See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273420597

Learning the Language of Science

Article  in  International Journal of Learning · January 2008

DOI: 10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v15i08/45903

CITATIONS READS

2 1,662

5 authors, including:

Amy Cassata Joyce Duckles

University of Chicago University of Rochester
20 PUBLICATIONS   60 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lucia French
University of Rochester
33 PUBLICATIONS   865 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

UX Applications in Educational Research View project

User Research - AP Computer Science Principles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amy Cassata on 11 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The International
JOURNAL
ofLEARNING

Volume 15, Number 8

Learning the Language of Science

Amy Cassata-Widera, Yuko Kato-Jones,

Joyce Mahler Duckles, Kathleen Conezio
and Lucia French

www.learning-journal.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
http://www.Learning-Journal.com

First published in 2008 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com.

© 2008 (individual papers), the author(s)

© 2008 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps.

All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as
permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written
permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.

ISSN: 1447-9494
Publisher Site: http://www.Learning-Journal.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING is a peer refereed journal. Full papers submitted for
publication are refereed by Associate Editors through anonymous referee processes.

Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system
http://www.CommonGroundSoftware.com.
Learning the Language of Science
Amy Cassata-Widera, University of Rochester, NY, UNITED STATES
Yuko Kato-Jones, University of Rochester, NY, UNITED STATES
Joyce Mahler Duckles, University of Rochester, NY, UNITED STATES
Kathleen Conezio, University of Rochester, NY, UNITED STATES
Lucia French, University of Rochester, NY, UNITED STATES

Abstract: The discourse in formal school settings involves the use of language to exchange information, a social practice
important in all cultures that allows learners to construct, debate, and elaborate shared knowledge. Familiarity with and
participation in this “academic social language” in the early years is important for ongoing school success. The use of
science discourse, marked by specific language structures and patterns of interaction, serves as a vehicle for language and
cognitive development, providing children new ways of representing, organizing and interpreting daily experiences. This
research project considers interactions within a single preschool classroom, using an inquiry-based science curriculum,
examining the forms discourse takes as young children “do science.” Transcripts from classroom videotapes were analyzed
in order to identify aspects of teacher-child talk during hands-on science activities as well as aspects of classroom context
that nurture children’s participation in and appropriation of science practices and discourse. Discourse analysis reveals
that the classroom teacher played a vital role in creating diverse participation structures, providing children sustained
opportunities for conversation, fostering a community of learners who authentically listen to one another, and bridging
home and school language practices. Our analysis demonstrates that within moment-by-moment interactions young children
engage in multiple science activity structures (including observing, predicting, and arguing) and are competent emerging
participants in school science discourse.

Keywords: Science Discourse, Scientific Genre, Language Development, Cognitive Development, Inquiry-based Instruction,
Early Childhood Education

Introduction
Science Practices
HIS RESEARCH HAS attempted to address

T the question, “Can young children do sci-

ence?” To answer this question, we must
examine our conceptions of “science” as well
as our beliefs about how young children learn. “Do-
ing science” is inherently complex, involving inter-
actions with conceptual structures, cognitive pro-
cesses, epistemic frameworks, linguistic structures,
and participation in social practices (Duschl, 2008).
In the present study, we will be foregrounding the
sociocultural processes, contexts, and understandings
involved when “doing science,” including character-
istic patterns of interaction, ways of speaking and
modes of representing ideas when engaged in scientif-
ic practices. We are interested in the ways meanings
are negotiated between people in and through social
interaction (Gee & Green, 1998). In exploring the
question, “Can young children do science?” we focus
on children’s participation in the interactions af-
forded within a single preschool classroom that uses
an inquiry-based, hands-on science curriculum.
Activity Structures
Prior research has identified a set of distinguishable
components characteristic of scientific thinking, in-
cluding asking questions, predicting, observing,
testing, measuring, comparing, classifying, model-
building, and reflecting. These components have
been collectively referred to as “inquiry skills”
(Worth & Grollman, 2003), “science process skills”
(Gelman & Brenneman, 2004; Lind, 1997; Peterson
& French, 2008), “cognitive processes” underlying
general problem-solving (Li & Klahr, 2006), and
“scientific practices” (Duschl, 2008). However, there
has been little agreement on how these individual
components should be defined or how they might be
assessed (Lehrer & Schauble, 2006; Li & Klahr,
2006).
Our selection of the term activity structures to
represent the various aspects of scientific inquiry
reflects the theoretical position of science as a social
practice that is dynamic and situated. According to
Lemke (1990), an activity structure is a socially re-
cognizable sequence of actions that can be realized

