Jimenez-Aleixandre Mortimer Silva Diaz 2008 PDF

Epistemic Practices: an Analytical Framework for Science
Classrooms
María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre

University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Eduardo F. Mortimer
University Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Adjane C. T. Silva
Joaquín Díaz
Please address all correspondence to:

University of Santiago de Compostela
Department of Didactica das Ciencias
Av. Xoan XXIII sn, 15782, Santiago de Compostela
Spain
Phone: + 34 981563100 ext 12005
Fax: +34 981572681
E-mail: ddmaleix@usc.es
Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
New York City, March 24–28, 2008
Epistemic Practices: an Analytical Framework for Science
Classrooms

Eduardo F. Mortimer
Adjane C. T. Silva
Joaquín Díaz
The view of science learning as involving an epistemic apprenticeship, through which

students appropriate criteria to evaluate knowledge, is receiving increasing attention from
science educators. Several authors (e.g., Kelly, 2005; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004) have
proposed definitions of epistemic practices and documented instances of students’
performances. However there is a need for comprehensive frameworks which could serve
both as rubric for the analysis of epistemic practices in science classrooms, and as a guide
for the design of learning environments to scaffold them. We propose a double framework,
seeking to account for students’ epistemic practices and for teachers’ epistemic operations. It
is grounded in theoretical perspectives about the evaluation of knowledge and in classroom-
based studies from the authors’ research program.
The view of science learning as involving an epistemic apprenticeship (Kelly &

Duschl, 2002) or, in other words, the appropriation by students of criteria to evaluate
knowledge, is receiving increasing attention by science educators. Knowledge evaluation is a
central feature in argumentation contexts (Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2007) and it is also a practice
associated to inquiry learning environments (Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). As this field
develops, there is a need, besides a consensus on the definition of epistemic practices, for
comprehensive frameworks which could serve purposes, on the one hand related to research,
as rubrics for the analysis of epistemic practices in science classrooms; and on the other,
related to classroom practice, as a guide for the design of learning environments to scaffold
these epistemic practices. Here we propose a double framework, seeking to account for
students’ epistemic practices and for teachers’ epistemic operations.
In the first section, we present the theoretical perspectives informing the proposal.
Then methods and data sources are summarized. The third and fourth sections discuss the
construction of the analytical framework and its application to classroom studies, the first to
students’ epistemic practices and the second to teachers’ epistemic operations.
Theoretical Perspectives: Science Learning as Epistemic Apprenticeship
In the last years our view of science learning has been expanded to include students’
engagement in authentic science practices, with a particular focus on the reasoning and
discursive practices of scientists (Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). From these discursive practices
we want to highlight the relevance of knowledge evaluation. In this section we discuss briefly
the centrality of knowledge evaluation in argumentation, and then present the notions of
epistemic practices and epistemic operations used in the analytical framework.
The Appropriation of Criteria for Knowledge Evaluation
The examination of the appropriation of scientific knowledge by students requires to

pay heed both to the processes of construction, justification and evaluation of knowledge by
students, and to the teachers’ operations aimed to guide them. The justification of knowledge
claims, through relevant evidence and, in some cases, also through appeals to theoretical
ideas, constitutes one of the dimensions or meanings of argumentation.
In this paper we draw on a view of science instruction as involving cognitive

(Sandoval & Reiser, 2004) and epistemic (Kelly & Duschl, 2002) apprenticeship. Sandoval
and Reiser (2004) characterize inquiry instruction as a cognitive apprenticeship into scientific
practice, emphasizing that “the processes scientists value for generating and validating
knowledge emerge from epistemological commitments to what counts as scientific
knowledge” (Sandoval & Reiser, p. 345). The notion of students engaged in the authentic
practices of scientists has been central in the design of constructivist learning environments,
although there are debates about the precise meaning of authentic practices in the classroom.
For Brown et al. (1993) thinking about the enculturation of students in the culture of science
practitioners is romantic, as teachers are not practitioners themselves, and they propose
instead learning to learn. We agree with Sandoval and Reiser (2004) who propose to focus on
a particular type of practices in school contexts: the reasoning and discursive practices of
scientists. Thus a cognitive apprenticeship into scientific practice would not necessarily mean
activities that reproduce the tasks of science practitioners, but would involve the processes for
validating (or evaluating) knowledge.
Kelly and Duschl’s (2002) view science instruction as involving an epistemic

apprenticeship. This apprenticeship means the appropriation by students of criteria to
evaluate knowledge, including either the development of these standards or criteria, or the
use of criteria provided by the teacher, and it is part of the enculturation of students in a new
discourse community (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer & Scott, 1994). It has to be pointed
that these criteria are social products, originated in the relevant disciplinary community. From
a developmental perspective, this appropriation requires evaluative thinking, considered as
the higher category in epistemological understanding (Kuhn, 2005), the level in which claims
(products of knowing) can be evaluated according to whether they are more or less supported
by evidence. Although several authors agree that it would be a desirable goal the production
of criteria and rubrics by the students, so far this has proved to be too difficult (Kenyon,
Kuhn, & Reiser, 2006; Kortland, 1996). In fostering this appropriation the teacher’s
scaffolding plays a crucial role (Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2007).
The guidelines or design principles for supporting collaborative argumentation in the

classroom may seem the same to the design principles for constructivist learning
environments or for inquiry classrooms. Discussing argumentation design principles, we have
claimed that learning environments designed to support argumentation can be viewed as a
type of constructivist learning environments, but with some specific features related to the
development of epistemic practices and, in particular, to the evaluation of knowledge.
Argumentation is a social practice, requiring students to share the criteria for evaluating
claims.
Epistemic Practices
The definitions of epistemic practices include the processes of knowledge evaluation
and justification. Sandoval and Morrison (2003) define them as those concerned with the
generation and evaluation of knowledge, pointing to the distinction between epistemic
practices and epistemological beliefs, related to students’ personal epistemologies. For Kelly
and Duschl (2002) they are the practices associated with knowledge production,
communication and evaluation, and they propose some categories as data representation,
persuasion and observation from different perspectives. In a teaching context, Sandoval and
Reiser (2004) define epistemic practices as the reasoning and discursive practices involved in
making and evaluating knowledge, practices connected to the development of epistemic
cognition. In the wider context of a reflection on inquiry and epistemic practices, Kelly
(2005) considers them as social practices concerning knowledge construction and
justification in a particular community. He defines epistemic practices as the specific ways
members of a community propose, justify, evaluate, and legitimize knowledge claims within
a disciplinary framework. Kelly claims: “an important aspect of participating in science is
learning the epistemic practices associated with producing, communicating, and evaluating
knowledge” (Kelly, 2005, p. 2). In coherence with Habermas’ (1997) theory of
communicative action, Kelly argues for shifting the epistemic subject from the individual to
the relevant social group. The social dimension in the production and use of knowledge had
been highlighted by Toulmin (1972), who subtitled his book Human Understanding as “the
collective use and evolution of concepts”, claiming that each of us thinks his own thoughts,
but we share the concepts with others. All these definitions concur in emphasizing knowledge
production and evaluation.
In this paper we use Kelly and Duschl (2002) notion of epistemic practices as the ones
associated with knowledge production, communication and evaluation. As discussed below,
there is some overlapping among these categories that cannot always be clearly distinguished
in students’ discourse and activities.
Epistemic Operations
In introducing and developing the scientific story as well as in guiding students to

