social interactions and the mediation of science learning in two small groups of first-graders

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 33, NO. 2, PP. 159-178 (1996)

Social Interactions and the Mediation of Science Learning in rLtyo Small Groups of First-Graders

Daniel P. Shepardson

School Mathematics and Science Center, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, West Lafuyeite, IN 47907-1442

Abstract

This study investigated the nature of small-group social interactions in the mediation of children’s science learning. Two small groups of 4 first-graders and their teacher were observed throughout a 15-day unit on insect life cycles (butterfly and beetle metamorphosis). The study was qualitative in nature and guided by a sociocultural constructivist framework. Consistent with the theoretical framework, inductive analysis methodology guided the methods of inquiry. On the basis of the patterns that emerged from the data, two assertions are postulated to explain how the teacher’s and children’s social interactions mediated the children’s science learning during small-group activity.

lntroduction

Constructivist theory frames learning as an active, continuous process whereby the learner takes information from the environment and constructs personal interpretations and meaning based on prior knowledge and experience (Driver & Bell, 1986; Roth, 1990). Moreover, learners actively construct knowledge by reflecting upon their physical and mental actions (Piaget, 1970) through social interactions with members of the community (Vygotsky, 1986). Social interactions both direct and mediate knowledge construction through the communication of expressions, actions, and use of written and oral language (Vygotsky, cited in Light, Shel- don, & Woodhead, 1991). Learning thus involves a personal construction of meaning and a socially negotiated meaning among learners of the community (Cobb, 1990).

In school, learning is mediated through the social interactions among members of the learning community (Rogoff, 1990) as they engage in the learning activity. Further, these social interactions are played out within the context of the academic and social participation structures of the learning activity (Erickson, 1982). Children’s learning in school is thvs influenced by the socially organized activities within the classroom culture, where children’s actions and understandings are grounded in the context of the actions and understandings of other members (classmates and teacher) participating in the activity (Rogoff, 1990). Moreover, children’s learning is influenced by the nature and goals of the activity, the norms and practices of the

0 1996 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308196/020159-20

160 SHEPARDSON

community (Rogoff, 1990), and the expected and accepted rules and roles of participation (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).

In the culture of schools, science teachers often feel obligated to ensure that children learn socially accepted knowledge (scientific understanding) from the learning activity (Edwards & Mercer, 1987). This culturally perceived obligation often translates into a teacher participatory role of authority, which mitigates against children’s collaborative constructions of understanding (Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). Through their discourse, teachers convey an authoritarian role (Wertsch, 1991) and control the activity that occurs within lessons (Barnes, 1976). Thus, the actions of many children are in response to what they perceive to be the teachers’ expectations (Edwards & Mercer, 1987). Teacher-child discourse often results in the appropriation of the teacher’s agenda into the actions and understandings of children (Edwards, cited in Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992).

The use of small groups has been proposed to have the potential for creating learning communities whereby children can participate as equals in the construction of meaning (Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). Further, for small groups to be effective learning communities, members of the community need to collaborate in the completion of shared goals (Tudge, 1990) and engage in collaborative dialogue (Barnes & Todd, 1977) that fosters dissatisfaction with and/or requires the explanation or defense of existing understandings (Brown & Palincsar, 1989). The key to these interactions is discourse that emphasizes ideas and evidence, with children as equal participants. Wertsch (1991), however, has noted that dialogue among children often carries authoritarian interactions because of children’s unequal access to scientific-sounding vocabul- aries and explanations.

Purpose

These studies indicate that social interactions mediate children’s learning; however, funda- mental questions about how children’s small-group social interactions mediate their science learning remain unanswered (Brown & Palincsar, 1989). Hence, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of teacher and children’s social interactions on the mediation of children’s science learning during small-group activity. The guiding questions for this inquiry were: (a)In what ways do children’s social interactions mediate their science learning during small-group activity? and (b) In what ways do the teacher’s social interactions mediate children’s science learning during small-group activity?

Theoretical Framework and Methodology

Theoretical Framework

The sociocultural constructivist perspective presented on children’s learning required a theoretical framework that draws on both constructivism and interpretivism. Constructivism and interpretivism aim to understand the meanings constructed by individuals participating in context-specific and socially situated activity through social interactions involving history, language, and action (Schwandt, 1994). This theoretical perspective required that the methodology and method of study take into account the actions of individuals toward other individuals and physical objects, the social interactions between and among individuals, and the context of the actions and social interactions.

MEDIATION OF LEARNING IN SMALL GROUPS 161

Methodologic Perspective

The methodologic perspective of the study was qualitative in nature and based on inductive analysis; that is, the study was guided by the research questions, involved direct classroom observation, and employed a search for patterns versus the imposition of patterns on the data (Patton, 1987, 1990). Specifically, the categories emerged from open-ended observations as I came to understand the patterns of social interactions and actions of these first-grade children and their teacher.

Methods of Inquiry

Data Collection

Although whole-class instruction and social interactions were important components to learning, this study emphasized the nature and effect of small-group social interactions and actions. Thus, data collection procedures were directed at capturing the teacher’s and children’s small-group social interactions and actions. Data were collected through classroom observations recorded as field notes and videotaped recordings of small-group social interactions and whole- class discussions. The classroom observations and videotaped data represent the primary data sources.

Informal conversational interviews (Patton, 1987, 1990) were also conducted to obtain the teacher’s and children’s interpretations and explanations of spontaneous events that occurred within the small groups. Further, each child was interviewed before and after the unit on his or her understanding of butterfly and beetle life cycles, as well as on his or her view of the small- group activities (postinstruction interviews only). The children were also interviewed about their journal entries. Thus, the pre- and postinterviews were structured in an “interview guide” format (Patton, 1987, 1990). The children’s journals were photocopied and served as artifacts of their understandings and actions. The teacher was interviewed before and after the instructional unit using an interview guide format. The teacher and children’s interviews and the children’s journals served as secondary data sources.

