and Mojé et al.

(2001, 2004) modified Third Space in light of their empirical findings. This suggests

that while Third Space, as used in these educational studies, has been theoretically well

defined and conceptualized, it may remain largely a theoretical construct for which

authors have supplied supporting evidence. I take up this opportunity to further develop

our understanding of Third Space by using it as an interpretive tool, but also

reformulating it according to empirical evidence. The studies discussed so far also

provide little critique of Third Space and hybridity. In the field of postcolonial studies,

these constructs have been subjected to much criticism and debate (Mitchell, 1997) as

seen in the section 4.5.

89

4.3.4 Summary

The key ideas that can be synthesised from the literature on Third Space and

hybridity in the review undertaken here is that there has been a strong focus in these

studies on the school experiences of youth from non-dominant backgrounds. This has

included students in mainstream schools from ESL background and NESB. Gutiérrez

(2008) has repositioned her work in a Vygotskian framework with Third Space

described as a type of zo-ped. Both Mojé (e.g., Mojé et al., 2001, 2004) and Calabrese

Barton (e.g., Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2009; Calabrese Barton et al., 2008) have studied

student Discourses and funds of knowledge to understand how they can be integrated

with content knowledge in classrooms to create Third Space. Wallace (2004) used Third

Space to describe students’ literacy practices, and in particular identified it when

students blended their everyday ideas and ways of talking with scientific ways of

talking. Kamberelis (2001) operationalized hybridity, providing two categories: Power

Relations, and Social Languages. He developed the concept of hybrid discourse

practices as representing the juxtaposition of forms of talk, social interaction, and

material practices from many different social and cultural worlds to constitute

interactional spaces.

In all of these studies, despite their similarities and differences in approaches to

hybridity and Third Space, the common theme is the logic of binaries or duality that is

applied to classroom discourse and interaction. Thus, a summary position on these

works suggests that Third Space constitutes the hybridization of what we might call the

first space (teacher script/authoritative script, student Discourse, student funds of

knowledge) with the second space (student counter script, science Discourse, school

funds of knowledge). It is unclear how the research presented above categorises the

90

hybrids produced from passage through a Third Space. That is, philosophical

considerations of whether these spaces produce a synthesis of concepts or discourse (i.e.,

singularities), or whether these discourses remain separate and counter one another in a

dialogical relationship in the Bakhtinian sense (i.e., as binary opposites or dualisms). A

literature review of these philosophical considerations was conducted subsequent to this

study, and discussion of these points is presented in chapter 7.

4.5 Critiques of Hybridity in Cultural Theory

That the use of a term can be condemned because of one sort of association or

another remains problematic unless the consequences of that association can be

demonstrated to have unacceptable consequences. As hybridity appears in

several guises, it is important to look at what it achieves, what contexts its use

might obscure, and what it leaves aside. (Hutnyk, 2005, p. 83)

A number of authors offer critiques of hybridity theory (e.g., Hutnyk, 2005;

Mitchell, 1997; Moore-Gilbert, 2000; Young, 1995). An in-depth account of all of these

positions is beyond the scope of this review. I have selected works here that represent

some of the key criticisms of hybridity theory in cultural studies to construct a critique in

section 4.5.1 that can be applied to the use of hybridity in educational research. The

studies reviewed in the previous section did not offer critiques of hybridity and I suggest

that this is problematic given the debate it has evoked elsewhere.

Hybridity has a long history whose origins lie in the late 18th century (Young,

1995). Young provides a detailed account of this history and I present a summary of the

91

key points here. Early theories of hybridity have their roots in biological efforts to

classify the human race as consisting of separate species. It was posited that indigenous

Africans belonged to a separate species from white Europeans. At the time, the test for

distinct species was whether the product of sexual intercourse was fertile or infertile.

Infertile mules, for example, were regarded as evidence that horses and donkeys were

separate species. This logic was applied to humans and maintained in the face of

evidence such as the mixed-race populations of the West Indies (Young, 1995). Thus,

hybridity as a theory for conceptualising culture has been charged with racism due to

these biological origins of the idea.

Mitchell (1997) highlighted the political and economic roots of theories of

hybridity, and how these roots are ignored in postcolonial theories that champion

hybridity as subversive and in countering hegemony. For example, Mitchell discussed

how Hong Kong academics are considered to be residing in a Third Space where they

can subvert hegemonies of nationalism and native purity through use of Chinglish, the

hybrid of Chinese and English languages. She argues:

Language is theorized here as a product of colonialism and capitalism, one that

allows for an in-between subject positioning that may resist national narratives of

authenticity and purity. Yet, there is no conceptualization of how language may

also be productive of spaces of colonialism and/or capitalism. (Mitchell, 1997, p.

538)

Through this example, Mitchell highlights that in Hong Kong, English is used for

capital gain as it becomes at tool for trade. This renders the Third Space (e.g., as

produced in Chinglish) to a space for capital accumulation not simply a place where

dominant culture is questioned and made problematic as it is in Bhabha’s (1994) work.

92

Mitchell’s argument of the productive nature of hybridity towards a colonial or

capitalist agenda is pertinent to the critique of educational studies adopting hybridity and

Third Space as theoretical lenses. The hybrid practices that allow discourses that

counter the official classroom script can also act to normalize the dominant curriculum

through the process of translation afforded by the inclusion of student practices and

languages in classrooms. As such, the hybrid practices cease to subvert the hegemony

represented in the school curriculum and normalize it in the eyes of students who are

perhaps too young to adopt a critical discourse required to challenge that hegemony.

Kraidy (2002) reviewed works that argue a similar point to Mitchell. That is,

that hybridity can serve as a dominating force, and celebrating hybridity as cultural

mixing can “gloss over” political power relations that exist in cross-cultural encounters.

Thus, hybridity might suggest an equal mixing of cultures to produce a hybridized

culture, but as Kraidy contends, mixing of culture is politicised and therefore unequal.

The point to take from Mitchell and Kraidy is that hybridity offers dual possibilities, one

is the possibility to act in countering cultural hegemony and the other is to produce or

reproduce this hegemony.

Another critique of hybridity is that the notion assumes a past where cultures

were pure (Hutnyk, 2005; Werbner, 2001). This argument follows logic whereby two

different, separate cultures hybridize into a singular, hybrid culture. However, a

conundrum develops here as, if hybridity produces new culture, then the original

cultures assumed in the model must also have been hybrid and thereby the theory denies

itself of the very concepts it seeks to counter (i.e., the claim that pure cultures once

existed as represented by historical accounts of culture). This limits the usefulness of

the theory in analysing the past, and in future, the theory renders itself useless if

93

different ethnicities are understood as singular hybrids (Werbner, 2001). In its place,

Werbner offers a view of culture as porous, constantly changing and borrowing.

4.5.1 Translating Critiques of Hybridity to Educational Research

In cultural theory, hybridity has been challenged for representing racist notions

of pure cultures in the past (Young, 1995). On a philosophical level, Bhabha’s (1994)

hybridity was challenged as not being able to transcend the binary opposites or duality

that constitute the very notion of his hybrid (e.g., Werbner, 2001). That is, his theory is

reliant on binaries such as colonizer and colonized for hybrids to exist, but when

hybridity theory is turned on itself, it implies that colonizer and colonized cannot be

pure, singular entities, but hybrids themselves. Kraidy (2005) made salient the point that

hybridity not only challenges hegemony but also can be reproductive of dominant

cultural discourses by normalizing dominant cultures. I believe that there are serious

implications for these indictments on hybridity, and therefore Third Space, for

conceptualizing and reviewing their use in educational research. In this section, I

consider some of the studies presented in the review on Third Space in educational

research presented earlier to suggest ways with which to revise and revisit the use of

hybridity and Third Space in educational research in light of the critiques presented so

far. In chapter 7, I will turn this lens to my study and offer suggestion for future

considerations of the use of hybridity theory in educational research.

Turning to the educational research that has used both hybridity and Third Space

to interpret classroom interactions, there are three considerations to make. The first is

the use of these concepts as un-problematic theory. Third Space and hybridity have

been applied in educational research as analytical tools, however, these models remain

94

unquestioned in terms of their origins in cultural theory. As seen in the history of

hybridity presented by Young (1995), the concept bears some undesirable links to racist

views of culture. The link between hybridity and these early origins of the concept

suggest that perhaps a different way of describing classrooms is more desirable. I offer

the concept of Merged Discourse as an alternative in chapter 7.

The second point is based on Kraidy’s (2005) critique of hybridity as a

normalizing force. Under this view, science education could be interpreted as the

colonization of student views by scientific views. The Eurocentric nature of scientific

views implies that this colonization perpetuates the colonial agenda. While, for

example, Mojé (e.g., Mojé et al. 2001, 2004) and Gutiérrez (e.g., Gutiérrez et al., 1995;

Gutiérrez et al., 1999) have identified classroom situations where hybridity and Third

Space exist, their discussions do not consider how these spaces can normalize scientific

discourse and potentially replace students’ personal discourses. Critiques of the models

were not presented, so they appear as unproblematic in these studies.

Notions of Third Space in science education that refer to Bhabha’s (1994) work

must also be cognizant of the underlying assumption he makes that Third Space allows

one to escape the hegemony generated by views of pure cultures and attempts by

Westerners to enculturate the colonized. Thus, when researchers offer Third Space as a

model for describing desirable classroom environments, then they must accept the

counter-hegemonic ideals it carries. Applied to the science classroom, this perspective

could be interpreted as setting student views and personal discourses against scientific

discourse, challenging its authority. This leads to the question of whether science

educators consider this as a desirable option for science education.

95

The third point of critique I offer lies with adopting Bhabha’s (1994) hybridity

and Third Space as a theoretical model and simultaneously developing categories such

as personal discourse and science discourse or teacher script and school script. In

revising Bhabha’s concepts, I have recently concluded that his model would not

recognize discreet categories (i.e., personal discourse/science discourse) as I have used

in this study and as Gutierréz (2008) and Mojé et al. (2001, 2004) have done in theirs.

In Bhabha’s terms, personal discourse and science discourse are interpreted as plural

concepts with no claim to purity and singularity and thus cannot be represented as

discreet categories. This leads to the conundrum of Bhabha’s hybrid ontology in studies

that interpret classrooms from perspectives that recognize the existence of different

cultures and discourses.

I attempted to address these critiques in my study by first presenting an

operationalization of Third Space through the theoretical developments presented in this

chapter. Secondly, I conducted an empirical investigation of student discourse in my

classroom and used the results of my study to inform the re-conceptualization of my

theoretical model (see chapter 7). Thirdly, in the discussion (chapter 7) I apply the

critiques of Third Space and hybridity to this study.

4.6 Operationalizing Third Space

A synthesis of the ideas presented in the literature review on hybridity and Third

Space indicates that such space can be theorized as an abstraction where meaning is

fluid. Such spaces also rely on some form of binary system or duality such as

colonizer/colonized, self/other, and official script/counter script. In all of the

formulations above, Third Space is only possible if one imagines the existence of these

96

other spaces, first and second spaces or teacher script and student script. When these

spaces (teacher script/student script) pass through a Third Space, a hybrid space results

in which meaning becomes fluid and the claim to purity of cultures and discourse of

origin is dissolved and replaced by the view that all culture and discourse is hybrid.

Applying this theory to science education requires the cultural perspective and

sociocultural framework of study as I developed it in section 4.4. Discourse theory

allows us to interpret any situated activity as a shared set of values, ways of doing, and

speaking that constitute an activity as different from others and in socially bound

contexts.

Chemistry is interpreted as both discourse and culture through application of this

logic. It is understood that chemical discourse exists within the general framework of

scientific discourse. Doing so presents chemistry as different from other ways of doing

that may be more familiar to students such as family and personal discourses, this

establishes hegemony in the classroom where the researcher can interpret the authority

of teacher and science discourse as authoritative. My early teaching experiences

described in chapter 3 (in particular a comment made by one student regarding the

difference in language use when I used chemical terminology and my analogy), brought

to my awareness the possible power difference that can be established between student

and teacher when one discourse prevails in classroom interaction. I came to understand

these power differences from my students’ points of view as generating a learning

barrier that I later came to view as a discourse gap between their personal discourses and

the classroom chemical discourse. Third Space can be thought of as disrupting this view

by demonstrating that when students engage in chemical discourse, their ideas are not

merely colonized by it but rather their personal discourse hybridizes with chemical

97

discourse to produce situated meaning by passage through a Third Space. Below I

elaborate how this view can be expanded into a research framework for investigating the

role analogy might play in establishing Third Space in chemistry classrooms.

By focussing on discourses (defined as situated practices of a community)

produced within broader cultural frames (e.g., chemistry culture), I applied Bhabha’s

(1994) Third Space to the interpretation of my chemistry classroom. In the chemistry

classroom, chemical discourse is seen as dominant and homogenizing if it is used to

replace the ideas, languages and practices of students. It can be seen to colonize student

views ultimately replacing them with correct chemical concepts. However, when the

students’ agency is considered in the learning process, then the process can be

understood through the concepts of hybridity and Third Space. That is, as students pass

through a Third Space where their personal discourses enter a dialogue with chemical

discourse, new hybrid understandings are generated that contain traces of the original

discourses. This act of hybridization not only challenges the idea that students’

discourses can be colonized with chemical (or other) discourses, but also questions the

very nature of the original discourses as pure. From this perspective, chemical discourse

is not accepted as a unitary system or pure culture but as a hybrid itself. Rather than

interpreting student discourse as standing in opposition to chemical discourse, and thus

generating an understanding of chemical discourse, the act of translation that occurs by

passing through a Third Space is desirable as it confers the opportunity for new

understandings to be made.

Lemke (2004) recognized this point when he explained the multiple literacies of

science as follows:

98

The texts [discourses] of science are not written in any natural language studied

by linguists. They are written in as much of this hybrid meaning-making system

as can be presented on paper or animated on a computer screen. (pp. 33-34)

The hybrid he refers to is comprised of the natural language in the linguistic

sense, extended by mathematical symbols and conventions of interpretation,

contextualised by visual interpretations, embedded in language of meaningful,

specialized actions afforded by the technological environments in which science is done

(Lemke, 2004). Having set the theoretical framework and context of my model, I

present my operationalization of Third Space that informed the analysis employed in my

study as a teacher researcher.

4.6.1 Two Sub-Constructs of Third Space

Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourses were developed from results of

the informal inquiry (chapter 3) as analytical categories for interpretation of student

interactions and utterances. These categories provided a basis for the identification of

Third Space. Dialogical Interactions represented students’ integration of the ideas

and/or language of their group members into their own utterances as in Ritchie and

Tobin’s (2001) study. This followed Wertsch and Toma’s (1995; see section 4.2.1)

distinction between dialogical function and univocal function of language (dialogical is

used differently here from its use in the discussion of Bakhtin’s dialogic hybrids in

section 4.3.1.1). Briefly, Dialogical Interaction refers to the utterances of one speaker

where they adopt the ideas of another speaker. Univocal function referred to transfer of

99

information. The Hybrid Discourse category was based on Bhabha’s (1994) description

of the hybridization of two people’s meanings and cultures during social interactions.

4.7 Conceptualizing Hybrid Discourse

4.7.1 Personal Discourse

A sociocultural view of learning places emphasis on the context through which

socially mediated action is generated (Wertsch & Toma, 1995). Hypothetically, if

students choose analog concepts from personal discourses, the hybridization of discourse

in their utterances could represent the hybridization of personal discourse with chemical

discourse.

I define personal discourses as social habits and languages, symbols, and

practices (Lemke, 1995) that are part of students’ lives outside of the school discipline

(chemistry) that they study. Indicators of personal discourse include occurrences of

words, expressions, phrases, and practices that may be part of the students’ cultures

(e.g., in their hobbies or part-time jobs) outside the chemistry context.

Gutiérrez et al. (1999) refer to a second space or counter-script where students

deliberately resist the teacher’s first space or official script. The operationalization of

Third Space presented in the previous sections departs from Gutiérrez et al.’s

formulation. In contrast to findings reported by Gutiérrez et al., students did not appear

to resist the chemical discourse or concepts in the transcript presented in section 3.2 of

the informal inquiry. Students in this study provided clear evidence of applying the

target concept of ratios in chemical reactions when writing their analogies. The personal

discourse sub-construct does not necessarily represent the student countering the

chemical discourse or the teacher’s (my) script. Rather, the focus of analysis is on

100

whether the personal discourse is hybridized with the chemical discourse to generate

Third Space.

If students are constructing Third Spaces, then transcript data should contain

evidence of students hybridizing their personal discourses with chemical discourses in

their interactions, as reported in section 3.2.1 where hybrid language and practices (e.g.,

formula for a cow) were described.

4.7.2 Chemical Discourse

This aspect of Hybrid Discourse represents formal concepts, skills, languages,

symbols and practices (Lemke, 1995) relating to the discipline of chemistry. The

formulation of Third Space by Gutiérrez et al. (1999) referred to the first space, or

official-script, of the teacher being at odds with the students’ script. The chemical

discourse sub-construct presented in my study is broader than Gutiérrez et al’s first

space as it covers instances where students generate Third Spaces through social

interactions with other students, not just the teacher. In addition, my formulation does

not emerge from a notion of conflict as do Gutiérrez et al.’s first (teacher script) and

second spaces (students’ counter scripts). Using the terminology of analogies

established in the literature review (chapter 2), chemical discourse is characterised by

target-specific language, concepts, symbols and practices that relate to the target, or

chemical, concept. The extent to which students hybridize their personal discourses and

chemical discourses through their utterances can be used to determine whether Third

Spaces are being generated during classroom interactions. Wallace (2004) provided an

example of how students hybridized their personal languages with scientific discourses,

101

as seen in section 4.3.3. It is expected that during interactions where students do not

generate hybrid discourses, Third Space will be non-existent.

4.8 Conceptualizing Dialogical Interactions

If students create Third Spaces, then their interactions should contain evidence of

dialogical interactions rather than univocal ones (cf. Wertsch & Toma, 1995). Note that

the uppercase, Dialogical Interactions, denotes the sub-construct of Third Space

developed in the informal inquiry. During Dialogical Interactions, students use the ideas

(concepts, phrases, words) of others in their own utterances (sentences, fragments of

sentences). Evidence was found in section 3.2 of students using the language and/or

ideas of others in their utterances indicating that Dialogical Interactions took place.

Ritchie and Tobin (2001) studied the discursive practices of students while

engaged in classroom activities to determine the extent to which students’ ideas were

transformed through their interactions with peers and their teacher. Transcripts of

student-student interactions were analyzed for evidence of students engaging in

dialogical interactions. To illustrate, the following example was taken from their study:

“I said marshmallows and she (referring to Edith) said peanuts” (Ritchie & Tobin, 2001,

p. 293). Here the speaker incorporated the ideas of others (Edith) into her utterance

(“she said…”). This example was one of the few pieces of evidence these researchers

found of Dialogical Interactions.

It was proposed in section 3.2.1 that Dialogical Interactions might be indicators

of Third Space generation during social interactions. Ritchie and Tobin’s (2001) study

offered a means of identifying Dialogical Interactions in transcript data that could form

the basis for future discourse analysis.

102

4.8.1 Summary

Given that there are two sub-constructs for Third Space, Dialogical Interactions

and Hybrid Discourse, then the question arises as to what conditions are necessary to

determine that Third Spaces have been generated. Since each sub-construct (Dialogical

Interactions, Hybrid Discourse) is representative of Third Space then it is not necessary

that both be witnessed in order to claim that students generated a Third Space

successfully. In the case of Hybrid Discourse, there must be evidence that students are

hybridising their Personal Discourses with Chemical Discourses. However, I anticipate

that both sub-constructs, Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourses, will be evident

within the same interactions when creating a Third Space.

4.9 Analogy and Third Space

A key point arising from literature reviewed in chapter 2 on analogies was that

analogies could serve as tools for bridging student concepts, and therefore language and

discourse, to scientific concepts and discourse. Lemke (1990) suggested teachers must

bridge student colloquialisms with scientific language; analogy may provide one avenue

to achieve this end. In addition, Lemke suggested students should be involved in

activities where they translate their own colloquialisms to science language and vice

versa. Such activities are likely to foster engagement with scientific discourse. Review

of the literature on analogy use and outcomes of the informal inquiry discussed in

chapter 3, indicated analogies might change classroom discourse into Dialogical

Interactions rather than univocal ones. If teachers use analogy to discuss mappings with

students and encourage students to discuss them amongst themselves, Dialogical

103

Interaction may be achieved. In addition, analogies have potential to help students

bridge their personal discourse and school chemistry discourse.

Analogy involves the mappings of an analog concept to a target concept.

Therefore, the very act of analogizing involves the translation of concepts and language

of the analog concept to the target concept. It is suggested then that observations of

interactions between students when writing analogies provides the ground from which a

study into translations of student colloquialisms or everyday language (Lemke, 1990)

may be conducted. The Third Space construct offers the tool with which such student

exchanges can be interpreted from that which is consistent with a sociocultural

framework due to its origins in cultural theory and the focus on fluidity of meanings.

Research on analogy provided insight into the cognitive mechanisms that are

presumed to take place when individuals interpret and use analogies as represented by

Gentner’s (1983) structure mapping theory that assumed that attributes and relations in

the analog concept were mapped onto the target concept. This cognitive perspective

provides necessary information about the possible intellectual processes that allow us to

generate and make sense of analogy. What this research does not provide is an

understanding of how the meaning of analogy is negotiated in real social settings such as

when analogy is used for instruction. A sociocultural perspective on analogies focuses

research on the discursive mechanism of interactions and the contextual resources used

to generate interactions. This perspective offers further insights into the way in which

analogy is used in real classroom settings and how participants, through social

interaction, negotiate the meanings of analogies. Furthermore, few studies on analogy

have adopted sociocultural perspectives on learning. For this purpose, I argue the need to

turn to cultural theories that focus on the contexts for interactions rather than just the

104

isolated products of an interaction. Theorizing sociocultural research using cultural

models is likely to yield different perspectives on learning with analogy that highlight

the role of social interaction and socially mediated meaning making.

4.10 Implications for the Study

4.10.1 Theoretical Implications

The literature review presented in this chapter developed the sociocultural

perspective used to develop the tentative model of Third Space that consists of

Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourse. This study offers an approach to

sociocultural research of science classrooms based on cultural theory (i.e., hybridity and

Third Space). Theorizing Hybrid Discourse from sociocultural theory led to identifying

the personal discourse and chemical discourse categories that comprise it. Both personal

discourse and chemical discourse are understood as discrete situated practices that

hybridize when students pass through a Third Space of interaction. This can be

identified through analysing utterances that serve to perform analogical activities, thus

providing a view of mediated action.

Sociocultural theory also informed development of Dialogical Interactions.

Dialogical Interactions are those where a speaker uses the ideas of another to develop

new understanding, thus as thinking tools. These interactions are contrasted with

univocal interactions where speakers simply convey information.

4.10.2 Methodological Implications

Employing a sociocultural perspective to analyse student interactions during

analogical activities requires that the researcher focus on social interaction and meaning

105

making as well as personal aspects of learning. From this perspective, it is essential to

collect information about the contexts in which social interactions take place as these

contexts afford different kinds of activity and interaction. Analysing student

conversations is necessary but not sufficient for the study of social interaction from a

sociocultural perspective. These concepts influenced the data collection methods and

the study design in two ways. First, two student focus groups were selected for the

teacher-research study to increase the number of social interactions being observed.

Second, a range of data sources (observations, recordings, interviews, questionnaires)

were used to develop thick descriptions of student interactions that were likely to capture

a number of aspects of the context for these interactions.

4.11 Chapter Summary

This chapter defined the use of discourse and situated my study within a

sociocultural framework. The chapter also reviewed studies that have used Third Space

and hybridity as tools for interpreting classroom interactions in primary and secondary

science classrooms. This review indicated that more studies are needed in secondary

content areas (e.g., chemistry) that adopt Third Space as a theoretical lens. A critique of

Third Space and hybridity theory was constructed from cultural theories that can be

applied to studies like mine. In light of the review of Third Space and hybridity and the

informal inquiry in chapter 3, an operationalization of these theoretical models was

offered. In the next chapter, I outline the study design, illustrating how the

operationalization of Third Space was used in this study to investigate student discourse

based on analogical activities.

106

CHAPTER 5

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

5.0 Overview of the Study

In broad terms, this study is situated within a qualitative framework. Denzin and

Lincoln (2005) note that qualitative research covers a “…complex, interconnected

family of terms, concepts and assumptions…” (p. 2). Within this broad framework, the

study is a teacher-researcher study with case study design. In chapter 1, I elaborated the

teacher research nature of this study. Briefly, teacher research, in the context of this

study, was defined as formal educational research conducted by classroom practitioners

(Richardson, 2004). Formal research seeks to contribute to the research literature and

generate new knowledge and understandings. In this study, I investigated the

applicability of the Hybrid Discourse and Dialogical Interactions sub-constructs

developed for Third Space (section 4.7) as viable interpretive tools for investigating

classroom discourse from a sociocultural perspective using a case study design (Stake,

1995, 2000, 2005). Thus, the key focus was testing and modifying this theoretical

model while practical implications played a minor role. A sociocultural perspective

focuses on both the context for social interactions and the mediational tools (e.g.,

language, signs, symbols, practices) employed to enact culturally situated activities.

Culture is understood as the ritual practices of a group or community in this context, not

as ethnicity.

The contextual resources that informed this study were presented in chapters 2

and 3. These resources or referents included a review of research literature on use of

analogies in science education and an informal study I conducted as a beginning teacher

on the efficacy of my instructional analogies. The literature review indicated there were

107

few studies that investigated classroom use of analogy from a sociocultural perspective,

while results of the informal study suggested that students engaged in Hybrid Discourses

and Dialogical Interactions when writing post-festum analogies (i.e., analogies written

after having studied the target concept).

This study, like the informal inquiry, employed an instrumental case study design

(Stake, 2005; section 5.1) of student interactions in my Year 11 chemistry class.

Specifically, I investigated the interactions of two focus groups (Fergie’s group and

Trev’s group, see section 5.1.1) in my Year 11 chemistry class at City State High School

over a period of one school semester (17 weeks; see section 5.3.2) in the second half of

the 2006 school year. The two focus groups became case studies with individuals within

the groups providing cases within cases (Stake, 2005). Details of the context for the

study, group size and school are provided in section 5.2.1. Comparisons between study-

groups and control-groups were not made and thus the study design is different from

quantitative studies that adopt such designs. The chapter begins with a discussion of the

case study design in section 5.1. Section 5.2 presents the context for the study; this is

followed by the design of the study in section 5.3. Data analysis techniques are

described in section 5.4 and the quality criteria adopted in the study are reported in

section 5.5.

5.1 The Case Study Design

For the qualitative research community, case study concentrates on experiential

knowledge of the case and close attention to the influence of its social, political

and other contexts. (Stake, 2005, p. 444)

108

Case study research is a common approach of inquiry in science education (e.g.,

Harrison & De Jong, 2005; Harrison & Treagust, 2000, 2001; Ritchie, Rigano, & Duane,

2008; Roth, 2007; Seiler, Tobin, & Sokolic, 2001; Taber, 2008; Treagust, Jacobowitz,

Gallagher, & Parker, 2001). For example, Harrison and De Jong (2005) used a case

study design to study multiple-analogy use by a chemistry teacher. The case study

approach is common to many research disciplines in the social sciences and, as such,

there is no consensus on a definition of case or case study (Stake, 2005). This has led

numerous authors to develop typologies for case-study research (e.g., Bassey, 1999;

Eisenhardt, 1989; Levy, 2008; Stake, 2003, 2005; Yin, 2003). While Yin (2003) has

provided seminal works on case study designs, his model is based on scientific modes of

inquiry that do not reflect the qualitative nature of my study. Instead, this study was

informed by Stake’s (1995, 2000, 2005) qualitative case study and instrumental case

study designs and Bassey’s (1999) model of theory-building and theory-testing case

study research.

Stake (2003) categorised case study research-designs into three categories: 1)

Intrinsic, 2) Instrumental, and 3) Collective. Both intrinsic and instrumental case studies

can contribute to theory building. Collective case study involves use of a number of

cases in order to investigate a phenomenon, population or some general condition.

Instrumental case studies focus on the interests of the researcher and the case plays a

supportive role in this respect. Choice of cases is based on the belief that they will lead

to better theorising about a larger set of cases. According to Stake (1995), instrumental

case study is used when the particular cases are instrumental to understanding something

else (the phenomenon). In my study I adopted an instrumental case study design

because I sought to understand better the social interactions and discourses that were

109

generated in my classroom during analogy writing activities and to use data sources as

an empirical test for supporting or modifying the Third Space model.

In Bassey’s (1999) typology of educational case studies, three categories are

presented: a) theory-seeking and theory-testing, b) story-telling and picture-drawing case

study, and c) evaluative case study. According to Bassey, the first of these categories

can lead to generation of fuzzy generalizations.