work with scientific meanings, supporting internalization (Mortimer & Scott, 2003), science
teachers perform, alone or interacting with the students, a set of operations related to
knowledge or epistemic operations. On the one hand, the epistemic operations involve the
same sort of actions discussed for epistemic practices, such as production, communication
and evaluation of knowledge claims. On the other, some of their features are linked to
scientific consensual knowledge, which constitute the authoritative discourse of school
science (Scott, Mortimer & Aguiar, 2006). As though, epistemic operations resort to a
repertoire of discursive and epistemic practices that are more predictable than is the case of
epistemic practices.
The epistemic operations can be framed in terms of two general features of the school
science teaching practices: one is related to the way the social language of school science is
used in science classrooms and to the different discourse genres that circulate in this
institutional and social space (Bakhtin, 1986); and the other to the way the objects and
entities of science are brought to the foreground of the discursive practices. We shall call the
first group operations of textualization or more generally semiotization and the second
operations of objectivation.
Textualization involves producing utterances, both oral and written, which belong to
the different genres of discourse that pervade science classrooms. Bronckart (1996) identified
five types of textual sequences that constitute the different genres of discourse. In defining
the operations of textualization we expand them as to include other types of texts that are
common in science classroom, for instance, definitions and exemplification. A preliminary
list of operations of textualization includes: describing, explaining, generalizing, classifying,
defining, exemplifying, constructing arguments, constructing narratives, appealing to
analogies and metaphors, and calculating. Each of these operations of textualization can be
performed through different semiotic registers (Duval, 1995): oral and written language,
gesture, diagrams, etc.
Objectivation involves determining a) the objects and entities that are talked about in
the discourse and the level of referentiality – concrete objects, classes of objects and abstract
objects - in which they are located; and b) the world in which the referents are placed: the
world of objects and events, or the world of models and theories (Tiberghien, 1994), as well
as the relationship between these two worlds.
Methods and Data Sources
The construction of the analytical framework involved the articulation of two sources:
on the one hand proposals and definitions, both for epistemic practices and epistemic
operations, from the literature as the works mentioned in the previous section (e.g., Kelly,
2005; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004), as well as reference work for discursive practices (e.g.,
Bakhtin, 1986). On the other hand, the examination of discourse practices in science
classrooms undertaken in the research programs of both teams, USC and UFMG, yielded a
number of epistemic practices and operations. Therefore the categories from the rubric were
not constructed a priori, but rather emerged from an interaction of theory and data.
TABLE 1
Summaries of the three studies from project RODA
Autor Research Context Task – Problem
J. Díaz de Bustamante Argumentation in the context To match an unknown sample with
of a microscope task. one from four options (two animals,
Secondary school & two plants)
university students
C. Reigosa Discourse & justifications (3rd) The label of this bottle
while solving 5 chemistry containing a HCl solution is lost. In
problems during one year. 15- order to use it we need to know its
16 years-old students. concentration in molarity. You have
to find a way of determining it.
M. Federico Agraso Articulation of scientific To summarize claims and
authority and empirical data justifications in two journal papers
in the argumentation of 12th where experts formulate opposed
Grade students about the oil predictions about the evolution of the
spill Prestige oil spill, choosing one.
The data used to illustrate the rubric for epistemic practices belong to the corpus of
project RODA (ReasOning, Discourse, Argumentation), an ongoing research program
examining argumentation in secondary school trough classroom studies. Data from three
studies, including video and audio recording and field notes, are presented; two of them, Díaz
and Reigosa, corresponding to studies about discourse and argumentation in laboratory
contexts, where students were asked to solve authentic problems (e.g., Díaz & Jiménez-
Aleixandre, 2001; Jiménez-Aleixandre & Reigosa, 2006); the third to a study about
argumentation and critical reading from the media (Jiménez- Aleixandre, Agraso & Eirexas,
2004). Table 1 summarizes the context and task in each study.
The data used to illustrate the rubric for epistemic operations belong to the corpus of
Silva’s PhD thesis, which is supervised by Eduardo Mortimer. The corpus includes video
data, interviews and field notes taken from a high school classroom during a period of three
months, in which two topics of high school chemistry were taught: thermochemistry and
kinetics. The teacher had 10 years of experience and was regarded as a good teacher by her
students, aged 16-17. The school is private and located in a middle class social neighborhood.
We shall discuss first the rubric for epistemic practices and then the rubric for
epistemic operations, illustrating them with instances from science classrooms. It has to be
noted that both were documented in the discourse of students and teachers, although with
different dominance. The epistemic practices were found with higher frequency in the
students’ discourse while working in small groups, while the epistemic operations seem more
characteristic of teacher’s discourse or to the discourse she orchestrates in the classroom,
interacting with the students.
Epistemic Practices Documented in the Students’ Discourse
The rubric for epistemic practices is summarized in table 2. Departing from Kelly and
Duschl (2002) definition of practices associated with three categories, knowledge production,
communication and evaluation (first column), we first distributed the practices identified in
the students’ discourse (third column) in these three categories of social practices. In a second
step we grouped these specific practices in broader practices (second column). This rubric is
not exhaustive, and there are practices situated in an overlapping of categories. Being not
possible to illustrate all the specific practices from the third column, we will present the
examples arranged under the three types of social practices.
Table 2.
Epistemic practices according to its connection with knowledge
Social practices Broad epistemic practices Epistemic practices (specific)
related to
knowledge
- Articulating one’s own - monitoring progress
knowledge - performing planful investigations
- using strategies directed by plans
Knowledge or objectives
production - using concepts to plan and execute
actions (e.g. in the laboratory)
- articulating technical and
conceptual knowledge
- constructing meaning
- Making sense of data patterns - considering different data sources

- constructing data
- Interpreting and constructing - translating between languages :
representations observational, representational and
theoretical
Knowledge - transforming data into different
communication formats
- Producing reports & other texts - learning to write texts in different

circulating in science classrooms school science genres
- Persuading other community - presenting one’s own ideas

members emphasizing key points
- negotiating explanations
- Coordinating theory & - distinguishing claims from

evidence: argumentation evidence
- using data for theory evaluation
Knowledge - using concepts to interpret data
evaluation - looking to data from different
perspectives
- appealing to consistency with
other knowledge
- contrasting claims (own or - justifying own claims

from others) with available - criticizing others’ claims
evidence: evaluation - using concepts to frame anomalies
Epistemic Practices Associated with Knowledge Production
Knowledge production practices are found in a variety of contexts: here we will

discuss examples from laboratory contexts, but they are documented for instance in the
students’ spontaneous answering words, that is, questions and statements, in the context of
teacher’s lectures (Mortimer, Lima-Tavares, & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2008). In that study the
knowledge production practices amount to a half of the total, most of them belonging to
constructing meaning, which was less frequent in laboratory contexts.
Articulating One’s Own Knowledge: Monitoring Progress
A small group of four grade 10 students (15–16 years) are required to design a way
for finding the molarity of a HCl solution; in another paper (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Reigosa,
2006) we examine the contextualizing practices as they construct meanings for the concepts
of concentration, molarity and neutralization. We interpret that the task required them to
connect the material resources, such as NaOH, litmus paper or laboratory equipment, to the
cognitive resources, such as the concepts of molarity and neutralization. In this experimental
context the connection between epistemic practices and argumentation is not easily followed.
Because the goal is to design methods to determine the molarity, the content of the arguments
are these methods or experimental procedures. In order to design a procedure, it is essential to
monitor the progress, in other words, to evaluate if they are proceeding along the appropriate
way. Some turns are omitted to avoid repetition.
Turn, Actor Transcription: Session 4, episode 2

350 Santiago What do we have to do then?
351 Susana I don’t understand well, mm
353 Susana We are supposed to find the concentration
364 Simeón Which one is the base?
369 Santiago Where is the jar...?
370 Simeón It is a base
371 Santiago Do you hear? The sodium hydroxide: Which one is it?
372 Sergio Do we have sodium hydroxide? No. No?
373 Santiago Here (handout) it says, next to the jar you have a don’t-know-what of
sodium...
374 Simeón ...hydroxide
384 Sergio Which one is the sodium hydroxide? Which one?
385 Susana I don’t understand it, mm
388 Sergio We have to put one of those little papers (litmus). Where are they?
390 Simeón There
391 Sergio A piece... here, and depending of the color it has, you’ll have to write what
it is
392 Simeón No, you have to put it here in order to... (points to the material)
393 Susana (interrupting) I think that I don’t understand... Good, yes, and with the acid
you put here the amount that you want...
394 Santiago (interrupting) Let me a little acid (takes the litmus paper)
395 Sergio (answering to Susana) Yes
396 Susana ... and then you put the paper and you see the results...
397 Sergio Depending of the change of color
398 Susana Good, and the result is... what?
399 Santiago It is an alkali. This change is an alkaline
400 Sergio Mmm. I don’t know
We interpret Susana’s statements repeating three times “I don’t understand”, not as

lack of knowledge of the purpose of the task, because she says (353) “we are supposed to find
the concentration” but of the steps to arrive to it, of the way of transforming their knowledge
into actions, of how to use the resources, both cognitive and material, to solve it. Our
interpretation is that she is the only one monitoring progress in terms of the task’s purpose.
But Susana’s discourse runs in parallel to another, initiated by Simeón in turn 364, which
engages the three boys in a search for the jar of sodium hydroxide among the equipment in
the laboratory table, and later in exchanges about the litmus paper. These students seem to
follow a pattern of manipulation of material indexed by the context of “laboratory”, but
without a clear purpose. Then, beginning in turn 393, Susana challenges the purpose of the
use of the litmus paper, although only Sergio acknowledges that he does not know the
meaning of the result (seen in the litmus paper). Monitoring progress is difficult, and it is not
surprising that the other two students do not acknowledge Susana’s question and continue to
talk about the pH scale.
Articulating One’s Own Knowledge: Articulating Technical and Conceptual Knowledge
A small group of third grade students (14–15 years) are required to match an unknown
microscope sample with one of four options in their handout, a task conceived as an
alternative to standard microscope work with known samples, which only involve
description. The content of the arguments is the nature of the sample, animal or plant, and
which one of them. In this empirical context it is necessary to collect the data in order to
organize the evidence and justify a claim. We interpret this excerpt as an instance of
articulation of practical knowledge about how the microscope works and collecting data.
Turn, Actor Transcription
35 Researcher (Díaz) You can change the objective. Do you know how to do it?
36 Félix Can we?
37 Fabri Come on, Félix! Go ahead, put the bigger one (lens)! Let me do it!
39 Fabri It is smaller. This one is of immersion.
41 Fabri The yellow one (colour of the ring around the objective) is bigger. Isn’t?
43 Félix Wow! This is a different thing!
44 Fabri Let me see it!
46 Félix If we could to focus it better...
47 Fabri This is why you don’t see the green...
48 Félix No, because it takes a smaller portion. And if I focus it, perhaps we won’t
see the rest. It is in layers!
49 Fabri But there is a separation...
50 Félix Yes, if I focus on the upper layer, we won’t see the lower layer.
This exchange between the 15 years-old students reveals that they are recognizing, not
only the different parts of the microscope, as the coarse and fine adjustment knobs, but also
its functions, and the consequences of their choices: the magnifying power (turn 41), the
field’s depth (turn 50), or the width of the visual field depending of the magnification (turn
48). When they change to an objective with greater magnifying power, Félix (48) recognizes
that he is now seeing a smaller area from the sample, and that focusing on part of it, he is not
seeing the rest of the sample. Two turns later, he realizes that, with this magnification, if he
focuses on the upper layer, he cannot see the lower layer. In fact, the examination of samples
under the microscope requires the students to go back and forth among different
magnifications, as sometimes it is needed to see the overall structure of the sample and others
to see details with greater magnification. In order to solve the task, it is necessary to articulate
technical knowledge with concepts, as in this case plant cell, stomata, nucleus, chlorophyll.
But, for the experts, this articulation is generally implicit, so it is not a subject for reflection
and it is not modeled in the classroom. It is worth noticing that, although the students were
only asked to match their sample with one of the four choices, besides doing it, concluding
that it was a plant tissue with stomata, they went further, and identified it as plant epidermis
with part of phloema attached to it.
Making Sense of Data Patterns: Constructing Data
We are talking here of data construction because, according to Latour & Woolgar
(1979), observations are transformed in “facts”, and data are constructed by scientists when
they give significance to their observations. In this excerpt, one dyad of third grade girls is
working with the same microscope task discussed above, but with a different sample, animal
tissue with only one type of cellules. The connections between argumentation and epistemic
practices are visible in the dialogue.