Researcher Role

I assumed the role of participant observer (Denzin, cited in Patton, 1990) in that I simul- taneously combined the analysis of children’s journal entries, conducted informal teacher and child interviews about small-group interactions and actions, and made direct observations of small-group and whole-class activity. I did not conduct classroom instruction or plan instruction with the teacher. I provided the teacher with feedback about instruction when requested; however, such requests were limited and emphasized either technical aspects about raising caterpillars and mealworms or children’s understandings about butterfly and beetle life cycles.

Data Analysis

Methods of single and cross-case analytic induction (Patton, 1990) were combined to analyze the data. Case records on the teacher’s and children’s social interactions and actions within the two small groups were constructed directly from the videotape recordings and observation field notes. Verbatim transcriptions and notes were derived from the initial viewing

I62 SHEPARDSON

of the videotape recordings and were combined with the observation field notes. From the initial videotape viewing and observation field notes, patterns of social interactions and actions within the two small groups were constructed. During the second viewing and reading of observation field notes, the emerging patterns were revised. The videotape recordings and observation field notes were then viewed a third time, when the social interactions and actions were placed into the emergent categories: actors (teacher and children) involved in the social interactions and actions, and the nature of the social interactions and actions-negotiation of status, action, materials, or meaning. Social interactions refer to the use of language as a means for the mediation of activity between actors, whereas actions refer to nonverbal forms of mediation between actors. Social interactions and actions that did not fit the dominant categories or were discrepant were categorized as other (see Table 1 for operational definitions).

The secondary data sources provided a context for understanding the small-group social interactions and actions. From the case records a matrix was created that allowed group patterns, as well a5 patterns across the two groups, to be viewed, categorized, and tabulated. To

Table 1 Operational De$nitions of Emergent Categories

Categories Operational definitions

Actors

Social interaction

Action

Negotiotion of status

Negotiation of action

Negotiation of meaning

Negotiation of materials

Other

The teacher and child or children engaged in social interactions and/or actions. A verbal communication sequence between and among actors during small-group activity. A nonverbal communication sequence between and among actors during small-group activity. An interaction sequence (verbal and/or nonverbal) between actors that grants privilege or authority to one actor over other actors during small- group activity. An interaction sequence (verbal and/or nonverbal) between actors whereby one actor’s interaction elicits an action by one or more actors during small-group activity: for example, writing and drawing in journals, making and recording observations of caterpillars and mealworms, or counting. An interaction sequence (verbal and/or nonverbal) between actors whereby one actor’s interaction results in a sharing or communication of understanding of the science phenomena at hand by one or more actors during small-group activity: for example, explaining or describing the life cycle of butterflies and beetles, identifying the life cycles-egg, larva, pupa, and adult-of butterflies and beetles, or using the terminology. An interaction sequence (verbal and/or nonverbal) between actors wherein one actor’s interaction results in a sharing or distribution of materials by one or more actors during small-group activity: for example, the use of the handlens, tub of caterpillars and mealworms, and drawing utensils. Interaction sequences (verbs1 and/or nonverbal) between actors that do not fit the above category definitions. For example, nonacademic task interactions such as “Today is Jimmy’s birthday” or “You are wearing a new dress,” disciplinary interactions such as “Mike, please do not touch Peter,” or classroom management interactions such as “Steve, please stay in your group.”


ensure validity and credibility of the findings, multiple data collection strategies were employed (Patton, 1987). Triangulation was ensured through the use of multiple data sources and through the use of multiple methods of data collection (Denzin, 1978).

The unit of analysis was a social interaction sequence as defined by the context of the actors and interactions. For example, the following transcription illustrates three different social interaction sequences. The teacher’s initial interaction with Peter (Tl-PI) represents a teacher-child interaction involving the negotiation of action, whereas the second interaction sequence (T2- P2) illustrates a teacher-child interaction in the context of negotiating meaning. Thus, the teacher’s interaction with Peter reflects two different social interaction sequences that were initiated and terminated by the context of the teacher’s questions directed toward Peter. The third interaction sequence between the teacher and Mike (T3-M3) is also in the context of a teacher-child interaction directed at negotiating children’s actions.

TI: [Teacher comes over to the group consisting of Peter, Mike, Jill, and Sally.] Peter. How many mealworms do you have? [Mike, Jill, and Sally make individual observations and write or draw in their journals. They do not interact with each other or the teacher.]

PI: [Looking in the tub and counting mealworms] Four live mealworms and six dead mealworms.

T2: Okay. How do you know the six mealworms are dead? P2: They are not moving . . . they are black. T2: Okay. T3: [The teacher now looks at and talks to Mike.] So, what did you notice about the

mealworms? [Peter, Jill, and Sally continue to observe the mealworms and write or draw in their journals. They do not interact with each other or the teacher.]

M3: Some are moving . . . the others are dead. T3: Okay. M3: The dead ones are like . . . black and blue. T3: Good. Can you record that in your journal? M3: [Mike nods his head yes and writes in his journal. The teacher helps Mike spell

“black and blue” and then leaves the group. Each child continues the activity- observing mealworms and writing or drawing in the journal-independently.]

The first interaction sequence (Tl-P1) between the teacher and Peter is initiated by the teacher’s question, “How many mealworms do you have?” The teacher’s question is followed by Peter’s observing, counting, and verbalizing the number of live and dead mealworms. Thus, the teacher’s initial interaction with Peter negotiated Peter’s actions. The second interaction (T2-P2) between the teacher and Peter changes context when the teacher asks, “How do you know the six mealworms are dead?’ The teacher’s question changes contexts because it requires Peter to explain how he knows that the six mealworms are dead, thus negotiating meaning with Peter. The social interaction sequence again changes context when the teacher directs the next question toward Mike (T3-M3), “So, what did you notice about the mealworms?” The teacher’s question resulted in Mike’s responding that “Some are moving . . . the others are dead,” thus negotiating his actions. The teacher continues to negotiate Mike’s actions when asking the student to record the information in his journal. Hence, the interaction sequence between the teacher and Mike focused on negotiating Mike’s actions, observing and counting mealworms and writing in his journal. The interaction sequence between the teacher and Mike comes to a close when the teacher leaves the group.

