Main Article Content
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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0618.104.22.1689
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.