137.1 Gema But they (the cells) should be all of the same type
137.2 but they don't belong to the same type
138 Gloria Where it says that they should belong to the same type?
139 Gema Here (reads from handout): «They all belong to the same type.»
140.1 Gloria Of course they all belong to the same type
140.2 some are bigger and some smaller
140.3 but all belong to the same type.
141 Gema Do they?
142 Gloria Of course.
151 Gloria (reads the description of one option in the handout) «Visible more than
one type of cells.»
152 Gema Ah! I thought that only one.
153 Gloria Look, here there is only one type of cells.
156 Gloria They all belong to the same type because some of them are closer and
sometimes others are separated in the sample.
First Gema argues that the cells belong to different types, a statement that could be
interpreted as a piece of empirical evidence supporting the implicit claim about the sample
(B2, animal tissue with more than one cell type). But in turn 140, Gloria changes the meaning
of their observation, by interpreting it in a different way: it is a difference of size not of cell
type, which was the case. In terms of argument components, we code 140.1 and 140.3 as
constructed (empirical) data, and 140.2 as appeal to an attribute (size). This causes a change
in the claim, now B1 (animal tissue with only one cell type). In the excerpt this claim is
implicit, with an explicit justification, one of subsequent type, being at the same time a
second argument (they belong to the same type), which has as justification that the difference
is only in the size. The observation is transformed by the students’ interpretation.
At the same time, there is an overlapping here with knowledge evaluation, as Gloria in
140 is implicitly proposing that the size is not an appropriate criterion to establish that there
are two cell types. This idea is amplified in 156, when she attributes the observed differences
to the fact of the different disposition of the cells in several parts of the sample. The
observations are interpreted in terms of the biological notion of cell type. Argumentative and
epistemic practices complement each other.
Epistemic Practices Associated with Knowledge Communication
Knowledge communication practices are found with higher frequency in laboratory

contexts and, for instance, in the study about lecture context mentioned above, there were
documented only two occurrences (Mortimer et al., 2008).
Interpreting and Constructing Representations: Translating between languages
We will discuss two examples of this category, one from the microscope task and one
from the titration task. During the microscope task the students have to articulate their
observations with the morphological attributes of cells and tissues, using the relevant
scientific notions. These statements are interpreted as transformations from observational to
theoretical language, through a translation departing from descriptions at a low level, which
develop into conceptualizations, giving meaning to cells and tissues components or to its
characterizing attributes. In most cases this involves a negotiation among the students from
the group, in another instance of overlapping categories. In the first excerpt, the students
discuss about the presence or absence of nucleus in their sample.

210 Fabri (reads handout) «Is it there some element inside the structures?»
211 Félix Some what?
216 Fabri Which one or which ones? Which elements are there?
218 Félix I don’t know, I would say nuclei.
224 Fabri You can see little dots as elements.
225 Félix Look...
226 Fabri Focus on one cell.
227 Félix With the big one (objective) I cannot, boy!
228 Fabri You are a real dunce, man.
229 Félix Look, here there are. Do you see them? Don’t you see little dots inside and
besides the nuclei or I don’t know what.
230 Flavio It is that take that we said that it was clouded.
231 Félix It looks like doughnuts, man!
232 Flavio They have a hole at its center.
235 Félix That should be one of these parenchyma or sclerenchyma.
In order to match the sample with one of the four options, and formulate the claim of
the argument, the identification of cell elements, the empirical data, are important. Félix
(229) asks himself whether what he is seeing are nuclei. In the sample there were stomata in
the portion that they were observing in this episode, and probably what he calls nucleus are
the stomatal openings. In turn 231 he describes the stomata appealing to an appropriate
analogy with doughnuts, and Flavio adds that they have a hole, but they did not identified this
observations with the stomata, so the translation between observational and theoretical
language is not completed. Although there are images of stomata in their book, it is not
always easy for students to recognize these and other elements when seen through the
microscope.
The second excerpt of translation between languages, in the chemistry laboratory, is

an instance of attempts of translation from macroscopic to chemistry terms. In this episode,
once the titration is finished, the students experience difficulties for recapitulating the steps,
in order to write the report; difficulties for transforming the empirical data (volume in
milliliter) into chemistry concepts as moles.
Turn, Actor Transcription: Session 6, episode 3

203 Susana This is (inaudible) between, divided by liter of... There were how many
liter of solution?
204 Santiago A hundred.
208 Santiago No! Two hundred eight point five (milliliter).
209 Simeón No, one hundred eight point five.
211 Santiago One hundred eight point five of acid. Well then two hundred eight.
216 Santiago Two hundred eight point five milliliter of solution... You have to know the
moles, the moles of solute.
218 Susana But the moles of solute is what we just have found.
226 Santiago We have to grab the formula, we know how many moles they are...
227 Susana Yes, that is what... the molarity
228 Sergio We are going to find the molarity.
229 Simeón Moles of solute, we have them already.
The recapitulation process, from practice to theory, is not easiest that the application
of theoretical concepts to a practical problem. The dialogue reveals confusions, first because
Santiago (208, 216) is adding the volumes of both solutions, acid and base, ignoring Simeón
who corrects him. Second, it seems that they do not distinguish between the moles used in the
neutralization and the unknown molarity of the HCl solution. This data transformation, from
the volume used in the neutralization to the molarity, that seems trivial to the experts, proves
difficult for the students.
Persuading Others: Negotiating Explanations

In Gema and Gloria’s dyad, one negotiation revolves around the presence or absence
of nucleus, as in the previous excerpt about the microscope task. But in this case the attribute
discussed is the size. The sample tissue was fish operculum, where the nuclei were seen only
as small black dots.
Turn, Actor Transcription:

177 Gloria Why (did they choose animal tissue)? You need to write why.
178 Gema Because they are not plant cells.
181 Gloria Because they are not plant cells.
182 Gema Why?
183 Gloria They are not plant cells and the nucleus (inaudible)
187 Gloria And you cannot distinguish the nucleus: Can you?
188 Gema Are you sure that those are not the nuclei?
189 Gloria How would they be, so small.
190 Gema Cells are always very small.
The students are required to justify each step in the decision-making process. Some
justifications are sound, but other times, as in this excerpt, it is difficult to know the
connection that Gloria establishes between being animal cells and the absence of nuclei. In
fact the nuclei were visible, as small dots, and Gema (188) challenges the justification. Gloria
appeals to the dots’ small size to explain why she does not identify them as nuclei, but Gema
situates small size as an attribute of cells, qualifying her position with the adverb “always”. It
seems that Gloria is persuaded, and the absence of nuclei is dropped from the explanation.
Epistemic Practices Associated with Knowledge Evaluation
Knowledge evaluation practices are found in diverse contexts, and in the study about a
sequence where the teacher is lecturing (Mortimer et al., 2008), constitute about one half (the
other half being knowledge production practices).
Coordinating Theory and Evidence: Using Concepts to Interpret Data
The practice of using concepts for data interpretation is illustrated with an instance
from students, in this excerpt university students, working in the microscope with an
unknown sample. The sample was frog testis with cells in different phases of division, from
meiotic cells to spermatozoids, so it could be matched with the choice “more than one cell
type”. While anatomical features are directly observed through the microscope, functional
features have to be inferred, requiring an interpretation in the light of conceptual knowledge.
We interpret it as an example of overlapping among construction of meaning for ‘cell
division’ and using concepts for data interpretation. Some turns are omitted.