The transcription illustrates not only three different social interaction sequences but how the teacher initiated and directed the interactions toward individual group members-Peter, then

164 SHEPARDSON

Mike-reflecting a series of teacher-child interactions, thus independently negotiating Peter and Mike’s actions and Peter’s meaning. Therefore, these transcriptions are categorized as three different teacher-child, small-group social interactions as depicted in Table 2.The social interactions that transpired after the teacher departed illustrate a series of child-child social interactions. The following interactions between Jill (J) and Sally (S) reflect two social interaction sequences, J1 and S2-J2, as indicated by the context and nature of the interactions.

J1: [Looking at Sally] I am drawing . . . mealworms with pretty colors. [Mike and Peter continue to write and draw in their journals, while Sally is looking at the mealworms with the handlens.]

S2: [Looking at mealworms through handlens] My mealworms have lots of legs. 52: Let me see. [Jill comes over and Sally gives her the handlens to look at the meal-

worms. Mike and Peter continue to draw or write in their journals.] 52: They do . . . lots of legs. [Jill moves back to her seat and draws legs on her meal-

worm drawings. The children continue to work independently until the teacher in- structs the whole class to clean up and get ready to go.]

Jill initiates interaction with Sally about drawing mealworms with pretty colors, but Sally does not respond. Because Jill’s verbalization resulted in no interaction or action from Sally, it was categorized as a discrepant interaction. Sally’s statement about the number of legs indicates a change in context and thus the initiation of the second social interaction sequence. Sally’s statement about the number of legs resulted in Jill’s reply, “Let me see,” and her observation of the mealworms and the drawing of legs on her mealwonn picture. Thus, the second interaction sequence depicted a child-child interaction that negotiated action, specifically, Jill’s observation of mealworms and her drawing in her journal. Jill and Sally’s interaction sequence is categorized as two different small-group, child-child social interactions as illustrated in Table 3.

Setting, Participants, and Instructional Context

Setting

The setting for this study was two small groups of 4 children each within a first-grade classroom. The classroom groups were established by the teacher through her everyday group- ing practice. Two small groups were then randomly selected from the teacher-established groups. The two small groups represented naturally occurring communities (Patton, 1990). The elementary school (Grades K through 5 ) was located in a rural midwestern county near a major university and metropolitan area.

Table 2 Example Coding of Teacher-Child, Small-Group Social Interactions

Actors Total Nature of interaction Sequence no.

Teacher-child 3 Negotiation of status Negotiation of action

Other

TI-PI and T3-M3 Negotiation of meaning T2-P2


Table 3 Example Coding of Child-Child, Small-Group Social Interactions

Actors Total Nature of interaction Sequence no.

Child-child 2 Negotiation of status Negotiation of action S2-J2 Negotiation of meaning Negotiation of materials Other J 1

Participants

The participants consisted of a first-grade teacher with 6 years of elementary school teaching experience and two small groups of children from her science classes. The teacher taught science to all first-graders; that is, the three first-grade classes would rotate into her classroom for their science experience, one class at a time, during the afternoon. Therefore, the groups were derived from two different classes. The teacher described herself as enjoying science and being confident about teaching science with a belief that “ . . . it is important the children learn the process skills of science” [Teacher interview excerpt]. The teacher was also a participant in a school-based intervention project designed to integrate conceptual change teaching and collaborative group learning into elementary science. The two small groups selected for study consisted of 4 children, heterogenously mixed by gender, academic ability, and verbal ability, as determined by the teacher. The first small group consisted of Jack, Steve, Erin, and Laura. Sally, Jill, Peter, and Mike comprised the second small group. All names are pseudonyms.

Instructional Context

The insect life cycle (butterfly and beetle metamorphosis) unit was implemented over a 15- day period in May (Table 4). Each class period lasted 30 min, providing approximately 20 min of instructional time. The remaining 10 min were typically allotted for settling the children before the instructional activities began and cleaning up at the conclusion of the day’s activities. The instructional unit was the teacher’s first implementation of the generative learning model (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). The teacher had used cooperative learning strategies prior to

Table 4 Instructional Sequence

Day(s) Instructional activity

1

2-1 1

12

13- 15

Preliminary phase. Children write and draw in journals to communicate how they think caterpillars and mealworms will change over time (individual activity). Focus phase. Children observe caterpillars and mealworms and record observations and ideas in journals (small-group activity). Challenge phase. Teacher leads question-answer discussion on children’s caterpillar and mealworm observations and findings (whole-class activity). Application phase. Children complete “insect life cycle diagram” (small-group activity) and take a field trip to find insects, and teacher leads whole-class question-answer discussion activity on the children’s life cycle diagrams.

166 SHEPARDSON

participating in the intervention project. The description of the generative learning model phases and activities that follow is intended to provide a context for interpreting the findings and is not intended to provide a detailed description or critique of the instruction.

Preliminary Phase. The preliminary phase revolved around the children’s individual journal writing and drawing in response to the teacher’s initial questions, “How do you think the caterpillars will change over time?’ and “How do you think the mealworms will change over time?” This activity was intended to identify children’s ideas and understandings about butterfly and beetle life cycles.

Each child was provided a caterpillar and mealworm journal to record (write and draw) his or her observations and understandings. The teacher felt that it was important for the children to have their own journal because ‘‘ . . . the children need opportunities to write and draw their own ideas, and because some take them home and share them with their parents” [Teacher preinterview]. The children provided their own drawing materials.

Focus Phase. The focus phase involved children in small groups and revolved around the children’s observation of caterpillars and mealworms and the recording of those observations in their journals. The use of journals and small-group instruction was a standard practice used by the teacher since the beginning of the school year [Teacher preinstruction interview]. Thus, children had prior experience and were comfortable using journals and working in small groups. The focus phase was designed to provide children with experience in butterfly and beetle life cycles.

Each small group received a container of caterpillars, a container of mealworms, and handlens. The teacher provided one set of materials per group in accordance with the general cooperative learning strategy for promoting group interdependence (cf. Johnson, Johnson, John- son-Holubec, & Roy, 1984; Kagan, 1992). The children were grouped with desks facing each other forming a square, to foster social interactions and collaboration. Thus, the teacher structured the academic task and physical setting around cooperative learning.