Fourali (1997) contends that fuzzy logic (FL) can be used to deal with

characteristics/properties of individual cases. He contrasts FL to statistical methods that

cannot provide general information about singular cases. Under these premises, Bassey

(2001) sets out to describe the conditions under which theory-seeking and theory-testing

case studies produce FL. He differentiates FL from scientific generalizations as follows;

“scientific generalization is expressed in the form: particular events do lead to

particular consequences; while the fuzzy generalization is expressed in the form:

particular events may lead to particular consequences” (emphasis original, Bassey,

2001, pp. 5-6).

We can distil from this statement that the nature of fuzzy logic is not to generate

binary true/untrue statements, but statements that apply generally with natural degrees of

uncertainty experienced in real world contexts such as classrooms. Bassey argues that

research is only case study when it is conducted in depth in natural settings. Therefore,

both Bassey and Stake (2005) agree that case studies can be used to refine theory.

Despite the benefits of case study for providing in-depth accounts of the cases

and the possibility of using these accounts to refine theory, there are also limitations to

case study research.

110

Gerring (2002, 2004) describes the major criticism of case study research being

in relation to its use in studies of causal relations. The arguments rest on the premise

that establishing causal relations requires large samples. Given that case studies focus

on small sample sizes, Gerring (2002) notes that the object is to study the case in depth

rather than breadth and as such, correlations and causality can be developed within

cases. However, these relations cannot be generalized beyond the cases studied to larger

populations (Gerring, 2002).

In this study, the case study design was used to refine the Third Space model and

to develop a fuzzy logic rather than broad generalizations aimed at answering Why?

questions applicable to large populations. Despite this, as Stake (1995, 2005) suggests,

the case study approach does not limit the use of cases in understanding larger groups.

5.1.1 Selecting Cases

A key feature of case study research is the selection of cases. In Stake’s (1995,

2000, 2005) typology, the method of case selection differs according to the research

design. According to Stake (2005), “for qualitative fieldwork, we draw a purposive

sample, building in variety and acknowledging opportunities for intensive study” (p.

451). For the purposes of instrumental case studies, the case must be chosen such that it

represents the phenomenon of study and allows one to redraw generalizations (Stake,

2000). In this study, the phenomena of interest were the generation of Hybrid

Discourses and Dialogical interactions during classroom activities. Thus, selection of

focus groups (the cases) for investigation was based on the opportunity to learn from

these cases and more specifically, to explore the classroom interactions of the case

students. This required the choice of students who participated in classroom activities

111

and engaged with group members in meaningful exchanges aimed at completing their

classroom tasks. To this end, I observed the students in the first semester of 2006 before

inviting two student focus groups (Fergie’s group and Trev’s group, see Table 5.1) to

participate in the study. These groups were invited to participate because they were

observed to engage with lesson activities during Semester 1 of the year. These groups

were likely to produce the kinds of data required for this study. In addition, the two

focus groups consisted of nine students whose achievement on chemistry assessment

within the school was representative of a range of grades (the highest level being A and

lowest level being E). Thus, the focus groups were representative in terms of

achievement levels in chemistry at this school. Such broader sampling strengthens the

ability to modify the Third Space model.

While the object of the study was not to abstract the findings beyond my

classroom, a degree of generalizability within the classroom was possible through use of

multiple data collection techniques (such as classroom observations, lesson recordings,

questionnaires, interviews, see section 5.3.5) administered to the whole class and

individuals outside not belonging to the focus groups selected for the study.

Use of multiple techniques for data collection is consistent with the triangulation

of data suggested by Stake (2000, 2005). Stake (2005) defined triangulation as “…a

process of using multiple perceptions to clarify meaning, verifying the repeatability of

an observation or interpretation” (p. 454).

112

Table 5.1

Composition of Focus Groups

Group Name Number of

students Males Females Pseudonyms

Fergie’s Group 5 1 4 Fergie Garima

Liz Pete Sara

Trev’s Group 4 2 2 Louise Trev

Ana Ned

Another significant aspect of cases is that they represent bounded entities.

According to Stake (1993), not everything counts as a case. The context for this study

develops the boundedness of the cases (focus groups) that were studied. That is, the

cases were specific to the study school, my chemistry classroom and my instructional

strategies.

5.2 Context for the Study

The aims of this study were:

To investigate sociocultural aspects of learning when students construct

analogies for chemical concepts,

To identify classroom activities where students generate Dialogical Interactions

and Hybrid Discourses, and

To refine the operationalization of Third Space.

113

5.2.1 Classroom Context

One of the goals of sociocultural studies is to understand and emphasize the

context in which a study takes place (Rogoff, 2003). The context provides insights into

the practices of the community being studied. Some contextual factors of the school and

my teaching in my beginning years were presented in chapters 2 and 3. These have not

been repeated here. This section presents only the context for the study I conducted

more formally in my fifth year of teaching.

In 2006, at the time of this study, I was teaching three chemistry classes. Two

were Year 12 chemistry classes (final year of school) and one was the Year 11 class in

which the study was undertaken. It was my fifth year of teaching in City State High

School when the data collection phase of the study began, and I had taught chemistry

there since beginning teaching in 2002. There were five lessons, each of 40 minutes

duration, scheduled for Year 11 chemistry per week. The school was entering the third

year of involvement in an extended trial-pilot of a new chemistry syllabus in this time

(see King, Bellocchi, & Ritchie, 2008). This new syllabus had a contextual basis as

opposed to the concept-to-problems approach of the previous syllabus. The context

approach was interpreted in this school as the study of chemical concepts within societal

contexts such as the Chemistry of Drugs and the Chemistry of the Pandora Shipwreck.

Essentially, the Year 11 chemistry program covered basic chemical concepts, such as

writing formulas and names of chemical compounds, the relationship between physical

and chemical properties and understanding their structure and bonding, in the first

semester of the school year, moving on to the more mathematical aspects, such as

stoichiometry (the amounts involved in reactions), in the second semester. I had been

114

using a range of instructional analogies, both pre-planned analogies, such as the ham

sandwich analogy (chapter 3), and spontaneous analogies since my first year of teaching.

There was one instructional difference in this study compared to the informal

inquiry, which was the introduction of an analogical role-play activity as part of the new

contextual course within the Chemistry of Drugs unit. This unit focussed on organic

chemistry and involved the study of names of formulae and reactions of organic

compounds. Thus, students wrote two analogies during this study. The first analogy

was a role-play regarding nerve signalling in the brain and the second was a

stoichiometry analogy. Students were presented with a teacher role-play before

developing their own. Role-plays used to explain scientific concepts are analogical in

nature (Aubusson & Fogwill, 2006).

5.2.1.1 The student task: an analogical role-play for nerve-signalling and the

stoichiometry analogy.

In this study, the first analogical task students engaged in was the preparation of

a role-play to represent nerve signalling in the brain. Students had observed a role-play I

used for instruction and thus were familiar with the concept of analogical role-play as

requiring people to enact chemicals and chemical processes. The student task

specifically involved the representation of the role played by ions (positively and

negatively charged atoms) and neurotransmitter chemicals (chemical messengers) in

generating and ceasing nerve-signals in the brain. Students had studied the process of

nerve signalling at this level, thus the role-play was a post-festum analogy (that is, one

prepared after the study of the target concept). Students worked in friendship groups in

one lesson to prepare their role-plays and then presented them to the whole class in a

115

subsequent lesson. This activity took place in the first half of the Second Semester (10th-

11th August).

In the second half of Second Semester (19th-26th October; see section 5.3.2), I

presented the ham sandwich analogy (see chapter 3) and, as reported for the informal

inquiry (see section 3.1.2), students generated and presented their own post-festum

analogies for stoichiometry. In the first of a three-lesson sequence, I used a real

sandwich in my instruction to present the analogy. This was followed by a segment

where I questioned students about proportionality and ratio in the analogy, which in turn

led to students solving a set of ratio and proportion problems with paper and pencil. As

in the informal inquiry, this lesson was followed by an analysis of the limitations of the

analog as a model for the target concept. Students were then shown sample calculations

with chemical equations before engaging in some mathematical problem solving from

worksheets in the second lesson of the sequence. In the third lesson, students generated

their own post-festum analogies for stoichiometry in the stoichiometry-analogy activity

and then shared them with the class.

5.2.2 Access and Ethics

Ethics guidelines provided by the Queensland University of Technology and

Queensland Department of Education were consulted before commencing the study.

Being both teacher and researcher posed issues of “power-over” relationships with

students (Roth, 2007). Power-over refers to the researcher’s power over the students due

to my dual role as teacher. “The nature of such relationships is thought to mediate the

potential research participant’s ability to give free and uncoerced consent” (Roth, 2007,

p. 6). To ensure that any effects of this nature did not influence student participation in

116

this study, an information letter was provided to students, parents and the principal

outlining the nature of the research (Appendix A). Briefly, the documents provided

parents and students with information relating to the purpose of the study, issues of

observation and reporting, and the limits of access to participants (Stake, 2005).

Christians (2005) provided four guidelines for the ethical conduct of qualitative

research: 1) informed consent, 2) (lack of) deception, 3) privacy and confidentiality, and

4) accuracy.

Permission to conduct the research from the school principal, and informed-

consent was obtained from students and parents (Christians, 2005) to participate in the

study in the First Semester of the school year (between January and June, 2006).

Participants in this study had the freedom of voluntary participation and could withdraw

from the study at any time, thus the study met requirements of informed-consent. There

were no concerns regarding deception in this study as the aims were disclosed to the

school, students and parents in the information packages. In addition, the student-

participant nature of the study meant that students were engaged in generating data-

sources so they had the opportunity to review transcripts of their interactions and clarify

their roles and positions within these during interviews (see section 5.3.5).

Contact details for the researcher, university supervisors, the university ethics

board and the principal were provided on information sheets in the event that parents or

students wished to express concerns regarding the study or the researcher’s conduct. No

parent or student pursued these options. Information letters also detailed the perceived

benefits of the study for participants and outlined the data collection methods.

Participants were guaranteed anonymity in any publication of research findings in the

thesis or otherwise ensuring their privacy and confidentiality.

117

All materials and data sources gathered were kept in secure storage accessible

only to me. Thus, this study meets the privacy and confidentiality ethics criteria set out

by Christians (2005).

An equivalent of the accuracy criterion of Christians’s ethics model was met

through adhering to quality criteria for qualitative research as discussed in section 5.5.

Qualitative criteria are better suited to my study because Christians’s accuracy criteria

reflect positivist research frameworks and thus did not bear direct relevance to this

qualitative study.

5.3 Design of the Study

5.3.1 Units of Analysis

In this study, I adopted a number of units of analysis consistent with the

sociocultural research framework developed in 4.2 (chapter 4). Briefly, in chapter 4,

discourse was defined as a situated activity for making meaning as results of

participation in a community of practice (Lemke, 1995). Learning is regarded as

growing participation in the discourse of a community from a sociocultural perspective.

In this study, I adopt the utterance as the basic unit of analysis, and I regard

utterances as reflecting the interaction between different discourses that participants

bring to bear when they enact an activity. Utterances refer to speech turns that are

bounded by the turns of other speakers (Bakhtin, 1986). Within the utterances, further

units of analysis identified were dialogical and univocal interactions (Wertsch & Toma,

1995). In classroom discourses, when dialogic function is dominant students will treat

their utterances and those of others as thinking devices, and take an active stance toward

118

questioning and extending them by incorporating them in their own external (spoken)

and internal utterances (Buty, Mortimer, & Tiberghien, 2005).

Mediated action was also used as a unit of analysis in this study (Wertsch, 1995;

Wertsch & Toma, 1995). Mediated action emphasises the actor and the tools (e.g.,

linguistic, symbolic, utterances or materials) as units of analysis (Wertsch, 1995;

Wertsch & Toma, 1995).

5.3.2 Data Collection

The study was conducted in the Second Semester of the school year between July

and November 2006. As shown in Tables 5.2 and 5.3, the study consisted of two phases

for data collection. Phase 1 (Table 5.2) took place in Term 3 (11th July- 22nd September)

while Phase 2 (Table 5.3) took place in Term 4 (10th October- 30th November). During

Phase 1, the class was studying a topic called “The Chemistry of Drugs” centred on

organic chemistry concepts. The context studied during Phase 2 was called “The

Chemistry of Fires and Explosions”, and was based on the concept of stoichiometry.

Focus group interactions were recorded for every lesson in Terms 3 and 4 of the school

year. Thus, audio recordings for 78, 40-minute lessons were gathered with four MP3

recorders (two for each focus group). This constituted a total of 208 hours of recorded

material for lesson activities.

Included in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 is the stimulated recall interview protocol. Three

rounds of interviews were conducted with focus groups and other individual students.

These interviews were conducted after the two questionnaires had been administered.

The first questionnaire was administered after the role-play activity in Phase 2, Part 2

while the second questionnaire was administered in Phase 2, Part 3.

119

Table 5.2

Design of the Study: Phase 1

Phase

1 Topic Number Activity

Part 1 1: Organic

chemistry

Focus Groups recruited in Semester 1 January-June.

Classroom activities-Answering questions on organic chemistry,

working on practical-laboratory activities

Gathering of baseline data in student interactions

Recording of student interactions during classroom activities

17, 40 minute lessons

Part 2 2: Organic

chemistry

Presentation of my role-play, 1 lesson

Classroom activities- Writing of student role-plays. Two 40-minute

lessons

Conduct Stimulated Recall Interviews (Round 1) with members of

focus groups who generate Third Spaces

Part 3 3: Organic

chemistry

Classroom activities- Answering questions on organic chemistry,

working on practical-laboratory activities

Record student interactions during classroom activities

25, 40 minute lessons

120

Table 5.3

Design of the Study: Phase 2

Phase

2 Topic Number Activity

Part 1 4:

Stoichiometry

Classroom activities- Answering questions on stoichiometry,

working on practical-laboratory activities

Recording of student interactions during classroom activities

15, 40 minute lessons

Part 2 5:

Stoichiometry

Presentation of my ham sandwich analogy, 1 lesson

Classroom activities- Writing of student stoichiometry analogies

Two 40-minute lessons.

Whole-class completed role-play questionnaires

Stimulated Recall Interviews conducted with focus group members

(Round 2) in relation to stoichiometry analogy

Part 3 6:

Stoichiometry

Classroom activities- Answering questions on stoichiometry,

working on practical-laboratory activities

Whole-class completed Analogy Questionnaire

Interview focus group members (Round 3) and other individuals of

the class in relation to analogy questionnaire responses

Record student interactions during classroom activities

17, 40 minute lessons.

121

5.3.3 Elements of the Study Design

The two phases of the study (Phase 1 and Phase 2) were each divided into three

parts (Parts 1, 2, and 3). Phase 1 of the study was centred on the role-play activity while

Phase 2 of the study as centred on the stoichiometry analogy. In Part 1 of both phases,

lessons before the analogical activities were recorded to establish baseline data of

student discourse and interactions. The analogical activities (the role-play for Phase 1

and the stoichiometry analogy for Phase 2) took place in Part 2. Thus, Phase 2

replicated the three parts of Phase 1. This was done to determine whether results and

observations obtained in Phase 1 were comparable to those in Phase 2 because I was

interested in seeing if the Third Space model has transferability (could be used for

interpretations) within my own study. Part 3 involved recordings of lessons after the

analogical activities. The purpose of Part 3 was to establish whether the analogical

activities had lasting effects on student interactions and discourse.

A significant change was made to the composition of the focus groups after

Phase 1 of the study. I decided, as the teacher, that the focus groups were too large for

all members to participate in group activities so I divided Fergie and Trev’s groups into

smaller groups. This decision reflected my role as teacher and my ethical commitment

to the students, as it was a goal of my teaching to see as many students as possible

engaging in all classroom activities. Table 5.4 lists the members of the new focus

groups in Phase 2.

122

Table 5.4

Split of Focus Groups for Phase 2 of Study

New Focus Groups in Phase 2 Students

Fergie’s Group Fergie and Liz

Sara’ Group Pete, Sara, and Garima

Trev’s Group Trev, Louise, and Ana

5.3.4 Data-Sources

This study was informed by two principal data sources that were further

supported with the use of additional data sources. Reflecting an ethnographic approach

to data collection (Roth, 2005), the principal data sources consisted of transcripts

produced from video and audio recordings of lesson activities, interviews with students

and my classroom observation recorded in a research journal that I maintained

throughout my teaching career. Additional data sources consisted of student artefacts

such as activity scripts, whole-class responses to the questionnaire items, notebooks, and

role-play and analogy scripts. A range of data collection methods was used to develop

the data sources.

123

5.4 Methods for Data Collection

5.4.1 Principal Data Collection Methods

5.4.1.1 Video and audio recordings and transcript data.

It is largely through talk that we develop our concepts of self, as members of

various social ‘worlds’ which can be brought into focus and in which we can

locate ourselves and recognize the values, rights and obligations which permeate

them. As we listen and as we talk, we learn what it is necessary to know, do and

say in that area of social life or that setting, and can display the competence

necessary to be accepted as a member [of that social setting]. (Edwards &

Westgate, 1994, p. 15)

Edwards and Westgate (1994) clearly state the importance that has been given to

talk in the analysis of classroom interactions. Student talk was essential to this study

because the principal unit of analysis was the utterance. One video recorder and four

MP3 audio recorders were used to collect information on student talk and interactions

throughout the study. Video and audio recordings and associated transcripts provide a

natural protocol for studying student interactions during classroom activities (Roth,

2007). While problems can arise with students playing with recording equipment, my

role as teacher in this class meant that I had established good rapport with these students

and no complications arose of this nature. At the beginning of each lesson, focus group

students collected their MP3 recorders from my teacher’s desk and recorded the date and

their names after initiating the recorders. Video recording was used during the role-play

124

activity as this activity required body movements that could not be captured by MP3

recorders.

The benefits of these methods of collecting data were that multiple revisions of

interactions could be made in the process of constructing lesson transcripts (Roth, 2007).

Accuracy of transcripts was established through multiple revisions of recordings, and

students were asked to review the transcripts during stimulated recall interviews (section

5.4.2) to clarify their interactions.

5.4.1.2 Stimulated recall interviews.

Through qualitative interviews, you set out to learn about the world of others, but

real understanding may be elusive. (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 18)

Three guiding themes underline qualitative interviews: 1) An understanding of

culture (of interviewer and interviewee); 2) interviewers are not neutral actors, they are

participants of the interview; 3) the purpose of the interview is to hear and understand

the interviewee and to give them a public voice (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Stimulated

recall interviews involve “the use of a perceptual record (audio, video) of a subject’s

overt behaviour during task performance to stimulate recall of simultaneously occurring

thought processes” (Marland, 1984, p. 156). Theoretically, stimulated recall interviews

provide a method for accessing the processes of human thinking; a belief derived from

the view that what people think drives their actions (Zuber-Skerritt, 1984). This was

significant to this study because I was seeking to understand student perceptions

regarding the generation of Hybrid Discourse and Dialogical Interactions.

125

Traditionally, the interview process was constructed as a series of steps that

ultimately led to some objective reality, pertaining to the interviewee, where the

interviewer assumes a degree of neutrality (Fontana & Frey, 2005). Formulations of

interviewing that are more recent, have acknowledged the socially constructed nature of

the interview. That is, the “interview” is a product of the interaction of two or more

people through a collaborative effort (Fontana & Frey, 2005). From this perspective, the

interviewer’s context becomes fore-grounded in the study. The interview is seen as a

negotiated text rather than a value free, data gathering exercise. Voices of interviewees

are fore-grounded in reporting and interpretation rather than being streamlined to

represent the view of the researcher. This allowed me to present any contradictory

views that might arise and for these views to be discussed during analysis as part of the

reflexive nature of this study.

Interviews can be structure or unstructured. Structured interviews were likely to

create too rigid a framework for use in this thesis, as the goal was to seek students’

perspectives on their interactions. Structuring the interview could lead to loss of data

due to a rigid and unidirectional line of questioning. However, unstructured interviews

are likely to stray too far from the intent of the study, and given the time constraints

within which students were interviewed (i.e., their lunch breaks, after school), such an

approach was not practical. A semi-structured interview process provided an alternative

to both of these methods where I maintained focus on issues pertinent to the study by

providing some direction for the interview. At the same time, there is inherent

flexibility within a semi-structured framework. This allowed me to follow interesting

points raised by students, which were outside of the interview questions, but still

provided insights into the study. To this end, broad question categories were developed

126

to encourage students to present their understandings and interpretations of interactions

seen in the lesson videos (see Appendix D).

While certain assumptions were presented in this section regarding the kinds of

thought processes that can be accessed through interviewing, not every author is as

optimistic about stimulated recall interviews as Zuber-Skerritt (1984). Calderhead

(1981) offers this word of caution: “[stimulated recall]…can by no means provide a

complete account of teacher’s [or students’] thoughts, nor is the method likely to be of

use entirely on its own” (Calderhead, 1981, p. 216). Such concerns were unlikely to

have a negative impact on this study as multiple data collection procedures were

adopted.

5.4.2 Additional Data Collection Methods

5.4.2.1 Artefacts: student scripts and notebooks.

Given that students manifest their understandings in multiple ways, artefacts

such as student-generated analogies, answers to class problems and responses to

researcher questionnaires were collected. These artefacts provided additional

information to interview, video and audio data, and expanded the corpus of data

collected for the study. That is, these artefacts add contextual information about

mediated action by providing evidence of students’ use of signs, symbols and language

that are salient to this study.

While audio and video recordings formed the principal data collection methods,

student scripts of role-plays, analogies and other classroom artefacts such as answers to

problems in their notebooks, provided an additional mode for students to express their

understandings of activities in this study. These artefacts served to understand better the

127

focus of student interactions in the recordings made and provided stimulus materials for

use in interviews. Such stimuli reduce an interviewee’s reliance on memory and allow

the researcher to focus on specific elements of student work. Artefacts were also useful

during stimulated recall interviews acting as aids for student recall of class events

(Zuber-Skerritt, 1984).

One problem noted in the study of artefacts in fields such as archaeology and

anthropology has been the lack of emic perspectives (Hodder, 2003). These

perspectives suggest the true meaning of a text cannot exist beyond its context. In my

study, this effect was diminished as artefacts were immediately copied from students’

work, and student accounts of their representations in these artefacts were established

during interviews. In addition, as a teacher researcher, the level of misinterpretation of

artefacts was diminished because I also was an insider of the classroom culture and

involved with production of many classroom texts. In my study, artefacts were used as

supporting evidence and for illuminating observations made with the principal data

collection methods of lesson audiotapes and interviews.

5.4.2.2 Researcher field journal.

Throughout the course of the study, I maintained a field journal (Roth, 2005).

The field journal contained anecdotal records of immediate feelings and ideas I

experienced when carrying out the study and during teaching sequences. These

observational notes recorded things such as generalized feelings of my perceptions of

the class, student progress and theoretical considerations. They provided a more general

view of the class than the video and interview data that were recorded from focus

groups. As Roth (2005) asserts, video and audio recorders lack peripheral vision and, as

128

such, provide fixated accounts of reality that become decontextualized. Thus, field notes

kept in my research journal provided essential contextual features in which student

interactions unfolded. In addition, the notes served as theoretical field notes where

theoretical assumptions were applied to data (Roth, 2005). For example, as the study

progressed, I revisited the Third Space model in light of empirical data and noted any

changes to the model in my journal.

5.4.2.3 Questionnaires.

Use of questionnaires is based on one underlying assumption, that the respondent

will give truthful answers (Berdie & Anderson, 1974). In this study, I used

questionnaires for two distinct purposes. In Phase 1 of the study, a questionnaire was

designed after analysis of lesson transcripts and role-play transcripts revealed word

usage in Fergie’s role-play that was interesting with respect to the aims of the study.

This Role-Play Questionnaire was designed to establish the whole class’s familiarity

with a category of words known as blended or portmanteau words (e.g., brunch is a

portmanteau of breakfast and lunch). Students were presented with six words for which

they had to indicate their familiarity with these words, suggest meanings without the

context through usage, and infer meanings when used in a context. The purpose of the

questionnaire was to establish how familiar students were with portmanteau words as

well as establishing their ability to determine the meanings of such words both with and

without context.

In Phase 2 of the study, a second questionnaire, the Analogy Questionnaire, was

used to gain an understanding of how students chose their analog concepts and to gather

their perceptions of classroom interactions during lesson activities (see Appendix C). In

129

this phase, there were two goals for the questionnaires. One was to establish how and

why students chose particular analog concepts and whether the analog concepts were

linked to students’ personal discourses as theorized in the Third Space category Hybrid

Discourse. The second goal was to establish how students perceived their personal and

other group members’ roles within their group during the analogy-writing activity as

compared to other classroom activities. The purpose here was to establish whether

students interpreted their interactions as different from various classroom activities to

support observations I made through analysis of lesson transcripts. By administering

questionnaires to all students, I was able to extend the analysis of data beyond focus

groups to the whole class. One problem with questionnaire data is whether respondents

interpret questions in the same way as the author (Berbie & Anderson, 1974). By being

present to interpret questions with students I reduced the influence of this concern.

5.5 Data Analysis

Data sources produced from the data collection methods described in section 5.4

were analyzed through discourse analysis. Some forms of discourse analysis concern

themselves with the analysis of texts. Discourse analysis, however, can be applied to

more than text (Roth, 2007). “Based on the idea that culture…in general and

(discursive, material) actions in particular…can be viewed as texts, a variety of

phenomena may be investigated using text interpretation….” (Roth, 2005, p. 345).

The goal of discourse analysis is to summarise empirical data through a system

of concepts (Roth, 2005). Chapter 4 developed the sociocultural framework used in this

study. This framework required the study of the texts produced by participants (focus

groups and other class members) and the context in which these texts are produced.

130

According to Hicks (1996), to generate thick descriptions (Geertz, 2003) it is necessary

to use multiple layers of interpretive analysis. The multi-method approach used in this

thesis served this goal.

Hicks (1996) stated:

If the theoretical goal is one of articulating the dialectic between what is ‘inside’

the child and what is “out there” in culture, then neither analyses of textual

products nor inferential studies of cognitive processes alone are sufficient.

Rather, ‘thick descriptions’… of overlapping textual contexts – including

prevailing texts, cultural themes and metaphors, and social activity structures –

could be merged with detailed interpretive studies of the individual child’s

unique means of (re)constructing meaning within these contexts. Such an

approach would view learning as a creative, transformative act… (Hicks, 1996,

p. 112)

Thick description was achieved in two ways in this study. First, it was achieved through

collection of data through a range of methods; and second, from interpretation of data

through discourse analysis involving multiple layers of analysis as presented in section

5.5.1.

5.5.1 Data Coding for Discourse Analysis: Categories and Examples

Video and audio transcripts of focus group interactions and transcripts from the

three rounds of interviews were coded according to the Third Space model (i.e., Hybrid

Discourse and Dialogical Interactions). Transcript data conventions used in this study

followed the same guidelines outlined in chapter 3 (Psathas, 1995). Details are provided

in Appendix G.

131

5.5.1.1 Coding of the Dialogical Interactions sub-construct.

Transcripts were analyzed for evidence of dialogical and univocal interactions.

Dialogical Interactions were represented by speakers using the ideas of others in their

own utterances while univocal interactions were utterances where information was

transmitted. Examples can be found in chapter 4.

5.5.1.2 Coding of the Hybrid Discourse sub-construct.

Hybrid Discourse was the model proposed in chapter 4 for interpreting classroom

discourse where students hybridized elements of their personal discourse (e.g., interests

and hobbies) with the chemical discourse (e.g., chemical concepts, practices symbols).

Transcripts were coded for the Hybrid Discourse sub-construct by identifying utterances

where students used language pertaining to the target concept, or chemical discourse,

(such as Fergie’s use of structures in Table 5.5) to talk about the analog concept (the ice-

cream). Table 5.5 shows how the transcripts were represented in the final analyses.

Table 5.5

Discourse Analysis Coding Example

Transcript Coding

Liz: [Oh we could draw the picture

then[…

Fergie: [Yeah like the structures. Yeah.

We have one cone…

three…scoops…of rich

chocolate…ice-cream and one…

(Hybrid Discourse) Hybridizes ‘structures’

in conversation about ice-cream

132

5.5.1.3 Coding other student interactions during classroom activities.

In addition to coding transcripts in terms of Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid

Discourses, lesson transcripts were coded to identify the types of activities and

interactions students engaged in during different classroom activities such as analogies

and mathematical problem-solving. To this end, I devised a coding system that

categorised student activity using verbs as descriptors of student actions and coded

lesson transcripts as shown in Table 5.6. Once transcripts were coded as shown in Table

5.6, the right hand column from the transcripts of each focus group was compared and

conflated into a number of categories representing a summary of the groups’ actions.

Table 5.6 presents part of a lesson transcript where one focus group was developing their

analogy for stoichiometry. The right hand column shows the verb coding. For example,

students brainstormed, clarified ideas, sequenced ideas and so on.