223 Julio Do you know what these black spots could be?
224 Javier What?
225 Julio The formation of new nuclei in the cells. What it says in ‘d’ (option)
226 Judit Yes.
227 Julio (reading handout) “Cells falling out easily”. Could it be that the nucleus is
dividing, that's why is so dark? I don’t know.
231 Judit What could they be? New forms of...
232 Julio As if the nucleus was... dividing to form... new cells.
233 Jacinta New cells.
242 Julio Look down there...there are small cells all white. Just white. And in the
middle it seems that one is broken (...)
245 Javier Yes.
246 Julio And now look there where the pointer is pointing
249 Javier No... Down there it is... and... But here in this side where the pointer is
pointing, yes, there are others.
250 Julio Down there! It looks as if these were new. Because they are even smaller.
Down there
252 Javier But they are blacker! Why are they blacker?
253 Julio No: These down there? Down at the bottom.
255 Judit Yes, but wait a minute.
261 Julio Look down there.
262 Judit Yes. These cells are... smaller
267 Javier It is a regeneration of ... new cells (...)
With the higher magnification, x400, it was possible to identify meiotic cells in the
sample. The students had been talking before about ‘black spots’ or ‘dashes’. Now Julio,
Javier and Judit construct these observations as nuclei division (turn 227), relating it
implicitly to mitotic or meiotic images, interpreting ‘broken cell’ as evidence of ‘dividing’,
and the presence of smaller cells (250) as evidence of them being ‘new’. Data are
cooperatively interpreted and reinterpreted, contextualizing knowledge, both conceptual,
about cell biology, and procedural, in this case mitosis or meiosis images.
Contrasting Claims with Available Evidence: Criticizing Others’ Claims
These practices are clearly connected with argumentation. The context is a debate in
the media about the Prestige oil spill, whose consequences the government was attempting to
play down or even deny. The 12 grade students were asked to summarize the key points in
two press clippings representing opposed views. They worked in small groups, producing a
report. From the six groups, five supported the claims of the expert (Guy Herrouin) predicting
that the fuel degradation would take a long time and criticized the second expert (Skanzel)
who predicted that the fuel would be degraded or volatilized before reaching the shores. One
group criticized both experts because, while supporting Herrouin’s claim, they found his
position too soft. The students’ justifications in the six groups belong to four topics: the
amount of the spill, 80 tons each day; the rate of degradation, 12% each month; the volatile
fraction, 5%; and the appeal to their own experience as volunteers cleaning the beaches.
These justifications are illustrated in the excerpt.

232 Bea As 80 tons are leaking, no! (the spill would not be degraded before
reaching the beaches) Degradation here it is only one month...
233 Brais During one month twelve per cent (degradation rate). In one month it is
already at the coast, it would be repeated seven times and it goes back to
the sea and comes back to the coast!
234 Branca Sure, on the basis of... We think that because the oil is arriving.
260 Branca What if we simply write that we were there on the beach and we saw it
(the fuel)?
266 Brais I agree with Guy (Herrouin). It is going to keep arriving to our shores...
Because them (Herrouin and his team) they saw it there, mark it! They
saw how much was leaking. They are there at the open sea. We are here
and we can conjecture, but they are there.
267 Baia She (Skanzel) should be there too, and look how she is lying.
268 Brais That one (Skanzel) she was not there. What she is doing is supporting their
people, the ones who pay her.
Besides appealing to the amount (232), the degradation rate (233) and their own
experience (260), the students were engaged in the evaluation of the experts’ authority,
something that was not required explicitly in the task, although its structure favored it. Four
from the six groups explicitly acknowledged Herrouin’s status as expert, and three groups
rejected this status for Skanzel as seen in the excerpt. It has to be noted that Skanzel was
presented in the journal as one biologist working in the ITOPF, acronym that, in this context,
could be interpreted as an oceanography institution. But, searching the internet, we found that
it corresponded to International Tanker Owner Pollution Federation, information that was
shared with the students. In the evaluation of the experts’ authority the students used three
criteria: Skanzel lack of objectivity, being paid by the tankers’ owners; Herrouin’s position as
leader of the team that was working on site with the submarine Nautilus; and the coherence of
their positions with the available evidence.
Epistemic Operations
The epistemic operations are summarized in table 3, which draws on a previous

proposal (Silva & Mortimer, 2007a, 2007b). Departing from our definition of broad social
operations associated with knowledge - textualization and objectivation (first column), we
distributed the identified epistemic operations (second column) in these two categories. The
third column specifies the levels of referentiality or the world in which the entity is placed,
for the broad operations of objectivation. This list is not exhaustive, and some operations only
can be accounted for through the overlapping of categories.
TABLE 3.
Rubric for epistemic operations
Social practices Epistemic operations Specification
related to knowledge
Semiotization Defining
(textualization) Describing
Explaining
Using the social Classifying
language and the Generalizing
speech genres of school Exemplifying
science Constructing arguments
Appealing to analogies and
metaphors
Calculating
Constructing narratives
Objectivation Determining entities talked specific objects/event
about in the discourse and their classes of objects
Bringing science’s level of referentiality abstract objects
entities to the
foreground of the Determining the world in world of objects and events
discursive practices which the referents are placed world of models and
theories
relationship between these
two worlds
The sets of categories included are intimately related. They refer to the epistemic
activities inherent to the nature of knowledge in Chemistry and Physics and which will
normally characterize the discourse content of these subjects in the classroom. From the
epistemological point of view, a central activity of these sciences is modeling, that is, the
construction of models of the physical world by which people think about the phenomena,
explain them and make predictions about them (Silva & Mortimer, 2007a, 2007b). The
models establish a way of looking at phenomena which transcends the immediate given
reality and are part of the theories that give them meaning. Therefore, Silva & Mortimer
(2007a & 2007b) propose the following base categories related to the construction of
knowledge in the sciences of nature: the world of objects and events and the world of theories
and models. They argue that the meaning of the physical and chemical concepts is given by
the relation established between these two worlds, which can be recognized in the discourse
of school science. When the discussions involve aspects related to the objects and events of a
given system under analysis, they are in the world of objects and events. On the other hand,
when discussions refer to entities such as atoms, molecules, particles and others created
through the theoretical discourse of sciences, they are in the world of theories and models.
Besides the world of objects and events and of theories and models, there is also a
third category which indicates a relation between these two worlds. This relation not always
occurs explicitly, specifically, but more in the movement of the lesson as a whole, when it
moves from one level to another. However, in various situations, it is possible to explicitly
see this relation in the speech of the teacher, when, for example, he/she uses analogies or
empirically describes a process while presenting this process on the blackboard through
symbols belonging to chemistry, among other representations.
Given the possibility of speaking about the scientific content, whether in terms of
objects and events, whether in terms of theories and models, the authors observe also that this
can be done at three distinct referenciality levels: through a specific referent, a class of
referents or an abstract referent. These three levels of referenciality are based on the
distinction adopted by Mortimer and Scott (2002, 2003) between the empirical and
theoretical referentiality and is an unfolding of these categories. Observing the content
covered in our research, we may, for example, consider that when the teacher refers to an
experiment in which water is heated until it changes its phase, she is dealing with a specific
referent, that is, boiling water. When referring to the boiling process in general, which occurs
with any liquid, she begins to deal with a class of referents. This way of dealing with a
specific referent or a class of referents can occur in the world of objects and events or in the
world of theories and models. When, for example, she deals with the experiment in which the
water is heated, observing the indispensable conditions for its boiling (specific referent) or for
the boiling of liquids in general (class of referents), the approach is in the world of objects
and events. In this situation, the teacher can discuss that water or any other liquid must reach
its boiling temperature and continue to be heated for the boiling to be maintained. Otherwise,
when she deals with the boiling of water or of the liquids referring to the distancing of the
particles when absorbing heat, or representing boiling through a diagram of enthalpy, the
discussion occurs in the world of theories and models. Finally, we consider the abstract
referent, the existence of which generally occurs in the world of theories and models, relating
to entities which are not directly observable. In our research this occurred when the teachers
worked with the definition of enthalpy, dealing with the definition of thermo-chemical
equation, without indicating specific reagents of products, or when they worked with
diagrams of enthalpy without referring to a specific substance or a class of processes.
Another set of categories related to the activities in production, evaluation and

communication of knowledge are the epistemic operations of textualization. The categories
included there are an expansion of the initial proposal by Mortimer and Scott (2002, 2003) to
categorize the content of discourse, where a distinction is made between description,
explanation and generalization. The authors considered that these categories express
fundamental characteristics of social language (Bakhtin, 1986) of school science. We may
understand the description as an approach to a system, object or phenomenon, in terms of its
elements or the space-time dislocations of these elements. The explanation, for its part, goes
beyond the description, establishing relations between entities and concepts, importing some
model or mechanism to give sense to a specific phenomenon. Finally, generalization involves
descriptions or explanations that are independent from a specific context. Description,
explanation and generalization may occur both in the world of objects and events, and in the
world of theories and models.
Mortimer (2000) discusses the relations between descriptions, explanations and

generalizations in the analysis of classroom phenomena. The author indicates a progressive
movement of decontextualization or recontextualization in the discourse of school science,
when advancing from description to explanation and, finally, to generalization. He also
considers how explanation depends on previously apprehended generalizations and the ability
to use them to describe specific phenomena and objects. Therefore, these categories are seen
as related, permitting their mutual sophistication. We may consider that in these three distinct
categories there is a permeability or an overlap that is, one which is more comprehensive may
involve others which are more restricted. This raises a methodological issue with which we
had to deal in our research, related to the limitation of segments of sequences of interaction to
apply these and other categories related to the set under discussion. Depending on the
segment outlined to apply the categories, we may end up not using the more comprehensive
categories, since we would be applying the most restricted, which would be involved in the
former, or, on the contrary, prioritizing the most comprehensive and limiting the use of the
more restricted.
Besides the description, explanation and generalization, we added other categories