Chullenge Phase. During the challenge phase, the teacher conducted a whole-class discussion with the purpose of providing children an opportunity to share their observations and understandings about butterfly and beetle life cycles. Further, the teacher viewed the whole- class activity as a means to introduce the terminology and link it to the children’s hands-on experience with the phenomena [Informal teacher interview].

The teacher solicited children’s observations and ideas during the whole-class discussion and told the children that (a) caterpillars and mealworms come from eggs laid by adult butterflies and beetles; (b) mealworms and caterpillars are larva, the “newborn” stage of growth; (c) pupa is the resting stage; and (d) butterflies and beetles are the adult stages of growth. The teacher linked each term (stage of metamorphosis) to the observations shared by the children. The teacher also differentiated between cocoon (developed by moths) and chrysalis (developed by butterflies) [Field note excerpt]. It should be noted that the teacher also introduced the terminology to some of the children during the focus phase, small-group activities.

Application Phase. The children’s completion and discussion of the insect life cycle diagram (Figure l ) and insect field trip comprised the application phase activities. Each child was provided a butterfly and beetle life cycle diagram to complete. The children were grouped as in the focus phase. The teacher viewed the life cycle diagram as a means for providing the children


Life Cycle Beetle

Adult /-b o,-\ Larva

0 0

0 -\ Life Butterfly Cycle

Adult Larva

0 0 Figure 1 . Computer-generated version of the insect life cycle diagram.

the opportunity to organize their understandings of butterfly and beetle life cycles [Informal teacher interview]. Prior to the completion of the unit, the teacher led all three classes (with the aid of the other two first-grade teachers and the author) on a hike, in the field and woods near the school, to look for insects in their various stages of development. The last day of the unit consisted of a teacher-led, whole-class discussion of the children’s life cycle diagrams, in which the children shared their completed diagrams and responded to the teacher’s questions about butterfly and beetle life cycles.

Results and Discussion

The inductive analysis process employed allowed the results to be framed as empirical assertions, with data as evidentiary warrants (Erickson, 1986). Thus, I present two assertions supported by evidence from the primary and secondary data sources. The first assertion is based on the teacher-child, small-group social interactions, whereas the second assertion is derived from the child-child, small-group social interactions. Thus, the first assertion gives rise to the second assertion.

Assertion I

The teacher mediated children’s science learning in small-group settings through the negotiation of status, uctions, and meaning with individual children versus through interactions that

I68 SHEPARDSON

promoted collaborution among children. To articulate the means by which the teacher’s social interactions mediated children’s science learning in small-group settings, I present the results and discussion in three subsections: Negotiation of Status, Negotiation of Actions, and Negotia- tion of Meaning. For the sections on the negotiation of actions and meaning, I have included a parallel description and transcription of the other group members’ social interactions and actions. The parallel description is intended to provide a context for interpreting the teacher-child social interactions; it is not intended to be a detailed accounting of the actions of other group members.

Negotiation of Status. At the initiation of small-group activities, one of the teacher’s roles was as negotiator of status, as observed in one of the two small groups. The teacher negotiated children’s small-group status by intervening to resolve conflicts. For example, the teacher had just placed the mealworms and handlens in the middle of the table when Erin grabbed the mealworms and Steve the handlens, creating a conflict over the use of the materials. Jack and Laura watched as Erin and Steve tried to take the materials from each other. The teacher sees Steve grab and pull Erin’s hand, trying to dislodge the mealworms, and moves toward the group and stands next to Steve:

T: Steve, Erin, what’s the problem? [Steve lets go of Erin’s hand, while Jack and Laura

E: He [Steve] won’t let me have the handlens. S: But she [Erin] . . . took the mealworms away from me. I had them first. E: I did not. T: Okay, okay. Let’s let Erin observe first, since she has the mealworms and next time

watch.]

you can look first. Is that okay? [looking at Steve].

The teacher resolved the conflict by negotiating a resolution (the order of material use) between Steve and Erin, thereby explicitly negotiating their status in the group and implicitly negotiating the status of the other group members (Jack and Laura), who could use the materials after Steve and Erin. Thus, the teacher mediated the children’s science learning through the order of materials use. The teacher’s explicit negotiation of status is further carried out through the following day, when Steve obtains the caterpillars and handlens:

S: I get to go first, as the teacher said so. E: I know. And I get to go first next time. [The next day, Erin did go first, followed by

Steve. This alternating pattern occurred throughout the first 4 days of the mealworm and caterpillar observation activities.]

The teacher negotiated the children’s status within the group, resulting in each child working independently and using the materials in the specified order to complete the task (observe and record in journals). The teacher’s resolution thus discouraged the children from sharing their observations and ideas and from negotiating a consensual understanding.

Negotiation of Actions. The teacher implicitly and explicitly negotiated children’s actions during small-group activities. The teacher implicitly negotiated children’s actions by requiring them to record their observations and ideas in their caterpillar or mealworm journal and to complete the insect life cycle diagram. Further, by providing each child with an individual caterpillar and mealworm journal and insect life cycle diagram, the teacher fostered task inde-


pendence. That is, the individual journals and insect life cycle diagram did not require group members to interact to complete the tasks.

The teacher explicitly negotiated children’s actions through questions that directed individual children’s observations and journal entries or their completion of the insect life cycle diagram. This negotiation of actions mediated children’s understandings of insect life cycles by emphasizing a particular way of seeing and knowing mealworms (beetles) and caterpillars (butterflies). Prior to the emergence of beetles and butterflies, the particular way of seeing and knowing mealworms and caterpillars reflected the “referential perspective” (Wertsch, 199 1, p. 115) of the children. The teacher mediated the children’s understandings of butterfly and beetle life cycles by negotiating children’s actions that built upon or reenforced the understandings of the children at that point in time. That is, the teacher did not enter into discourse that privileged the referential perspective of science, and therefore did not introduce science concepts or symbols for understanding butterfly or beetle life cycles. The social interaction between the teacher and Steve (S), in the context of the mealworm activity, illustrates these points, in Table 5 (note that this dialogue occurred during the focus phase and prior to the whole-class discussion of insect life cycles).