Table 5.6

Verb Coding of Transcripts for Student Interactions

Fergie and Liz Stoichiometry Challenge Activity

Transcript Excerpt Coding

Fergie: [you multiply that by seven plus H

multiplied by six plus O multiplied

by three is 12[…

Fergie: [Ahhh don’t worry about it- is

multiplied by seven plus 1

multiplied by six…twelv- fifteen

multiplied by three do you have a

calculator?…

Fergie: I’ll get mine out. So the molar of

salicylic aciiiiid iiiis …

Sequences tasks

Brainstorms

Clarifies task

133

In subsequent stages of analysis, transcripts (the left column in Table 5.6) were

eliminated so that the verbs used to describe student interactions could be compared

across student focus groups and across classroom activities (see Table 5.7). Instances of

Hybrid Discourses were coded along with the verbs thus allowing links to be drawn

between the type of interaction (as illustrated by the verb coding) and the generation of

Third Space (illustrated by the Hybrid Discourse and Dialogical Interactions codings).

Table 5.7 presents a summary of the comparison of three groups in the analogy writing

activity.

Table 5.7

Verb Coding Summary Table for Cross-Case Analysis

Fergie’s Group Sara’s Group Trev’s Group

Brainstorms

Recognises the mapping

targeted to the relational

structure of analog to target

i.e., ‘put together’

Evaluates

Personal connection to

analog

Brainstorms

Brainstorms

Refers to table in terms of

chemical discourse ‘plus’,

‘equals’

Brainstorms

Sidetrack based on analog

Brainstorms up to here

Chooses analog- copy

sandwich

Choice of analog- based on

immediate surrounds

Evaluates

Sidetrack related to analog

Brainstorms

5.5.1.4 Summary of data coding and analysis.

Two aspects of classroom interaction featured in the research questions proposed

for this study. One involved the investigation of ways in which Third Spaces may be

134

created when students work in groups on class activities, with a focus on constructing

analogies. The second aspect involved the investigation of how students constructed

analogies. That is, how they chose analog concepts and for what reasons. A multi-

method approach was used for the study in order to generate thick descriptions of

classroom interactions. This allowed for interpretation of data from different angles and

provided supporting evidence for the conclusions drawn from data. Discourse analysis

was conducted using the Third Space construct as a guide for data coding and

interpretation of data sources.

5.6 Quality Criteria Adopted in This Study

Chapter 1 established the benefits and limitations of teacher researcher studies.

The debate over whether teacher research is legitimate research or simply the musings of

well-intentioned practitioners is far from resolved. This is perhaps most evident in

recent considerations of the quality criteria that should be applied to teacher researcher

studies. Three papers (Elliot, 2007; Hammersley, 2008; Zeichner, 2007) on this topic

have stemmed from Furlong and Oancea’s (2005) framework for assessing quality in

applied and practice-based educational research (i.e., teacher research studies). In

addition, Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2007) have extended Furlong and Oancea’s

discussion of teacher research to develop their own criteria and ethical guidelines for

assessing the quality of research in this field. I draw on Groundwater-Smith and

Mockler’s (2007), Hammersley’s (2008) and Zeichner’s (2007) papers here to set a

context for quality criteria for teacher research before stating the criteria I adopted for

this study.

Hammersley clarifies the different assessments that are brought to bear on the

135

evaluation of a teacher researcher studies. These are, assessing research proposals,

evaluating the methods of study, and judging the findings. Given that my study did not

serve the public forum for the purposes of policy making, the only criteria that I applied

were those consistent with other forms of qualitative research as outlined by Denzin &

Lincoln (2003) and Lincoln & Guba (1985). This is a view supported by Zeichner

(2007) as illustrated in his comments below:

We have long and established traditions in qualitative research communities

within the social sciences and the arts and humanities that have worked out ways

to address the quality of research initiatives and how to build knowledge and

understanding over time within specific areas of study (see Denzin & Lincoln,

2005). Self-study researchers should utilize these traditions and not shy away

from talking about what they have learned in their research and how this

contributes to what others have learned. (Zeichner, 2007, p. 43)

5.6.1 Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research

Following Roth’s (2007) design for teacher research studies, I adopted the

following qualitative criteria for framing and assessing the quality of this study:

trustworthiness and authenticity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). While these criteria have

been designed for use in evaluating qualitative research in general, I ground these in the

practice of teacher research more specifically through reference to the work of

Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2007) where appropriate. Trustworthiness consists of

credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003,

2005). Credibility and confirmability were established in this study by keeping written

and audio recorded records of my emerging ideas and their contexts (Roth, 2007). I also

136

invoked Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) notion of disinterested peers by regular review of

research findings with colleagues within my academic institution and through

presentations at science education conferences. These findings were debated and

discussed with peers, satisfying an essential criterion for teacher research according to

Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2007). As well, negative cases (those that do not

conform with a researcher’s pre-conceived notions) were analyzed and reported.

Dependability refers to the consistency or stability of inquiry processes over time (Roth,

2005). It corresponds to reliability in quantitative studies.

Dependability is concerned with tracking how the researcher has come to their

conclusions. Dependability was achieved through presentation of the data collection and

analytical procedures in this chapter as well as by providing samples of original

transcript sources in Appendix H. Using an audit trail through use of a labelling system

used with transcript and audio-recording extracts establishes the dependability and

credibility of assertions (Roth, 2005, 2007). This practice also addresses Groundwater-

Smith and Mockler’s (2007) concern with triangulation. While triangulation is a term

commonly associated with quantitative studies, it does capture the notion of use of

multiple data sources in the generation of assertions. As Erickson (1986) suggested,

when the ‘string’ of an assertion (and sub-assertions) is tugged, it should draw with it a

range of data sources and different kinds of data in support of any claims that are made.

The methods of data generation and the sources from which assertions were generated

were presented in sections 5.4 and 5.5. Briefly, data sources included audio transcripts,

interview transcripts, observations, questionnaires, and artefacts.

Transferability of the study is assessable through presentation of the context for a

study that sets the limits of applicability of research findings to similar cases. Providing

137

the contextual details of the school and students, the activities they engaged in, and my

teaching, allows others to compare their studies with this one. While many teacher

researchers may not be interested in generalizability of their research findings, in this

study I refined the Third Space theoretical model and was interested in its use for

research purposes beyond this study. In chapter 7 I present a new theoretical model,

Merged Discourses, which could be used to interpret the findings from the informal

inquiry described in chapter 3, for example, thus indicating that some temporal

transferability in the context of this study was possible for this model. This suggests that

the model may be useful in other settings where discourse centred on analogical

activities is studied.

Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2007) assess teacher research based on two

criteria: Quality of Purpose and Quality of Outcome. Their quality of purpose criterion

is not directly applicable to this study; however, the notion of quality of outcome is more

salient. Groundwater-Smith and Mockler suggested that quality of teacher research

studies must not be judged on the production of knowledge alone, but on its application.

To this end, I present a teaching model in Chapter 7 that extends the theoretical

development made in this study to inform classroom practice.

5.7 Chapter Summary

This chapter developed the instrumental case study design of the study and

explained its use in refining theory. This was important, as one of the aims of the study

was to refine the Third Space model developed in chapter 4 in light of empirical

findings. In section 5.2, the context for the study was provided, which elaborated details

138

of the school, classroom, and the analogical tasks students were engaged in. Details of

provisions for informed consent were also outlined in section 5.2.

This chapter also elaborated the principal and additional data sources that were

used. The principal data sources were generated from video and audio recordings of

focus group interactions and interviews. Additional data sources were generated

through collection of artefacts, questionnaires, and a researcher journal. Examples were

also provided of how the Hybrid Discourse and Dialogical Interaction models were used

to interpret data sources in section 5.5. Section 5.6 established the quality criteria used

for the design and evaluation of this study. The next chapter reports the results of the

study.

139

CHAPTER 6

RESULTS

6.0 Introduction and Overview

This chapter reports the results from the investigation of the following research

questions:

1: To what extent do analogical activities foster the development of Hybrid

Discourses?

2: How do students choose analog concepts when generating post-festum

analogies in chemistry?

3: To what extent do patterns of interaction differ in activities where

students construct analogies compared to activities where they solve

mathematical problems in chemistry?

The principal and additional data sources for the study were presented in chapter

5. These data sources were analyzed through discourse analysis informed by

sociocultural theory. Within this framework, the Third Space model was operationalized

into two sub-constructs called Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourses. These

sub-constructs were used to code data sources generated in the study. The study

consisted of two phases. Phase 1 was centred on the role-play activity while Phase 2

was centred on the stoichiometry analogy and the stoichiometry challenge (a

mathematical problem-solving challenge).

This chapter contains three sections corresponding to the research questions

presented above. Section 6.1 of the chapter deals with Research Question 1, section 6.2

deals with Research Question 2 and section 6.3 deals with Research Question 3. Results

were reported in a series of assertions grouped under three general propositions

140

(Propositions 1, 2, and 3). Each proposition corresponds with one of the three sections

(e.g., Proposition 1 is dealt with in section 6.1). The three propositions and their related

specific assertions are listed now before they are discussed in detail in the following

sections.

Proposition 1: Students developed Hybrid Discourses throughout their

interactions during the role-play and the stoichiometry analogy.

Assertion 1: When Fergie wrote the role-play she developed a Merged Word “perso-

ion.”

Assertion 2: Liz and Fergie developed Hybrid Discourses during interviews about the

stoichiometry analogy and the role-play

Assertion 3: Trev’s group developed Hybrid Discourses when discussing their role-

play.

Assertion 4: Trev and Louise were immersed fully in the target discourse while talking

about their analogy.

Assertion 5: Max developed Hybrid Discourses in his Analogy Questionnaire

Response

Assertion 6: Fergie’s group developed an alternative conception when writing and

practicing their role-play

Assertion 7: Students were familiar with Merged Words in contexts outside of

chemistry class but found it difficult to interpret their meanings in

questionnaires

141

Proposition 2: There were four types of choice students made when

generating analogies; namely 1) the Personal/Individual Analog, 2) the Experiential

Analog, 3) the Common/Societal Analog, and 4) the Relational Analog.

Assertion 8: Students had personal connections to analog concepts chosen for

analogies

Assertion 9: Students developed analog concepts for their analogies from their

surroundings things, objects familiar in society and objects having

relational structure to the target concept.

Proposition 3: The patterns of group interactions differed between the tasks

of writing analogies and mathematical problem solving

Assertion 10: Focus groups displayed a to-ing and fro-ing of ideas when working in

groups to write stoichiometry analogies

Assertion 11: Focus-Group students’ interactions followed different patterns across the

tasks of writing analogies and completing the stoichiometry challenge

Assertion 12: Student perceptions of group member interactions indicated differences

in interactions across different classroom activities

Assertion 13: Hybrid discourses were generated during the elaboration, refinement, and

clarification stages of the analogical activities

Assertion 14: Students perceived their group members interacted to a greater extent

during analogical activities

142

6.1 Results Relating to Proposition 1

Proposition 1: Students developed Hybrid Discourses throughout their

interactions during the role-play and the stoichiometry analogy.

6.1.1 Assertion 1: When Fergie wrote the role-play she developed a merged word

“perso-ion”

In Phase 1 of the study, the Year 11 chemistry class worked on a group activity.

This involved writing a role-play for the concept of nerve signalling in the brain. The

role-plays of the class generally consisted of students acting as parts of the nerve

signalling process or nerve cell structures. For example, students typically took on roles

such as ions and neurotransmitter chemicals. Fergie’s group consisted of Sara, Liz, Pete

and Garima who were the students with whom she normally sat (see Figures 6.1a and

6.1b). The target concept represented by Fergie in her role-play was that nerve signals

cease when a neurotransmitter, gammaamino butyric acid (GABA), binds to receptors

on nerve cells thereby opening chloride-ion channels. This allows chloride ions

(negatively charged ions) to enter the nerve cell making the interior negatively charged

relative to the exterior. In Figure 6.1a, Fergie (far right) is enacting the chloride ion.

She is waiting for Sara (GABA) to open the chloride channel (Liz, far left). Nerve

signalling ceases when the interior of a nerve cell becomes negative relative to the

exterior. This occurs when the chloride channel is opened by GABA and chloride ions

flood into the nerve cell. Figure 6.1b shows Garima (right) dancing and smiling (being

143

positive) and enacting a positive sodium ion. Liz is on the left assisting Garima in

learning her role.

Figure 6.1a Actors in their roles. From Left: Liz as the chloride channel being opened

by Sara (GABA) with the key and Fergie (the chloride ion) watching from the right.

Figure 6.1b Actors in their roles. From Left: Liz and Garima rehearsing Garima’s role

as a positive perso-ion.

144

Whilst the student groups were asked to write the role-plays in class time, Fergie

and Sara wrote theirs during a spare lesson (i.e., senior school students are given a

number of time-slots each week where they do not have scheduled classes). Therefore,

the data presented in this section were based on the written script of Fergie and Sara’s

play, a transcript of the lesson where Fergie introduced the play to her group and

interviews with the group members. Students in this group enacted ions (Fergie, Garima

and Pete), GABA (Sara) and chloride channels (Liz) as shown in Figures 6.1a and 6.1b.

Fergie created the merged word perso-ion (pronounced as one word persion)

when she wrote her role-play. The word represented the student in the role-play (perso-)

and their role as ions (ion). In chapter 4, I developed two sub-constructs to described

Third Space: Hybrid Discourses and Dialogical Interactions. Hybrid Discourses

consisted of utterances and phrases where students hybridized analog-specific language

(such as cow) with target-specific language (such as formula) to create expressions such

as “the formula for a cow”. Fergie’s word perso-ion was classified as a special case of

Hybrid Discourse, herein referred to as a Merged Word. Fergie’s explanation of the

word in interview Extract 6.1.1 was the basis for the Merged Word categorization.

Extract 6.1.1

Fergie: Um… I started writing person and thought if I add an ‘i’ in it can be

persion haha. So I wrote perso and put slash ion and knew what to say. So I’m just

like well we can sort of merge the person in which is giving the analogy effect like

people could understand ‘cause we’re people but at the same time we can explain

that we’re also ions demonstrating like as people what ions would do. So that’s why

we named it persion. (Fergie and Garima, Role-Play Interview 1 14/8/2006, p. 4)

145

In this interview extract, Fergie explained the hybrid nature of perso-ion by

stating that the word created an “analogy effect” so students in the class “could

understand” that the behaviour of ions in nerve cells was being represented through the

actors actions and utterances. Her comments demonstrated that for Fergie, perso-ion

signified that her group members in the play were enacting what ions do in nerve cells.

Fergie’s explanation of perso-ion indicated that she had merged the discourse of the

analog (happy/positive person) with the discourse of the target (positive ion) thereby

generating a Hybrid Discourse where some features of persons and ions overlap. This

hybrid nature of perso-ion is best explained in Extract 6.1.1. Fergie states that the group

members were people and “we’re also ions”. In this utterance, she does not distinguish

person from ion.

In addition to the hybrid nature of perso-ion, Fergie’s comments in Extract 6.1.1

indicated how she was mapping the analog concept (person) to the target (ion). In

stating, “as people what ions would do", Fergie mapped the actions of the actors in the

play to the properties and roles of the ions in the nerve cells.

Fergie’s mappings become clearer through further analysis of the role-play’s

script. Figures 6.2 and 6.3 illustrate the use of the word perso-ion in the role-play. The

other members of Fergie’s group were required to use the word perso-ion when they

introduced themselves as indicated by the arrows in Figure 6.2.

In the actor introductions (Figure 6.2), the positive person (signified by ‘happy’)

mapped to the target ‘positively charged ion’. The analogy created is: happy (positive)

person positively charged ion. In the role-play, the actors conveyed their happiness

through smiling and dancing around.

146

Figure 6.2. Extract from role-play highlighting use of word perso-ion.

Figure 6.3, illustrates Fergie’s use of perso-ion (arrow) when she enacted her role

in the play. The phrases “positive perso-ion” (Figure 6.4, Assertion 2) and “negative

perso-ion” in Fergie’s lines (Figure 6.5, Assertion 2) elucidate the hybrid nature of

perso-ion. Garima and Pete behaved as positive people by dancing and singing to

signify positive ions and Fergie acted depressed to signify negative ions.

Garima, Liz and Pete all indicated during interviews that they did not understand

the word perso-ion when they first read the play. These students stated that Fergie had

to explain the meaning to them. Two questionnaires were developed to establish the

extent to which the class interpreted Merged Words. Analyses of student responses to

the questionnaires are reported in section 6.1.7, Assertion 7.

Figure 6.3 Fergie’s line where she uses the word perso-ion in context.

Fergie:

Liz’s

Garima

Garima

Pete

Pete

Garima:

147

In summary, the merged word perso-ion represented a Hybrid Discourse for

Fergie. The word evoked the dual nature of the actors in the play representing both

person and ion simultaneously. The actor’s behaviour (e.g., smiling, dancing) signified

a property of the ion (positive charge). Fergie had entered a Third Space when creating

and writing perso-ion as the word represented a Hybrid Discourse.

6.1.2 Assertion 2: Liz and Fergie developed Hybrid Discourses during interviews

about the stoichiometry analogy and the role-play

In Phase 2 of the study, students wrote the stoichiometry analogy. Groups from

Phase 1 were divided into three smaller ones. Fergie and Liz formed one group; Sara,

Garima and Pete a second; and Trev, Ana and Louise the third group. The three groups

independently wrote analogies.

Figure 6.4 is a reproduction of Fergie and Liz’s ice-cream cone analogy written

during Phase 2 of the study.

Figure 6.4 Reproduction of Fergie and Liz’s ice-cream cone analogy. Diagram (top)

and equation (bottom line).

148

The girls were representing a balanced chemical equation (second bottom line of

Figure 6.4) and the amounts involved in a reaction (bottom line in Figure 6.4) using an

ice cream as their analog. Extract 6.1.2 was taken from the lesson transcript of Liz and

Fergie writing their ice-cream cone analogy. In Turns 2 to 6 of Extract 6.1.2, Fergie and

Liz were discussing whether to include pictures of the ice-cream cone in the analogy

script. In Turn 2 Fergie referred to the use of “symbols” while Liz referred to drawing

“pictures” (Turn 3) followed in Turn 5 by Liz mentioning “atoms” and Fergie

responding with “Yeah like the structures” in Turn 6.

Extract 6.1.2

1. Liz: We have to do the equation now don’t we?[

2. Fergie: D’you wanna do draw symbols …draw a picture of it first and then draw

…symbols? So like, for example[

3. Liz: [Oh we could draw the picture then[

4. Fergie: [we have symbols[

5. Liz: [like have the atoms[

6. Fergie: [Yeah like the structures. Yeah. We have one cone… three…scoops…of

rich chocolate…ice cream and one white…milk chocolate-. A huge fat ice-

cream cone e-hehehe…One, two,… (Fergie and Liz Analogy Writing Activity,

26-10-2006, p. 2)

In this exchange, there was to-ing and fro-ing of ideas between Liz and Fergie

regarding the diagrams. To-ing and fro-ing indicates the presence of Dialogical

Interaction. Through these exchanges, the girls generated a Hybrid Discourse as the

words atom, structure, symbol, and picture had fluid meanings referring to both the

149

analog and target concepts simultaneously. For example, in one instance the diagram of

the ice cream is referred to as a structure (Turn 6) by Fergie.

The girls explained their interaction during an interview after re-reading this

section of the lesson transcript. Extract 6.1.3 is a segment of their response. Liz did not

remember the exchange in Extract 6.1.2. Fergie explained the exchange as an attempt to

“bridge” (Extract 6.1.3) the analog concept (ice-cream recipe) with the target concept.

In Turn 2, Fergie generated a Hybrid Discourse as she stated, “well we can make it as if

it was a…{structural} formula.” In this utterance, the subject was the ice cream (“it”)

but Fergie referred to it using chemical terminology: formula.

Extract 6.1.3

1. Interviewer: So can you tell me what was going on there?…{in the transcript

shown in Extract 6.1.2}

2. Fergie: [We were trying to apply the chemistry to the ice-cream cone[… [like the

ice-cream cone to the chem{istry} sort of thing like…we were trying to bridge

how we were going to relate it back to the chemistry by using an ice-cream cone

so I thought well we can make it as if it is structural a struc-tural stru-ctural

formula and um that way we can then change it {the ice cream} into our own um

formula that’s a lot like chemistry… (Fergie and Liz Stoichiometry Analogy

Interview 1, 27-10-2006, p. 1)

The phrase structural formula pertains to the target concept in that a structural

formula is a diagram used to represent the structure of a chemical compound. For

example:

150

H

H C H

H

This diagram represents the structural formula of a methane molecule. When

Fergie referred to her diagrams of the ice cream as structural formula(e), she was

hybridising the discourse of the target concept (chemical compound) with that of the

analog (the ice cream).

The generation of Hybrid Discourses was not limited to lesson Extract 6.1.2 or

the interview (Extract 6.1.3). In Phase 1 of the study, Liz hybridized discourses during

an interview (independent of Fergie) about Fergie’s nerve-signalling role-play (see

section 6.1.1). In Turns 1 and 3 from the interview Extract 6.1.4, Liz referred to the “N-

A people”. Here she hybridized the discourse of the target concept “sodium ion”

(symbol Na+) with the analog “positive person”.

Extract 6.1.4

1. Liz: I liked it. Well I understand how like the chloride channel and all

that works now. And I understand what- what makes the the n-a {symbol for

the element sodium} positive people negative …

2. Interviewer: So you were just saying then that umm something makes

the n-a people negative. What do you mean by that?

3. Liz: Well not that just that the n-a people like how Garima was a

positive…what’s her name? (Liz and Pete Role-Play Interview 1, 15-8-2006,

p. 3)

151

The interpretation of this transcript was that discussing analogies (in the form of

role-play) provided an opportunity for Liz to develop a Hybrid Discourse. Similarly, the

interview with Fergie (Extract 6.1.3) and the writing of the analogy (Extract 6.1.2)

provided opportunities for Hybrid Discourse to develop for both girls. In line 3 of

Extract 6.1.4, an alternative conception became evident. This is discussed in Assertion

6.

To summarize the key points in this assertion, Fergie and Liz developed Hybrid

Discourse when writing or talking about analogies. This result was consistent with data

from the informal inquiry in chapter 3 and Assertion 1 in the present chapter. Lesson

recordings that did not feature analogies did not contain evidence of Hybrid Discourses

for Fergie, Liz, Pete, Garima or Sara.

6.1.3 Assertion 3: Trev’s group developed Hybrid Discourses when discussing their

role-play

Trev’s group consisted of Trev, Louise, Ned, Mal, and Ana. In Phase 1 of the

study, they based their role-play for nerve signalling on the process by which the

neurotransmitter chemical GABA binds to chloride ion receptors on nerve cell

membranes making the membrane permeable to chloride ions. The analog in their role-

play was a bar scene where Ned acted as a bouncer at the door (representing the chloride

ion channel), Louise acted as an alluring young lady (the GABA molecule) and Ana and

Mal were under-agers (the chloride ions) who slipped past the bouncer when Louise

lured him away from the door. In this way, the group had represented the binding of the

GABA molecule (alluring girl) to the chloride ion channel (bouncer) allowing the

152

chloride ions (under-agers) into the cell (bar). This description illustrates the relational

structure of the analog with respect to the target. Trev narrated the story.

Student groups collaboratively wrote and practised their role-plays during a 40-

minute lesson before presenting them to the class in the following lesson. During their

practice session, Trev’s group developed Hybrid Discourse in their exchanges. Extract

6.1.5 is an excerpt from this interaction where Trev and Louise were involved in an

exchange.

In Extract 6.1.5, Trev suggested that one group member should act like the

GABA molecule and “…be all like alluring and allure him {Ned} away”. Here, Trev

generated Hybrid Discourse as he ascribed the human property of being alluring to the

GABA molecule thereby merging the target and analog discourses in his utterance. That

is, the subject of his utterance was the GABA molecule that belongs to the target

discourse. The notion of being alluring pertains to the analog discourse. In his

utterance, he has hybridized both discourses.

Extract 6.1.5

Trev: Have something like the um oh! have someone like being the um the

receptor thing {part of a nerve cell} and then one of you two goes to get by the

receptor and then one of you guys can be the … GABA {neurotransmitter

molecule}and come in and be all like all like alluring and allure {sic} him away and

then like the chloride ions can get through {chloride ions pass through a channel that

opens when GABA binds to the receptor on the nerve cell}… (Trev, Louise, and

Ana Role-Play Activity, 10-8-2006 p. 3)

153

6.1.4 Assertion 4: Trev and Louise were immersed fully in the target discourse while

talking about their analogy

Analysis of student interactions within Trev’s group during the stoichiometry

analogy activity, in Phase 2 of the study, revealed an episode where Trev and Louise

discussed the analog concept purely using language from the target discourse (Extract

6.1.6). Trev, Ana, and Louise had chose to base their analogy on the number of hair-dye

packets required to dye Trev’s hair. Part of the stoichiometry analogy activity required

students to identify similarities and differences between the analog and target concepts.

Extract 6.1.6

1. Louise: Ok how’s it similar and a-[

2. Trev: [Because ahh it…[

3. Louise:[{unintelligible}

4. Trev: [it’s similar because…I had a reason but I’ve lost it…It’s similar as it

shows how (8)[…

5. Trev: [certain amounts or certain products are required to have

an…end…product. Or different quantities of[

6. Louise:[Or different quantities…[

7. Trev: [reactants …

8. Louise:[produce onnne…(Trev’s Group Stoichiometry Analogy Activity, 26-10-

2006)

The exchange between Trev and Louise shown in Extract 6.1.6 was taken from

this part of the activity. In Turns 6 and 7 Trev is trying to recall the similarities between

the analog and target concepts. The subject of Trev’s utterance is the analog, that is, the

hair-dye plus the head from his group’s analogy. Trev talks about the analog using

154

language from the target concept. For example, in Turn 5 of Extract 6.1.6 he uses words

such as “amounts”, “products”, and “quantities” while referring to the analog concept.

The words end product, and reactant belong to the target concept of stoichiometry and

chemical reactions but he has used them in this utterance to refer to the hair-dye and

head from the group’s analogy. This use of language from the target concept to talk

about the analog concept was interpreted as a full immersion by the student into the

discourse of the target concept. That is, there is no mention in the utterance of the head

or hair dye and, even though it is the subject of the utterance, it is uttered in terms of

target language only.

Trev’s group produced a similar exchange to this while brainstorming different

analogs for their analogy. While brainstorming, the group considered using a set of

molecular model kits at the back of the classroom as their analog. The models were

made of coloured Styrofoam balls. Ana had suggested they could use the models and

Trev and Louise began to elaborate the analogy by looking at the number of Styrofoam

balls that make up one model. In doing so, they started to assign each ball a colour and

then created an equation to describe the number of different coloured balls that made up

the model. For example, they assigned yellow balls the symbol “y” as shown in line 1 in

the following extract:

Extract 6.1.7

1. Trev: [So four ‘y’ plus two bee ‘b’ equals oh yeah oh

2. Louise: Equals one ‘p’?…

3. Trev: Two ‘b’ four ‘y’ oh no actually ‘b’ two ‘y’ four. But that’s just a dodgy

ratio because that’s just one is to two not just yeah. (Trev’s Group Stoichiometry

Analogy Activity, 26-10-2006)

155

Use of letters to represent chemical elements is the usual practice in chemistry.

Here the students adopted the practice to refer to their tentative Styrofoam-model

analog. The students were immersed fully in the target concept by talking about the

Styrofoam balls using symbols. As well as representing full immersion, this type of

activity dictated a new category of Hybrid Discourse. The new category was named

Merged Practices. In Extract 6.1.7, Trev’s group used the chemical practice of assigning

symbols to elements and compounds to describe Styrofoam balls (the analog concept).

These episodes of Merged Practices were not isolated. When Fergie and Liz were

writing their ice-cream analogy they generated a similar set of utterances. For example,

they gave their ice-cream analogy the symbols F for flake and Ic for the ice-cream.

Merged Practices were also observed in the interactions of Sara’s group. Her

group brainstormed a number of possible analog concepts including a table and chairs,

human body, a car, and milo and milk. Their final choice for the analogy was a Milo

and Milk analog where two teaspoons of milo are added to one glass of milk to make a

milo drink. During the brainstorming session, Sara merged the chemical practice of

referring to an equation mathematically (i.e., using words such as plus and equals) to

talk about the table and chairs analog. For example, Sara referred to a possible table and

chairs analog as follows; “Four legs plus one plank equals a table” (Sara’s group

Stoichiometry Analogy transcript).

A direct link to my instruction using the ham sandwich analogy with the class is

evident in the exchanges reported here. As reported in chapter 3, I ask students to

suggest symbols for the ham sandwich analogy for stoichiometry during my whole-class

presentation of it. In adopting this same practice in their analogy writing, students

generate Merged Practices.

