Advancing group epistemic practices in the resolution of interdisciplinary societal dilemmas

Main Article Content

Ehud Tsemach
Baruch Schwarz
Mirit Israeli
Omer Keynan


The present paper inquires whether a meticulous program designed to resolve Interdisciplinary Societal Dilemmas through dialogic argumentation advances epistemic practices. To delineate how epistemic practices are manifested in classroom discussions, we adopted the Actor-Network Theory (ANT), which explores the interactions and agencies of human and non-human actors. ANT analyses uncover the power these actors exert on each other and help recognize the networks that these actors create or dissolve. They also delineate how epistemic practices emerge and are shaped in these networks. We identified four epistemic practices in the discussions: (1) taking a reasoned position, (2) integrating knowledge from different disciplines, (3) weighing pros and cons before taking a complex position, and (4) role-playing in a democratic game. We show that the type of discourse developed in the program was mostly dialogic argumentation. In addition, we demonstrate how teachers often inhibit these advancements. Indeed, in the case of integrating knowledge from different disciplines, teachers’ role is central, but the emerged actors’ network is often non-dialogic. Moreover, we show how non-human actors shape the interactions in networks as well as the formation of knowledge and agency. We conclude that: (a) the design of activities for resolving interdisciplinary societal dilemmas provides many opportunities for advancing epistemic practices, (b) these practices are mostly advanced through dialogic argumentation, but (c) more efforts should be invested in affording interdisciplinary argumentation.

Article Details

How to Cite
Tsemach, E., Schwarz, B., Israeli, M., & Keynan, O. (2023). Advancing group epistemic practices in the resolution of interdisciplinary societal dilemmas. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 11(3), A119-A148.
Author Biographies

Ehud Tsemach, Stanford University, USA

Ehud Tsemach is a postdoctoral fellow at the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. His research explores pedagogies that facilitate textual thinking skills and how cognition processes are interwoven with identity, values, and cultural background in the classroom. Tsemach's Ph.D. research has focused on Ultra-Orthodox Jewish students and explored how cognition, sociocultural background, and gender intersect. His peer-reviewed studies delineate how Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men and women build arguments in an academic context compared to other populations.

Baruch Schwarz, Hebrew University, Israel

Baruch Schwarz is a Full Professor at the School of Education, the Hebrew University. His expertise ranges from educational psychology to the development of mathematical/scientific reasoning. He is a specialist in the role of argumentation in learning and development. He has led several R&D European projects on the use of technologies to boost deliberative argumentation, productive discourse, collaborative learning, mathematical problem-solving, and "Learning to Learn" skills. He is also involved in research on the moderation of collaborative learning. He is active in the study of ultra-orthodox learning in Yeshivas. He led the Special Interest Group on Dialogue, Reasoning and Argumentation (SIG 26) at the European Association of Research in Learning and Instruction.

Mirit Israeli, Kaye College, Israel

Mirit Israeli is a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and serves as head of the program of teachers' training for academics at Kaye College of Be'er Sheva. Her doctoral research focuses on distributed leadership and the role of coordinators in teacher collaboration. Her current research investigates classroom dialogic interaction and teacher learning in-service and pre-service.

Omer Keynan, The Academic College of Tel Aviv–Yaffo, Israel

Omer Keynan's research focuses on integrating digital technologies and social media in civic discussions and learning processes in civil society and social movements. In the field, and as part of my research, I lead training and learning processes in third-sector bodies in Israel.


Alexander, R. (2020). A dialogic teaching companion. Routledge.

Andriessen, J. E., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentative design. In Argumentation and education (pp. 145–174). Springer.

Barzilai, S., & Weinstock, M. (2015). Measuring epistemic thinking within and across topics: A scenario-based approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 141–158.

Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85.

Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2009). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47(1), 1–31.

Chen, Y. C., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education, 103(5), 1235-1276.

Chen, Y. C. (2020). Dialogic pathways to manage uncertainty for productive engagement in scientific argumentation: A longitudinal case study grounded in an ethnographic perspective. Science & Education, 29(2), 331-375.

Chen, Y. C., & Qiao, X. (2020). Using students’ epistemic uncertainty as a pedagogical resource to develop knowledge in argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 42(13), 2145-2180.

Cohen, A. (2020). Teaching to discuss controversial public issues in fragile times: Approaches of Israeli civics teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 103013.

Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312.

Ewing, M., & Sadler, T. D. (2020). Socio-scientific Issues Instruction. The Science Teacher, 88(2), 18-21.

Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. Routledge.

Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Braaten, I. (2016). Handbook of epistemic cognition. Routledge.

Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2008). Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92(1), 141–164.

Hennessy, S., Rojas-Drummond, S., Higham, R., Márquez, A. M., Maine, F., Ríos, R. M., García-Carrión, R., Torreblanca, O., & Barrera, M. J. (2016). Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 9, 16–44.

Kelly, G. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 99–117). Brill.

Kelly, G. (2016). Methodological considerations for the study of epistemic cognition in practice. In Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 393–408). Routledge.

Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 691–718.

Koichu, B., Schwarz, B. B., Heyd-Metsuyanim, E., Tabach, M. & Yarden, A. (2022). Interdisciplinary processes in school discussions. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 100657.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.

Latour, B. (1984). The powers of association. The Sociological Review, 32(1_suppl), 264–280.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard university press.

Latour, B., Woolgar, S., & Salk, J. (1979). Laboratory life. Sage Publications.

Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Translated by Alan Sheridan and John

Law. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard university press.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.

Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.

Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2019). Linguistic ethnographic analysis of classroom dialogue. In The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education (pp. 63–75). Routledge.

Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 137–151.

McGregor, J. (2004). Spatiality and the place of the material in schools. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 12(3), 347–372.

Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549–565.

Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198.

Pollak, I. (2017). Epistemic Climate in Elementary Classrooms: Knowledge and its Construction in Classroom Discourse. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.

Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2007). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology?. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, 71-88.

Schwarz, B. B., & Baker, M. J. (2017). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.

Schwarz, B. B., Tsemach, U., Israeli, M. & Nir, E. (submitted). Actor-Network Theory as a new direction in research on educational dialogues.

Schwarz, B. B., Heyd-Metsuyanim, E., Koichu, B., Tabach, M. & Yarden, A. (submitted). Interdisciplinarity and school-learning.

Tan, A.-L., & Tang, K. S. (2019). The role of dialogue in science epistemic practices. The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education, 547–558.

Tsemach, E., & Zohar, A. (2020). From Yeshiva to Academia: The Argumentative Writing Characteristics of Ultra-Orthodox Male Students. Argumentation, 1–25.

Tsemach, E., & Schwarz, B. B. (2022). Actor-Network Theory as a New Direction in Research on Educational Dialogues. In C. Chinn, E. Tan, C. Chan, & Y. Kali (Eds.), 6th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) and 2nd Annual Meeting of the International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS) (pp. 258–265).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. Mind in Society, 52–58.

Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.

Wegerif, R. (2019). Introduction: Research on Dialogic Education. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif and L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on dialogic education (pp. 1-10). London. Routledge.

Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Major, L. (2019). Introduction to the Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education. In The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 1–8). Routledge.

Wickman, P.-O. (2002). Induction as an empirical problem: How students generalize during practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 465–486.