Not only does the dialogue sequence in Table 5 illustrate how the teacher explicitly negotiated Steve’s actions (observations, counting, and journal entry), but it also shows how the teacher mediated Steve’s understanding of insect (beetle) life cycles by emphasizing a particular way of seeing and knowing mealworms-that mealworms move and die: as Steve said, “six moving, four dead.” The referential perspective taken in the discourse is that of Steve’s. That is, the teacher mediated Steve’s understanding of mealworms (beetles) by negotiating his actions to count and record the number of moving and dead mealworms: “How many are not moving and how many are moving?’ This discourse sequence also implicitly enculturated Steve into the

Table 5 Teacher-Steve. Small-Group Dialogue Transcription Illustrating the Negotiation of Actions

Teacher-Steve social interactions Other child-child social interactions

T:

S:

T: S:

T

S: T: S:

T: S:

[Teacher comes over to group and kneels down next to Steve, who is looking at the mealworms.] What have you noticed about the mealworms? [Looks at mealworms.] They’re kinda white, some are dead. [The “dead” mealworms are actually in the pupae stage of development.] How do you know some are dead? They aren’t moving, they’re, like, on their back. How many are not moving and how many are moving?

I don’t know. Can you count them? [Looks and points at mealworms.] Six moving, four dead.

Good. Can you write that in your journal? [Opens and writes in journal. Teacher leaves group. 1

[Erin, Jack (J), and Laura (L) are writing and/or drawing in their journal.]

As Jack draws eyes on his mealworms he ut- ters: They are weird eyes. [Laura and Erin are drawing in their journals.]

L: Let me see [as she leans over toward Jack and looks at his drawing. Erin continues to draw in journal].

L They’re weird!

170 SHEPARDSON

scientific practice of collecting data or evidence for supporting knowledge claims, which at this point lends evidence to Steve’s initial understanding of mealworms, “ . . . they get bigger . . . old . . . and become dead’ [Preinstruction interview]. Further, the teacher interacted only with Steve instead of the group as a whole.

Negotiation ofMeaning. The teacher mediated children’s science learning through implicitly and explicitly negotiating meaning with individual children, compared with negotiating a consensual meaning among children. Through the use of the insect life cycle diagram, the teacher implicitly negotiated meaning with each child. The insect life cycle diagram, through textual cues, elicited the teacher’s understanding of the scientific communities taken-for-granted way of knowing insect life cycles (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994), instead of allowing the children to explore, organize, and construct their personal understanding of butterfly and beetle life cycles. Thus, the insect life cycle diagram functioned as a “decontex- tualized mediational means” (Wertsch, 1991, p. 39) in that it treated the scientific concepts- egg, larva, pupa, and adult-as “abstract objects of reflection” (p. 39) versus allowing the children to contextualize or recontextualize their own understanding.

The interaction sequence in Table 6 illustrates how the teacher used directed questions, which Bauersfeld (1980) and Voigt (1985) refered to as funneling, to mediate children’s mental activity or reasoning about butterfly and beetle life cycles, shaping the means by which children came to know butterfly and beetle life cycles and how to complete the situated task. The interaction sequence also shows a shift in the referential perspective of the discourse to that of the perspective of science-the conventional concepts or symbols for talking about butterfly and beetle life cycles. The teacher’s shift in referential perspective is an explicit move to negotiate the taken-for-granted way of knowing butterfly and beetle life cycles with the children. The teacher’s interaction with Steve (S), in the context of the mealworm activity, illustrates these points (note that this dialogue occurred during the focus phase and prior to the whole-class discussion of insect life cycles).

The teacher explicitly negotiated meaning with Steve through discourse that emphasized the taken-for-granted meaning of insect life cycles: specifically, the relationship between pupa and beetle (adult). Thus, the teacher’s discourse not only mediates Steve’s actions (counting mealworms) but transforms his actions and mental activity into a particular way of seeing and thinking about mealworms-relating the initial number of mealworms to the total number of mealworms and beetles: that beetles come from mealworms. The teacher’s discourse also moves from the referential perspective of the child-“Where do you think the beetles come from?’- to the perspective of science-“The dead mealworms aren’t really dead. . . . It’s a pupa.” Further, the teacher’s discourse also mediates Steve to the cultural tools for understanding the phenomena at hand, beetle and pupa; however, as Wertsch and Minick (1990) noted, the teacher uses the cultural tools as a means for describing or naming objects or phenomena. The sequence also illustrates how the teacher’s interaction with Steve was independent of other group members.

Table 7 further illustrates how the teacher’s discourse mediated the children’s mental activity, shaping the means by which they came to know insect life cycles and the situated task. The teacher’s interactions, in the context of the insect life cycle diagram, again emphasized the tools of science as a means for describing phenomena, a way of seeing and talking about butterfly and beetle life cycles. The dialogue occurs in the context of Sally’s (S) insect life cycle diagram (note that this dialogue occurred during the application phase and followed the whole- class discussion of insect life cycles).


Table 6 Teacher-Steve, Small-Group Dialogue Transcription Illustrating the Negotiation of Meaning

Teacher-Steve social interactions Other child-child social interactions

T: [Teacher comes over to Steve and kneels down next to him, while Steve is looking at the beetles and mealworms.] So. Where do

Erin: [to the group] How’d the . . . bugs get in? [The children initially thought that bugs had gotten into their mealworm containers.]

you think the beetles come from? S: [Pause] I don’t know . . . they got in.

These are beetles?

T: Do you notice any difference in your mealworms?

S: [Looks at mealworms.] Some are mealworms, some look dead, and some are beetles.

T: How many of each do you have? Can you count them?

S: Two mealworms, four dead, and four beetles.

T: How many mealworms did you start with? What’s your journal say?

S : [Looks through journal.] Ten. T: If you started with 10 mealworms and you

still have 10 left, where did the beetles come from?

S: [Long pause.] Oh! Umh, from the mealworms. They came from the mealworms!