156

6.1.5 Assertion 5: Max developed Hybrid Discourses in his Analogy Questionnaire

Response

Students responded to whole-class questionnaires regarding the stoichiometry-

analogy activity during Phase 2 of the study (see Table 6.2, chapter 6). After revision of

recordings from focus group interactions during the stoichiometry analogy, the Analogy

Questionnaire was developed (Appendix C). Max generated a Hybrid Discourse in his

response to Question 1 on the Analogy Questionnaire (see Figure 6.5). Max was not a

member of the two focus groups of the study but was the focus in this assertion as he

developed a Hybrid Discourse in his response to the questionnaire item. Max’s group

wrote a guitar analogy for their stoichiometry analogy. The analogy consisted of a

recipe for making a guitar. It consisted of six strings and a body making one guitar. The

first question in the Analogy Questionnaire asked students to explain how groups had

chosen their analog (see Figure 6.5). The arrows in Figure 6.5 indicate Max’s Hybrid

Discourse where he referred to a “molecule in our guitar formula.”

Figure 6.5 Max’s response to Analogy Questionnaire illustrating Hybrid Discourse

(arrows)

Max referred to the guitar, his analog, in terms of molecules and formula. The

words molecule and formula belong to the target domain of the analogy. That is, these

words were used to described chemical equations and chemical compounds not guitars.

157

However, Max used these two words to describe the analog, guitar, in his response

thereby hybridizing the two discourses. When interviewed about his response, Max

stated that he used the expression “guitar formula” because it was the basis of the

group’s analogy. During the interview (in Turn 1, Extract 6.1.8) Max stated that he

would not normally refer to a guitar formula outside the context of writing an analogy

because it was not commonplace to speak this way and people would perhaps have

trouble interpreting his meaning.

Extract 6.1.8

1. Max: If I were to use that out of context outside if I said guitar formula no one

would have the slightest idea what I’m talking about

2. Interviewer: And why would that be?

3. Max: Because it’s not a um a common way of describing how to make a

guitar…guitar formula. (Max Analogy Questionnaire Interview 1, 17-11-2006)

Max’s questionnaire response was interpreted as another example of Hybrid Discourse.

According to Max in his interview, the Hybrid Discourse arose when creating analogies

because the context of analogy writing involved mapping analog to target concept. Max

highlighted the importance of the context in which he generated the Hybrid Discourse,

in order for others to understand his meaning. This insight was reflected in Fergie’s

comments during her interview regarding the stoichiometry analogy. Fergie and Liz

(see section 6.1.2, Extract 6.1.2) had referred to their ice-cream analog as a structural

formula. During their interview, I asked if they commonly referred to food this way.

Liz stated that she never thought of food in terms of formulas. Fergie offered that she

generated such utterances because she and Liz “were trying to bridge” the analog

concept “to relate it back to the chemistry.” Inherent in her response was the context of

158

creating an analogy (“trying to bridge”, “relate it back to the chemistry”) as the reason

for generating the Hybrid Discourse.

Max’s Hybrid Discourse was unique amongst the ones reported in sections 6.1.1,

6.1.2 and 6.1.3. In those sections, the Hybrid Discourse was manifest in a Merged

Word, perso-ion, and in Merged Practices such as when Trev’s group referred to the

Styrofoam model by assigning symbols to each coloured ball. What was unique about

Max’s utterance was its complexity. He used two terms from the target concept,

molecule and formula, and hybridized them with the analog, guitar.

Max’s interview response (Extract 6.1.8) indicated that his Hybrid Discourse was

generated with an understanding of its meaning within the context of writing analogies.

According to Max, it made sense to intertwine the language of the analog with that of

the target in generating utterances such as “molecule in our guitar formula” when

writing analogies.

Max did not generalize use of his expression to all settings where one may talk

about guitars or formulas as indicated in Turn 3 of Extract 6.1.8. In conclusion, both

Max and Fergie recognized the nature of their Hybrid Discourse as stemming from the

analogical activities in which they were engaged and indicated that they were unlikely to

use Hybrid Discourses in other contexts.

Max and Fergie’s comments were consistent with the fact that the only time

students hybridized discourses was when they were writing role-plays or analogies,

being interviewed about these two activities or in the Analogy Questionnaire.

Consistent with the data reported in sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3, the analogical nature

of the activity influenced the generation of a Hybrid Discourse. In addition, Max was

not a member of either of the two focus groups in the study reinforcing the idea that

159

analogies influence the generation of Hybrid Discourses, and not the particular students

who were writing them. It is likely that if lesson-transcript data had been collected from

all student groups in the class, then further examples of Hybrid Discourses would be

have been found during analogical activities.

When the results presented in section 6.1.1 of Fergie’s Merged Word, perso-ion,

and Max’s Hybrid Discourse, “molecule of a guitar formula”, were taken together they

indicated that Hybrid Discourse need not arise solely through social interaction. Rather,

individuals may generate Hybrid Discourses suggesting they may operate on more

personal, internal levels as well as social levels.

While both Fergie and Max understood their own Hybrid Discourses, it was

reported in section 6.1.1 that Fergie’s group members did not understand the meaning of

perso-ion until it was explained to them. Max’s suggestion in the interview that Hybrid

Discourses may appear nonsensical when out of context could help understand why

Fergie’s group needed explanation regarding the meaning of perso-ion. As Pete, Liz,

and Garima were not involved in developing the role-play, they encountered perso-ion

for the first time during a rehearsal and thus they were not aware of the context in which

the word was developed.

6.1.5.1 Summary.

The presence of Hybrid Discourse in Assertion 3 indicated that the generation of

hybrid discourses was not specific to one group of students. That is, Fergie and Liz

worked independently of Trev’s group and yet, both groups of students generated

Hybrid Discourse. The commonalities between Fergie’s group and Trev’s group were

that both groups generated Hybrid Discourse during activities involving analogies

160

(including, writing analogies, role-plays practising role-plays and being interviewed

about these type of activities) but not in other classroom activities such as mathematical

problem solving or practical laboratory activities.

When the data presented in Assertions 1, 2 and 3 were considered holistically, it

is clear that the chemical topic being studied by the class had no influence on the

generation of Hybrid Discourse. As seen in these three assertions, students in the focus

groups generated Hybrid Discourses in Phase 1 of the study, when the topic was Organic

Chemistry, and in Phase 2 of the study where the topic was Stoichiometry. These results

pointed to the possibility that the analogical nature of the role-play and stoichiometry

activities influenced the generation of Hybrid Discourse, not the chemistry topic in

which these activities were conducted. In addition, generation of Hybrid Discourses by

both focus groups indicates that it was the analogical activity in which the students were

engaged, and not the individuals making up the groups, that influenced the generation of

Hybrid Discourses. Observations reported in the informal inquiry in chapter 3 supported

this argument. The informal inquiry reported in chapter 3 was temporally separated

from this study by two years. In chapter 3, Hybrid Discourse was first observed when

Pietro and Sven wrote their stoichiometry analogies. This temporal separation of the

emergence of Hybrid Discourses indicated that other students developed Hybrid

Discourses when writing analogies, not just those in this study. The common elements

to students in the informal inquiry and this study were the chemical topic, the analogy

activities and the teacher. It was already demonstrated that the chemical topic was

unlikely to be the influencing factor. This left the analogical activity and teacher as

possible explanations for the observed phenomena.

161

Two major points were distilled in light of sections 6.1.1 to 6.1.4. Firstly, Hybrid

Discourses arose either when students engaged in analogical activities or when they

spoke or wrote about them during interviews and in questionnaire responses. Secondly,

individuals might generate Hybrid Discourse independent of social interaction. This

second point suggests that the nature of analogies; that is, the juxtaposition of discourses

(analog and target) and the process of mapping, might catalyze Hybrid Discourse

generation along with interactions between individuals.

The four assertions presented thus far give rise to three important concepts.

Firstly, Fergie generated a Merged Word that is considered a subset of Hybrid

Discourse. Secondly, Hybrid Discourse arose when students wrote analogies and role-

plays, during interviews about analogies-and discussions about their role-play, and when

they responded to questionnaire items regarding their analogies. Thirdly, analogical

activities appear to influence the generation of Hybrid Discourse and not the context in

which the analogy was developed or individuals from one particular group. It cannot be

asserted, at this stage, that all students developed Hybrid Discourse when engaging in

analogical activities because this section presented evidence from only 5 of the 10

students across the two focus groups and one additional student identified by the

questionnaire. Max’s questionnaire result was serendipitous as it provided indication

that a student in the class who was not part of the focus groups also generated Hybrid

Discourse. This result established the validity of claims in the assertions presented

relating to focus groups. It demonstrated that a student who had no direct link to the

focus groups produced similar results. This also suggested that the occurrence of Hybrid

Discourse was more widespread than indicated by the results reported from the focus

162

groups. In any case, the data presented indicated that Hybrid Discourse was identifiable

in the students’ interactions and these represented the generation of Third Space.

6.1.6 Assertion 6: Fergie’s group developed an alternative conception when writing

and practising their role-play

During Phase 1 of the study, students were studying a chemical context based on

organic chemistry called “The Chemistry of Drugs”. The context was based on the

effects of pharmaceutical drugs on the brain. As part of instruction, I had used an

analogy to explain neurotransmitter function (the “lock and key analogy”) and a role-

play to explain nerve signalling in the brain. Later in the unit, students were asked to

write their own role-plays to demonstrate aspects of nerve signalling that they had

studied in class.

Fergie’s Group had developed a role-play (see section 6.1.1) based on the “lock

and key” analogy (Appendix H) I had used in class as an explanation of how

neurotransmitter chemicals, known as GABA (the key), bind to protein receptors (the

lock) on ion channels of cell membranes. Fergie verified her use of the “lock and key”

analogy in response to my interview question:

Extract 6.1.9

Fergie: No we stole that {the lock and key analogy}from Mr Bellocchi {me}.

Umm. I think, yeah. (Fergie and Garima Stoichiometry Analogy Interview 1, 27-10-

2006, p. 1)

163

While I had instructed the class to write their role-play as a group, Fergie stated

during Interview 1 that she and Sara (her partner) had written the play in another class

without Pete, Garima and Liz’s (the other group members) contributions. Fergie and

Sara’s role-play is presented in Figures 6.2 and 6.3.

Figure 6.6 illustrates the students’ use of the “lock and key” analogy as indicated

by the arrow. In Figure 6.3 (section 6.1.1), Fergie enters the role-play with the line “…I

am a very negative perso-ion, I flood the neuron cell with negative charge, and hence I

depress other ions in the cell” (Fergie, Role-Play Activity, 10-8-2006, p. 3).

When the analog concept (“…I depress other ions in the cell”) was mapped onto

the target concept, it mapped as the positive ions turning into negative ions. This does

not occur. During interviews with members of Fergie’s group, this mapping of surface

features became evident within the group. The fact that Fergie held an alternative

conception about positive ions turning into negative ions was confirmed during an

interview (Extract 6.1.10).

Extract 6.1.10

Fergie: Its It was a way of explaining to the class how positives can turn into

negatives so why a negative ion or chloride going into a positive space that was is a

like a negative person going into a room full of positive and making them all

depressed. (Fergie and Garima Stoichiometry Analogy Interview 1, 27-10-2006, p.

2)

Fergie used the expression “how positives can turn into negatives”.

Liz expressed the same alternative conception during her interview (see Extract

6.1.4, section 6.1.2).

164

Figure 6.6. Page 2 of Fergie and Sara’s role-play script

Sara Liz

Fergie

Sara

Liz

Sara

Sara

Liz’s Fergie

Sara

Liz

Fergie

165

Analysis of the lesson transcript where I presented the lock and key analogy

indicated that the alternative conception developed by the girls was linked to my

analogy. Extract 6.1.11 presents part of my analogy. In line 2 I used the expression

“…we all get negative…” “We” referred to the classroom full of students.

Extract 6.1.11

I now enter the room and make it more negative because I am a negative person and

ah yeah we all get negative and stop firing our neurons alright? (Fergie’s Group

Role-Play Lesson Transcript, 10-8-2006, p. 1)

In this lock and key analogy, the class of students represented positive ions and I

represented a negative ion entering the neuron (room). The expression “we all get

negative” implied that the students changed from positive to negative. This maps to the

target concept as positive ions changing into negative ions—the alternative conception

held by Fergie and Liz.

Through mapping of surface similarities between the analog, happy and sad

persons, and the respective targets, positive ion and negative ion, the fact that a positive

person can become negative through interaction with a negative person gave rise to the

alternative conception that positive ions can become negative ions.

The alternative conception identified in this section was an isolated case during

the study period. Similarities between the utterances made by Fergie and Liz and my

lock and key analogy indicated that this was the source of the alternative conception.

The occurrence of the Hybrid Discourse and the alternative conception in the same

lesson posed the questions of whether Hybrid Discourse was linked to the alternative

conception. While it cannot be ruled out completely, the data indicated that this was not

the case and the source of the alternative conception was my analogy.

166

6.1.7 Assertion 7: Students were familiar with Merged Words in contexts outside of

chemistry class but found it difficult to interpret their meanings in questionnaires

Preliminary analyses of role-play lesson transcripts during the data collection

stage, led to identification of the Merged Word perso-ion written by Fergie as reported

in Assertion 1 (section 6.1.1). When Fergie’s group presented their role-play to the

class, few students reacted to the word and it was not until I had asked the group to

explain the meaning of the word that a number of students reacted to it. During

preliminary analysis of data from Fergie’s role-play, perso-ion was identified as a form

of Hybrid Discourse. Two questionnaires were developed to examine further the class’

interpretation of Merged Words such as perso-ion (see Appendix C). The questionnaires

established whether the students in the class could identify the meanings of these words

or whether the context in which they were used provided cues for deciphering their

meanings. This section focuses on general class results first, and then concentrates on

specific questionnaire responses given by members of focus groups.

Role-Play Questionnaire 1 (see Appendix C) was designed to determine whether

students recognized Merged Words from popular culture and if they could determine the

meanings of these words when no context was provided. In the English language,

Merged Words are knows as blends or blended words as well as portmanteau words

after Carroll (1871). In the context of this study, words like Fergie’s perso-ion are

herein referred to as Merged Words after Fergie’s explanations for the word given in

Assertion 1. Merged Words are formed from source words. For example, Fergie

created perso-ion from the source words person and ion. Merged Words from popular

culture were used for questionnaire items. This increased the likelihood that students

had previously encountered these in everyday settings. Three words (slithy, mimsy and

167

outgrabe) were taken from the poem Jabberwocky from Through the Looking Glass

(Carroll, 1871) and three other words were taken from a range of contexts including a

Harry Potter blog (Dramione), an on-line news report (Liger) and an on-line article

about the show BigBrother (Showmance). In Role-Play Questionnaire 2 (see Appendix

C), a context was provided for the Merged Words from Role-Play Questionnaire 1. The

purpose of the second role-play questionnaire was to determine whether students could

infer the meaning of the Merged Words from the contexts provided.

Class results from Role-Play Questionnaire 1 indicated that students were

unfamiliar with four of the six Merged Words in the questionnaire. Twelve of the 18

students were familiar with the word liger and gave the correct meaning. Students

indicated familiarity with the word liger from a range of sources including the Internet,

films, documentaries, books, and in the school subject biology.

Three students recognized the two source words, show and romance, that made

up the word showmance. One student gave “fake romance” as the meaning for

showmance. This response captured the essence of the word. Only one of these four

students stated they recognized the word, but they did not recall from where. From these

data, I concluded that students had little familiarity with Merged Words as presented in

the questionnaire.

The three words from Jabberwocky—slithy, mimsy and outgrabe—were the most

abstract in the questionnaires. Two out of 18 students identified slimy as part of slithy

(made up of lithe and slimy). One student identified lithe but not the slimy component

of the word. Mimsy’s two source words were flimsy and miserable. Two students

correctly identified the flimsy component.

168

The source words for Dramione were Draco and Hermoine, characters from the

Harry Potter novels. The word Dramione is used in popular culture to signify fictional

or hypothetical romances. One student answered that this word sounded like a Harry

Potter character. When interviewed about this questionnaire response, the student stated

that he had read these novels.

To determine the extent to which students could infer the meanings of Merged

Words when used in context, each word in Role-Play Questionnaire 1 was presented in

context through Role-Play Questionnaire 2. For four of the six words presented in the

questionnaire students could not determine the correct meaning of the words. The first

three words, taken from the poem Jabberwocky (Carroll, 1871), are nonsensical at best

and it is not surprising that students were not able to infer any meaning from the poem.

All of the students were able to determine correctly the meaning of the word liger, an

extra six students compared to Role-Play Questionnaire 1. Eight students identified the

source word slimy from slithy. One student identified the source lithe. Three students

provided the source flimsy from mimsy. Six students gave romance in a show as their

definition of showmance.

The general trend observed in Role-play Questionnaire 2 was that more students

identified at least one source word when given a context when compared to results from

Role-Play Questionnaire 1 with no context. Six extra students identified slimy from

slithy in Role-Play Questionnaire 2, one extra student recognized flimsy from mimsy,

six extra students correctly identified liger, and two extra students responded that

showmance was a romance in a show. Another possible explanation for this observation

is that students had practised interpreting the words in the first questionnaire and thus

their performance improved when responding to Role-Play Questionnaire 2. However,

169

this is unlikely because of the brief lapse in time between administering each

questionnaire as students were given Role-Play Questionnaire 2 immediately after

submitting Role-Play Questionnaire 1.

Interviews with Liz, Pete and Garima (from Fergie’s group), who had limited

input into writing their role-play, showed that these students were confused and unsure

as to the meaning of the word perso-ion when they first encountered it in the script of the

play. This result was consistent with the results obtained in Role-Play Questionnaires 1

and 2 that indicated a lack of familiarity with the words, in Role-Play Questionnaire 1,

and difficulty with determining the meanings of the words even when the context was

provided (Role-Play Questionnaire 2). Garima stated, through personal communication,

that had read Jabberwocky and recognized the questionnaire words from the poem, but

she could not infer their meaning. These data indicate that students in this class were

unlikely to have understood the meaning of the word perso-ion from Fergie’s play. This

was reinforced by Pete and Liz’ comments to my question regarding what they thought

when they heard the word perso-ion the first time as illustrated in Extract 6.1.12 from an

interview.

Both students asserted that they understood the meaning of perso-ion once Fergie

explained it to them (see Turns 1 and 3, Extract 6.1.12). It was not possible to assess the

class’ understanding of perso-ion through questionnaires as I had asked Fergie to explain

the meaning of the word during presentation of the role-play to the class.

170

Extract 6.1.12

1. Pete: I didn’t…realize what it {perso-ion} meant until I got the full meaning.

So I just thought it … was some chemical word that I hadn’t heard before. But it

was just something that we made up. So…yeah…[I….

2. Interviewer: And what about you Liz? What were your thoughts when you

first read that word {perso-ion}?

3. Liz: I didn’t read the word really I just heard it and then I didn’t really

understand it at all and then. (Liz and Pete Role-Play Interview 1, 15-8-2006,

p.2)

Analysis of interview data with Fergie’s group and results from Role-Play

Questionnaire 1 and 2 indicated that unless students were familiar with a Merged Word,

they were unlikely to infer its meaning even when used in context. However, for a

number of students, the context may have provided clues to identify one source word. In

Assertion 1, Fergie gave a clear explanation of her meaning of perso-ion. That is, it

represented the actors in her role-play (perso- from person and ion from ion). In light of

findings presented in the current assertion, it was likely that Merged Words had strong

personal meaning for students and it was unlikely that the words were widely understood

by class members.

6.2 Results Relating to Proposition 2

Proposition 2: There were four types of choice students made when

generating analogies; namely 1) the Personal/Individual Analog, 2) the Experiential

Analog, 3) the Common/Societal Analog, and 4) the Relational Analog.

171

6.2.1 Assertion 8: Students had personal connections to analog concepts chosen for

analogies

Focus group students were asked to explain how they had chosen their analog

concepts during their role-play and stoichiometry analogy through interviews and

questionnaires. For Fergie, the choice of analog for her nerve signalling role-play came

from her personal experience. In Extract 6.2.1, from Interview 1, Garima and Fergie

were asked to explain how they had chosen the depressed person analog to represent the

negative ions in their role-play. In Turn 2 Fergie indicated that she related the ions in

the role-play to a close, out-of-school friend. Earlier in the interview, she explained that

her friend was a negative person and could affect the mood of others in a room just by

entering the room.

Extract 6.2.1

1. Interviewer: … So what made you include that in your role-play?

2. Fergie: Probably because that’s something that I understand cause like with

{friend’s name} and everything she was like {negative in her outlook} ages ago

but like I still look at basically society in that way and I thought well if if that’s

the way that the ions can possibly behave then why don’t we just stick it in and

see if other people might understand it. So ‘cause I thought using people would

be a good way to try and explain it because we’re all people so yeah. (Fergie and

Garima Role-Play Interview 1, 14-8-2006)

The influence of Fergie’s friend on her role-play could be traced to the roles of

her group members, outlined in Assertion 1, as positive people in a room that were

turned negative by entry of a negative person. Fergie’s insights, provided through the

172

interview, suggested that this analog had strong personal relevance to her as she related

it to personal experiences regarding her friend. Thus, the analog concept developed

from her personal discourse. It is also acknowledged that her analog followed closely

the idea of a negative person turning a room negative from the analogy I had presented

to the class prior to the role-play writing activity (refer to Assertion 5). This observation

suggests that my analogy may have created a strong personal connection for Fergie that

in turn influenced her choice of analog.

Other student groups also had personal connections to their analog concepts. In

Trev’s group, the analog was based on dying Trev’s hair because Louise and Ana had

seen hair-dye in his school bag. Transcripts of Liz and Fergie discussing their ice-cream

analog indicated this was something they both liked eating. Sara’s group settled for the

Milo analogy because all group members enjoyed Milo drinks. Max’s group wrote a

guitar analogy. The students were all interested in music and one student was a

drummer in a band.

6.2.2 Assertion 9: Students developed analog concepts for their analogies from their

surroundings things, objects familiar in society and objects having relational structure

to the target concept

Assertion 8 developed the idea that student groups developed analog concepts

from their personal discourse. The whole class was asked to explain why they had

chosen their analog concepts, during the stoichiometry analogy, through Analogy

Questionnaire. Students reported nine different sources for their chosen analogs as

shown in Table 6.1.

173

Table 6.1

Student Responses to Analogy Questionnaire Item Relating to Actual Choice of Analog

Categories of Reasons Given for Choice of

Analog

No. of student

responses

Percentage (%)

1. Modelled from ham sandwich (teacher’s

analog)

3 16.67

2. Personal likes 4 22.22

3. Understood by group members 2 11.11

4. Familiar to people in general 2 11.11

5. Matched target concept (relational

structure)

4 22.22

6. Humorous 1 5.56

7. Immediate surroundings 2 11.11

8. All could think of 2 11.11

9. Went through series of ideas 1 5.56

All 19 students from the class responded to the Analogy Questionnaire. The

class data, and the specific cases presented herein, were interpreted as indications that

students consider a range of factors when choosing an analog for a chemical concept.

The most important factors that influenced choice were personal likes and things that

were perceived to be widely understood or familiar to society. Students often referred to

these as “everyday things”.

Some student responses to the Analogy Questionnaire items were categorised in

more than one category shown in Table 6.1; for example, when a student gave multiple

174

reasons his/her response to individual questions. Thus, the total number of responses

was greater than the total number of students (n=19). The percentages shown represent

the percentage of student responses that matched the category in column 1 of Table 6.1.

As shown, 16.67% (3 students) indicated that they used my ham sandwich analogy as

the basis for their chosen analog. Another 22.22% (4 students) of students indicated that

the analog related to their personal likes.

The second question in the Analogy Questionnaire asked students to explain how

they would choose an analog for explaining a chemical concept to someone without a

chemical background. This hypothetical question sought to elicit further elaboration

about student choices of analog concepts. From comparison of responses between this

question and Question 1, it was possible to establish whether students evoked similar or

different repertoires in choosing analog concepts. Table 6.2 reports student responses to

this question.

Table 6.2

Student Responses to Questionnaire Item Relating to Hypothetical Choice of Analog

Concept

Category No. of Student Responses % of Total

Relevant to the audience-

familiar, understood,

interesting

16 84.21

Copy ones used by teacher 1 5.26

Specific to stoichiometry 2 10.52

175

Sixteen students responded that their choice of analog would depend in some

way on their audience. Responses varied from those who stated that the analog should

be familiar to the audience (n= 6), mutually known between speaker and audience (n=

1), and interesting to the audience (n= 3). One student responded that they would copy

my analogies. The third category involved two student responses that mentioned

relational structure to the stoichiometry concept specifically. One stated they would

choose an analog relating to ratios and the other stated they would choose food because

recipes are useful in illustrating ratios.

When data from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 were compared, it is clear that the majority of

students responded differently to their actual choice of analog concept and their

hypothetical choice if explaining any chemical concept to a neophyte. This indicates

that a majority of students understood the purposes of the two different questions. Some

similarities exist in the specific responses provided by students to these two questions.

In relation to Question 1 (about the actual choice of analog they made), 10 students

indicated that their analog concept for their analogies was chosen of the basis of

personal likes, group members understanding or being familiar with it or personally

appealing. This is similar to the hypothetical choices students offered in Question 2

where of the 16 responses given, 6 stated that it be something the person has familiarity

with, while other responses included that the person needed to understand the analog

concept, it be part of their background or interests.

These data indicate that there is a strong personal connection or a common

societal understanding required for the choices of analog concepts according to the

students. Essentially students indicated that common objects or concepts that we are

likely to have encountered or have familiarity with would make suitable analog

176

concepts. This highlights the need for analog concepts to provide strong personal

connections for the individuals using them in interactions.

There were fewer categories developed from responses to Question 2 than those

from Question 1as indicated in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. This suggests there are differences in

actual choices of concepts and hypothetical choices of analog concepts in the students’

responses. Twelve students (66.7%) indicated they would hypothetically choose an

analog based on the person’s familiarity with the analog concept, or the receiver’s ability

to relate to the analog. This result was interpreted as demonstrating that these students

would choose analog concepts based on a person’s personal discourse (‘can relate to’) or

something that is generically known by members of our society as “everyday things.”

During interviews, focus group students were asked to elaborate on their

Analogy Questionnaire responses. Pete indicated that if he were explaining something

to a person using an analogy, he would choose his analogy based on the person’s

discursive background. Pete gave the example that if the person he was speaking to

were a woodworker he would choose a table analog (Extract 6.2.2).

Extract 6.2.2

Pete: Just whatever they’re like if its someone that’s into woodwork you could

show them something about tables of you know whatever they can make do

something with their background. To do with their background so if someone is a

woodworker like you can tell them about tables which is what stoichiometry is you

know you’ve got how many this many for a top and this many for a base and stands

and stuff rather than just use ok this is…what stoichiometry is like. (Sara, Garima,

and Pete Stoichiometry Analogy Interview 1, 27-10-2006)

177

Garima and Sara agreed with Pete’s comments during the interview by stating

that the chosen analog should reflect things the person is familiar with or understands.

Trev reinforced these views in his response to the interview question by stating:

“Something everyday that they’re gonna know” (Trev Interview 1).

Both interview data and questionnaire data indicated that student choice of

analog concepts was informed by links to everyday things or personal discourses. These

data also indicated that students did not make random choices that were then elaborated

into analogies, but rather took into account how others (i.e., their audience) might

perceive their analogy. This decision making process informed student choices for

analog concepts.

During Trev’s interview, I asked about a spontaneous analogy he had generated

in the first term of the school year (February-March), long before formal introduction of

analogies into my lessons. At this time, an exchange took place between Trev and other

students, where Trev developed a barge analogy to represent the movement of ions from

one electrode to another during electrolysis. Electrolysis is the process by which a metal

is plated onto an electrode by passing electricity through a conducting solution (usually

ionic). Extract 6.2.3 presents Trev’s recollection of his barge analogy.

Extract 6.2.3

Um it’s like everyday like most people have been on a ferry and like

giving maths problems they’ll give examples like basic maths problems like how

many times does a barge have to cross to get a certain number of people if you

have to carry a certain number of people and like you see that situation in a lot of

places like we were saying before and like sort of being a good way to explain it.

(Trev Stoichiometry Analogy Interview 1, 30-10-2006, p. 1).

178

Surprisingly, Trev recalled the analogy despite the limited description provided

to him in the interview. Trev asserted that barges are an everyday experience for people

and related the analogy to examples he was familiar with in mathematics lessons.

People in Trev’s city commonly travel to a nearby island on ferries for either work or

pleasure, reinforcing Trev’s statements. His comments were interpreted as further

indication that students and Trev’s mathematics teachers adopt personal and local

discourses when teaching certain concepts.

Based on these data sources, four categories were developed for sources of the

analog concept. The categories represent a synthesis of ideas presented by students

through interviews and questionnaire responses to both their choice of analog and

hypothetical choice of analog concept. The categories are: 1) the personal/individual

analog, 2) the experiential analog, 3) the common/societal analog, and 4) the relational

analog.

6.3 Results Relating to Proposition 3

Proposition 3: The patterns of group interactions differed between the tasks

of writing analogies and mathematical problem solving.

6.3.1 Assertion 10: Focus groups displayed a to-ing and fro-ing of ideas when

working in groups to write stoichiometry analogies

The stoichiometry analogy activity required students to write an analogy for the

concept of stoichiometry. Both Trev and Sara’s groups engaged in a brainstorming

session at the start of the activity where group members came up with possible analogs

for their analogy. Extract 6.3.1 was taken from the lesson transcript of Sara’s group.