related to the cognitive and modeling tasks belonging both to sciences in general and, more
specifically, to the sciences of nature: definition, analogy, comparison, classification,
exemplification and calculation (see table 2).
Classroom discursive dynamics: highlighting epistemic operations
Initially we will briefly visualize the structure of the lesson as a whole, and then
deepen the analysis. The lesson, the 7th of a total of 16 lessons in thermochemistry, has 26
episodes, of which 5 are of class management, 11 are of agenda and 11 of content. There is a
considerable number of agenda episodes. This is a significant aspect of most of the lessons of
teacher Sara, one of the ways in which she shares the evolution of content with the students in
order to maintain her narrative.
Considering the episodes of scientific content, it is possible to verify a wider utterance

strategy related to the ordaining of these episodes in structuring the lesson as a whole. The
concepts are developed around specific phenomenon that can be considered the two main
specific referents used to introduce the themes: the changes of water phase and the
combustion reactions of hydrogen. Therefore, the lesson is divided in two parts because of
these referents, as shown in table 4 below. In the first, the concepts are around the changes in
the phase of water; in the second, around the combustion reactions, more specifically the
combustion of hydrogen. Therefore, the concepts of exo and endothermic processes, enthalpy
and variation of enthalpy for these processes and thermochemical equation are considered
initially for the changes of phase, and then for the combustions. In fact, as such concepts are
developed, the ideas referring to changes of water phase and combustion reactions become
more sophisticated.
TABLE 4.
The episodes and their content - Lesson 7
Episodes of scientific Themes Specific referents
content
Episode 10 Endothermic processes
Episode 12 Exothermic processes
Episode 14 Enthalpy involved in the changes of physical
state Changes in the physical
Enthalpy diagrams for exo and endothermic state of water
processes
Episode 16 Thermochemical equations
Episode 18 Enthalpy involved in chemical reactions
Episode 20 Enthalpy involved in chemical reactions Combustion reactions:
Episode 23 Thermochemical equations combustions of H2
Episode 24 Enthalpy diagrams
Working on concepts based on the discussion of specific phenomena (changes in the

phase of water and combustion of hydrogen) are a strategy by which the teacher initially
takes specific referents to then reach a class of referents and, later, abstract referents. This
strategy is linked to another in which the world of objects and events is related to the world of
theories and models. The teacher starts with a discussion dealing with events, and then guides
it to the world of theories and models relating these two worlds. In the initial episodes of each
of the parts of the lesson (10 and 12, 18 and 20, for the first and second parts, respectively),
the discussion is fully focused on the world of theories and models. This focuses our attention
on the passage from one episode to another. We find that the initial episodes from each part
of the lesson have a movement of passage from the world of objects and events to the
theoretical, while the final episodes deepen the approach to concepts only at the latter level.
The passage from a specific referent to a class of referents, for its part, occurs at both levels,
both in the world of events and in the theoretical world.
Take the first part of the lesson (see fragment of the Map of Epistemic Categories and
Modelling below). In episode 10 (beginning at sequence 2), for example, in which the
elementary idea of endothermic processes is built, the teacher initially discusses the boiling of
water (specific referent), moving on to the boiling of liquids (class of referents). In the same
way, in episode 12, part of the discussion on the liquefaction of cooking gas and water
condensation, then referring to liquefaction and condensation as a class of phenomena.
In episodes 14 and 16, the movement related to levels of referentiality differs from
that which occurs in the two initial episodes (10 an 12). Instead of beginning with a specific
referent to arrive at a class of referents, the teacher begins with abstract referents, moving on
to specific referents, turning back, sometimes, to abstract referents. In episode 14, for
example, she initially defines enthalpy (abstract referent) and then ordains the physical states
of water (specific referent) at its different levels of enthalpy. In episode 16, on the other hand,
the teacher begins with the concept of chemical equation (abstract referent) and then builds
the concept of thermochemical equation, while representing the thermochemical equation of
water fusion (specific referent). Therefore, in episodes 14 and 16, after the beginning with an
abstract referent, there are alternations, both inside the sequences and in the passage from one
sequence to another, between abstract and specific referents, and the discussion with specific
referents takes up most of the time.
Therefore, considering this first part of the lesson, we find the movement from the
passage from the world of objects and events to the theoretical, that can be visualized both
inside the initial episodes (10 and 12) and in the passage from these initial to the final
episodes (14 and 16), in which the discussion occurred only at the latter level. Besides this
movement, it is possible to see another related to the categories of the referent set. In the
initial episodes, we see the passage from a specific referent to a class of referents, while in
the final episodes there is an alternation between abstract and specific referents, and the
approach to a theme always starts with the first. In episode 10, specifically, we can see the
passage from a specific referent to a class of referents and, then, to an abstract referent
(sequences 1, 2 and 3, respectively).
Coherent with these two movements, we see a third which corresponds to the
variation of categories of the epistemic operations. In the initial episodes (10 and 12), the
teacher tends to start with classifications and descriptions, passing through explanations and
then arriving at generalizations and definitions. This is compatible with the movement of
passage from a specific referent to a class of referents. In the final episodes (14 and 16), the
tendency is to begin with generalizations or definitions and maintain the descriptions and
explanations based on the initial generalizations, which may lead to another definition or
generalization, as in the case of episode 16. This movement is compatible with that related to
the categories of referents, where the teacher begins with abstract referents and then takes
specific referents, and there is a variation between the two throughout the episode or even in
the discursive sequence.
The fragment of the Map of Epistemic and Modeling Categories refers to this first
part of the lesson, considering only the episodes of scientific content focused here, showing
the episodes and sequences identified by their content. Therefore, the changes in categories
are shown both in the passage from one sequence to another during an episode, and inside
one sequence. Therefore, various sequences are segmented according to the variation of one
or more of these categories inside the sequence.
TABLE 5.
Part of the map of epistemic operation categories – Episodes of scientific content in the first part of the lesson
Ep Type of Discursive Times Content of sequences Content inside sequences Times Textualization Referents Modeling
discourse sequences Start-End Start- operations
content End
10 Scientific Sequence 1 06:49 - 07:35 Classifying the Demands the classification by 06:49 - Classification Class of World of objects
content. (00:46) phenomenon to be students 07:35 referents and events
Endothermic discussed: change of Evaluates/considers the
processes – phase liquid – gas – classification
changes in water boiling
phase. Sequence 2 07:35 - 08:26 Describing the 1st condition: reach boiling 07:35 - Description Specific World of objects
(00:51) phenomenon. The temperature 07:53 referent and events
conditions for boiling of 2nd condition: continue receiving 07:53 - Description Specific World of theories
water/liquids heat during boiling 08:12 referent and models
Boiling is a process that occurs with 08:12 - Generalization Class of World of theories
absorption of heat. The liquid must 08:26 (reached) referents and models
receive heat during boiling
Sequence 3 08:26 - 09:57 Deepening the discussion What happens to the particles of the 08:26 - Description Abstract World of theories
(01:31) of the phenomenon: the system (water) at boiling? 08:36 referent and models
energy provided during For what is the energy used during 08:36- Explanation Abstract World of theories
boiling is used to break the boiling of the water? 09:27 referent and models
the interactions between The energy (heat) supplied during 09:27- Generalization Abstract World of theories
the particles of the liquid boiling is used to break the 09:57 (reached) referent and models
interactions between the particles of
the liquid
Sequence 4 09:57 - 10:15 The energy (heat) supplied The energy (heat) supplied during 09:57 - Generalization Class of World of theories
(00:18) during fusion is also used fusion is also used to break 10:15 (reached) referents and models
to break (weaken) the (weaken) the interactions of the
interactions between the solid.
particles of the solid.
Sequence 5 10:15 - 10:54 Boiling and fusion: Fusion and boiling are changes of 10:15 - Generalization Class of World of theories
(final (00:39) changes of phase that phase which occur with the 10:27 (reached) referents and models
synthesis of occur with the absorption absorption of heat and increase of
episode) of heat and the increase of the disorder of the system. They are
disorganization of the endothermic processes
particles of the system. Endothermic processes are those 10:27 - Definition Class of World of theories
They are examples of which absorb heat from the 10:54 referents and models
endothermic processes. environment.
12 Scientific Sequence 1 11:01 - 11:33 Naming the cooking gases Naming the cooking gases 11:01 - Exemplification Specific World of objects
content. (00:32) 11:33 referent and events
Exothermic Sequence 2 11:33 - 12:36 Liquification of cooking How cooking gas is stored in the 11:33 - Explanation Specific World of objects
processes – the (01:03) gas. drum. 12:36 referent and events
liquification of How cooking gas is stored
the gas drum in the drum – considering
and the changes the variables pressure and
of phase of temperature.
water. Sequence 3 12:36 - 13:18 The condensation of water A material may turn liquid simply 12:36 - Generalization (de Class of World of objects
(00:42) vapor. Considering only through cooling (at constant 12:43 base) referents and events
the temperature variation. pressure).
Cooling at constant Describing situations in which there 12:43 - Description/ Specific World of objects
pressure. is the condensation of water vapor. 13:18 exemplification referent and events
Sequence 4 13:18 - 13:45 Condensation and Condensation and liquification are 13:18 - Generalization Class of World of theories
(00:27) liquification are processes processes which occur with the 13:45 (reached) referents and models.
that occur with the release release of heat to the environment
of heat to the environment and increase of
and an increase of the organization/aggregation between
organization/aggregation system particles
between system particles.
Sequence 5 13:45 - 14:09 Solidification of water Where to put water so that it 13:45 - Description Specific World of objects
(00:24) also involves release of becomes ice? 13:59 referent and events
heat to the environment. Why does water freeze in the 13:59 - Explanation Specific World of theories
refrigerator? 14:09 referent and models
Sequence 6 14:09 - 14:59 Liquification, Liquification, condensation and 14:09 - Generalization Class of World of theories
(Final (00:50) condensation and solidification are processes that 14:41 (reached) referents and models
synthesis of solidification: phase release heat to the environment and
episode) changes that occur with occur with the increase of
the release of heat organization of system particles.
(exothermic) and They are exothermic processes
organization of system Exothermic processes are those 14:41 - Definition Class of World of theories
particles. which release heat to the 14:59 referents and models
Examples of exothermic environment.
processes.
14 Scientific Sequence 1 15:23 - 15:55 Defining the Defining the thermochemical 15:23 - Definition Abstract World of theories
content. (00:32) thermochemical quantity quantity of the diagram - enthalpy. 15:55 and models
Enthalpy of the diagram - enthalpy.
involved in Sequence 2 15:55 - 16:49 Ordering the different 15:55 - Explanation Specific World of theories
phase changes. (00:55) physical states of water in 16:49 referent and models
Enthalpy an enthalpy diagram
diagrams for one (ascending order)
moll of water at The passages from solid
different phases. water to liquid and from
liquid to gas involves heat
absorption. There is an
increase of enthalpy of the
system.
Sequence 2 16:49 - 17:53 Analyzing the variations With regard to the coordinate of the 16:49 - Generalization Abstract World of theories
(01:04) of enthalpy in the changes reaction of the graphs: enthalpy X 17:01 (base) referent and models
of phase of water using path of reaction: the coordinate does
the diagram. not indicate time, but beginning and
- The direction of the end states of the reaction.
transformation and the (the non-use of the coordinate in the
value of ΔH: the amount diagram)
of heat absorbed in the The variations of enthalpy in the 17:01 - Explanation Specific World of theories
fusion is equal to the changes of water phase depend on 17:16 (interpretation) referent and models
amount released in the direction of the phase change
liquefaction process.
The amount of energy absorbed on 17:16 - Explanation Specific World of theories
the passage from solid to liquid 17:53 (interpretation) referent and models
water is equal to the amount of
energy released in the inverse
passage from liquid to solid water.
Sequence 3 17:53 - 19:05 Representing on the The exo and endothermic processes 17:53 - Generalization Abstract World of theories
(01:12) diagram the exo and are represented in diagrams by 18:40 (reached) referent and models
endothermic processes arrows indicating the direction of
with arrows indicating the the transformation.
direction of transformation The meaning of the sign Δ H.
(completing the diagram).
The direction of the Indicating the exo and endothermic 18:40 - Explanation Specific World of theories
transformation and the processes with arrows in changes of 19:05 referent and models
sign of Δ H phase of water
16 Scientific Sequence 1 19:20 - 20:11 Introduction to The thermochemical equations have 19:20 - Generalization Abstract World of theories
content (00:51) thermochemical equations. more details that the chemical 19:28 (base) referent and models
Thermochemical Beginning with the equations.
equations for chemical equation of ice What is a chemical equation? 19:28 - Definition Abstract World of theories
changes of fusion. 19:50 referent and models
phase of water The chemical equation for fusion of 19:50 - Description Specific World of theories
water 20:11 referent and models
Sequence 2 20:11 - 20:52 Inserting a new element in The transformation (fusion of ice) 20:11 - Description Specific World of theories
(00:41) the chemical equation of involves a variation of enthalpy. 20:20 referent and models
fusion of ice: discussion Inserting the symbol Δ H in the
about Δ H and its sign equation
Inserting the sign of the variation of 20:20 - Description Specific World of theories
enthalpy for the fusion of ice. 20:46 referent and models
It is possible to determine the 20:46 - Generalization Abstract World of theories
variation of enthalpy using a 20:52 ( base) referent and models
calorimeter
Sequence 3 20:52 - 21:20 The value of the variation Inserting the numerical value of Δ H 20:52 - Description Specific World of theories
(00:28) of enthalpy of the fusion for the fusion of ice. (completes the 21:09 referent and models
of water. thermochemical equation)
Is it necessary to know (by heart) 21:09 - Generalization Class of World of theories
the value of Δ H? 21:20 (base) referents and models
The values of Δ H are fixed
Agenda 21:20 - 21:31 The thermochemical
(00:11) equation for the
solidification of water
Sequence 4 21:31 - 22:02 The thermochemical The thermochemical equation for 21:31 - Explanation Specific World of theories
(00:31) equation for the the solidification of water 22:02 referent and models
solidification of water (considering the information of the
diagram)
Sequence 5 22:02 - 24:04 General considerations General considerations about 22:02 - Definition Abstract World of theories
(final (01:58) about the thermochemical thermochemical equation. The 24:04 referent and models
synthesis of equation - definition importance of considering the
episode) physical states of substances
involved and the Δ H of the process.
Definition
As we can see in the fragment shown above, related to the categories of objectivation,
the change from one level of referentiality to another can be clearly verified both inside the
discursive sequences and the passage from one sequence to another throughout an episode.
Therefore, at given moments it is possible to verify, in a single sequence, that the discussion
begins from a specific phenomenon moving towards a generalization (from the specific
referent to the class of referents). At other moments, a sequence deals with only specific
referents, occurring only in the sequence after the passage to the class of referents. In the
second part of the lesson, which covers episodes 18 to 24, according to the division we
established and represented in Table 3, there is a discursive move similar to that of the first
part, with some interesting variations. We will not discuss this part of the lesson in detail,
given both the availability of space and the fact that the discursive move found in the first
makes it possible for the reader to understand the utterance strategies developed by the
teacher.
Below there is a transcription of episode 10, by which it is possible to visualize the