T: Yes. Good. How do you know that? What have you observed, seen how your mealworms have changed?

S: They can’t come from dead ones. . . Has to be the ones that move . . . when you’re dead you’re dead.

T: Okay, but what happened to the mealworms? S: Some dead, some turned into beetles. T: The dead mealworms aren’t really dead. They

are just resting. It’s a pupa. So what do you think the beetles came from?

S: [Long pause.] From, from the pupa things [stated more as a question] . . , it’s just resting?. . . It’s not dead!

Jack: I . . . don’t know . . . through the holes . . . I guess? [as he draws a beetle in his journal]. Laura looks around the room.

Laura [asks Erin]: . . . Are drawing the . . mealworms? Erin: I am drawing . . . mealworms and bugs. Jack: I am going draw both, as that’s what see. [Erin and Jack draw in their journals. Laura, with a puzzled look on her face, watches Erin draw in her journal.] [Laura leaves group.]

Jack: They . . . from the mealworms? [Jack’s response is not acknowledged by either Erin or the teacher.] Jack and Erin continue to write and draw in journal.

Laura returns to group: [inaudible] . . .is drawing bugs and not mealworms. [Laura left the group to find out if other children were drawing both mealworms and “bugs” (beetles) in their journals.]

The teacher explicitly negotiated meaning with Sally through discourse that emphasized the taken-for-granted meaning of insect life cycles by comparing the life cycle of butterflies with the life cycle of beetles. The discourse, however, mediates Sally’s understanding through a scientific register that gives meaning to the tools of science as a way of describing phenomena, as further illustrated in the teacher’s mediation of Sally’s understanding of cocoon and chrysalis: “It’s a chrysalis. . . . Moths spin a cocoon, butterflies form a chrysalis.” The discourse se-

172 SHEPARDSON

Table 7 Teacher-Sally, Small-Group Dialogue Transcription Illustrating the Negotiation of Meaning

Teacher-Sally social interactions Other child-child social interactions

T: [Teacher comes over to group next to Sally, who is drawing on her life cycle diagram; see Figure 1 . 1 Tell me about your butterfly diagram.

S: It shows the eggs . . . larva, pupa, and butterfly [pointing to and perhaps reading the teacher’s labels on the diagram].

T: How about your mealworm picture? S: . . . Here with mealworm eggs, larva, pupa,

and beetle. T: How are the caterpillar and beetle life cycles

the same or different?

S: They [pointing to diagram] got eggs, larva,

T: Are they different? Do the pupa look the

S: No. The caterpillar makes a cocoon and, and

T: Right. But it’s not a cocoon. Remember what

S: [Pause.] T: It’s a chrysalis. . . . Moths spin a cocoon,

pupa, and butterfly and beetle.

same?

the mealworn doesn’t.

we call it?

butterflies form a chrysalis.

Mike, Peter, and Jill are quietly drawing on their insect life cycle diagram.

Peter: I am coloring my butterfly yellow, orange, green, and blue. Mike: Butterflies aren’t blue. . . You can’t color them that, [he draws on his diagram] Jill draws on diagram. Peter: . . . Some are blue.

Mike: Our butterflies aren’t blue. . . .You can’t color them that. Peter: [Inaudible.]

Mike, Peter, and Jill quietly draw and color on their diagrams.

quence also illustrates how the teacher’s interactions with Sally were independent of other group members.

Although the teacher mediated children’s science learning through individual negotiation of meaning versus negotiating a consensual meaning among children in the group, the children’s understanding of butterfly and beetle life cycles was changed. On the basis of the pre- and postinterviews and children’s journals, the teacher’s interactions mediated the children’s learning by challenging the children to reflect on their actions and to construct individually an understanding of butterfly and beetle life cycles (Table 8). The teacher-child interactions have, as Wertsch (1991) posits, given privilege to the children’s voice in describing or labeling the scientific phenomena at hand, butterfly and beetle life cycles. That is, the teacher mediated the children’s understandings with the taken-for-granted tools of science as a means for describing phenomena and for participating in scientific discourse.

In summary, the teacher mediated children’s learning through implicitly and explicitly negotiating their status, actions, and meaning independent of other group members. The interaction sequences illustrated the teacher’s shift in the referential perspective of the discourse from that of the children to that of the perspective of science: the conventional tools-concepts or symbols-for talking about butterfly and beetle life cycles. The teacher’s shift in referential perspective is an explicit move to negotiate the taken-for-granted way of seeing and knowing butterfly and beetle life cycles with the children, or the taken-for-granted tools of science as a means for describing phenomena and for participating in scientific discourse.

The extent of the teacher’s interactions with individual children, versus interactions among


Table 8 Change in Children’s Models of Butterfly and Beetle Life Cycles

Child Preinstruction insect life cycle model Postinstruction insect life cycle model Butterfly Beetle Butterfly Beetle

Jack

Steve

Erin

Laura

Sally

Jill

Peter

Mike

2-stage model: caterpillar-butterfly

3-stage model: caterpillar-cocoon- butterfly 3-stage model: caterpillar-cocoon- butterfly 3-stage model: caterpillar-cocoon- butterfly 3-stage model: caterpillar-cocoon- butterfly 3-stage model: caterpillar-cocoon- butterfly 3-stage model: caterpillar-cocoon- butterfly 3-stage model: caterpillar-cocoon- butterfly

I-stage model: mealworm gets bigger 1 -stage model: mealworm gets bigger 1-stage model: mealworm gets bigger 1-stage model: mealworm gets bigger 3-stage model: mealworm- sleeping-beetle 1-stage model: mealworm gets bigger 1-stage model: mealworm gets bigger 1-stage model: mealworm gets bigger

4-stage model: egg-caterpillar- cocoon-butterfl y 4-stage model: egg-caterpillar- cocoon-butterfl y 4-stage model: egg-caterpillar- cocoon-butterfl y 4-stage model: egg-caterpillar- cocoon-butterfl y 4-stage model: egg-caterpillar- cocoon-butterfl y 4-stage model: egg-caterpillar- cocoon-butterfly 4-stage model: egg-caterpillar- chrysalis-butterfl y 4-stage model: egg-larva-pupa- adult

4-stage model: egg-mealworm- pupa-beetle 4-stage model: egg-mealworm- pupa- beetle 4-stage model: egg-mealworm- pupa-beetle 4-stage model: egg-mealworm- pupa- beetle 4-stage model: egg-mealworm- pupa-beetle 4-stage model: egg-mealworm- pupa- beetle 4-stage model: egg-mealworm- pupa- beetle 4-stage model: egg-larva-pupa- adult

children within the group, is shown in Table 9. Throughout the unit, the teacher interacted with individual children within the group, 89% of the time. Social interactions that involved more than one child of a group were often disciplinary or social in nature. It also implies that not all children may have had equal access to the socially (scientifically) accepted understanding through small-group interactions, as not all children were engaged in similar interactions with the teacher during small-group activities.