179

Extract 6.3.1

1. Sara: Do we have a lettuce sandwich?…

2. Sara: Four legs plus one plank equals table…

3. Pete: [What about a table and four chairs?

4. Garima: (Laughs) What about people?

5. Pete: …A bed and three three pillows[…How ‘bout a person two[

6. Garima: [a car and four wheels?

7. Pete: What about eight?[

8. Sara: There’s too many parts to a car…

9. Pete: What about a person? Two legs and two arms[

10. Garima: [And a torso and a head[

11. Pete: [and foot

12. Garima: Your legs and arms are like[

13. Sara: [what about a door and do door knobs?…

14. Pete: [How ‘bout a tap and two…cold and hot?…

15. Garima: How ‘bout a pencil case with pencils?

16. Sara: … Milo. Two scoops of milo plus one glass of milk. (Sara’s

Group Stoichiometry Analogy Activity, 26-10-2006)

The same process of elaborating a tentative analog was carried out earlier in the

exchange between Sara and Pete in Turns 2 and 3. Sara suggested a table with four legs

and Pete elaborated this by suggesting four chairs. Exchanges of this type were

interpreted as demonstrations that the process of designing the analogy involved the to-

ing and fro-ing of ideas between group members. Thus, the group engaged in Dialogical

180

Interactions by elaborating one another’s ideas and incorporating them into their own

utterances as thinking tools for mediating the analogy task.

This to-ing and fro-ing of ideas was also observed in interactions among

members of Trev’s group. The students considered three analog concepts: hair dye and

head, a tree and leaves, and Styrofoam balls used for molecular model kits. Ana, Louise

and Trev evaluated and elaborated each tentative analog, mapping it to the target

concept to test its viability. Trev’s group was involved in Dialogical Interactions during

these exchanges as they each elaborated and evaluated one another’s ideas as seen with

Sara, Garima and Pete.

The cases reported in Assertion 10 were the only examples of Dialogical

Interactions observed in these students’ interaction during analogical activities in the

course of the study.

6.3.2 Assertion 11: Focus-Group Students’ interactions followed different patterns

across the tasks of writing analogies and completing the stoichiometry challenge

During Phase 2 of the study, students participated in two group activities, the

stoichiometry analogy and the stoichiometry challenge. The stoichiometry-challenge

activity was a competitive activity where all groups submitted their group response to a

unrehearsed mathematical question relating to stoichiometry. Each group’s response

was numbered to indicate the order in which they were submitted to me. The first

correct response earned a reward for the group. Fergie and Liz provided the first

response in the class and won the challenge. This assertion presents data from student

within-group interactions while solving the challenge problem and comparisons of these

interactions with interactions observed in the analogical activities (i.e., the stoichiometry

181

analogy and the role-play). Student groups for the two activities were identical; Fergie

and Liz formed one group, Trev and Louise formed the second group (Ana was absent

from school that day) and Sara, Garima and Pete formed the third group. Student

actions were coded in such a way that verbs (e.g., brainstorm) were marked on

transcripts (see Appendix H) where, for example, students considered a range of

possible analog concepts for their analogies as seen in Extract 6.3.2 in Turns 1, 4 and 5.

Turn 3 is an example of elaboration as Pete adds details to Sara’s suggestion of a table

analog.

Extract 6.3.2

1. Sara: Four legs plus one plank equals table Brainstorms

2. Garima: Ohhh…[

3. Pete: [What about a table and four chairs? Elaborates

4. Garima: (Laughs) What about people? Brainstorms

Pete: Well I dunno. A bed and three three pillows. Brainstorms

(Sara’s Group Stoichiometry Analogy, 26-10-2006)

Table 6.3 summarises the actions students performed in the stoichiometry

analogy and the stoichiometry challenge. The table presents a conflation of the verb

codings for the three individual focus groups. Thus, while there were individual group-

differences in the precise sequence of verb codings and number of iterations of each

verb, all three groups displayed the same elements (verbs) in their interactions.

182

Table 6.3

Summary of Student Actions During Stoichiometry Analogy and Stoichiometry

Challenge Activities

Stoichiometry Analogy Stoichiometry Challenge

Brainstorm analogs Clarify

Elaborate analogs Resolution to the problem

Evaluate analogs Self-talk

Choose analog Solution to the mathematical problem

Clarify

Refine analog

Completed the task set

Student interactions involved different processes in the stoichiometry analogy

activity when compared to the stoichiometry challenge activity. Analysis of interactions

during the stoichiometry analogy from the three focus groups yielded the following

pattern: brainstorm, elaborate, evaluate, choose analog, clarify, refine, and complete the

task. The element common to all three groups’ interactions was that they started by

brainstorming possible analogs. The refining stage consisted of students refining the

chosen analog. For example, in Fergie’s ice-cream analogy, this involved decisions

about how many scoops of ice cream were used for each cone as well as the symbols

used to represent the parts of the ice cream (for example, “C” for cone, “Ic” for ice-

cream scoops). Evaluation involved making considerations of whether the analog had

relational structure to the target concept, revision of the analogy and consideration of the

match between elaborations and the target concept. This involved mapping analog and

183

target concepts. Clarifying involved students asking group members for clarification of

elements of the task or clarification of one another’s utterances. For example, Trev and

Louise were clarifying an element of the stoichiometry analogy in Extract 6.3.3. Here

the students discussed whether mass was the correct unit to refer to their analog concept.

In Turns 5-11, Ana and Trev are clarifying which unit they should use to refer to their

analog concept.

Extract 6.3.3

1. Ana: [they have to be the same mass[

2. Trev: [Mass?

3. Ana: Or whatever it’s called![

4. Louis: [Units?[

5. Trev: [It’s definitely not mass

6. Ana: Well that’s what he says look!

7. Trev: Yeah I know but a slice isn’t it’s mass

8. Ana: Well it said its units of…[

9. Trev: [Mass[

10. Ana: [mass. It says the unit of mass[

11. Trev: [It’s not the unit of mass. (Trev’s Group Stoichiometry Analogy, 26-10-

2006)

The series of stages presented in Table 6.3 for the stoichiometry analogy were

unique to this activity. None of the student groups interacted using these same order of

stages of brainstorming, evaluating, choosing, clarifying, refining, and evaluating during

the stoichiometry challenge. I interpreted this result as evidence that the analogy

activity was unique among the classroom activities experienced by my students and that

184

the nature of the analogical activity (i.e., having to identify an analog concept and then

elaborate it into an analogy) was responsible for generating the forms of interaction

reported here.

During problem-solving activities such as the stoichiometry challenge, students

tended to interact in dyads where the focus of interactions was to check whether another

student had obtained the same answers or to ask for pieces of information they required

to complete the problem. These interactions followed the initiate-respond or initiate-

respond-follow up pattern.

Analysis of lesson transcripts from the stoichiometry challenge indicated that

student interactions consisted of the following elements: clarify, resolve, self-talk, and

solution to the problem (Table 6.3). Clarifying involved students asking one another

questions about the problem they were to solve. For example, students could ask

whether the equation for the chemical reaction was balanced, or whether they had

written a formula correctly for a chemical compound. One example from Sara’s group

illustrates this point: “Sara: [So that means they should all have the same number of

moles right?” Here Sara was seeking clarification from her group members about the

balanced equation and the number of mole represented in it.

Resolution represented the outcome of seeking clarification where a group

member provided a response for their partner’s question. For example, in answer to

Sara’s question above, a group member responds either yes or no or with a detailed

response such as “The number of moles is in the ratio 1:1:1.” Self-talk described the

personal conversation, or thinking aloud, that students often exhibited. Self-talk was

commonly performed by the group’s scribe. This talk did not involve dialog with other

group members and tended to be a vocalisation of what the scribe was writing in his/her

185

notebook. When providing the solution to the problem, some students evaluated their

response. Evaluation involved checking the answer to a problem with the group

members to ensure there was consensus on the final response being correct.

Analysis of audio data indicated that the interactions during the stoichiometry

challenge were similar in pattern to those of other classroom lessons where students

solved algebraic-style problems (e.g., writing names and formulae for chemical

compounds). This made it possible to limit the fine-grained analysis to the

stoichiometry challenge which was conducted by the focus groups as during other

lessons, students did not tend to work in groups of three (most interactions in lessons

other than the stoichiometry analogy, stoichiometry challenge and role-play involved

students working in dyads). As the goal of the study was to compare student

interactions during activities that were intentionally group-based, the analyses in this

assertion will only relate to the aforementioned three activities. It is noted, as discussed

above, that the stoichiometry challenge did represent typical interaction from similar

lesson activities and, to some extent, observations from this activity bear more general

implications.

Transcripts were also analyzed for instances where students adopted self-talk

(i.e., thinking aloud) during their activities as a measure of the extent of interaction

between group members. Comparisons were made between the two analogical

activities, role-play and stoichiometry analogy, and the stoichiometry challenge (see

Table 6.4). In the three transcripts of student-group interactions during the

stoichiometry challenge activity, Fergie’s group produced 12 utterances that involved

self-talk. Sara’s group produced 5 utterances involving self-talk and Trev’s group

produced 11.

186

Table 6.4

Total Occurrences of Verb Coding for Three Groups in Three Activities

Total Verb Codings for Three Groups Across

Three Group-Activities

Verb

Coding Role-Play Analogy

Stoichiometry

Challenge

Brainstorm 0 19 1

Elaborate 23 49 5

Sequencing 0 0 1

Evaluate 1 20 15

Refine 5 9 3

Clarify 20 11 34

Resolve 0 0 18

Choose 1 7 0

Self-talk 2 0 29

Note. There were only two groups, Fergie’s and Trev’s, at the time of the role-

play activity. In both the stoichiometry analogy and challenge there were three groups

(Fergie’s, Sara’s, and Trev’s).

By comparison, the stoichiometry analogy transcripts of all three groups

contained no examples of self-talk. For example, Fergie uttered the following while

working on the stoichiometry challenge “Oh so we have two grams of this one and 5.8

grams of this one…so…hmm….” Her utterance was not directed to her partner Liz,

Fergie was just verbalizing her procedure for solving the problem. In the role-play

187

activity, which involved Fergie’s group (Fergie, Garima, Sara, Liz, and Pete) and Trev’s

group (Trev, Ana, Louise, and Mal), there were two instances of self-talk in Fergie’s

group and none in Trev’s group. These data indicate that the interaction and

contribution by different group members, and the extent of Dialogical Interaction (due to

fewer occurrences of self-talk) was greater in the analogical activities than in the

stoichiometry challenge. As the stoichiometry challenge activity was unique in the fact

that it was competitive, comparisons were also made with other lessons where students

solved algebraic-type problems. These lessons also contained high instances of self-talk

and fewer examples of student-student interaction, particularly of the type where

different ideas were shared (see Table 6.4).

Table 6.4 presents the conflation of the verb codings used to describe student

actions (e.g., as shown in Extract 6.3.2 earlier and summarized in Table 6.3) in three

activities. There is a clear distinction evident in Table 6.4 relating to the use of

brainstorming during the three activities with the stoichiometry analogy having the

highest occurrence of all three activities. With Fergie’s group having written their role-

play out of class time, it is difficult to establish the patterns of interaction that Sara and

her used to develop the role-play. For this group, the coding of verbs was conducted on

the transcript of the group’s practise session to rehearse their role-play. However,

Trev’s group, who did devise the role-play during the allotted time, did not display any

brainstorming activities during their group work. On the basis of these data, it is likely

that students modelled their role-plays on my classroom explanations and the

instructional material provided rather than devising entirely new plays. The

stoichiometry analogy activity required some choice with regards to the analog concepts

the student groups used and this was reflected in the high level of brainstorming

188

involved in those interactions related to that activity. Fergie’s group of Fergie and Liz

displayed only three instances of brainstorming in their analogy activity in contrast with

Sara’s group (Sara, Garima, and Pete) who displayed 11 instances of brainstorming and

Trev’s group (Trev, Ana, and Louise) who displayed 5. The fact that Sara and Trev’s

groups are the same in number of students indicated that the group size was unlikely to

be the reason for the difference in instances of brainstorming. However, it was observed

that Fergie’s group arrived at their analog concept in one turn and the other two

instances of brainstorming in their group were related to one other possible analog they

considered. In contrast, Sara’s group brainstormed nine possible analog concepts and

Trev’s group brainstormed five concepts.

Another coding category that exhibited greater occurrence in the analogical

activities than the stoichiometry challenge was elaboration. In both the role-play and

stoichiometry analogy students elaborated details of their chosen analog models both in

the initial brainstorming stages when they tested the viability of the chosen analog

models as a match for the target and, once they had settled on an analogy, when they

elaborated the details by mapping it to the target.

In contrast, during the stoichiometry challenge Fergie and Liz did not elaborate

the problem, Sara’s group displayed one instance of elaboration and Trev’s group

displayed four instances. A possible explanation for these inter-group differences is that

in Fergie and Liz’s case, Fergie dominated the activity with Liz making several bids to

contribute but leading to Fergie either ignoring or dismissing her bids with short replies.

Fergie essentially solved the stoichiometry challenge alone thereby limiting the amount

of dialogue in the activity. A similar scenario took place in Sara’s group with Sara

playing the role of scribe and dominating the activity (see Extract 6.3.4). Sara’s group

189

were solving the stoichiometry challenge. In Turn 1, Sara is responding to a question

from Garima regarding Sara’s calculations.

Extract 6.3.4

1. Sara: You know what I mean? And so one mole isn’t 5.8 grams (7)

2. Pete: Don’t we need to add- oh we’ve done that shut up shut up.(14)Wouldn’t

it be 138 times 5.8? W- like for this bit

3. Sara: Where what?

4. Pete: ‘Cause you’re doing o- the salicylic acid right wouldn’t it be[

5. Garima: [But what if we- Oh do you know how to work out back {?} from

it?…the mole and the grams we got and see if you get the molar mass and that’s

the way you work out if its correct ‘cause molar mass can never change? You

know what I mean? Just re-arrange it….{Extract shortened from original}

6. Sara: Yeah but we don’t have the weight of the aspirin

7. Garima: Not the aspirin do this one salicylic acid[

8. Sara: [Well I dunno what you’re saying so you just go back and do it

9. Garima: OK

10. Pete: Oi but wouldn’t you just do- add all the stuff together and then times it by

2 because there’s two grams there?

11. Sara: Anyway if it’s 2 plus 5.8 so that’s five. (Sara’s Group Stoichiometry

Challenge, 13-11-2006)

In Turn 2 Pete bids for a turn by beginning to offer a solution to their problem

but then stops himself with “…shut up shut up.” When Sara asks him to clarify his

point, Pete begins to do so in Turn 4 but is interrupted by Garima who enters an

exchange with Sara that lasts 7 turns (not all turns are shown in Extract 6.3.4) before

190

Pete re-enters the discussion in Turn 10. In Turn 11, Sara does not acknowledge Pete’s

utterance and returns to her solution to the problem.

Trev and Louise (Ana was absent in the lesson) displayed four instances of

elaboration during their interactions while solving the stoichiometry challenge. Two of

these instances were when Trev responded to Louise’s questions. For example, Louise

asks a question in Turn 1 of Extract 6.3.5 and Trev responds in Turn 2 with an

elaboration of the solution to the problem.

Extract 6.3.5

1. Louise: [So what what does one divided by that mean[

2. Trev: [there’s one mole of that…It means to every one mole of that you need

69 times that[

3. Louise:[That amount[

4. Trev: [that mo-{mole} yeah. (Trev and Louise Stoichiometry Challenge, 13-11-

2006)

One instance of elaboration was related to Trev’s self-talk as he worked on a

solution to the problem (this utterance take the same form as Turn 2 above but is not

directed at Louise). The fourth instance of elaboration again involved Trev elaborating a

solution to the problem but this time directing the utterance at Louise instead of using it

in self-talk as shown in Extract 6.3.6. Here Trev is not responding to a question or

engaged in self-talk, instead he is elaborating the solution to the problem by initiating a

turn to which Louise then responded.

191

Extract 6.3.6

Trev: [So if you have enough uhmm…do- w- one how? We need to find how

many of…those…how many C4H6O2 {should be 3} we have. (Trev and Louise

Stoichiometry Challenge, 13-11-2006)

Elaboration was commonly followed by evaluation in each group’s interactions.

Evaluation served a number of purposes. It was used in some exchanges to consider a

suggestion for performing the task (both the analogical activities and the stoichiometry

challenge) made by a group member. In other exchanges, it was used to judge the quality

of elaborations made of analog concepts in the analogy activity, and to make final

judgements on the analog concepts chosen by the groups. The number of cases of

evaluation seemed to be related to the group dynamics. In Fergie and Liz’s case, Fergie

dominated the interactions during the stoichiometry analogy and the stoichiometry

challenge activities and in both activities, no instances of evaluation were recorded. In

the same two activities, both Trev and Sara’s groups displayed the same number of

instances of evaluation (ten instances in the analogy and seven in the challenge). This is

consistent with the greater extent of equal participation by different group members in

these two groups.

Table 6.4 indicates that all three groups demonstrated greater instances of

refinement in the analogical activities that in the stoichiometry challenge. Refinement

referred to situations where students had arrived at agreement over the task and then

worked on the finer details. For example, in the analogy activity this meant choosing

symbols for the analog concept while in the stoichiometry challenge this involved

detailing the process they would follow to solve the problem and applying chosen

192

formulas to arrive at an answer. This result could indicate two possibilities. First, it

could indicate that, in the case of the stoichiometry challenge, the pressure of

competition meant students arrived at a solution and submitted it quickly thereby

limiting the revision of the solution. Secondly, it could indicate that the type of activity

influenced the degree of refinement. Given that students indicated in interviews (and

from my observations), great confidence with understanding analogies it is possible that

the second explanation bears more significance in this case.

Greater confidence with the task could mean that students can detail the activity

to a greater extent than tasks where they are less confident. This inference is supported

by the fact that more instances of clarification being sought were identified in the

stoichiometry challenge than in the analogical activities.

The clarification category in Table 6.4 was used to code two types of interrelated

activity. These were when students sought clarification of the task itself and when

students sought clarification of their understanding of concepts. I interpret these data as

clear indication that students demonstrated greater mastery of analogical activities and

concepts than the stoichiometry concept as represented in the challenge activity.

The difference in instances of resolution (analogy, 0; role-play, 0; stoichiometry

challenge, 18) after students sought clarification were interpreted as further indication

that students arrived at consensus over their exchanges in relation to analogies more

readily than in the stoichiometry challenge, despite being equally versed in both kinds of

activity.

Extent of self-talk used by students varied with the type of activity. Self-talk

consisted of utterances where students spoke aloud as they performed a task (e.g.,

developing an answer to a question) but did not direct their utterance at other group

193

members. Cases where students discussed something with a group member or members

and then repeated the exchange to themselves were not coded as self-talk. As indicated

in Table 6.4, the combined number of instances of self-talk in the stoichiometry

challenge (29) far exceeded both analogical activities (0 for the analogy and 2 for the

role-play). Individual group instances of self-talk varied. For the analogy, all three

groups showed no cases of self-talk and in the role-play there were two cases of self-talk

in Fergie’s group and no cases in Trev’s group. By contrast, the stoichiometry challenge

contained 29 instances of self-talk divided as follows; 13 instances between Fergie and

Liz, 5 instances in Sara’s group, and 11 instances in Trev’s group. In the exchanges that

took place between Fergie and Liz, the instances of self-talk during the stoichiometry

challenge were all performed by Fergie, possibly explained by her domination of the

activity. Similarly, Sara, who dominated activities in her group, performed all the

instances of self-talk in her stoichiometry challenge. Sara, like Fergie, was also the

group scribe in this activity. The distribution of self-talk in Trev and Louise’s

exchanges was more even with Louise performing five cases of self-talk and Trev six. It

was observed that in this group both students were scribing their solution to the problem.

This result sheds light on the interactions observed in Fergie and Sara’s groups as the

occurrences of self-talk were linked to the role of group scribe.

Before students engaged in the role-play activity they were required to answer

three questions relating to nerve signalling before moving on to writing the role-play in

the fourth question. The two instances of self-talk noted in the role-play transcript for

Fergie’s group were unrelated to the role-play activity itself but instead pertained to the

first three questions on the worksheet. Fergie and Sara performed these two cases of

self-talk. It is noted that in this case, these two students were wearing the recording

194

equipment and thus, it is not possible to assume that Pete, Liz, and Garima did not use

self-talk during the first three questions of the activity.

The degree of self-talk is interpreted as an indirect measure of the kinds of

interaction afforded by the different activities. High levels of self-talk indicate low

levels of group exchanges while low levels of self-talk were interpreted as signs of

higher interaction and greater potential for Dialogical Interactions to develop. Based on

the discussion above and the overall results for self-talk across the three activities, it is

clear that the extent of social interaction was higher in the analogical activities than in

the stoichiometry challenge.

Student interactions were also analyzed for the number of times students made

choices in the activities. Choices referred to, for example, selecting an analog concept,

or choice of roles in the role-play. This involved considering a number of possible

analog concepts before arriving at a final decision on which one to elaborate into an

analogy. The analogical activities provided more open-ended solutions than the

stoichiometry challenge and this was reflected in the number of choices made in the

conduct of these activities. No instances of choice were coded in the stoichiometry

challenges. The nature of the activity in fact limits the number of choices available.

Essentially, the only choice students were required to make was which reagent in the

reaction represented the limiting reagent. In a reaction involving more than one reagent,

the limiting reagent is the one that is consumed completely. Students used self-talk in

the stoichiometry challenge both to speak their actions and to think aloud. Rarely did

such instances then develop into dialogue with a group member.

195

6.3.2.1 Summary.

In summary, the dominant codings in the stoichiometry challenge were self-talk

(29) and clarification (34). In the analogy activity they were elaboration (49), evaluation

(20) and brainstorming (19), while in the role-play they were elaboration (23) and

clarification (20). Thus, the two analogical activities were similar in one of their

dominant verb codings (i.e., elaboration) and both activities were different from the

stoichiometry challenge.

By comparison to the stoichiometry analogy, Fergie and Trev’s groups used

evaluation less frequently during problem solving. This was interpreted as indication

that the analog concept provided an avenue for all students to evaluate a task while in

the stoichiometry challenge, lack of mastery of the concept meant one student dominated

the discourse by assuming the role of expert. The expert provided resolution (to

problems) for another group member who sought clarification. The lower frequency of

evaluation taking place in the stoichiometry challenge was interpreted as lower student

confidence with the concept when compared to the familiarity with the analog concept in

the stoichiometry analogy as indicated by student responses during interviews.

Students did not engage in interactions where the ideas of others were voiced

openly and then evaluated and refined during non-analogical activities. Solutions to

problems were evaluated with reference to another student’s responses but then the

individual asking the question was the one to arrive at the final decision on whether to

accept his/her own answer or that of the other student. The final answer did not result

from group negotiation.

196

6.3.3 Assertion 12: Student Perceptions of Group Member Interactions Indicated

Differences in Interactions Across Different Classroom Activities

Students were asked two retrospective questions in the Analogy Questionnaire

relating to their own and their group members’ interactions during the stoichiometry

analogy when compared to practical lessons and mathematical problem-solving lessons.

In response to the question item asking students to report differences in their own

forms of interaction (Question 3, Analogy Questionnaire, Appendix C), five categories

of responses were generated as shown in column one of Table 6.5. The first category,

Co-operative/Democratic, emerged from exact terms used by students to describe their

role in the group. Five students perceived themselves as working more cooperatively in

the analogy activity. The second category, Different Roles, was used to describe

responses where students indicated they acted as scribes, sceptics, or assistants.

Category three, Provided Different Analog-Concept Details, refers to students who

responded with examples of the elements of the analog concept they contributed such as

the ratio to use, the quantities to use and the analog concept itself. Different Task

Requirement was the fourth category, which was used to label one student’s exact

response. This student focussed on the idea that the analogy was a public performance

presented to the class while other activities were not, hence the different requirement of

the task. The final category, Involvement, refers to student responses that relating to

general changes to their role in the group. This category is sub-divided into Decreased

and No Change. No student indicated in their response that there was an increase in

their participation to the activity when compared to other lessons. The high frequency of

the Provided Analog Concept Details category indicated that even in response to this

questionnaire item students focussed their attention to the task; that is, arriving at a

197

suitable analog concept that mapped to the target concept. The results are reported in

Table 6.5.

Table 6.5

Student Perceptions of Personal and Group Member Contributions to Class Activities

Personal Contributions Frequency %

Co-operative/Democratic 5 26.31

Different Roles 2 10.53

Provided Analog Concept Details 7 36.84

Different Task Requirement 1 5.26

Participation

Decreased 1 5.26

No Change 3 15.79

Group Member Contributions

Different Roles 3 15.79

Co-operated 3 15.79

Participation

Increased 5 26.31

Decreased 1 5.26

No Change 3 15.79

Equal 4 21.05

My classroom observations were consistent with some responses provided by

individuals from the focus groups in the Analogy Questionnaire. I noted that Ana’s

contributions to group work in the analogy activity were greater than at any other time in

class. Louise and Ana (from Trev’s group) both confirmed his observation in an

198

interview. Sara also indicated in an interview that she perceived Garima’s role as an

active participant to the group work increased in the analogy activity, also as I had

observed. Garima confirmed this in her interview stating that usually when she does her

class work she does “not bother anyone.” Analysis of audio data from the semester

revealed that Garima’s voice was rarely heard. Entire lessons would pass with one or

two utterances where she may be requesting materials, erasers or pencils as an example,

or checking her work against another student. While Garima’s role in her group

changed significantly, Pete’s remained relatively unchanged.

Pete made several bids for a turn by offering ideas related to the analog concept

during the stoichiometry analogy. His contributions were not always relevant to the

progress of the activity. Pete’s role and how Garima and Sara positioned him in his

group did not seem to change to the extent that Garima’s role changed. It is unclear why

this may have been the case. Perhaps the girls’ relationship as close friends outside of

class and Pete’s jovial contributions to discussions earlier in the year led to him being

positioned as non-contributor by the group which persisted even during the analogy

activity.

In Trev’s group, Louise indicated during an interview that she “took more of a

backseat” in the analogy activity and that Ana led the activity. When asked to elaborate

this response in the interview, Louise stated that normally Ana did not understand

concepts and so she would seek Louise’s assistance. However, in the analogy activity,

Ana took charge and developed the analog concept and analogy almost on her own.

Louise also indicated that Trev, who normally led group activities and held a more

dominant role, was passive in the analogy activity. When asked to offer her

interpretation of these differences in Ana’s role in the group, Louise offered that Ana

199

understood the analogy and related concept of proportions, and this allowed her to lead

the activity with confidence.

The fourth question in the Analogy Questionnaire asked students to suggest how

they perceived their group member’s roles differently between the analogical activities

and other class activities. Three categories were developed from student responses: 1)

Different Roles; 2) Co-operated and; 3) Changes in Participation (Table 6.5). The most

frequent response was in relation to an increase in participation by other group members

in the analogy activity when compared to other class activities. This result is consistent

with students’ self-perception about the changes in their involvement as well as my

classroom observations. Also significant was the fact that four students in the class

reported more equal participation of group members in the analogy activity. In

considering these data with those presented above relating to individual self-perception,

it is clear that there was an increase in the extent of co-operation and equal contribution

to the analogy task when compared with other lessons. This result is significant

because, as discussed earlier with the cases of Garima and Ana’s group work, students

who normally participate very little or assume roles of learner with respect to other

group members, were able to experience these dominant roles through the analogy

activity.

Results of the study reported in this assertion indicated that differences in student

interactions during group work were linked to the nature of the activity with analogical

activities providing the opportunity for most students to participate co-operatively and

for some students to participate to a greater extent than what they perceive in other

activities or lessons.

200

6.3.4 Assertion 13: Hybrid Discourses were Generated During the Elaboration,

Refinement and Clarification Stages of the Analogical Activities

The cases of Hybrid Discourse identified in this study were compared to the

coding for the verbs presented in section 6.3.2 to identify whether there were any

relationships between the occurrence of Hybrid Discourse and the actions students

performed.

According to data presented in Table 6.6, the instances of Hybrid Discourse

during lessons occurred only during the Elaborating (4), Refining (4) and Clarifying (1)

stages of the analogical activities (i.e., role-play and stoichiometry analogy).

Table 6.6

Comparison of Instances of Hybrid Discourse and Verb Categories

Verb Codings and Number of Hybrid Discourse Observed

Activity Elaborating Refining Clarifying

Role-Play 2 0 1

Analogy 2 4 0

Total 4 4 1

All four instances of Hybrid Discourse that were generated in the refining

process were cases of Merged Practices where students assigned symbols to their analog

for the stoichiometry analogy. Of the four instances of Hybrid Discourse during the

elaborating process, two occurred in the role-play activity and two in the analogy

activity.

201

The single case of clarification involved with the word perso-ion is interpreted as

a case of Pete and Garima not understanding the word and therefore ignoring it when

they read their lines of the script (see Assertion 1, section 6.1.1.). Both students

indicated in interviews that they did not understand the word during their first reading.