moves described so far for the categories of textualization and modeling operations.
Episode 10: Building the Idea of endothermic processes: a discussion on the changes of phase
of water
Turn Time Transcription of speeches Textual comments
1 Teacher: Folks, let’s think about these processes on the changes of Before speaking, the
phases first, ok? Because then we are going to extrapolate to chemical teacher writes on the
reactions. chalkboard the title of the
06: 49 So, the changes of phase. What change of phase did we do back in the content: Endothermic and
exothermic processes.
laboratory?
2 Students ((Fall silent))
3 Teacher: The last activity we did, right? What was the change of
phase that we were observing there in practice?
4 Students: Liquid to gas.
5 Teacher: Liquid to gas. So, when we think about physical states// I
was passing from the liquid to the gaseous state, right? Another The teacher speaks while
possible change involves the solid state ((represents solid state)), but organizing, on the board, a
we studied this one here, look ((pointing to the board)). What is the diagram in which the
liquid and gaseous states
name of this one ((indicating the change liquid – gas on the board)).
are interlinked with an
From the one we did? arrow indicating the
Students: Boiling. direction of the
6 Teacher.: Boiling, we worked with boiling. It warmed up to reach the transformation
7 specific temperature for water to boil, right? Let’s talk about this
change in physical state.
07:35 Then, this boiling, what are the conditions for it to occur?
Girl Student: The temperature had to increase
8 Teacher.: It had to be heated, right? So? How much was the The teacher writes on the
board the name of the
9 temperature increased? It was increased, increased...?
change of state
Lucas: Until reaching boiling temperature.
10 Teacher.: Until reaching boiling temperature.
11 07:53 The water started to boil. What is the second condition for it to be
able to start to boil? Because the two arrived at the boiling
temperature by thermal equilibrium, but what was different about the
water that boiled compared to that which did not boil?
Boy student: It absorbed heat to.//
12 Teacher: Absorbed heat to... absorbed heat to be able to boil
13 08:12 That means that this boiling process is a process that occurs absorbing
heat. So it is not enough to get to boiling temperature. While the
liquid is boiling, it is absorbing heat to be able to change physical
state, right?
23
08:26 What can we say about the particles of this system?
Student (not identified): Releasing.
14 Teacher: What is happening? Think of the particles of the liquid and
15 think of the gas molecules.
Students: They are breaking loose.
16 Teacher: They are breaking loose.
17 08:36 So who is absorbing this energy? What is this energy being used for?
Because the temperature does not change, so, it is not to heat up, is it?
So what is it being used for?
Amanda: For their movement.
18 Teacher: That’s it, right? So, in fact, the temperature there, look, it is
19 not changing. So the movement in itself is due to the kinetic energy,
right? So when the temperature does not change, the kinetic energy The student represents the
movement with her hands
stays the same. But what is happening to these particles that you
moved your hands like this? It is not quite move… What is it?
Amanda: It is expanding, I don’t know how to say//
20 Teacher: Is expanding the best name?
21 Jéssica: They are colliding. Repeats the movement by
22 Teacher: No. the student opening her
23 Amanda : They are distancing because it is gassy, so they are going arms.
24 to be completely… bloommmm
Students: Bloommmmm
25 Teacher: That’s it. They are distancing, they are passing to the gas
26 state. In the gaseous state, is there interaction between the particles?
The student moves her
Students: No. hands and body indicating
27 Teacher: No, so what was broken? a wide movement.
28 Students: The interaction. Some students laugh and
29 Teacher.: The interaction. imitate Amanda.
30 09:27 So this inter-molecular interaction requires energy to be broken. We
have already dealt with it in colligated properties, do you remember
this? The stronger the inter-molecular interaction, the less is the vapor
pressure, right? The vapor pressure, it is low then, right? If the
pressure of vapor is low, that means I will have a material with an
intense inter-molecular interaction, so, it will have a higher boiling
point, won’t it? So, the stronger the interaction, the harder it is to
break. So this energy is spent to break the interaction between the
particles.
09:57 In what other change of physical state there, folks, is also breaking
the interactions between particles? In what sense, those there
(pointing to the diagram on the board) because I already//
Lucas: From solid to liquid.
31 Teacher.: From solid to liquid. So, in this direction here, we have the
32 fusion of the material, right?
10:15 So, in these two directions, look, I am bringing about a greater
disorganization and a greater separation between particles. In this
sense, they are processes that absorb heat.
10:27 Every process that absorbs heat we call an endothermic process.
Right? So, the nomenclature we use is this. Listen: endothermic Places the arrows
processes are processes that absorb heat. indicating the directions of
10:54 the transformations on the
board.
Writes the definition of
endothermic processes on
the board.
The transcription above has time markings which outline the discursive sequences that
make up the episode, as well as the segmentations inside the sequences. The beginning and
ending times of each sequence are highlighted in bold, while those that refer to the segments
in the sequences are without bold. The outlining of the sequences, as well as the segments of
24
the sequences, may involve the “break” of the teacher’s or students’ turns. This can be seen in
the table in which the transcript is presented.
The episode is made up of 5 sequences. In the first (06:49-07:35), the approach to the
phenomenon occurs only in the world of objects and events. It involves the
identification/classification of the phenomenon to be discussed. Initially, the teacher asks the
students to report the experiment they carried out in some laboratory lessons and identify the
change of phase involved in it (turns 1 and 3). So, the changes of phase. What change of
phase did we do back in the laboratory? And then, the attention is effectively directed to the
insertion of this phenomenon in class. The students respond (turn 4) and the teacher
evaluates/confirms the answer (turn 5), moving away from the experiment itself and drawing
close to a class of referents.
5 - Teacher: Liquid to gas. So, when we think about physical states// I was passing
from the liquid to the gas state, right? Another possible change involves the solid state
((represents solid state)), but we studied this one here, look ((pointing to the board)).
What is the name of this one ((indicating the change liquid – gas on the board)). From
the one we did?
6 - Students: Boiling.
7 - Teacher: Boiling, we worked with boiling (...)
The teacher continues her turn and finalizes the sequence, emphasizing to the students
that they will study boiling.
In the next sequence (07:35 - 08:26), the discussion considers a specific referent. Once
the change of phase analyzed in the laboratory is classified, the approach to this specific
phenomenon involves a description, and, later, a generalization of the ideas built around it.
Therefore, in this sequence, the discussion refers to ideas developed in the discussion of the
experiment which involved the boiling of water (specific referent), referring to the two
conditions necessary for its occurrence. The sequence can be segmented in three parts. The
first two (07:35-07:53 and 07:53-08:12) correspond respectively to the description of the 1st
and 2nd conditions for the boiling of water. The 3rd part (08:12-08:26) involves the
generalization of these ideas, considering them for the boiling of liquids (class of referents).
The teacher begins the sequence with a question (turn 7). Then, this boiling, what are
the conditions for it to occur? Then, the teacher will organize the discussion so as to outline
the two conditions for the boiling of water. The first is reaching boiling temperature, while
the second is the absorption of heat during the process. These conditions were widely
discussed in the respective laboratory lessons. In the approach to the first condition for
boiling, the discussion is in the world of objects and events, involving empirical ideas, such
as the heating of water and reaching boiling temperature. With the approach to the second
condition, the discussion enters the world of theories and models, since the idea of
absorption/transfer of heat involves a conceptual elaboration at this level.
The description, although summary, of the experiment carried out by the students in
the laboratory better clarifies this line between the empirical and the theoretical in this case.
The experiment involved heating water in a double boiler. The water of the double boiler,
which received heat from an outside source, began to boil, while that which was inside the
double boiler did not boil, although both had reached the necessary boiling temperature. To
explain the phenomenon, the students had to elaborate the ideas of heat transfer and thermal
25
equilibrium, which are not immediately or empirically given. Therefore, they concluded that
the thermal equilibrium between the water in the double boiler and that which was inside
impeded the transfer of heat from the first to the second, which meant that the latter could not
boil. Therefore, we believe that the discussion becomes theoretically guided from the
question of the teacher in turn 11.
11 – Teacher: (…) The water started to boil. What is the second condition for it to be
able to start to boil? Because the two arrived at boiling temperature by thermal
equilibrium, but what was different about the water that boiled compared to that
which did not boil?
Although there was a passage from the world of objects and events to that of theories
and models at the first stage of the discussion (1st condition for water to boil) to the second
(2nd condition), the discussion at both moments deals with a specific referent, that is, boiling
water. At a 3rd moment they begin to use a class of referents. There is a move from
description to generalization. This occurs when the teacher no longer refers to the boiling of
water to consider the boiling of liquids in turn 13.
13 - Teacher: (...) That means that this boiling process is a process that occurs
absorbing heat. So it is not enough to get to boiling temperature. While the
liquid is boiling, it is absorbing heat to be able to change physical state, right?
In sequence 3, it is possible to observe a similar movement to that of sequence 2.