Assertion 2

The children’s small-group social interactions did not result in a negotiation of meaning, but instead in a negotiation of actions and the sharing of materials that mediated their science learning.

Although these children did not engage in discourse that explicitly negotiated meaning, they did engage in discourse that mediated their science learning through explicitly negotiating their actions and sharing of materials. For example, even though Sally knew that mealworms turned into beetles [Preinstruction interview], she never shared or discussed her understanding with other children in her group. To illustrate how children’s small-group social interactions mediated their science learning, I present and discuss the results in two subsections, Negotiation of the Use of Materials and the Negotiation of Actions.

174 SHEPARDSON

Table 9 Teacher-Child Small-Group Social Interactions

Actors No. Nature of interactions

Teacher-child 30 Negotiation of status Negotiation of action Negotiation of meaning Other (socialimanagement)

Teacher-child 6 Negotiation of status -child Negotiation of action

Negotiation of meaning Other (social/management)

Teacher-child 2 Negotiation of status -child Negotiation of action -child Negotiation of meaning

Other (social/ management) Teacher-child 3 Negotiation of status

-child Negotiation of action -child Negotiation of meaning -child Other (social/management)

Total 41 Negotiation of status Negotiation of action Negotiation of meaning Other (social/management)

No.

0 17 7 6 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 3

17 7

14

-

Negotiation of the Use of Materials

Children’s small-group discourse mediated their science learning through the negotiation of the use or reuse of materials to make observations, but never negotiated the meaning of those observations. Further, the children’s small-group discourse carried privilege or authority through the control of materials. The interaction sequence between Peter (P) and Mike (M), in the context of the small-group, focus phase activities, highlights these points:

P: [Talking to Mike] Can I use the handlens to see the mealworms? I won’t look long. M: Okay, but I want it back when you are done [as he gives Peter the handlens]. P: [Uses handlens to observe mealworms while Mike draws or writes in journal.]

The dialogue sequence illustrates how Peter and Mike negotiated the use of the handlens, as well as Mike’s authority over Peter in regulating the use of the materials as Peter says, “I won’t look long.” Further, the dialogue sequence does not result in children sharing observations or understandings about mealworms.

The negotiation of the use of materials is also illustrated in the social interactions that occurred during the completion of the insect life cycle diagram, which followed the whole-class discussion of insect life cycles. Again, there is no attempt among children to negotiate meaning. The dialogue sequence between Sally (S) and Jill ( J ) illustrates this notion:

S: [Looking at Jill] Can I use your orange marker? J : Okay. S : [Takes marker and colors picture.]

MEDIATlON OF LEARNING IN SMALL GROUPS 175

Again, the dialogue sequence between Sally and Jill highlights the small-group discourse as a means for negotiating the use of materials, Sally’s orange marker. At no time did the children’s small-group discourse emphasize a negotiation of meaning of insect life cycles within the context of the insect life cycle diagram. Thus, the insect life cycle diagram, in the absence of the teacher, became the mediational means for knowing butterfly and beetle life cycles.

Negotiation of Actions

At times, children’s small-group discourse mediated their learning through negotiating each other’s actions. That is, the children’s negotiation of actions mediated their learning by privileging a particular way of seeing the phenomenon at hand-caterpillars or mealworms. For example, if a child made a statement about his observations, other group members would often reobserve the caterpillars or mealworms for the identified characteristic, thus coming to see the caterpillars or mealworms in terms of those characteristics. However, there was no discussion of the observations of or their meaning for butterfly or beetle life cycles. This mediation of learning through children’s negotiation of actions is depicted in the sequence among Steve (S), Erin (E), and Jack (J) , which occurred during the focus phase of the instruction:

E: [Erin slides the caterpillars and handlens on to Steve’s desk and starts to draw in

S: [Looking at caterpillars through the handlens.] Wow! Look at the spines. E: [Erin’s head pops up from the journal.] Can 1 see? Let me look. J: Let me look. S: [Ignores Erin and Jack while looking at caterpillars.] J: You’re hogging them [as he shifts in his seat]. S : [Looks at Jack and gives caterpillars and handlens to Erin.] J: So . . . you still hogged them. E: [Erin looks at caterpillars while Jack watches, eventually passing the caterpillar and

journal. No communication.]

handlens on to Jack.]

This sequence illustrates how Erin, Steve, and Jack’s interactions negotiated their actions (observation of caterpillars) as well as mediated their learning by privileging a particular way of seeing caterpillars: specifically, Steve’s “Wow! Look at the spines.” Steve’s observation of the caterpillars negotiated Erin and Jack’s actions to observe the caterpillar for spines. Although Erin, Steve, and Jack came to see caterpillars in terms of having spines, they never negotiate the meaning of the spines to caterpillars or butterfly life cycles. Further, as with the teacher’s discourse, the children’s discourse emphasized concepts (spines) as a means for describing phenomena versus explaining phenomena. The dialogue sequence also represents a status play between Steve and Jack, with Steve being granted authority through controlling the actions of Jack: his privilege to observe the caterpillar’s spines. The sequence also illustrates one of the few times that children’s interactions involved three or more group members.