This gave rise to Fergie’s response of clarifying how they had to read their lines.

The two major categories where Hybrid Discourse occurred were elaboration and

refining. It was established in Assertion 6.1.3 that the practice of using symbols to

represent the analog concept was developed through my lesson instruction and was a

requirement of the analogy-writing task. It is not surprising then that all three groups

displayed this form of Hybrid Discourse during this stage of the analogy-writing

process. An important result here is that in both the role-play and analogy activity, two

cases of Hybrid Discourse were observed during the elaboration stages.

Elaboration was used to code interactions where students identified an analog

concept and then started to test out some possible aspects of it that could be used to

develop analogical relationships to the target concept. Both instances of elaboration in

the role-play activity (Table 6.6) occurred in Trev’s group. Trev generated one Hybrid

Discourse while he was thinking aloud about how to model the movement of ions in

nerve cells. The group had decided on a role-play based around a bouncer and bar

theme. At the point where he, and later Louise, generated the Hybrid Discourse, they

were elaborating how the actors would enact the movement and functions of ions. Thus,

the discussion involved all group members either as active speakers or active listeners.

Instances of Hybrid Discourse identified in the analogy activity came from

Fergie and Liz and Sara’s group each producing one Hybrid Discourse. In Sara’s group,

Sara had suggested a table analog and elaborated it in the same utterance. The instance

202

identified between Fergie and Liz was noted in Assertion 2 as a case of false positive.

That is, Liz explained in an interview that her utterance related to a misunderstanding

about the diagrams Fergie had drawn to represent their ice-cream cone.

Elaboration involves determining the elements of the analog concept that map to

the target concept. Students used this strategy to test viability of tentative analog models

and to develop fully their chosen analogs into analogies. This observation aligns the

generation of Hybrid Discourses with points in the interactions where the dual nature of

the analogical activity was to the fore. That is, the similarity in Sara’s utterance about

the table and using the word plus from the target discourse and Trev’s use of alluring

when talking about the chemical messenger GABA both occur at the moment when

elements of analog and target concepts are being developed into an analogy. The

analogy is not yet mature in the sense that it is not in its final version.

6.3.5 Assertion 14: Students Perceived That Group Members Interacted to a Greater

Extent During Analogical Activities

It was observed that students who normally did not offer opinions during

problem solving activities contributed to analogical activities. Garima, a typically quiet

student, contributed extensively to the choice of analog made by her group in the

stoichiometry analogy while she rarely contributed in problem-solving activities.

During problem solving activities, her voice rarely featured on lesson recordings. Sara

also made this observation during an interview as seen in interview Extract 6.3.7.

203

Extract 6.3.7

Sara: …Yeah Garima talked more {during the stoichiometry analogy} than she

normally did cause normally she’ll just sit there and be like all confused and then

she’d like try to explain it and then if she didn’t understand it then I would try

and explain it to her. (Sara Stoichiometry Analogy Interview 2, 30-10-2006)

Sara’s comments were echoed by Louise from Trev’s group when explaining her

perceptions of Ana’s role in the group’s interactions. Louise described Ana’s role

during the analogy writing activity as follows:

Extract 6.3.8

1. Louise: Usually when we’re doing problems and stuff in class Ana won’t

usually join in as much but like I think she understood the ana- analogy more like

so she joined in heaps with it like me and Trev hardly did anything she pretty-

like she she was the one telling us what to write down so I think it really helped

her and like I noticed that she was heaps more like you know taking more of

a…leading position

2. Me: Why do you think that is?

3. Louise: I just think she understood it but she grasped the concept so she

wanted to help out. (Louise Stoichiometry Analogy Interview 1, 6-11-2006)

In Turn 1, Louise explains that Ana “won’t join in as much” during problem solving

activities when compared to the stoichiometry analogy activity. Louise suggested that

Ana had understood the analogy concept in turn 2 and that led to Ana becoming more

engaged and taking a “leading” role in the task.

I asked Ana to explain how she thought group interactions differed during the

stoichiometry analogy activity when compared to problem solving lessons and practical

204

laboratory exercises. She responded by saying that during the stoichiometry analogy her

group participated equally whereas during laboratory activities Trev and Louise

dominated as he “knows what he’s doing… and she knows what she’s doing” (Ana

Interview 1). She described her role in these lessons as “tagging along” (Ana Interview

1).

During Ana’s interview, she asserted that during class she had understood my

ham sandwich analogy better and that she had trouble with “scientific language” used in

other lessons that did not involve analogy (Ana Interview 1). When asked how the

language used in the analogy differed from scientific language, Ana responded by saying

that the language used in analogies was “normal like stuff that we use everyday” (Ana,

Interview 1). It was inferred that Ana gained confidence from the use of everyday

language in the stoichiometry analogy activity and this was a likely reason for Louise’s

observation that Ana participated more in this activity. During her interview, Ana

maintained that there was equal contribution by her group members in the analogy

activity. Her impressions of the activity did not match what was observed through the

lesson transcript where her role in the interactions was greater than she described it in

the interview. Ana’s impression also did not match Louise’s observations or my

classroom observations. In fact, the transcript data was consistent with Louise’s

comment that Ana’s involvement increased.

Louise and Ana’s comments were consistent with my classroom observations

where I had seen students like Ana and Garima (from Sara’s group) participate more

during the stoichiometry analogy than problem solving activities. This increased

engagement was interpreted as indication that the students felt confident in making

contributions and this was attributed to familiarity with the analog concept and the

205

associated language. This assertion reflected Fergie’s comments, in Extract 6.3.9,

during an interview about the analogy she wrote with Liz.

Thus, students perceived that group member who normally offered few contributions

to group activities participated to a greater extent and sometimes took on leadership

roles that were not assumed in non-analogical activities.

Extract 6.3.9

Fergie: Mmm I-It {the analogy they wrote} also gave an understanding to both us

and you. We actually understood it {the target concept stoichiometry}. See if we

had trouble with that {the stoichiometry concept} then the trouble with making this

analogy then you’d go hey maybe we’re {the students} having trouble with the work

that you’re setting up because we can’t get this {the analogy writing} but because we

were able to do it fine then we know ourselves that we can do it. (Fergie

Stoichiometry Analogy Interview 1, 27-10-2006).

6.3.5.1 Summary.

This section provides a summary of key findings from section 6.3.5. It was

established that student activities differed when analogical activities were compared to

the stoichiometry challenge. In analogical activities, there were opportunities for group

members to contribute by brainstorming, elaborating, clarifying, refining and evaluating

the analogies. Furthermore, analogical activities involved more equal participation and

democratic group work than the stoichiometry challenge. Finally, students who

normally did not contribute to problem-solving activities participated to a greater extent

in analogical activities and assumed different roles where leadership was displayed.

206

6.4 Chapter Summary

This chapter reported the findings of the study. The key findings were that

students generated Hybrid Discourse only during analogical activities. Three types of

Hybrid Discourse were observed. These included words, utterances, and practices.

These three types of Hybrid Discourse were generated when students hybridized

language and practices pertaining to the analog concept with the target concept. Results

indicated that student choices of analog concepts partly supported the Personal

Discourse model developed in chapter 4. These results suggested that the original

Hybrid Discourse model was not sufficient for explaining all of the results presented in

this study and thus the model requires some revision. Chapter 7 provides a detailed

discussion or the results and how these were used to provide answers to the research

questions and develop a new theoretical model called Merged Discourse.

207

CHAPTER 7

DISCUSSION

7.0 Introduction

The boundary between subjects is not, therefore, a demarcation line, or an

external link between self and other, but an inclusive ‘space’ of dialogue within

which self and other mutually construct and reconstruct each other. Any sign

taken to be a mediation between self and other, a word or a facial expression,

must presuppose the prior opening of a space of dialogue within which such a

sign can be taken to mean something. (Wegerif, 2008, p. 353)

One goal of this study was to test the viability of the Third Space model

presented in chapter 4. Third Space was operationalized into two sub-constructs;

namely, Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourse. This operationalization was

informed by the results of the informal inquiry (chapter 3) and the theoretical framework

for the study (chapter 4). The two sub-constructs were based on two underlying

assumptions. The first assumption was that Third Space would be generated when

students used the ideas of others in their own thinking as evidenced in their utterances

(Dialogical Interactions). The second assumption was that during analogical activities

the students’ personal discourses (ideas, language, interests, hobbies, ways of doing

outside of school) would hybridize with chemical discourse (the language, practices and

ways of doing of chemistry). In this study, Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourse

were adopted as interpretive lenses, providing a coding system for the discourse analysis

of data sources consistent with the study’s sociocultural framework.

208

This chapter is divided into five sections; section 7.1 presents a review of the

context for the study, its aims and research questions. Then sections 7.1.1 to 7.1.3

provide answers to the three research questions that guided this study. In section 7.2, I

develop the new theoretical model, Merged Discourse, for analyzing and interpreting

analogical discourse within a sociocultural framework. Section 7.3 relates the

development of the Merged Discourse model to the literature presented in chapters 2 and

4 with respect to hybridity. In section 7.3, I provide a theoretical development of Merged

Discourse through use of two metaphors. Section 7.4 presents the limitations of this

study while the implications of this study for teaching, teacher education and educational

theory and research are presented in section 7.5.

7.1 Review of the Aims, Research Questions, and Study Design

This study was conducted in my Year 11 chemistry class in City State High

School. As a teacher researcher, I employed an instrumental case study design with two

focus groups (Fergie’s group and Trev’s group) as the cases for the study. Interactions

of focus-group students were recorded for one school semester (17 weeks). Data

sources included transcripts of audio recordings of all lessons in the 17 weeks for the

two focus groups. Interviews were conducted with focus group members after lessons

that featured the use of analogies. Subsequent to analysis of these interviews, all

students in the class (n=19) completed two questionnaires during Phase 2 of the study.

One questionnaire related to the role-play and the other questionnaire related to the

stoichiometry analogy. Questionnaires were administered to the whole class to provide

a broader perspective into the research questions than that offered through the study of

the focus groups. As well, students who were not members of the focus groups were

209

interviewed regarding their questionnaire responses. The study was guided by the

following three research questions:

1: To what extent do analogical activities foster the development of Hybrid

Discourses?

2: How do students choose analog concepts when generating post-festum

analogies in chemistry?

3: To what extent do patterns of interaction differ in activities where

students construct analogies compared to activities where they solve

mathematical problems in chemistry?

The following three sections present answers to these research questions through

the propositions developed in chapter 6.

7.1.1 The Development of Merged Discourse During Analogical Activities: Addressing

Research Question 1

Proposition 1: Students developed Hybrid Discourses throughout their

interactions during the role-play and the stoichiometry analogy.

Analysis of the lesson recordings throughout the study period indicated that

students only generated Hybrid Discourses during analogical activities (the role-play, the

stoichiometry analogy, interviews and questionnaire items regarding the analogical

activities). Furthermore, there was no evidence that these Hybrid Discourses persisted

in classroom discourse after the analogical activities were completed (see Assertions 1-

5, chapter 6). This finding led me to develop a new model for interpreting student

interactions during analogical activities. The new model, Merged Discourse, is

developed and elaborated in sections 7.2 and 7.3. Briefly, in this new theoretical

210

construct, the Analog Discourse (i.e., language, symbols systems and practices pertinent

to the analog concept) and the Target Discourse (i.e., language, symbol systems and

practices pertinent to the chemical discourse) are merged in single utterances, producing

a Merged Discourse. Three categories of Merged Discourse were developed in this

study: Merged Words, Merged Utterances, and Merged Practices.

Merged Practices referred to the use of symbols pertaining to one discourse to

discuss or represent another discourse. For example, this occurs in my teaching when I

ask students to assign symbols to the analog concept such as using “H” for ham and “B”

for bread in the sandwich analogy. In this study, Merged Practices occurred in a

unidirectional transfer of the symbolic practices used in chemistry (i.e., assigning letter

and number symbols to elements and compounds) to the analog concepts. The reverse

of this (i.e., analog symbols being used to represent target objects) was not observed in

this study; however, I anticipate that through further research such cases could be

identified. In this study, both focus groups produced Merged Practices as this was a

requirement of the stoichiometry analogy task I had assigned to the class. Thus, students

did not spontaneously generate Merged Practices.

Merged Words refers to the practice of merging a word pertaining to one

discourse with another discourse. This was exemplified in the word perso-ion created

by Fergie (Assertion 1, section 6.1.1). One Merged Word was observed in this study.

The combination of Analog Discourse and Target Discourse was uni-directional in this

example as the analog (person) appears at the beginning of the word and the target (ion)

forms the end of the word. It is anticipated that the reverse process is also possible

(target first followed by analog) but this was not observed in this study. In Fergie’s role-

play, positive perso-ions represented positive ions (e.g., sodium) and negative perso-ions

211

represented negative ions (i.e., chloride ions). Fergie spontaneously generated this

Merged Word when writing her role-play.

Merged Utterances refers to units of speech that may involve sentences or

paragraphs where elements of one discourse are merged with another discourse; for

example, as in the utterance “…a molecule in our guitar formula.” Merged Utterances

are bi-directional and can be simple, such as “the equation for the sandwich” or complex

such as “…a molecule in our guitar formula.” The first example has the structure:

Target Discourse–Analog Discourse, while the second example has the structure: Target

Discourse–Analog Discourse–Target Discourse. Students in this study spontaneously

generated Merged Utterances during analogical activities including interviews and

questionnaires.

Related to these three categories of Merged Discourse I have also developed the

concepts of Full Immersion in the Analog Discourse (FIAD) and Full Immersion in the

Target Discourse (FITD). The constructs FIAD and FITD serve to theorize and

accommodate the majority of classroom discourse during analogical activities that

resides either entirely in the discourse of the analog concept (FIAD) or entirely in the

discourse of the target concept (FITD), respectively. For example, in Assertion 4

(section 6.1.4) members of Trev’s group were brainstorming potential analog concepts

(e.g., trees, hair dye, Styrofoam balls) for their analogy (as did the other student groups).

During the early parts of their exchanges, the students’ utterances contained language

pertaining mainly to the Analog Discourse. In activities such as the stoichiometry

challenge (the mathematical problem-solving activity), all of the utterances related to

completing the activity contained language use and practices pertaining only to the

Target Discourse, thereby representing Full Immersion in the Target Discourse. While

212

the three categories of Merged Discourse reflect the analytical process of zooming in

(Roth, 2005) to the level of words, sentences and utterances, the FIAD and FITD

categories represent the process of zooming out and analyzing classroom discourse at

the level of larger exchanges such as whole conversations, lessons or units of work

involving a series of lessons. The categories developed so far in this section present a

different analytical model to the Hybrid Discourse model employed at the beginning of

the study.

The Hybrid Discourse model was theorized in chapter 4 as representing the

hybridization of student personal discourse with the chemical discourse of the

classroom. Thus, it was expected that Hybrid Discourses would be generated in a range

of classroom activities but this was not observed in this study. The data generated in this

study did not support these assumptions regarding Hybrid Discourse. In contrast, the

Merged Discourse model represents the merging of the Analog Discourse with the

Target Discourse during analogical activities. Hybrid Discourses were also theorized as

products of verbal exchanges between group members. However, as reported in section

6.1, Fergie claims to have developed the Merged Word perso-ion independently of her

group members and Max generated a Merged Utterance in his response to a

questionnaire item (conducted without verbal exchanges with his group members).

Thus, Merged Discourses can be generated independently of verbal exchanges through

group interactions such as group discussion during analogical activities.

The results presented in this section with respect to the generation of Merged

Discourse are different from those reported by other researchers who have used Third

Space and hybridity to interpret classroom discourse. Studies conducted by Gutiérrez

(e.g. Gutiérrez et al. 1999; Gutiérrez et al., 1995) suggested that students and teachers

213

generated Third Spaces and hybrid discourse practices when they constructed bi-lingual

(i.e. Spanish-English) utterances and texts (see chapter 4). My results are different from

those reported in these studies because the Merged Discourses generated in my study

were developed only in English. Thus, the different languages that are represented in

Gutiérrez’s description of Third Space do not form part of my Merged Discourse model.

This finding is significant because it implies that the Merged Discourse model is suitable

for interpreting classroom discourse in single-language classes as well as dual-language

classes. Furthermore, Merged Discourse does not represent two oppositional, or binary,

categories such as teacher script and student script. The Analog Discourse and Target

Discourse interact in a co-operative manner to produce Merged Discourse.

7.1.2 Determining How Students Choose Analog Concepts for Analogies: Addressing

Research Question 2

Proposition 2: There were four types of choice students made when

generating analogies; namely 1) the Personal/Individual Analog, 2) the Experiential

Analog, 3) the Common/Societal Analog, and 4) the Relational Analog.

Hybrid Discourses were defined in section 4.7 as the hybridization of chemical

discourse with the students’ personal discourses. In this study, I defined students’

personal discourses as social habits and ways of thinking, feeling, doing and saying

defined by the communities of practice in which students participate outside of school.

For example, communities of practice include students’ sports, hobbies, and part-time

jobs. It was established through Proposition 2 in addition to some students choosing

personally relevant analog concepts for their analogies (which I named

Personal/Individual Analog; see section 6.2.1), there were three other categories that

214

described analog choices. Specifically these were: the Experiential Analog, the

Common/Societal Analog, and the Relational Analog (see Assertion 9, section 6.2.2).

These categories draw on broader discourses and concepts than what was originally

theorized in the personal discourse element of Hybrid Discourse.

Experiential Analogs were chosen from classroom surroundings; for example,

the taps on the bench or the students pencil cases. Thus, this category describes analog

choices based on things that can be seen or that form part of the students’ surroundings

and the classroom discourse.

Common/Societal Analogs referred to analog concepts chosen because most

people would have knowledge or experience of them; for example, food and cars. This

category represents broader societal discourses and culture.

Relational Analogs referred to analog concepts chosen by students simply

because they bore relational structure to the target concept. This category relates

specifically to the discourse of analogies that involves choosing an analog concept based

on its relational similarity to the target concept.

It was established in the literature review on analogies (see chapter 2) that few

studies in science education have identified how and why students choose the analogies

they do for explaining scientific concepts and the kinds of analogies that are most

appealing to students (e.g., see Harrison, 2006). The findings in this study relating to

student choices of analog concepts presents a significant contribution to the research

community’s growing understanding of how students choose and generate analogies for

science concepts. That is, that the audience must be familiar with the analog concept

and the four categories of analog concepts identified in this study are likely to produce

the kinds of analogies that will appeal to one’s audience.

215

The identification of the four categories from which students developed their

analog concepts in my study reflected some of the findings reported by Mojé et al.’s

(2004) study (see section 4.3.3). Mojé et al. identified four categories of funds of

knowledge to which students in their study had access: family, community, peer groups

and popular culture. Mojé et al.’s categories of family and peer group funds of

knowledge are similar to my Personal/Individual category. The community and popular

culture categories are captured by my Common/Societal Analog category. My

categories of Experiential Analog and Relational Analog have no parallels with Mojé et

al.’s categories. This can be explained by the fact that the latter two categories in my

model reflect the analogical nature of activities in which my students were engaged. An

important difference between my study and Mojé et al.’s study was that my categories

represent the constituents of the Analog Discourse as observed through student

interactions. In Mojé et al.’s study, the funds of knowledge described in their four

categories were not always observed during classroom interactions. Some of the funds

of knowledge were identified by investigation of students’ home lives through

interactions with students and their families outside of the school context. Mojé et al.

found that not all of the funds of knowledge available to the students in their study were

accessed during classroom instruction nor did students make these funds available to

teachers. In contrast to this, the four categories of Analog Discourse I have developed

were solely based on classroom observations of students using these different sources of

analog concepts to construct their analogies. This finding is significant because Mojé et

al. suggested that more studies were required that provide insights into activities where

student discourses and funds of knowledge are integrated with science discourse in

classrooms. The results of my study presented in this section indicate that generation of

216

analogies can provide one means of accessing students’ personal discourse and broader

societal discourses and integrating these with scientific discourse in the classroom.

7.1.3 Determining Patterns of Interaction During Student Group Work: Addressing

Research Question 3

Proposition 3: The patterns of group interactions differed between the tasks

of writing analogies and mathematical problem solving.

A comparison of student interactions across the analogical activities (i.e., the

role-play and stoichiometry analogy) and the stoichiometry challenge (mathematical

problem-solving activity) indicated different patterns of interaction (see section 6.3,

Assertions 10-14). A summary of student actions (represented by verb codings) during

analogical activities consisted of the following categories: brainstorm, elaborate,

evaluate, choose, clarify, refine, and complete the task. During the stoichiometry

challenge, the categories for describing student actions were: clarify activity or task,

self-talk, seek clarification, resolve, and develop solution to mathematical problem. In

both the analogical activities and the stoichiometry challenge, these categories did not

represent the direct sequence of actions performed by students. For example, the

sequence of actions for Sara’s group during the stoichiometry analogy was: brainstorm,

brainstorm, elaborate, brainstorm, evaluate and so on. Thus, the categories represent a

summary of actions identified in the focus groups. These categories were discussed at

length in chapter 6. In this chapter, I will establish the relationship between the verb

codings and Merged Discourse.

Merged Discourses aligned with the explanation, refining and elaboration stages

of the analogical activities and not with the brainstorming and evaluating stages. During

217

interviews with Fergie and Max, I asked specific questions relating to their generation of

Merged Discourses to develop an emic perspective of these phenomena. I also asked

Fergie’s group members for their interpretations of the Merged Word perso-ion. From

these data sources and the comparison between the occurrence of Merged Discourse and

the verb coding for student actions (see section 6.3.6, Assertion 13), a relationship was

established. That is, that Merged Discourse was generated when students were

explaining, elaborating, and refining elements of the chosen analog concepts. For

example, Fergie claimed to have used perso-ion to communicate to the audience the

dualistic nature of the person in the play and their role as ions. In addition, Max

generated a Merged Utterance in his questionnaire response when explaining how he

and his group developed their analogy. In addition to these cases, Trev’s Merged

Discourse relating to the nerve signalling role-play (i.e., the GABA molecule alluring

the ion channel) occurred when he was elaborating the roles of his group members in

their play. These data indicate that Merged Discourses were used for explanatory or

elaborative functions in communication.

A possible explanation for this finding is offered. During explanation and

elaboration of the analogy, both analog and target concepts are considered along with

their relationship simultaneously. During this process, it is likely the individual is

carrying out mappings of attributes between analog and target concept, and these

mappings are being externalised as Merged Discourses. That is, object attributes that

map from analog to target concept, and vice versa, are used interchangeably. An

example from my own instruction will illustrate the point. When I draw the recipe for

the ham sandwich using symbols (i.e., H + 2B HB2) on the white-board, I

subsequently use the words recipe and equation interchangeably. Thus, I might say

218

“The equation for the sandwich” and in other instances within the same instructional

sequence “The recipe for the sandwich.” Explanation and elaboration were not only

observed in the analogical activities but also during the stoichiometry challenge.

During the stoichiometry challenge, a student would seek clarification regarding

the solution of the problem from a group member by asking a question. This was

normally followed by resolution, which commonly involved a univocal interaction

where the respondent offered an answer to the group member’s question. Occasionally,

resolution involved elaboration or explanation of elements of the solution to the

problem, but this occurred to a limited extent as seen in Assertion 11. The presence of

explanation and elaboration in activities such as problem solving, and the absence of

Merged Discourses in those activities, suggests that the analogical nature of the activity

is the predominant condition for generating Merged Discourses, and not the actions of

explaining and elaborating. Explanation and elaboration may perform a supportive role

in generating Merged Discourse but the primary condition required for Merged

Discourse is analogical activities.

Studies conducted by Gutiérrez (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Gutiérrez et al., 1995) and

Mojé et al. (2001, 2004) have provided accounts of the conditions under which Third

Spaces and hybridity could be identified in classroom discourse but details of the

functions served by these Third Spaces were not extensively reported. These studies

have reported that generation of hybrid discourse practices and Third Space is beneficial

to learning but there has been no indication of the purpose that hybrid practices and

Third Spaces might serve during classroom discourse and interactions beyond bringing

together student funds of knowledge with canonical science. In this study, the

relationship between Merged Discourse and the actions of explaining, elaborating and

219

refining suggest what purpose it may serve in the enactment of analogical activities.

This finding is significant because it provides a possible explanation for the purpose of

Merged Discourse during interactions, and offers analytical strategies for interpreting

classroom discourse in order to understand better the role Merged Discourse plays in

mediating discourse, interaction, and possibly understanding of scientific concepts.

In addition to studying actions performed by students during classroom

discourse, a second aspect of interaction investigated was the generation of Dialogical

Interactions. The Third Space model adopted at the beginning of the study consisted of

a second sub-construct, Dialogical Interactions, relating to student interactions where

students used the ideas of others as thinking tools. Thus, I was seeking evidence in

student utterances where one student used concepts and words introduced by a group

member into his or her own utterances. The theoretical assumption was that for Third

Spaces to be generated there would be evidence of Dialogical Interactions during

exchanges between group members. Interactions of this kind were observed in this

study during analogy writing activities (see Assertion 10). For example, when

brainstorming possible analog concepts, Pete (in Sara’s group) adopted Sara’s

suggestion of using a plank and four legs as a table analog and uttered “What about a

table and four chairs?” In instances such as this one, students were observed to

appropriate the ideas of others (e.g., the table) and elaborate or refine them in their own

utterances. A connection was established between the presence of Dialogical

Interactions and the brainstorming and refining stages of analogical activities. During

the brainstorming stage, students often suggested an analog concept to the group as in

the example above of Pete and Sara’s exchange. This suggests that Dialogical

Interactions formed when students adopted one group member’s suggestion and then

220

proceeded to elaborate it further or suggest a related analog concept. During the refining

stage of analogical activities, students established the analogical relation between their

chosen analog concept and the target concept. Dialogical Interactions were involved

here when students began to develop the elements of the analogy and other students

contributed to these developments. For example, when generating their ice-cream

analogy, Liz suggested the use of the symbol Ic for ice cream and Fergie suggested F for

chocolate flake. This indicated that students were adopting one another’s ideas by

appropriating the same logic of symbol use to describe their analogy. Dialogical

Interactions did not correspond to the generation of Merged Discourses and the two sub-

constructs are regarded as separate and unrelated phenomena. As reported by Wertsch

and Toma (1995) and Ritchie and Tobin (2001), few cases of Dialogical Interactions

were identified in this study. However, the relationship between Dialogical Interactions

and the brainstorming and refining stages of analogy development is significant because

this finding has not been previously reported.

7.1.4 Comparison of Research Findings Across the Informal Inquiry and This Study

In both the informal inquiry (chapter 3) and this study, students were observed

generating Merged Discourses when engaging in analogical activities. By comparing

the two temporally separated studies, it is possible to identify those elements of the

context that are most likely to bear upon the generation of Merged Discourse and those

that are peripheral or insignificant. The similarities across the two studies included me

as the teacher, my use of the ham sandwich analogy for instruction, the concept of

stoichiometry (in Phase 2 of this study), the school, the year level (Year 11), and the

general characteristics of the students in the class (demographics, socio-economic

221

backgrounds, and ability levels on school-based chemistry assessment). The differences

in the two contexts included the curriculum and the specific participants. During the

timing of the informal inquiry, the chemistry course was operating from a concept-to-

problem based curriculum whilst in this study the curriculum had changed focus to a

context to concept approach. In the latter approach, our school work-programme

documents reflected the intent of the context-based syllabus through structuring the

chemical concepts around societal contexts. For example, students wrote their role-

plays when studying a context called The Chemistry of Drugs and they wrote the

stoichiometry analogy while studying The Chemistry of Fire. Students in the informal

inquiry studied stoichiometry purely in conceptual form through two units called

Reacting Quantities 1 and 2. There was little to no application of chemical concepts to

real-life contexts in these two units. The typical lesson structure during the time of the

informal inquiry was: teach the concept then do practise problems.

While I have noted myself as a similarity in the above discussion, my teaching

has changed from year to year as I have gained experience, so to assume that everything

I did as a teacher across the informal study and this study was identical cannot be

supported. One example of my change in practice is that I had not used role-play as a

form of analogy until the curriculum changed to the context-based approach, and we

included work on the function of the brain in the instructional sequences. At the time of

the informal inquiry, role-play activities were not used for instruction.

The general structure and sequence of my presentation of the ham sandwich

analogy has remained relatively constant across the informal inquiry and this study.

This reduces the likelihood that the change from a concept-problem approach to a

context-concept-problem approach influenced the generation of Merged Discourse. This

222

provides at least some contextual stability in the instructional sequences across the

informal inquiry and this study allowing an almost direct comparison to be made of my

instruction.

In terms of the student groups (the cases) in the informal inquiry and this study,

in both cases the groups were formed because of student friendship. Students were thus

familiar with one another beyond the classroom context. One difference that was noted

between the informal inquiry and this study in terms of generation of Merged Discourse

was that students in the informal inquiry generated them during an argument (i.e., when

Aaron debated the cow analogy with Pietro) whereas the cases of Merged Discourses

reported in this study did not develop through argumentation. In both the informal

inquiry and this study, Dialogical Interactions (where one group member incorporated

ideas of another in their utterances) were noted during the analogical activities. As

noted in section 6.2.1, Merged Discourse was only generated during analogical

activities. Consideration of these comparisons and the synthesis of findings related to

the three research questions now allows me to review the Third Space model and its sub-

constructs, Dialogical Interactions and Hybrid Discourse.

