Analyzing science teachers’ support of dialogic argumentation using teacher roles of questioning and communicative approaches

Main Article Content

Jonathan Kilpelä
Jenna Hiltunen
Markus Hähkiöniemi
Kaisa Jokiranta
Sami Lehesvuori
Pasi Nieminen
Jouni Viiri


The purpose of this study is to investigate how teachers use different types of discourse to support dialogic argumentation. Dialogic argumentation is a collaborative process in which students construct arguments together and examine arguments presented by their peers. Science teachers can use argumentation as a vehicle to help students gain a working understanding of science content and the nature of science and its practices. Whole-class closing discussions from video-recorded lessons are analyzed to study the discourse used to support argumentation by two physics teachers in lower secondary schools. Analysis of discourse includes coding of communicative approach at the episode level and coding of teacher roles of questioning at the level of speaking turns. Student argumentation is also assessed on the basis of dialogicity and complexity of arguments. Findings characterize different ways of orchestrating argumentative discussions. Authoritative episodes were characterized by the presence of the dispenser role, with teachers retaining ownership over ideas and classroom activities to emphasize the correctness of a justification. Dialogic episodes of classroom interaction showed openness to student perspectives, but teachers’ use of questioning roles revealed different ways of orchestrating argumentative discussions. The moderator role granted ownership of ideas to students to either pursue a single student’s argument in more depth or to directly contrast opposing justifications. Less commonly used were the roles of coach and participant, which teachers used to elicit student justifications in more depth or support students in examining the arguments of their peers. Examination of discourse using multiple frameworks revealed differences in teachers’ values and the impact of the use of teacher questioning roles on student contributions to argumentative discussions.

Article Details

How to Cite
Kilpelä, J., Hiltunen, J., Hähkiöniemi, M., Jokiranta, K., Lehesvuori, S., Nieminen, P., & Viiri, J. (2023). Analyzing science teachers’ support of dialogic argumentation using teacher roles of questioning and communicative approaches. Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education, 11(3), A88-A118.
Author Biographies

Jonathan Kilpelä, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Jonathan Kilpelä is a teacher-researcher who graduated with a Master of Arts in Educational Sciences from the University of Jyväskylä.  After working as a research assistant in the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä, Jonathan currently teaches secondary science at the International School of Helsinki.

Jenna Hiltunen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Jenna Hiltunen is a project researcher at the Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä.  Her research interests include mathematics learning, international assessment studies, and dialogic argumentation for mathematics learning.

Markus Hähkiöniemi, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Markus Hähkiöniemi works as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä.  His research interests include inquiry-based mathematics teaching, technology enriched mathematics learning, classroom interaction, and argumentation.

Kaisa Jokiranta, JAMK University of Applied Sciences, Finland

Kaisa Jokiranta is a specialist at LIKES in the University of Applied Sciences in Jyväskylä. She is currently studying support of university students' wellbeing and physical activity.

Sami Lehesvuori, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Sami Lehesvuori works as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Education at the University of Jyväskylä.  His research interests include dialogic teaching, classroom interaction in science teaching, argumentation in science teaching, and science teacher education and professional development.

Pasi Nieminen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Pasi Nieminen works as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä.  His research interests include differentiation in inquiry-based science learning, argumentation in science and mathematics education, assessment in science and mathematics education, and multiple representations in physics learning.

Jouni Viiri, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Jouni Viiri is a professor emeritus at the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä.  His research interests include classroom interactions in science teaching and learning, simulations in science teaching and learning, assessment, models and representations, eye-tracking studies, and automated speech recognition.


Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching (3rd ed.). York: Dialogos.

Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist 51(2), 164–187.

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barreto, L.P., Rodrigues, A.A.D., de Oliveira, G.C. et al. (2021). The Use of Different Translation Devices to Analyze Knowledge-Building in a University Chemistry Classroom. Research in Science Education, 51, 135–152.

Berland, L., & McNeill, K. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.

Chen, Y., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2017). Teacher roles of questioning in early elementary science classrooms: A framework promoting student cognitive complexities in argumentation. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 373–405.

Chen, Y., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining Elementary Students’ Development of Oral and Written Argumentation Practices Through Argument-Based Inquiry. Science & Education, 25(3), 277–320.

Chen, Y., & Steenhoek, J. (2014). Arguing like a scientist: Engaging students in core scientific practices. The American Biology Teacher, 76(4), 231–237.

Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.

Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.

Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908.

Davies M., Kiemer, K., & Meissel K. (2017). Quality talk and dialogic teaching—An examination of a professional development programme on secondary teachers’ facilitation of student talk. British Educational Research Journal, 43(5), 968–987.

Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O'Reilly, J. (2014). ‘Just be quiet and listen to exactly what he's saying': Conceptualising power relations in inquiry oriented classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 2029–2054.

Finnish National Agency for Education. (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2015). Uncertainty and scientific progress in classroom dialogue. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 143–155). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Hähkiöniemi, M., Hiltunen., J, Jokiranta, K., Kilpelä, J., Lehesvuori, S., & Nieminen, P. (2022). Students’ dialogic and justifying moves during dialogic argumentation in mathematics and physics. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 33.

Hiltunen, M., Kärkkäinen, S., Keinonen, T., Hähkiöniemi M., Lehesvuori, S., & Tikkanen, P. (2016). Primary school student teachers’ classroom talk during inquiry-based biology lessons. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 69, 37–54.

Kennedy, M. M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

Lehesvuori, S., Hähkiöniemi, M., Jokiranta, K., Nieminen, P., Hiltunen, J., & Viiri, J. (2017). Enhancing dialogic argumentation in mathematics and science. Studia Paedagogica, 22(4), 55–76.

Lehesvuori, S., Ramnarain, U., & Viiri, J. (2018). Challenging transmission modes of teaching in science classrooms: Enhancing learner-centredness through dialogicity. Research in Science Education, 48(5), 1049–1069.

Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., Rasku‐Puttonen, H., Moate, J., & Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher‐led whole class discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 912–939.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company.

Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into Dialogic Pedagogy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers. 147-206.

Matusov, E., & von Duyke, K. (2010). Bakhtin's notion of the internally persuasive discourse in education: Internal to what?: A case of discussion of issues of foul language in teacher education. In K. Junefelt & P. Nordin (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Interdisciplinary Conference on Perspectives and Limits of Dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin (pp. 174-199). Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University

McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.

Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.

Mercer, N. (2009). Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In N. Muller Mirza & A. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 177–194). Berlin: Springer.

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353-369.

Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Nielsen, J. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371–393.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nurkka, N., Mäkynen, A., Viiri, J., Savinainen, A., & Nieminen, P. (2012). Classroom discourse types and students’ learning of an interaction diagram and Newton’s third law. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), E-Book proceedings of the ESERA 2011 conference: Science learning and citizenship. Part six (Coeds. Manuela Wenzel-Breuer and Conxita Marquez), (pp. 58–64). Lyon, France: European Science Education Research Association.

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(10), 994–1020.

Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: a Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 45-80.

Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: Striking a balance between ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ classroom talk. School Science Review, 88(324), 77–83.

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(4), 605–631.

Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Soysal, Y. (2018). Determining the mechanics of classroom discourse in Vygotskian sense: Teacher discursive moves reconsidered. Research in Science Education.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Vrikki, M., Wheatley, L., Howe, C., Hennessy, S., & Mercer, N. (2019). Dialogic practices in primary school classrooms. Language and Education, 33(1), 85–100.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Research Report: Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25–45.