The descriptive statistics reveal the extent of the children’s social interactions to negotiate actions and the sharing of materials, and the failure to negotiate meaning explicitly (Table 10). Although children’s small-group discourse failed to negotiate meaning explicitly, their discourse did negotiate their actions, therefore mediating their understandings by privileging a particular way of seeing butterfly and beetle life cycles. As with the teacher’s social interactions, children’s social interactions were predominantely (80%) directed toward a single individual (Table 10). In general, as with the teacher’s social interactions, children’s social interactions that involved more than one group member tended to be social in nature.

176 SHEPARDSON

Table 10 Child-Child Small-Group Social Interactions

Actors No. Nature of interactions No.

Child-child 77 Negotiation of status Negotiation of action Negotiation of materials Other (social/off task)

Child-child 14 Negotiation of status -child Negotiation of action

Negotiation of materials Other (social/off task)

Child-child 5 Negotiation of status -child Negotiation of action -child Negotiation of materials

Other (social/off task) Total 96 Negotiation of status

Negotiation of action Negotiation of materials Other (social/off task)

- 5

18 28 26 0 5 4 5 0 0 2 3 5

23 34 34

Conclusion

Vygotsky (cited in Wertsch, 1991) viewed the learning of scientific concepts as being mediated by and linked to participation in the discourse of the community. Thus, for children to learn science, they must have access to physical phenomena and to the cultural tools of science, as well as to the discourse that supports their construction of meaning about the physical phenomena (Driver et al., 1994). The teacher mediated the children’s small-group science learning through social interactions that negotiated their status, actions, and meaning, and through written text (the insect life cycle diagram). These written and verbal forms of discourse socially mediated children’s actions (Vygotsky, 1986) and required children to reflect on their physical and mental actions (Piaget, 1970). The teacher’s discourse for negotiating children’s actions emphasized the referential perspective of the children, whereas the discourse for negotiating meaning reflected the referential perspective of science: the conventional tools-concepts and symbols-for seeing, knowing, and talking about butterfly and beetle life cycles. The teacher’s shift in the referential perspective was an explicit, space-time (at the emergence of butterflies and beetles) move to negotiate the taken-for-granted way of knowing butterfly and beetle life cycles. The teacher’s discourse, however, conveys the taken-for-granted tools of science as a means for describing or naming phenomena versus that of understanding phenomena, classroom discourse reflecting what Wertsch (1991) called “official science” (p. 135).

Further, it is plausible that the teacher’s social interactions with individual children versus all children within the group gave rise to what constituted children’s normative and expected social interactions and actions within the small group (Habermas, 1984). That is, the teacher’s discourse carried privilege in conveying the norm that children function independently to complete the learning tasks and work toward individual versus shared goals, therefore establish- ing a small-group independent norm structure. Thus, it was not necessary for the children to engage in social interactions to negotiate a shared meaning of insect life cycles but to engage in social interactions that negotiated actions and the sharing and use of materials to achieve their individual goals-completion of their journals and insect life cycle diagram. Therefore, the discourse for these children did not cany authority because of unequal understanding (Wertsch,


199 l), but carried authority in the negotiation of actions and sharing of materials. The children’s small-group social interactions and actions thus were constrained by the structure of the small group, and made in the context of the actions of other children in the group (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wood, 1988). Therefore, the social interactions and actions of these children were shaped by the socially situated activity and the norms and practices of the community as established by the nature of the teacher’s small-group, social interactions.

Although these children’s small-group, social interactions failed explicitly to negotiate a shared meaning of butterfly and beetle life cycles, their social interactions did mediate their science learning through the negotiation of actions, the ways in which children came to see butterfly and beetle life cycles. Like the teacher’s small-group, social interactions, the children’s social interaction reflected the scientific register of describing or naming phenomena versus that of understanding the phenomena at hand. The teacher mediated the children’s small-group science learning through discourse that negotiated children’s status, actions, and meaning, as well as through discourse that established the normative structure of the small group. The socially expected and accepted ways for the children to interact within the small group was established by the teacher. The teacher’s discourse enculturated the children into the taken-for- granted way of seeing, knowing, and talking about scientific phenomena (as indicated by Driver et al., 1994), and enculturated the children into the social group, the taken-for-granted way of interacting and acting.

References

Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, England: Pen- guin.

Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1 1 , 23-41.

Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.

Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 393- 45 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cobb, P. (1990). Multiple perspectives. In L.P. Steffe & T. Wood (Eds.), Transforming children’s mathematics education: International perspectives (pp. 200-2 15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Driver, R., & Bell, B.F. (1986). Students thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67, 443-456.

Driver, R., Asoko, H . , Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 25, 5-12.

Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.

Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In L.C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 153- 18 1). New York: Academic Press.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.

I78 SHEPARDSON

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of comrnunicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and the rational- ization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T., Johnson-Holubec, E., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu- lum Development.

Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning,

Light, P., Sheldon, M., & Woodhead, M. (1991). Learning to think. New York: Routlage. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Children’s science. In R. Osbome & P. Freyberg

(Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children’s (pp. 5-14). Auckland, New Zeaiand: Heinemann Publishers.

Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Patton, M . Q . (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Piaget, J . (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia Press. Kogoff, B. ( 1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Roth, K.J. (1990). Developing meaningful conceptual understanding in science. In B.F.

Jones & L. ldol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 139-176). Hills- dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Sinclair, J.M., & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis ofdiscourse: The English used by teuchers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Tudge, J . (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: Implications for classroom practice. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155- 172). New York: Cam- bridge University Press.

Voigt, J. (198.5). Patterns and routines in classroom interactions. Recherches en Didacti- ques des Mathematics, 6 , 69- 1 18.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. (1992). Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as

centers of inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wertsch, J.V. (199 1). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J.V., & Minick, N.J. (1990). Negotiating sense in the zone of proximal develop-

ment. In M . Schwebel, C.A. Maher, & N.S. Fagley (Eds.), Promoting cognitive growth over the life span (pp. 71-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wood, D. (1988). How children think and learn. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Received December 6, 1994 First revision April 10, 1995 Second revision June 16, 1995 Accepted July 17, 1995

social interactions and the mediation of science learning in two small groups of first-graders

Documents