7.1.4.1 Summary.

In the preceding sections, I have offered a summary of the key findings of this

study in answer to the three research questions and how these findings have influenced

the development of Merged Discourse as a theoretical construct. Briefly, Merged

Discourse represents the merging of Analog Discourse and Target Discourse in single

utterances. Three categories of Merged Discourse were developed: Merged Words,

Merged Practices and Merged Utterances. Additionally, student choices of analog

223

concepts in this study were defined under four categories: Personal/Individual Analog,

Experiential Analog, Common/Societal Analog, and the Relational Analog. These

categories form the basis of the Analog Discourse in Merged Discourses.

One aim of this study was to test the viability of the Third Space model,

conceptualized as Hybrid Discourse and Dialogical Interactions, against the empirical

data. Based on the analyses presented in sections 6.1-6.3 and the discussion in sections

7.1.1-7.1.3, the Hybrid Discourse construct was rejected and re-conceptualized as

Merged Discourse. In addition, Dialogical Interactions and Merged Discourse were

found to be unrelated and thus are now considered as separate phenomena.

Merged Discourses identified in this study remained situated in the analogical

activities in which they originated. No cases of Merged Discourses persisted over time

in lessons prior or subsequent to the analogy lessons. Thus, Merged Discourse is unlike

other linguistic hybrids, such as creoles and dialects (Young, 1995), which can be

persistent for great lengths of time. Merged Discourse is borne of the analogical activity

and appears to die with it.

As seen in this section, Merged Discourse has been grounded in the empirical

data generated in this study and the results of my study were compared to other key

works that employed Third Space and hybridity as theoretical frameworks for

interpreting classroom discourse. Given that there are a number of definitions of Third

Space and hybridity used in the research literature, a clarification of the differences of

my Merged Discourse model and these other models of hybridity is warranted. In the

following sections, I present the theoretical development of Merged Discourse in light of

research findings and through comparison with existing models of hybridity presented in

the literature reviewed in chapter 4.

224

7.2 The Need for Merged Discourse: Revisiting the Literature

In this section, I establish key differences between Bakhtinian dialogic hybrids

and Bhabha’s (1994) hybridity, and model of Third Space and hybridity in educational

research from Merged Discourse. This discussion informs the theoretical development

of Merged Discourse presented in section 7.3.

The models of Third Space and hybridity adopted in educational research were

best represented in the works of Gutiérrez (2008) and Mojé et al. (2004). In both

models, construction of Third Space was described as the resultant of the teacher’s

official script (i.e., the dominant, classroom discourse) hybridizing with the student’s

counter scripts (i.e., student discourses). My study also used similar logic in the Hybrid

Discourse model developed in section 4.6. Theoretically, my Hybrid Discourse model,

as with Gutiérrez and Mojé’s Third Space, should produce singularities (i.e., the hybrid).

In my study, no such synthesis was observed and none were reported in the analyses

offered by Gutiérrez, Rymes and Larson (1995), Gutiérrez et al. (1999) or Mojé et al.

(2001, 2004). Thus, it is necessary to develop a new theoretical perspective for

understanding notions of hybridity as identified in my study that do not imply generation

of a singularity.

To help contextualise the theoretical work I begin in the next section, I return to

the models of hybridity reviewed in chapter 4. These models of hybridity are Bhabha’s

(1994) hybrid developed in Third Space and Bakhtin’s (1981) intentional and organic

hybrids.

In section 4.3.1.1, Bhabha’s (1994) concept of hybridity was compared to

Bakhtin’s (1981) intentional and organic linguistic-hybrids. According to Bakhtin’s

intentional hybrids, two voices can be identified in a text that remain in opposition (i.e.,

225

dialogically opposed) with one another such that one voice undoes the authority of the

other. Thus, authoritative discourse (e.g., the teacher’s discourse) remains singular (i.e.,

cannot be hybrid) for if it were a dialogic hybrid (i.e., an intentional hybrid), its authority

would be instantly undone based on Bakhtinian logic (Bakhtin, 1981; Young, 1995).

According to Bakhtin, organic hybrids are often generated spontaneously in

conversations but do not carry the power of disrupting authoritative discourse in the way

that intentional hybrids do. He concedes that organic hybrids can lead to the evolution

of a language but not to challenging authoritative discourses, thus they are not dialogic.

In contrast to Bakhtin’s (1981) perspective, the authoritative discourse (e.g., the

discourse of the coloniser) is hybrid according to Bhabha (1994), and this hybrid nature

ultimately leads to undoing its authority. Young (1995) asserted that Bhabha’s hybridity

transcends Bakhtinian logic of a single-voiced authoritative discourse by theorizing all

discourse and culture as hybrid and thus dissolving claims of authority and purity by a

single discourse (such as colonial discourse) or culture.

To synthesize the discussion so far, in Bakhtinian (1981) logic, authoritative

discourse must be single-voiced, thus not hybrid. This authority is challenged when an

author generates an intentional hybrid that is double-voiced (dialogic). Bhabha (1994)

goes beyond this logic to assert that all culture, and therefore discourse, is hybrid. Based

on his logic authoritative discourse is not single-voiced rather it represents a plurality.

The difference in the description of authoritative discourses in these approaches is that

Bakhtin presents it as a singularity while Bhabha presents it as plurality.

In my interpretation of Bhabha’s hybrids, he has essentially proposed hybrid

ontology where there is no sense in referring to a teacher script and a student script

because these scripts are hybrids such that firm boundaries establishing where one script

226

begins and the other ends cannot be defined. This establishes an ontology where

difference, rather than sameness, is the norm (Roth, 2008b). Thus, absolute self-identity

and claims to purity are not possible through hybrid ontology (Roth, 2008b).

This discussion leads to a problem with the logic to hybridity and Third Space as

I theorized it originally in Hybrid Discourse. I established earlier that the results of my

study did not support the assumption that the merging of Analog Discourse with Target

Discourse lead to producing a new synthesis (i.e., a singularity) of these two discourses.

The two discourses were merged only at the level of utterances and only for the extent

of the analogical activities. No lasting evidence of Merged Discourse was observed in

lessons subsequent to those where analogical activities were involved. On this basis, I

rejected the notion that Merged Discourse represents a synthesis that produces a

singularity (i.e., as implied by hybrid).

Bakhtin’s (1981) intentional and organic hybrids were also unsatisfactory as

models for interpreting the Merged Discourses in my study. While the case of Fergie’s

Merged Word perso-ion represented an intentional hybrid in the sense that she

constructed it deliberately, her explanation for developing the word does not reflect the

dialogic nature of intentional hybrids as described by Bakhtin (i.e., that the discourses

oppose one another). The examples of Merged Utterances and Merged Practices also

cannot be explained as organic hybrids. According to Bakhtin, organic hybrids can be

generated spontaneously and serve to evolve languages. This implies they have long-

lived effects on language. In my study, Merged Discourses did not evolve new language

use and did not persist beyond the analogical activities in which they were generated.

Thus, Merged Discourse did not qualify for Bakhtin’s organic hybrid model.

227

While Bhabha’s (1994) hybrids capture the existence of difference and plurality within

an individual person, the critiques discussed in section 4.5 of his model and other uses of

hybridity in cultural studies trace its origins to biological hybrids. These critiques

identified three key problems with hybridity theory (e.g., Hutnyk, 2005; Kraidy, 2002;

Werbner, 2001; Young, 1995). The first problem was that the link to biological hybrids

represented racist views of culture in the 18th century (Young, 1995). The second

problem was a theoretical one as some have questioned how hybridity can transcend

dialogic and binary systems when the notion of a hybrid implies the combination of two

or more separate entities resulting in a synthesis. The third problem identified was that

while Bhabha (1994) has offered hybridity as a model for questioning authoritative

discourse, some studies have shown that hybridity can serve to advance authoritative

discourse by normalizing it (e.g., Mitchell, 1997). Based on these critiques and the

discussion of Bakhtin’s (1981) and Bhabha’s (1994) hybrids, I propose a shift from the

ontologies represented in these constructs. With reference to the results reported in

chapter 6, I theorize the model of Merged Discourse in terms of two metaphors from the

sciences in the next section.

7.3 Tertiary and Quaternary Structure of Merged Discourse and Mutualism

To explain the nature of Merged Discourse, I invoke two metaphors: one

biological and one biochemical. The biological metaphor is that of mutualism among

organisms (e.g., a lichen). The lichen is an alga and fungus co-existing and co-

dependant for survival. Both organisms benefit from the symbiotic relationship (i.e.,

mutualism). Thus, the concept lichen refers to a singularity but it is comprised of two

distinct organisms (i.e., it is also plurality). Merged Discourse as a singular construct

228

(i.e., an utterance) as I have theorized it, is constituted by two mutual symbionts, the

Analog Discourse and Target Discourse (i.e., the plurality). Without either discourse,

the Merged Discourse would not exist. The relationship implies mutuality because,

unlike Bakhtin’s (1981) novelistic hybrids, the two discourses co-construct one

another’s meaning they do not oppose or resist one another based on the observations

made in this study.

The second metaphor I invoke is a biochemical metaphor relating to descriptions

of protein structure. In section 7.1.1 I explained how by invoking the notion of zooming

and focusing (Roth, 2005) my analyses provided details of how Merged Discourses are

generated at the level of single words and utterances and how they are connected to

larger sequences such as entire lessons or sequences of lesson. The metaphor of protein

structure I elaborated in this section builds on these perspectives and the concept of

mutualism to develop a more complete account of the nature and structure of Merged

Discourse.

In biochemistry, protein structure is described at four levels: Primary Structure,

Secondary Structure, Tertiary Structure, and Quaternary Structure. Proteins have a

primary structure that is recognized as the sequence of amino acids (small, individual

sub-units) that comprise protein molecules. Protein molecules are made of long chains

of amino acids. Different sequences generate different proteins. This is similar to the

words and phrases that make up the Merged Discourse. For example, the words (sub-

units) person and ion constitute the Merged Word perso-ion and the words molecule,

guitar and formula as the sub-units of the Merged Utterance “molecule in our guitar

formula.”

229

Secondary protein structure describes the different shapes that protein sub-units

can form. In terms of Merged Discourse, secondary structure represents the three

categories (i.e., Merged Words, Merged Practices, and Merged Utterances; see section

7.1.1) in which they can be represented.

Tertiary protein structure refers to folding of the secondary structures upon one

another to give the entire protein molecule its shape. This folding is a suitable metaphor

for conceptualizing the nature of Merged Discourse as more than the sum of its

constituent discourses yet existing in single utterances. It provides a visualization of the

way in which two (or more) discourses fold into one another to provide the structure and

symbiotic relationship I have tried to capture with describing Merged Discourses as

mutualism and singular pluralities. Merged Discourse is not dialogic, the Analog and

Target Discourses remain in constant conversation and, for the life of the single

utterance, do not subsume or synthesize one another but co-exist mutually, folded into

one another.

Protein molecules also assemble into tertiary structures to form bigger structures

such as enzymes (biological catalysts) or haemoglobin (e.g., haemoglobin is made up of

four heme–protein sub-units). Quaternary structure in the context of analogical

discourse represents the role and situatedness of Merged Discourse within broader

contexts such as the lesson sequences and discourses developed therein. Merged

Discourse in this study occurred in lessons where students engaged in analogical

activities. These lessons were preceded by lessons where students and I were fully

immersed in Target Discourse and followed by full immersion in target discourse. Thus,

an example of quaternary structure could be represented as Full Immersion in Target

Discoursegeneration of Merged DiscourseFull Immersion in Target Discourse.

230

There are, of course, dangers in the use of metaphors, and I will address some of

the differences between genetic explanations of organisms and language and Merged

Discourse here. In relation to the mutual symbiosis metaphor, such biological

explanations of the nature of living things resort to genetic origins for explaining the

characteristics of organisms and their behaviours. Dawkins (1989) applied this genetic

logic to explain the evolution of language. At this stage, I do not suggest there are any

genetic processes paralleled in the conceptualization of Merged Discourse as mutualism.

In addition, I do not have evidence to suggest that Merged Discourse led to permanent

changes to classroom discourse that extended beyond the analogical activity at the

language level (there may have been cognitive restructuring toward development of

understanding of the target concept), thus no discourse evolution was noted. Like the

results reported by Gutiérrez et al. (1999) and Mojé et al. (2001, 2004) relating to Third

Space, I also found that Merged Discourses mediated my interactions and conversations

with students allowing us to generate shared meanings. Thus, Merged Discourses had a

generative capacity that facilitated classroom interactions and discourse and created

spaces where shared understandings could be constructed. From a sociocultural

perspective, learning chemistry is understood as growing participation in chemical

discourse. The quaternary structure metaphor may be useful in tracking students’

growing engagement with chemical discourse by marking shifts such as Full Immersion

in Analog DiscourseMerged DiscourseFull Immersion in Target Discourse in lesson

transcripts and classroom observations. Such shifts could indicate growing participation

in chemical (or other) classroom discourse.

The next section presents the limitations of the study. The implications for

Merged Discourse theory on educational research are discussed in section 7.5.3.

231

7.4 Limitations of the Study

I established in chapter 3 a critique of the use of Third Space and hybridity in

cultural studies and theory and then applied this critique to the use of Third Space and

hybridity in educational studies (see sections 4.5 and 4.5.1). Some key critiques are

considered here in relation to how they might be applied to explicating the limitations of

my study.

One critique offered by Mitchell (1997) suggested that notions of hybridity used

in cultural theory are presented as counter-hegemonic with respect to dominant colonial

discourses. As Mitchell (1997) argued however, hybridity can be used to generate or

maintain the power relations that it is supposed to disrupt through a process where the

dominant culture is normalized within the hybrid condition. Thus, hybridity only

disrupts hegemony if one intentionally uses it to achieve that end, otherwise it can

become a tool for persuading one to accept the dominant culture by normalizing it as a

hybrid. In section 4.5.1, I established that one could view chemical discourse as

presenting hegemony for some students and that this might lead to generating a barrier

to learning. In addition, in section 7.3 I argued that Merged Discourses represent

constructive, generative discourse spaces. However, when Mitchell’s critique is

considered in relation to my study, it could be argued that Merged Discourses could be

used to normalize chemical discourse to the point where it replaces student views and

concepts. This could lead to students accepting scientific conceptions in uncritical ways.

From a constructivist perspective (cf., Vygotsky, 1978) this could be undesirable

because the warrants that students might adopt for justifying a scientific proposition

could result from the persuasive nature of Merged Discourse (as it is with cultural

hybrids) rather than evidence linked to concrete materials (e.g., such as establishing a

232

concept through scientific investigation). Furthermore, the normalization of chemical

discourse through Merged Discourse could be interpreted as the colonization of student

personal ideas by scientific concepts.

This leads to a limitation of the present study. Because my research focus was

on determining the influence of analogical activity on classroom discourse, I did not

focus on student knowledge and their emergent constructions of scientific concepts.

Thus, to establish a more complete picture of the role Merged Discourses might play in

classroom interactions and learning it is necessary to investigate how it shapes

knowledge construction. In addition, it was not possible to capture student actions and

discourses related to practical activities (such as laboratory experiments) due to limited

resources (i.e., video equipment, time constraints). As such, the Merged Practices

element of Merged Discourse was limited to explaining the practices of using symbols to

represent the analog concepts (e.g., H for ham) during analogical activities.

Investigation of laboratory activities enacted by students could lead to further

development of Merged Practices by identifying whether or not students merge practices

learnt in other community activities (e.g., from part-time jobs) with practices related to

classroom based activities (e.g., chemistry practicals).

In sections 7.2 and 7.3, I developed the theoretical assumptions underlying

Merged Discourse. Based on this study, Merged Discourse is limited to explanations of

analogical discourse primarily based on two student focus groups representing nine

students (these are discussed in more detail in the next paragraph). However, the

concept of mutual symbiosis developed in section 7.3 offers broader applicability to the

research effort in education and perhaps studies of culture. Applying the model to

233

interpretation of other classrooms and context beyond science education could lead to

further refinement of the model and to reducing its limitations.

The case study design of this study presents a limitation to the extent to which

Merged Discourse can be generalized beyond my study. That is, the limits of the model

at present rest within my classroom context, which is constituted by my teaching praxis

and the student participants for this study. This study was situated within a Year 11

chemistry class in a suburban state high school. Features of this context that might limit

the generalizability of Merged Discourse include the age of student participants.

Perhaps younger students and older students do not generate Merged Discourse or might

do so in ways that might be different from the ones reported here. It is unlikely that

features of the context such as the content area of chemistry would influence the

generalizability of Merged Discourse as the model is defined according to discourse

generated during analogical activities in science classes. Given the numerous features

that the different disciplines share, it is unlikely that Merged Discourse would not be

observed when students and teachers construct analogies in physics or biology.

However, this also implies that Merged Discourse may be limited to interpretation of

analogical discourse in the science content area and not in areas such as geography for

example.

Ways in which the limitations of this study could be addressed in future are

presented in section 8.1 of chapter 8.

7.5 Implications of the Study

While some limitations of the study were presented in section 7.4, the

instrumental case study design allowed me to develop an in-depth study of student

234

interactions as they constructed post-festum analogies. In addition, the instrumental case

study design established the grounds for re-conceptualizing my theoretical model from

Hybrid Discourse to Merged Discourse through analysis of empirical data sources.

There are three parts to this section each part dealing with implications of Merged

Discourse for teaching, teacher education and theory, respectively.

7.5.1 Implications for Teaching

The results of this study indicated that generation of Merged Discourses

facilitated classroom interactions by serving elaborative and explanatory functions

during analogical activities. In my years as a beginning teacher, students sometimes

commented that they found the language, symbols, and practices of chemistry as strange

and unlike their day-to-day experiences. Some commented that these unfamiliar

symbolic practices presented a barrier to their understanding of the chemical concepts I

was teaching. I suggest that Merged Discourses could facilitate learning for students

who perceive scientific discourse (i.e., language, symbols, practices) as a barrier to their

conceptual development. Merged Discourses may facilitate learning because students

draw on a range of discourses beyond the classroom setting when selecting their analog

concepts. These discourses may be ones that are more familiar to students. As seen in

this study, the Analog Discourse consisted of Personal/Individual Analogs, Experiential

Analogs, Community/Societal Analogs and Relational Analogs. The first three of these

categories all potentially access student discourses beyond the chemistry classroom, and

this can help students to learn chemistry by allowing them to create links between the

skills and knowledge they have of their worlds and communities with the classroom

world.

235

The four categories of Analog Discourse also provide valuable information to

teachers who use analogy for instruction. That is, as reported in chapters 1 and 2, Zook

(1991) found that students have difficulty mapping analogies when teachers selected the

analog concepts. By selecting analog concepts from the four categories I have identified

in this study (i.e., Proposition 2), it is more likely that students will be able to map the

analogies because the categories were developed from the information students provided

regarding how and why they chose the analog concepts they did for their analogies.

Teachers need to be aware of the meaning students attribute to Merged

Discourses present in both the students’ and their teacher’s utterances. Merged

Discourse offers a shared language that teachers can use to facilitate classroom dialogue

and counter the hegemony that some students could experience if classroom discourse is

only centred on language and practices pertinent to science (cf. Hildebrand, 1998). As

with instruction based on analogy, teachers may need to monitor their own and students’

Merged Discourse constructions in terms of conceptual understanding. Merged

Discourses may provide internally persuasive discourse and students may then extend

this to mapping all elements of target and analog concepts. This can give rise to

alternative conceptions due to mapping of irrelevant features of the analog to the target

and this can undermine the original intent of using the analogy.

As well as the practical implications described above, I have developed a model

for teaching with analogies based on the Merged Discourse theory. I have named this

instructional strategy the Merged Discourse Model for Analogy Instruction (MDMAI).

Briefly, MDMAI begins with presentation of an analogy such as the ham sandwich for

stoichiometry. Once students have practised a range of mathematical problems relating

to the ratio of slices of ham to bread, the chemical equivalent, mole, replaces the term

236

slice. Other units for quantities, such as grams per slice (g/slice- or unit mass), are

replaced by their target concept counter parts (i.e., grams per mole, g/mol or molar

mass) as well. This transition from analog specific discourse to merging of analog and

target discourse is then followed by replacing all symbols and units in the analogy with

the target concept of chemical equations. The MDMAI model allows students initially

to practise the mathematical aspects of stoichiometry without the complication of the

less familiar chemical symbols for elements and compounds that otherwise appear in

chemical equations. Once students develop confidence with the mathematical

manipulations relating to the analogy, symbols and language pertaining to the target

concept are introduced systematically. The MDMAI model could be included in teacher

education programs to prepare pre-service teachers better for analogy instruction.

7.5.2 Implications for Teacher Education

I suggest the inclusion of Merged Discourse in teacher preparation to raise an

awareness of ways in which teachers can access student discourses in the classroom to

create meaningful learning. In addition to outlining the points provided in section 7.5.1

to pre-service teachers, teacher education courses could involve the explanation of the

sources and origins of Merged Discourse to pre-service teachers and instruct them on

how to optimize the presence of Merged Discourse in classroom talk as a mediational

tool. A recognition of Merged Discourse as a theoretical tool for interpreting analogical

activity also brings to the fore the interactional aspects of analogy that are shadowed in

cognitive treatments of its study. That is, while structure-mapping theory offers insights

into the way in which analogy or our minds work as situated in the brain case, Merged

Discourse theory provides a tool for interpreting and understanding how analogy works

237

on a social and linguistic level. At this level, teachers can learn to use and manipulate

dialogue centred on analogy to maximise student understanding of explanations and

concepts. So at this level, Merged Discourse has a dual role, first it can offer a meta-

language for classroom instruction and second it can provide a diagnostic tool for

teachers to assess student understanding of analogies, and extent of mapping and

generalization of analog and target features.

An understanding of Merged Discourses also can inform the choice of analog

concepts that pre-service teachers can make when generating instructional analogies.

The discourse perspective inherent in Merged Discourse forces one to consider

similarities and differences in one’s (teacher’s) personal discourse and student

discourses. Results from questionnaires asking students how they would choose analog

concepts indicated that knowledge of the intended audience was essential so that the

analog concept would be relevant to the individual. In addition, some potential analogs

such as food are more likely to appeal to a majority of students to their belonging in

broader societal discourses and thereby rendering them understandable to the student, in

their realm of experience. This finding points to a way of differentiating instruction

such that when dealing with individuals or small groups the teacher might ask what

hobbies or interests they have and then develop an analogy from there. If the teacher is

dealing with larger groups, such as the whole class or a lecture theatre, and it is not

possible to access a substantial sample of students from which to develop the analogy,

then it is safer to choose the analog concept from broader, societal discourse. This

would increase the chances that a majority of students can form personal connections

with the analog and thereby increase the possibility that the intended mappings are

understood. This logic can be extended beyond the use of analogies to the choice of

238

examples when illustrating a concept. When an example is chosen to illustrate an idea

or concept, then the more common the example is to the audience, the better the chance

that the audience may relate to it and attend to its relevant features as an analog of what

it is illustrating.

7.5.3 Implications for Theory and Research

Analogy has been well researched as discussed in chapter 2. Cognitive science

has provided a number of models for understanding how the mind generates and

interprets analogies. Science education has focussed on use of analogy for instruction

and ways of improving this instruction as well as on the role analogy may play in

achieving conceptual change. Merged Discourse offers a sociocultural perspective that

has not been used to study and interpret analogical activity extensively.

One significant aspect of this theoretical development is that Merged Discourse

presents itself as a new analytical and explanatory tool for investigation of classroom

discourse generated during analogical (and possibly other) activity that is consistent with

sociocultural perspectives on learning. By theorizing Merged Discourse as existing

within single utterances, this affords the opportunity to focus discourse analysis on

utterances as the unit of analysis as suggested by Bakhtin (1986). In addition, the

constituents, Analog Discourse and Target Discourse, allow for a specific way of

identifying when Merged Discourses are generated and when they are not.

In prior research in education employing Third Space and hybridity as theoretical

models, it was unclear what did not count as generating a Third Space. This dilemma is

overcome with Merged Discourse, as the model is specific to the interpretation of

239

analogical discourse and bounded by the categories Analog Discourse and Target

Discourse.

The major theoretical contribution made in this thesis is the conceptualization of

Merged Discourse as representing mutualism. That is, Merged Discourses cannot be

adequately understood under current models of hybridity. Dialogic hybrids, such as

Bakhtin’s (1981) intentional hybrid, imply that one discourse is in opposition to the

other. Merged Discourse offers an alternative theoretical framework to dialogic

approaches by providing the conceptualization of mutualism in discourse that represents

a co-operative interaction rather than an oppositional one. This conceptualization does

not privilege one discourse over another, but rather looks at the generative capacity of

theorizing discourse and learning from the perspective of mutualism. I anticipate that

the metaphor of mutualism may offer useful ways of theorizing education beyond my

use of it here to explain the nature of Merged Discourse. For example, I can use the

concept of mutualism to interpret studies such as Mojé et al.’s (2004) by suggesting that

if student funds of knowledge and discourse are integrated in the science classroom

symbiotically with science discourse, then students may translate their skills and

knowledges bi-directionally along the axis of the science discourse and their funds of

knowledge. Similarly, student discourses can become useful resources in science

classrooms for enacting science tasks (e.g., the skills of sorting videos into categories at

a part-time job might serve them well in a science activity involving classification of

organisms). Furthermore, I suggest that teaching students how they can use scientific

discourse outside the classroom can benefit their learning.

Hybridity theory as used in cultural studies has been critiqued (e.g., Hutnyk,

2005; Kraidy, 2001) suggesting that it is self-defeating as the notion of a hybrid culture

240

implies that there is some binary system of pure culture that resulted in formation of the

hybrid (i.e., a singularity). This critique questions the logic that past cultures are seen as

pure and new cultures are hybrids. In theorizing Merged Discourse, I have attempted to

resolve this issue by clarifying that which can be observed and measured (i.e. utterances

and practices) and the nature of Merged Discourse as the mutual symbiosis of the

categories Analog Discourse and Target Discourse. From this perspective, it is

understood that in the analytical task of identifying Merged Discourse, the singularity is

represented by the utterance the mutual relationship of Analog Discourse and Target

Discourse do not become a singular discourse, they co-exist within the singular utterance

and thus remain plural. The significance of this theoretical development is that it

overcomes the conundrum represented in the critique of hybridity as trying to pose

ontology of singularity but being reliant on the existence of a priori binary categories

that are denied existence by hybridity itself.

While the limitations of this study do not allow me to generalize Merged

Discourse as a mutualism beyond my study of analogical discourse, I suggest that the

theoretical development of the notion of mutually symbiotic discourses can propel both

discourse theory and cultural theory beyond the limits currently constructed through

their critiques. Essentially, I propose mutualism as ontology that assumes the essence of

things is defined, in part, by the mutual constructions that different things (whether they

be concepts or practices) afford one another. This in turn develops an epistemology that

to know one thing is to know something about another due to all the possible mutualisms

that can be formed from our experiences and thoughts in the range of discourses in

which we participate and encounter. From this perspective, analytical categories such as

Analog Discourse and Target Discourse are not understood as representing bounded

241

entities and discreet units, rather these categories are best visualised as clouds of ever

shifting densities and able to diffuse and mix to some extent with others. Merged

Discourse describes how these different clouds can become intertwined such that where

one cloud begins and the other ends is merely an artefact of the interpretive task of the

researcher rather than a representation of the true nature of the clouds.

7.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter discussed the results presented in chapter 6. The key finding was

that students generated Merged Discourses during analogical activities. Merged

Discourse represents the merging or mixing of the Analog Discourse (i.e., signs,

symbols, and practices relating to the analog concept) with the Target Discourse.

Merged Discourse was theorized in the present chapter as the mutualism of

Analog Discourse and Target Discourse. This mutualism metaphor describes the nature

of Merged Discourse as a singularity at the level of utterance and a duality comprised of

the Analog and Target Discourses. The Analog and Target Discourses are not

understood as discreet, bounded categories; rather they are categories with diffuse

boundaries. Three categories of Merged Discourse were developed in this study:

Merged Words, Merged Utterances, and Merged Practices.

As well as representing the merging of Analog and Target Discourses, Merged

Discourse can be used to describe classroom discourse in ways that are more general.

The discourses students drew upon to develop their analogies were identified through

investigation of student choices of analog concepts. Four categories of student choices

of analog concepts were developed. These were: the Personal/Individual Analog, the

Common/Societal Analog, the Experiential Analog, and the Relational Analog. These

242

categories described the Analog Discourse. Students drew upon a range of resources for

generating their analogies as represented by the four categories. Some of these

resources are personally relevant to a student (i.e., the Personal/Individual Analog) while

others are more widely shared by society (i.e., the Common/Societal Analog). This

development is significant as it indicates that students might generate Merged Discourse

in classroom activities, other than analogy writing, that draw upon personal discourse or

societal discourse. This suggests that through further study in other classroom contexts

and lesson activities, Merged Discourse may prove to be a useful theoretical model for

interpreting classroom discourse.