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING,

VOLUME 15, NUMBER 8, 2008
http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494
© Common Ground, Amy Cassata-Widera, Yuko Kato-Jones, Joyce Mahler Duckles, Kathleen Conezio, Lucia French, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
142 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 15
in many ways. Activity structures are characterized
by their variability and creativity in enactment; they
can be carried out through different sequences of
actions, embedded within one another, repeated with
minor variations, and interrupted and resumed later.
Viewing science practices as a set of enacted activity
structures highlights the inter-relationships and mu-
tual contingencies among components, acknow-
ledging the interplay between process and context.
“Conversations of Inquiry”
Duschl (2008) describes scientific endeavors as
“conversations of inquiry,” in which meaning-mak-
ing takes place through the use of language. In sci-
entific practice, a main function of language becomes
seeking, communicating and sharing particular kinds
of information with others. The kinds of information
important in science are those that enable participants
to establish shared meaning with the scientific com-
munity, express abstract ideas and relationships, and
talk about things that are not immediately present
(Fang, 2005). Scientific language facilitates shared
meaning through use of a common, “specialized”
vocabulary for referring to concepts and events, yet
also allows for the co-construction of local meanings
through specific ways of representing and describing
experience (e.g., defining, classifying, and compar-
ing).
It is important for all young children to have ac-
cess and opportunity to “learn the language of sci-
ence.” The demands of scientific language, such as
communicating information in a structured format
and engaging in abstract thinking, reflect practices
that all students need for school success (Lind, 1997).
In later years, fluency in scientific language corres-
ponds to higher education levels as well as authority
and control in the workplace, serving as a gatekeeper
to economic success and political power (Gee, 2004;
Schleppegrell, 2001). For these reasons, several re-
searchers have advocated explicit, overt instruction
in the use of scientific language within authentic
practices (Fang, 2005; Gee, 2004; Wellington &
Osborne, 2001).
Scientific and Lifeworld Languages
In contrast to the abstract, formal, logical nature of
scientific language, lifeworld language is based in
particular instances or episodes, is colloquial in
nature, and follows a narrative construction (Gee,
2004). While scientific talk refers to objects, events,
and their logical relationships, everyday language
reflects expression of personal attitudes, interests,
and values (Lemke, 1990). Is there room for life-
world language within scientific discourse? Gee
(2004) claims a dichotomy between lifeworld and
science languages, and calls for the need for overt
instruction in science discourse in direct and situated
experiences. Many others (e.g., Lemke, 1990; Vare-
las & Pappas, 2006; Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowsky,
Rosebery & Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001) propose that
science discourse is inherently “hybrid,” incorporat-
ing narrative and scientific genre features, allowing
diverse meanings and genres to be expressed, ex-
plored and negotiated.
Researchers adopting this hybrid view of discourse
propose that it is essential for classroom teachers to
recognize and build on the knowledge, resources,
and familiar discourse practices that children bring
to school from their home cultures (Bransford,
Brown & Cocking, 2000; Duschl, 2008; Heath, 1983;
Varelas, Pappas & Rife, 2005; Peterson, in press;
Roth, 2005; Warren et al., 2001), bridging “points
of contact” between students’ ways of knowing and
talking and scientific ways. Conceptualizing scientif-
ic language as hybrid allows for new understandings
of science language which incorporate features of
lifeworld language, broadening opportunities for
participation in science practices.
Science Learning in Early Childhood
Sociocultural approaches to development take into
account that all learning outcomes are dependent on
and expressed in social and cultural contexts (Lehrer
& Schauble, 2006). Learning science, in this view,
involves not only understanding and using know-
ledge and strategies, but engaging in activities as
they are embedded within social and cultural goals
and practices. Within the sociocultural view, devel-
opment is understood as a process of transformation
of participation in practices (Rogoff, Mistry, Goncu,
Mosier, Chavajay & Heath, 2003). Meaning-making
among participants with respect to an activity, which
is constructed through language, becomes central to
learning science. The teacher assumes a role of
providing the learner with the tools to participate in
meaning making activity and supporting participa-
tion, creating opportunities to participate as “legitim-
ized and authorized individuals” (Kovalainen &
Kumpulainen, 2007, p. 142).
In the present study, we view children’s learning