However, differently from the latter, all of sequence 3 is inserted in the world of theories and
models, considering mainly an abstract referent, the boiling water particles. The sequence is
found in the space from 08:26 to 09:57. In the Map of Epistemic Operations Categories, it is
possible also to see that this sequence can be segmented into three distinct parts. The first
(08:26-08:36), which begins the sequence, is quite brief. The teacher proposes questions
(turns 13 and 15), which requires the students to describe the boiling process.
13- Teacher: What can we say about the particles of this system?
15 - Teacher: What is happening? Think of the particles of the liquid and think of the gas
molecules.
The students offer answers such as: releasing and breaking loose, typical of a
description. In the second part (08:36-09:27), the teacher guides the discussion so as to draw
up an explanation for the distancing of the particles in the change of phase. There is not a
description, but an explanation, since the discussion seeks a causal mechanism or model to
justify the phenomenon described. The initiation by the teacher guides this change (turn 17).
17 - Teacher: So who is absorbing this energy? What is this energy being

used for? Because the temperature does not change, so, it is not to heat up, is
it? So what is it being used for?
The students provide answers which are evaluated and adjusted by the teacher in an
explanatory movement which involves descriptions and generalizations until turn 29.
Therefore, from turns 17 to 29, the discussion seeks to explain the behavior of the system
described in the first part of the sequence. In this sequence the idea is established that the
energy supplied to the boiling water is used to break the interactions between the particles.
26
Finally, in the third part (09:27-09:57) there is a generalization in which the teacher
summarizes the ideas expressed at the end of the interaction and speaks of the break of
interactions between the particles without referring to any specific system (turn 30). It can be
seen as the closure of the explanation which is the second part of the sequence.
30 - Teacher: The interaction. So this inter-molecular interaction requires energy to

be broken. We have already dealt with it in colligated properties, do you remember
this? The stronger the inter-molecular interaction, the less is the vapor pressure,
right? The vapor pressure, it is low then, right? If the pressure of vapor is low, that
means I will have a material with an intense inter-molecular interaction, so, it will
have a higher boiling point, won’t it? So, the stronger the interaction, the harder it
is to break. So this energy is spent to break the interaction between the particles.
Sequence 4 (09:57-10:15) does not have segments. It is a generalization about another

change of phase similar to that which was discussed, fusion. The teacher, therefore, seeks to
transfer ideas related to boiling, to fusion:
30 - Teacher:(...) In what other change of physical state there, folks, is also