Merged Discourse offers an analytical lens that is consistent with sociocultural

interpretations of learning. In sociocultural theory, learning science is viewed as one’s

growing participation in the science discourse community. The Merged Discourse

model can be used to code lesson transcripts, to track and interpret students’ interactions,

and identify the extent of participation with scientific discourse.

Currently, critiques of hybridity theory constrain its application to research

endeavours. In this chapter, I suggested that unless researchers intend to view science

discourse as hegemony and understand how to counter this hegemony, hybridity theory

is not suitable for interpreting classroom discourse. Merged Discourse is not a model

whereby one discourse opposes the other as in some interpretations of hybridity theory.

Merged Discourse allows one to interpret classroom discourse in a way that student

personal discourse and scientific discourse interact co-operatively, fostering growing

participation in scientific discourse. The implications of this model for teaching, teacher

education, and research were discussed in this chapter. The next chapter presents

concluding remarks for this study.

243

CHAPTER 8

STUDY OUTCOMES: SUMMARY AND NEW BEGINNINGS

8.0 Summary of the Study

This study investigated student discourse during post-festum analogy writing

activities from a sociocultural perspective. An instrumental case study design was

implemented to test the viability of the Third Space model as an interpretive and

explanatory tool for discourse analysis of data sources. This thesis began by outlining

an instructional strategy I used to address Zook’s (1991) recognition of the problem of

analogical misrepresentation (chapter 1). That is, students can map a teacher analog

concept with a target concept but students relate better to their own analog concepts than

analog concepts chosen by their teachers. A literature review on analogies and an

informal inquiry served as referents for this study (chapters 2 and 3 respectively). The

literature review on analogies indicated that more information was required to help

understand how students choose analog concepts and that few studies researched

analogical discourse in secondary-school chemistry classes from a sociocultural

framework. In this study, I developed a sociocultural framework for studying analogical

discourse in my classroom by using the cultural model of Third Space.

Third Space was operationalized into two sub-constructs called Dialogical

Interactions and Hybrid Discourses. Dialogical Interactions were theorized as

exchanges where students used the ideas of group members in their own utterances to

achieve a task. Hybrid Discourse was theorized to represent the hybridization of student

personal discourses with school chemistry discourse. This sub-construct was re-

conceptualized as Merged Discourse in light of the research findings.

244

Results of the study (chapter 6) indicated that the Hybrid Discourse model was

inadequate for explaining observations made in this study. Furthermore, a philosophical

conundrum was identified in the early formulation of the model. Dialogical Interactions

were observed during analogical activities and when students brainstormed possible

analog concepts or refined their analogies. Dialogical Interactions did not correspond

with Merged Discourses. Thus, the Dialogical Interactions sub-construct of Third Space

was considered to represent an unrelated phenomenon to Merged Discourse.

In chapter 6, the results were related back to the literature reviewed in chapter 4

to formulate a new model, Merged Discourse, for interpreting classroom discourse. The

original Hybrid Discourse theory assumed that student personal discourse was

hybridized with chemical discourse. Investigation of the reasons students gave for

choosing their analog concepts led to the identification of four categories to describe

their analog choices. These were, Personal/Individual Analog, Experiential Analog,

Common/Societal Analog, and Relational Analog. The categories did not represent

discreet bounded entities, but rather diffuse and porous categories such that an analog

concept could belong to more than one category at the same time. The categories

represented the discourses upon which students drew to develop post-festum analogies.

Thus, the Hybrid Discourse model was revised as Merged Discourse. Merged Discourse

consisted of the merging of Analog Discourse (represented by the four categories above)

and Target Discourse (the chemical or scientific concept).

The fact that students drew upon a range of discourses to generate their analogies

suggests that analogy-writing activities may do more than help students understand

scientific concepts through mapping elements of the familiar analog to the target

concept. Analogy may draw upon student discourses helping students to connect the

245

science they are learning with the world beyond the classroom. In addition, the four

categories of analog choice can help teachers to choose suitable analogies for instruction

by providing an informed choice over which analog concepts students are likely to

understand.

This study also identified the role that Merged Discourse played during student

interactions centred on analogical activities. Merged Discourses were generated during

explanation, elaboration and refinement stages of analogy writing. This indicated that

Merged Discourses might be useful ways of mediating explanations of chemical

concepts. However, when they appear spontaneously during interactions it is important

that teachers negotiate the meaning of Merged Discourses with students.

Merged Discourses were found to exist in three forms: Merged Words, Merged

Practices, and Merged Utterances. This is significant because the categories provide

analytical tools for investigating and coding audio transcripts of classroom discourse to

identify Merged Discourse. These categories were theorized as representing the

secondary structure of Merged Discourse.

Important theoretical considerations were made in chapter 7 relating to the

continued use of models of hybridity in education research. In chapter 7, I theorized

Merged Discourse as mutualism between Analog and Target Discourses within single

utterances. This theory does not reduce Merged Discourse into a singularity and does

not represent a dialogic hybrid (two oppositional voices within an utterance). Merged

Discourse represents a single plurality where the unit of analysis, the utterance,

represents the singularity, and the constituent discourses (e.g., Analog Discourse and

Target Discourse) represent the plurality. This model overcomes some of the critiques

that have been applied to models of hybridity in cultural studies, because the Merged

246

Discourse model is not based on hybridity. Critiques of hybridity have pointed to its

racist implications and, at the philosophical level, the inability of hybridity to transcend

binary logic or dualisms. Thus, Merged Discourse, represented metaphorically as

mutualism, offers a way forward in theorizing classroom discourse and perhaps cultural

theory in terms of singular plurality (Roth, 2008b). This thesis also contributes to the

process of critiquing the theoretical models of Third Space and hybridity and further

work is needed in this area to inform their use in educational research.

The instrumental case study design adopted in this study was useful in

developing thick descriptions of classroom discourse allowing me to revisit my

theoretical model. Use of voice recorders (MP3s) was adequate for gathering data

relating to student interactions during analogical activities. This method was not

sufficient however, as student actions were not recorded (other than during the role-

plays) and, as discussed in chapter 6, video data might have provided further clues as to

how students generated Merged Practices.

8.1 Recommendations for Further Research

Further empirical study of Merged Discourses in classrooms is necessary to

establish a) how students interpret their meaning, b) what understanding students

develop as a result of Merged Discourse, and c) the conditions (e.g., types of activities),

other than those presented in this study, where Merged Discourses are generated. The

first of these questions would require the deliberate use of analogies in a teaching

sequence and then the use of question items created either from classroom discourse

consisting of Merged Discourse or artificially generating Merged Discourses by

following the syntax identified in this study. Administering these question items would

247

give some insight in how students interpret Merged Discourses. Interviews could also

be conducted with students and teachers utilising a similar protocol to that of the

question items already discussed. Interviewers could then probe the participants to gain

insights into their understanding of such utterances. Developing test-like items and

questionnaires that contain Merged Discourse could provide insights into how students

interpret Merged Discourse and what meanings they construct from them. To determine

conditions that lead to the generation of Merged Discourses requires further study in

contexts similar to mine as well as in different contexts in which the following

conditions might be manipulated: content areas (e.g., mathematics, geography) and

students’ ages (e.g., school types, sample size, classroom activity and teachers). In

addition, these studies could involve collaborations between teachers and researchers, as

well as other teacher research studies like mine. These studies could also adopt pre-test

and post-test designs to determine the effects of Merged Discourse on students’

knowledge construction. The outcomes of this further research are likely to lead to

broader perspectives on sociocultural dimensions of learning in a range of content areas,

to identification of other classroom activities that foster development of Merged

Discourse, and to present empirical evidence to further refine the Merged Discourse

model.

248

REFERENCES

Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002). The concept of teacher research. The Learning Organisation, 9(3), 125-131.

Aubusson, P.J., & Fogwill, S. (2006). Role play as analogical modelling in science. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 93-104). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Aubusson, P., Fogwill, S., Barr, R., & Perkovic, L. (1997). What happens when students do simulation-role-play in science. Research in Science Education, 27(4), 565-579.

Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006). Metaphor and analogy in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bassey, M. (2001). A solution to the problem of generalization in educational research: Fuzzy prediction. Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), 5-22.

Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings (Buckingham and Philadelphia, Open University Press).

Basu, R. J., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2009). Critical physics agency: Further unravelling the intersections of subject matter knowledge, learning and taking action. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(2), 345-371.

Berdie, D. R., & Anderson, J. F. (1974). Questionnaires: Design and use. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge. Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical

reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237-261.

Bryce, T., & MacMillan, K. (2005). Bridging analogies in the teaching of action-reaction forces. In R. Pintò & D. Couso (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International ESERA conference on the Contribution of Research to Enhancing Students’ Interest in Learning Science, Barcelona, Spain, 358-360.

Buty, C., Mortimer, E., & Tiberghien, A. (2005). Dialogic/Authoritative discourse and modelling in a high school teaching sequence on optics. In R. Pintò & D. Couso (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International ESERA Conference on the Contribution of Research to Enhancing Students’ Interest in Learning Science, Barcelona, Spain, 506-509.

Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid spaces. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50-73.

Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68-103.

Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211-17.

Cameron, L. (2002). Metaphors in the learning of science: A discourse focus. British Educational Research Journal, 28(5), 673-688.

249

Christians, C. G. (2005). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 139-164). London: Sage.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15-25.

Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183-198.

Coll, R. (2006). The role of models, mental models and analogies in chemistry teaching. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 65-78). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Collini, S. (2000). Introduction. In C.P. Snow, The two cultures (pp.vii-Lxxiii). Oakleigh, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Crawford, P. A., & Cornett, J. (2000). Looking back to find a vision. Childhood Education, 77(1), 37-40.

Dagher, Z. (1995). Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analogies in science education. Science Education, 79(3), 295-312.

Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. London: Oxford University Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). The sage handbook of qualitative

research (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2003). The landscape of qualitative research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd

ed.). London: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of

qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). London: Sage.

Dilber, R., & Duzgun, B. (2008). Effectiveness of analogy on students’ success and elimination of misconceptions. Latin American Journal of Physics Education, 2(3), 174-183.

Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis systems for quantitative chemical problems: Symbol, macro, micro and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 278-302.

Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672.

Duit, R., Roth, W.-M., Komorek, M., & Wilbers, J. (2001). Fostering conceptual change by analogies- Between Scylla and Charibdis. Learning and Instruction, 11, 283-303.

Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk (2nd ed.). London: The Falmer Press.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Elliot, J. (2007). Assessing the quality of action research. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 229-246.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.

250

Faconnier, G. (2001). Conceptual blending and analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holoyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 255-286). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp.695-728). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fourali, C. (1997). Using fuzzy logic in educational measurement: The case of portfolio assessment. Evaluation and Research In Education, 11(3), 129-148.

Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.

Geertz, C. (2003). Thick description: Toward interpretive theory of culture. In Y. S. Lincoln & N. K. Denzin (Eds.), Turning points in qualitative research: Tying handkerchiefs in knots (pp. 143-168). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.

Gentner, D., & Markham, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45-56.

Gentner, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy. American Psychologist, 52(1), 32-34.

Gerring, J. (2002, August-September). What is a case study and what is it good for? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354.

Glynn, S. (1995). Conceptual bridges. The Science Teacher, 62(9), 24-27. Glynn, S. (1996). Teaching with analogies: Building on the science textbook. The

Reading Teacher, 49(6), 490-491. Glynn, S., & Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1129-1149. Goswami, U. (1991). Analogical reasoning: What develops? A review of research and

theory. Child Development, 62, 1-22. Groundwater-Smith, S., & Mockler, N. (2007). Ethics in practitioner research: An issue

of quality. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 199-211. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage. Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1999). Rethinking linguistic relativity. UK:

Cambridge University Press. Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading

Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164. Gutiérrez, K. D., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in

the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. board of education. Harvard Educational Review, 63(3), 445-471.

Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H. H., & Chiu, M. M. (1999). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 87-93.

251

Hammersley, M. (2008). Troubling criteria: A critical commentary on Furlong and Oancea’s framework for assessing educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 34(6), 747–762.

Hanrahan, M.U. (2006). Highlighting hybridity: a critical discourse analysis of teacher talk in science classrooms. Science Education, 90, 8-43.

Harrison, A. G. (2006). The affective dimension of analogy. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 51-63). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Harrison, A. G., & Coll, R. K. (2008). Using analogy in middle and secondary school science classrooms- The FAR guide an interesting way to teach with analogies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harrison, A. G., & de Jong, O. (2005). Exploring the use of multiple analogical models when teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1135-1159.

Harrison, A. G., & Segal, W. (2003, July). When multiple models are used to explain chemistry ideas. Paper presented at Australasian Science Educators Research Association conference, Melbourne, Australia.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1993). Teaching with analogies: A case study in grade-10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1291-1307.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). Analogies: Avoid misconceptions with this systematic approach. The Science Teacher, 61(4), 40-43.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509-534.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 420-429.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000a). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000b). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352-381.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies: Friend or foe? In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 11-24). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Hatano, G., & Wertsch, J. V. (2001). Sociocultural approaches to cognitive development: The constitutions of culture in mind. Human Development, 44, 77-83.

Heywood, D. (2002). The place of analogies in science education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 233-247.

Hicks, D. (1996). Contextual inquiries: A discourse-oriented study of classroom learning. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 104-144). UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hildebrand, G.M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 345-362.

Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (2001). Research and the teacher: a qualitative introduction to school-based research. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

252

Hodder, I. (2003). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 155-175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52(1), 35-44.

Hutnyk, J. (2005). Hybridity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(1), 79-102. Jakobsson, A., Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2009). Conceptions of knowledge in research

on students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect: Methodological positions and their consequences for representing knowing [Electronic version]. Science Education, 1-18.

Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. (2006). The role of analog models in the understanding of the nature of models in chemistry. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 11-24). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Justi, R. S., Souza, V. C. A., & Ferreira, P. F. M. (2005). Analogies for the atom: Students’ and teachers’ (mis)understandings. In R. Pintò & D. Couso (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International ESERA conference on the Contribution of Research to Enhancing Students’ Interest in Learning Science, Barcelona, Spain, 417-419.

Kamberelis, G. (2001). Producing heteroglossia classroom (micro)culture through hybrid discourse practices. Linguistics and Education, 12(1), 85-125.

Karlberg, M. (2008). Discourse, identity, and global citizenship. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 20(3), 310-230.

King, D., Bellocchi, A., & Ritchie, S.M. (2008). Making connections: Learning and teaching chemistry in context. Research in Science Education, 38, 365-384.

Kraidy, M. M., (2002). Hybridity in cultural globalization. Communication Theory, 12(3), 316-339.

Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 202-251). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research: From design to implementation. New York: Open University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 418-420.

Lemke, J. (1985). Using language in the classroom. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor and Francis.

Lemke, J. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316.

Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In S.E. Wendy (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 32- 47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2003). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp.163-188). London: Sage.

253

Lo Bianco, J., Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (1999). Striving for the third place: Intercultural competence through language education. Melbourne: Language Australia.

Lytle, S. L. (2008). Practitioner inquiry and the practice of teaching: Some thoughts on “better”. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(2), 373-379.

Macdonell, D. (1986). Theories of discourse. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Marland, P. (1984). Stimulated recall from video: Its use in research on the thought

processes of classroom participants. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), Video in higher education (pp. 156-165). London: Kogan Page.

May, D.B., Hammer, D., & Roy, P. (2006). Children’s analogical reasoning in a third-grade science discussion. Science Education, 90, 316-330.

McWilliam, E. (2004). W(h)ither practitioner research. The Australian Educational Researcher, 31(2), 113-126.

Mitchell, K. (1997). Different diasporas and the hype of hybridity. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15(5), 533-553.

Mojé, E. B., Collazo, T., Carillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-498.

Mojé, E. B., McIntosh Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice XXXI, (2), 132-141.

Moore-Gilbert, B. (2000). Spivak and Bhabha. In H. Schwarz & S. Ray (Eds.), A companion to postcolonial studies (pp. 451-466). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Oancea, A. (2005). Criticisms of educational research: Key topics and levels of analysis. British Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 157-183.

Podolefsky, N. S., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2006). Use of analogy in learning physics: The role of representations. Physical Review Special Topics Physical Education, 2(020101), 1-10.

Podolefsky, N. S., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007a). Analogical scaffolding and the learning of abstract ideas in physics: An example from electromagnetic waves. Physical Review Special Topics Physical Education, 3(010109), 1-12.

Podolefsky, N. S., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007b). Analogical scaffolding and the learning of abstract ideas in physics: Empirical studies. Physical Review Special Topics Physical Education, 3(020104), 1-16.

Pred, A. (2005). Scientists without borders or moments of insight, spaces of recognition: Situated practice, science, and the navigation of everyday life. In H. Van Houtum, O. Kramsch, & W. Zierhofer (Eds.), B/ordering space (pp. 141-153). Burlington, VC, USA: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Pring, R. (2004). Philosophy of Educational Research. London: Continuum. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis, the study of talk-in-interaction. City, CA:

Sage. Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher,

23(5), 5-10.

254

Richland, L. E., Holyoak, K. J., & Stigler, J. W. (2004). Analogy use in eigth-grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 37-60.

Ritchie, S. M., Rigano, D., & Duane, A. (2008). Writing an ecological mystery in class: Merging genres and learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 143-166.

Ritchie, S. M., Tobin, K., & Hook, K. S. (1997). Teaching referents and the warrants used to test the viability of students’ mental models: Is there a link? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3), 223–238

Ritchie, S. M., & Tobin, K. (2001). Actions and discourses for transformative understanding in a middle school science class. International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 283-299.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Roth, W.-M. (2005). Doing qualitative research. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Roth, W.-M. (2007). Doing teacher research: A handbook for perplexed practitioners. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Roth, W.-M. (2008a). A question of competing paradigms. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 373-385.

Roth, W.-M. (2008b). Bricolage, métissage, hybridity, heterogeneity, diaspora: Concepts for thinking science education in the 21 first century. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 891-916.

Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86, 368-385.

Roulston, K., Legette, R., Deloach, M., & Buckhalter Pitman, C. (2005). What is ‘research’ for teacher researchers? Educational Action Research, 13(2), 169-189.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seiler, G., Tobin, K., & Sokolic, J. (2001). Design, technology, and science: Sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 746-767.

Sewell, W. H. (2005). The concept(s) of culture. In G. M. Spiegel (Ed.), Practicing history: New directions in historical writing after the linguistic turn (pp. 35-61). New York: Routledge.

Slobin, D. I. (1999). From “thought and language” to “speaking for thinking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96). UK: Cambridge University Press.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage. Stake, R. E. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of

qualitative inquiry (pp. 86-109). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),

The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). London: Sage. Stenhouse, L., (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development.

London: Heineman Educational Books. Sutton, C. (1993). Figuring out a scientific understanding. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 31(10), 1215-1227.

255

Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science and Education, 17(2-3), 179-218.

Treagust, D. F. (1993). The evolution of an approach for using analogies in teaching and learning science. Research in Science Education, 23, 293-301.

Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., Lindauer, I., & Joslin, P. (1989). Teacher’s use of analogies in their regular teaching routines. Research in Science Education, 19, 291-299.

Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., & Venville, G. (1998). Teaching science effectively with analogies: An approach for preservice teachers and inservice teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(2), 85-101.

Treagust, D. F., Jacobwitz, R., Gallagher, J., & Parker, L. (2001). Using Assessment as a Guide in teaching for understanding: A case study of a middle school science class learning about sound. Science Education, 85, 137-157.

Vélez-Ibáñez, C. G., & Greenberg, J. B. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 23(4), 313-335.

Van Boxtel, C. (2004). Studying peer interaction from three perspectives. In J. van der Linden & P. Renshaw (Eds.), Dialogic learning: Shifting perspectives to learning, instruction and teaching (pp. 125-144). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use:

Authenticity, multiple discourses and the “third space”. Science Education, 88, 901-914.

Wegerif, R. (2004). Towards and account of teaching general thinking skills that is compatible with the assumptions of sociocultural theory. Journal of Research and Theory in Education, 2(2), 143-159.

Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue. British Education Research Journal, 34(3), 347-361.

Werbner, P. (2001). The limits of cultural hybridity: On ritual monsters, poetic licence and contested postcolonial purifications. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 7, 133-152.

Wertsch, J. V. (1995). The need for action in sociocultural research. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Río, & A. Alvarez, Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 56-74). Oakleigh, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., Del Río, P., & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural studies of mind. Oakleigh, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale, Constructivism in education (pp. 159-174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wilbers, J., & Duit, R. (2006). Post-festum and heuristic analogies. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 37-49). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Wong, R. (1993a). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 367-380.

256

Wong, R. (1993b). Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1259-1272.

Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Young, R. J. C. (1995). Colonial desire hybridity in theory, culture and race. London:

Routledge. Yerrick, R. K., Doster, E., Nugent, J. S., Parke, H. M., & Crawley, F. E. (2003). Social

interaction and the use of analogy: An analysis of preservice teachers’ talk during physics inquiry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 443-463.

Zeichner, K. M. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58 (1), 36-56.

Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2002). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 298-330). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Zoller, U. (1990). Students’ misunderstandings and misconceptions in college freshman chemistry (general and organic). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1053-1065.

Zook, K. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educational Psychology Review, 3(1), 41-71.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1984). Video in higher education. London, UK: Kogan Page.

257

APPENDICES

258

Appendix A

Principal’s Letter of Approval

259

Information Package for Students, Parents and Principal

Learning in the Third Space: A Sociocultural Perspective on Learning with

Analogies.

Parents Information Package and Consent Form

Chief Investigator: Alberto Bellocchi

Email: [email protected]

Description:

The project aims to investigate how students gain an understanding of chemical ideas

when they work and talk during group-work in their chemistry class.

As part of this project, volunteer students will be videotaped as they work in groups

during our regular chemistry lessons. The aim of this research is to gain a better

understanding of how students develop chemical ideas through talking and working in

groups. The principal of the school has approved of the research as it will not interfere

with the chemistry program and students’ participation is more likely to improve

chemistry learning outcomes.

260

This research fulfils part of the requirements for a PhD thesis through the Queensland

University of Technology (QUT).

The study will involve the video-taping and audio-taping of student groups during a

range of class activities. It may also be necessary to interview students at various stages

after the video and audio-taping.

Expected Benefits:

By talking to students during interviews it may be possible to identify understandings

they are developing of chemical concepts and intervene where their understandings are

not consistent with chemical concepts. Results from the study are likely to inform the

research community and teachers on how students construct meanings during group-

work and the conditions required for best results. This could impact on changes in

teacher education and classroom teaching practices.

261

Risks:

Video-taping and audio-taping will take place during regular lessons under my

supervision as you child’s teacher. Interviews will take place at times suitable to

students. Accordingly there are no additional risks associated with the research study.

Confidentiality:

Research results from this study and any subsequent presentations will not reveal the

identity of your child.

Data:

Audio- and/or video-recordings of in-class group interactions between participants will

be stored securely for 5 years, after which they will be destroyed. Transcripts of these

sources will not feature students’ actual names.

Voluntary Participation:

This study will investigate the normal group work that is part normal class work. Data

arising from the research component of the study will be collected from volunteer

students only. Parents will be invited to approve the use of any data collected from their

children’s work during the project. Publication of results from the project will not refer

to participating individuals by name.

262

Questions/ further information:

Should you have any concerns about the research project, please contact me (Alberto

Bellocchi) at the address or phone number listed above.

Concerns / complaints:

Should you have any concerns about the research project that can’t be resolved to your

satisfaction by the researcher, please contact the Research Ethics Officer on 3864 2340

or [email protected]. Please quote QUT Ref No. 4123H

263

Chief Investigator Chief Supervisor Associate Supervisor

Alberto Bellocchi

Ph: 47 799 444

Fax: 07 47799205

Email: [email protected]

Associate Professor

Stephen Ritchie

School of Mathematics,

Science & Technology

Education

Queensland University of

Technology

Victoria Park Road

Kelvin Grove Q 4059

Ph: 3864 3332 Fax:

38643985

Email:

[email protected]

Professor Cam McRobbie

School of Mathematics,

Science & Technology

Education

Queensland University of

Technology

Victoria Park Road

Kelvin Grove Q 4059

Ph: 3864 3333 Fax:

38643985

Email:

[email protected]

264

Statement of Consent

Please sign in the space below if you give consent for your child to participate in this

research project. By signing below, you are indicating that you:

• Have read and understood the information sheet about this project;

• Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction;

• Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the

researcher or Principal;

• Understand that you are free to withdraw your child’s participation in the

research component of the study at any time, without comment or penalty;

• Consent to the use of audio- and / or videorecording of in-class group

interactions when children are working in groups related to the research project;

• Understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Officer on 3864 2340 or

[email protected]. if you have any ethical concerns about the project.

Please quote QUT Ref No. 4123H

Name of Child: ___________________________________________

Name of Parent / Guardian:

___________________________________________

Signature:

___________________________________________

Date: _____ / ____ / ____

265

Appendix B

Instructions for Stoichiometry Analogy

Stoichiometry-Analogy Activity Write an analogy in your groups to explain reaction stoichiometry. Eg. The recipe for a ham sandwich is two slices of bread plus one slice of ham makes. Ham and bread go together in the ratio of 1 is to 2. Write an ‘equation’ for the analogy. Eg. H + 2B HB2 Write a sample problem using your analogy. Eg. If you have 3 slices of ham (5 grams/slice) what mass of bread (12 grams/slice) is required to make complete sandwiches ?

266

Appendix C QUESTIONNAIRES

Role-Play Questionnaire 1

Read the following list of words. Use the table to indicate whether or not you have seen

the words before and where you may have seen them.

Previously

Seen

(Y=yes,

N=no)

Where seen (provide an example of where you may have

seen the word)

Slithy

Mimsy

Outgrabe

Liger

Dramione

Showmance

Write down what you think each word means in the right hand column of the table

below

Meaning

Slithy

Mimsy

Outgrabe

Liger

Dramione

Showmance

267

Role-Play Questionnaire 2

1. Read the following stanza from poem and write down the meaning of the words

slithy, mimsy and outgrabe in the table below.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wade;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

Meaning

Slithy

Mimsy

Outgrabe

2. Reality TV shows such as Big Brother have been called ‘Showmance’

What do you think the meaning of the word Showmance is in the sentence above?

3. What is the meaning of the word ‘Liger’ in the following news clipping?

Wallace, September 12

A Liger Is Pretty Much A Favorite At DeYoung Zoo

There are 300 animals at the DeYoung Zoo in Wallace, and recently, zoo owner Bud

DeYoung welcomed Lola aboard.

Lola isn't a lion and she's not a tiger. She is a liger, a mix between a White Bengal Tiger

and a Black Mane African Lion.

268

This liger has the ears of a lion but the spots on her ears of a tiger, the shoulders of a lion

but the long length of a tiger.

While Lola is only about 35 pounds now, she will grow to be larger than either of her

parents.

4. The following excerpt was taken from a blog. What is the meaning of the word

‘Dramione’ in this text?

Submitted by BethMalfoy on April 13, 2006 - 8:21am.

Hi, Im new to this site. I just wanted to say hi, and that Im a Dramione shipper all the

way. It has the best chemestry so dont throw things at me *Ducks lone plate being

thrown*.

269

Analogy Questionnaire

Use the back of the sheet if you run out of space.

1. Describe how you and your group chose the particular analogy that you wrote.

2. If you had to explain a chemical concept to someone who does not study

chemistry and you were going to use an analogy to do it, how would you decide

on the type of analogy that you would use?

3. In what ways did you contribute to group discussions differently when the task

was to write an analogy?

4. Were any of your group members roles different when you wrote the analogy

compared with other activities.

5. Could you account for any differences in group work between the analogy task

and other activities like practicals and problem solving?

270

Appendix D

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Examples of possible interview questions to determine D/discourses used in the

home, school and among friends.

In your own words, how would you describe what you and your group members are

doing in this part of the lesson {referring to video clip of group work}?

Would you say that you speak in a similar way or a different way when you work in

groups in other subjects?

What about how you speak outside of the class, like at home or in the playground?

Why did you use {group members name} “idea” in this sentence?

What do you think {group members name} means when they say {a quote from the

video}?

Is the way that you are talking and acting in this group the same way that you would act

in the playground or at home?

What is the same/different about it?

271

Questions relating to constructing analogies

Why did you choose this analog?

Is it something you are familiar with at home or outside of school?

Where have you heard about this analog?

When would you talk about this analog other than in this lesson (referring to video

transcript)?

272

Appendix E

VERB CODING SAMPLES FOR STUDENT INTERACTIONS: THREE GROUP

SUMMARY

Fergie’s Group Sara’s Group Trev’s Group

Brainstorming

Evaluation

Brainstorming

Choice- Personal connection

Refers to ice-cream recipe

symbols they have assigned

Brainstorm