breaking the interactions between particles? In what sense, those there (pointing to
the diagram on the board) because I already//
31 - Lucas: From solid to liquid.
32 - Teacher: From solid to liquid. So, in this direction here, we have the
fusion of the material, right?
In this sequence, there is, therefore, a generalization in the world of theories and
models, involving a class of referents. The same happens in sequence 5 (10:15-10:54), which
is the last of the episode. In it the ideas discussed throughout the whole episode are
summarized, arriving at the desired conclusions. The teacher presents a generalization about
boiling and fusion, reaching a wider generalization by arriving at the idea of endothermic
process, which can be understood beyond the changes of phase. Therefore, the episode has
two parts: in the first, there is a generalization about the changes of phase that occur with the
absorption of heat, that is, fusion and boiling; in the second, the teacher announces the
definition of endothermic processes.
32- Teacher: So, in these two directions, look, I am bringing about a greater
disorganization and a greater separation between particles. In this sense, they are
processes that absorb heat (Generalization). Every process that absorbs heat we
call an endothermic process. Right? So, the nomenclature we use is this. Listen:
endothermic processes are processes that absorb heat. (Definition)
The analysis of this episode allows us to visualize how the teacher seeks to establish a
discursive move that begins in the world of objects and events and rapidly reaches the world
of theories and models. Of the five sequences in the episode, the first sequence and the first
segment of the second sequence involved an empirically guided discussion. From then on, the
discussion is in the world of theories and models. The analysis of the episode indicates how
the approach to the phenomenon initially involves specific referents, and then a class of
referents. The ideas are developed through a discussion about specific phenomena which are
then extended to a class of phenomena. The approach to a class of referents occurs, in
general, at the end of a sequence or in a final sequence of an episode, in which the ideas
discussed during the segments make up a final summary of the discussion and are
27
generalized. In sequences 1, 2 and 3, it is possible to visualize this passage of the specific
referent to the class, as well as to perceive that the time for discussion with a class of
referents is reasonably less than that for the specific referent. Finally, the analysis of the
episode also shows how the movement of passage occurs between description, explanation
and generalization.
Discussion and Educational Implications
What makes inquiring in school science different from inquiring in science, among
other aspects, is the guidance of the teacher in school science. This guidance is given mainly
through the epistemic operations she mobilizes in bringing the entities of science to the talk.
The analysis in terms of epistemic operations is important to show how a teacher can
articulate different epistemic levels while discussing phenomena previously studied through
inquiry activities in the laboratory. If we aim at constructing a framework that allow us to see
how knowledge are produced, evaluated and communicated in science classrooms, we should
be able to analyze different discursive interactions that occurs between teacher and students,
and not only the actions and discourse that occurs among the students, characterized in this
paper in terms of epistemic practices.
The double framework for the analysis of epistemic practices and epistemic operations
should, in our opinion, help us, first, in understanding the processes of knowledge production,
communication and evaluation by students. In our research projects it has also the purpose of
exploring the connections among argumentation and other epistemic practices. For instance,
in some of the excerpts reproduced above, the students are selecting appropriate specific
evidence to support their claim about the nature of the microscopic sample.
Second, the frame for epistemic operations may serve the purpose of characterization of
classroom environments where these epistemic practices and operations make part of the
discourse, to answer questions as, for instance: In which kinds of classroom organization are
they situated (small group work, teacher-whole class interaction)? In which structure of
classroom interaction do they occur? Which dynamics of interaction do favor their emergence
in classroom discourse? These and other related questions are currently part of the objects of
our research.
Acknowledgements
M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre’s work makes part of a project supported by the Spanish

Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (MEC), partly funded by the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF). Grant code SEJ2006-15589-C02-01/EDUC. Her visit to Brazil,
which made it possible the written of this paper, was sponsored by Fundação de Amparo à
Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG). Mortimer’s and Tourinho-Silva’s work is part of two
projects supported by CNPq, the agency of the Brazilian Ministry for Science and
Technology.
REFERENCE LIST
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genre and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Bronckart, J.P. (1996) Activité langagière, textes at discourse: pour un interactionnisme
socio-discursif. Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé.
28
Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993)
Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon, Distributed cognitions. Psychological
and educational considerations (188–228). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Díaz de Bustamante, J. & Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P. (2001). Communication in the
laboratory sessions and sequences of arguments. In I. García-Rodeja; J. Díaz; U. Harms et M.
P. Jiménez (Eds) Proceedings of the III Conference of European Researchers in Didactic of
Biology (ERIDOB), pp. 247-260. Santiago de Compostela: University of Santiago de
Compostela.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific
knowlwedge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Duval R. (1995). Sémiosis et pensée humaine. Berne : Peter Lang.
Habermas, J. (1997). Modernity: An Unfinished Project. In M. P. d'Entreves & S. Benhabib
(Eds.), Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity. Cambridge: the MIT Press.
(Original work published 1981)
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S.
Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in science education:
Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 89–113). Dordrecht: Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Reigosa, C. (2006). Contextualizing practices across epistemic
levels in the chemistry laboratory. Science Education, 90, 707–733.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Agraso, M. F., & Eirexas, F. (2004, April). Scientific authority
and empirical data in argument warrants about the Prestige oil spill. Paper presented at the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Meeting.
Vancouver.
Kelly, G. J. (2005). Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. Proceedings of the Inquiry
Conference on Developing a Consensus Research Agenda, Rutgers University, February
2005. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~rgrandy/NSFConSched.html
Kelly, G. J. & Duschl, R. A. (2002). Toward a research agenda for epistemological practices
in science education. Paper presented to the annual meeting of NARST, New Orleans, LA,
April.
Kenyon, L., Kuhn, L. & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Using students’ epistemologies of science to
guide the practice of argumentation. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay & T. D. Hickey (Eds.)
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (321–327).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue.
Science Education 80, 673–689.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Mortimer, E. F. (2000) Microgenetic analysis and the dynamic of explanations in science
classroom In: Proceedings of the III Conference for Sociocultural Research, 2000, Campinas,
SP. (cd-rom)
Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H (2002) Atividade discursiva nas salas de aula de ciências: uma
ferramenta sociocultural para analisar e planejar o ensino. Investigações em Ensino de
Ciências. Porto Alegre - RS, v.7, n.3.
Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary classrooms.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Mortimer, E. F., Lima-Tavares, M. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008, March). Exploring
students’ dialogue with evolution and the influence of their questions and statements in the
teacher’s discourse. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching (NARST) Annual Meeting. New York.
29
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence
on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.
Sandoval, W. A. & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and
theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40:
369-392.
Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual
and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.
Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and
dialogic discourse: a fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high
school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605-631.
Silva, A.C.T. & Mortimer, E.F. (2007a) Caracterizando estratégias enunciativas de uma aula
de química: uma análise sobre os gêneros do discurso–parte 1: dados gerais. In Anais do
VI Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências. Florianópolis: ABRAPEC
(cd-rom).
Silva, A.C.T. & Mortimer, E.F. (2007b) Caracterizando estratégias enunciativas de uma aula
de química: uma análise sobre os gêneros do discurso–parte 2: micro-análise. In Anais do VI
Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências. Florianópolis: ABRAPEC (cd-
rom).
Tiberghien, A. (1994). Modeling as a basis for analyzing teaching-learning situations.
Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 71-87.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding. Vol 1 The collective use and evolution of
concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30

Jimenez-Aleixandre Mortimer Silva Diaz 2008 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Jimenez-Aleixandre Mortimer Silva Diaz 2008 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Epistemic Practices: an Analytical Framework for Science

María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre

Please address all correspondence to:

Paper presented at the

María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre

The view of science learning as involving an epistemic apprenticeship, through which

The view of science learning as involving an epistemic apprenticeship (Kelly &

Theoretical Perspectives: Science Learning as Epistemic Apprenticeship

The examination of the appropriation of scientific knowledge by students requires to

In this paper we draw on a view of science instruction as involving cognitive

Kelly and Duschl’s (2002) view science instruction as involving an epistemic

The guidelines or design principles for supporting collaborative argumentation in the

In introducing and developing the scientific story as well as in guiding students to

Methods and Data Sources

Epistemic Practices Documented in the Students’ Discourse

- Making sense of data patterns - considering different data sources

- Producing reports & other texts - learning to write texts in different

- Persuading other community - presenting one’s own ideas

- Coordinating theory & - distinguishing claims from

- contrasting claims (own or - justifying own claims

Epistemic Practices Associated with Knowledge Production

Knowledge production practices are found in a variety of contexts: here we will

Articulating One’s Own Knowledge: Monitoring Progress

Turn, Actor Transcription: Session 4, episode 2

We interpret Susana’s statements repeating three times “I don’t understand”, not as

Articulating One’s Own Knowledge: Articulating Technical and Conceptual Knowledge

Making Sense of Data Patterns: Constructing Data

Turn, Actor Transcription

Epistemic Practices Associated with Knowledge Communication

Knowledge communication practices are found with higher frequency in laboratory

Interpreting and Constructing Representations: Translating between languages

Turn, Actor Transcription

The second excerpt of translation between languages, in the chemistry laboratory, is

Turn, Actor Transcription: Session 6, episode 3

Persuading Others: Negotiating Explanations

Turn, Actor Transcription:

Epistemic Practices Associated with Knowledge Evaluation

Coordinating Theory and Evidence: Using Concepts to Interpret Data

Turn, Actor Transcription:

Contrasting Claims with Available Evidence: Criticizing Others’ Claims

Turn, Actor Transcription:

The epistemic operations are summarized in table 3, which draws on a previous

Another set of categories related to the activities in production, evaluation and

Mortimer (2000) discusses the relations between descriptions, explanations and

Besides the description, explanation and generalization, we added other categories

Classroom discursive dynamics: highlighting epistemic operations

Considering the episodes of scientific content, it is possible to verify a wider utterance

Working on concepts based on the discussion of specific phenomena (changes in the

Below there is a transcription of episode 10, by which it is possible to visualize the

In sequence 3, it is possible to observe a similar movement to that of sequence 2.

17 - Teacher: So who is absorbing this energy? What is this energy being

30 - Teacher: The interaction. So this inter-molecular interaction requires energy to

Sequence 4 (09:57-10:15) does not have segments. It is a generalization about another

30 - Teacher:(...) In what other change of physical state there, folks, is also

Discussion and Educational Implications

M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre’s work makes part of a project supported by the Spanish

Potrebbero piacerti anche