of scientific language within a sociocultural frame-
work. We are interested in exploring the patterns of
interaction and participation that occur in a preschool
classroom that focuses on encouraging young chil-
dren’s emerging participation in science discourse
and practices. The participatory roles and practices
of the children and teacher are examined by focusing
on interactional moves and sequences of interaction.
We also explore how children engage in multiple
and evolving science activity structures through the
moment-by-moment use of the language of science.
 CASSATA-WIDERA, KATO-JONES, DUCKLES, CONEZIO, FRENCH
Study Design
Background
An Early Reading First Grant from the Department
of Education to the University of Rochester funded
implementation of the ScienceStart! Early Childhood
Experiential Curriculum in 12 preschool classrooms
in four urban parochial schools. The ScienceStart!
Curriculum consists of five content-based modules1
which each span a ten-week period of instruction
(Conezio & French, 2002; French, 2004). On a daily
basis, and throughout the day in various ways, sci-
ence activities are enacted according to a cycle of
scientific reasoning that includes phases of collabor-
ative reflection, asking questions, making predic-
tions, planning and carrying out an experiment,
making observations, and reflecting on results. Ap-
plication of this inquiry cycle provides children with
a predictable framework to organize their investiga-
tions using a set of identifiable discourse patterns
(French & Peterson, in press).
Participants
Margo, the classroom teacher, is European-American
and had 15 years of experience as a preschool
teacher at the beginning of the study, including 5
years of experience using the ScienceStart! Cur-
riculum. Participating children (N=17, Mean age=3.5
as of mid-year 2006) included 10 males and 7 fe-
males, with ethnicities of 7 African-American, 8
Hispanic, 1 inter-ethnic of African-American and
Hispanic, and 1 Other. A majority of the children
were classified as living at or below the poverty
level.
Data Collection
Large and small group science activities in Margo’s
classroom were videotaped three times during the
2006-2007 school year. The science activities ana-
lyzed were recorded on the same day mid-year, dur-
ing the “Color and Light” module, which involved
manipulating and mixing colors using various media
and exploring properties of light. One of the authors
reviewed and transcribed the videotaped data from
this classroom. Authors selected two transcribed 40-
minute discourse segments for analysis, comprising
one large group activity and one small group activity.
These particular segments were selected because
they are representative of this teacher’s practice and
reflect how she typically interacts with children in
the two different settings. The authors watched the
videotapes of the selected segments together, and
1
Measurement and Mapping, Movement and Machines, Color and Light, Properties of Matter, and Neighborhood Habitats
143
made final changes of the transcripts before analysis
(all children’s names are pseudonyms).
Data Analysis
A participation and practice framework (e.g.,
Kaartinen & Kumpulainen, 2001) framed our unit
of analysis as “ongoing interaction” in the sociocul-
tural activity of science practice. Because meanings
are negotiated through social interaction in “ongoing
conversation” (Duschl, 2008), we chose to analyze
classroom discourse in order to understand children’s
emerging participation in science practices.
In the present study, we adopted a micro-level
analysis that focuses first on message-by-message
discourse patterns (Green & Wallat, 1981;
Kovalainen & Kumpulainen, 2007). This approach
to analysis allows us to not only see moment-to-
moment use of language in a conversation, but also
leads to a richer interpretation of message meaning
by also attending to nonverbal information. In order
to see the systematic patterns of how message units
are tied to each other, we selected the interactional
sequence as the second dimension of analysis
(Kovalainen & Kumpulainen, 2007; Mehan, 1979).
Particularly, our interest was in analyzing how sci-
ence discourse unfolds. This multistep analysis was
designed to review each message unit separately at
a micro-level, and then situate it into its larger con-
text of thematically tied conversational patterns.
Through the process of grounded theory (Glaser
& Holton, 2004; Glaser & Strauss, 1976), we coded
the transcribed data into several emergent categories.
The categories were refined into five major dimen-
sions: 1) discursive moves, 2) communicative func-
tions, 3) communities of practice, 4) science practice,
5) physical space and materials (See Appendix A).
Although these categories were analyzed separately,
they are clearly inter-dependent. Together they
provide insights into the unique learning environment
created in this classroom. Margo consulted with us
on our process of data analysis, reviewed the video-
tapes, and provided contextual information that we
could not obtain directly from the videotapes.
Discursive moves: Discursive moves include initi-
ations, replies, and follow-ups. Initiations are the
message units that mark a new conversational
“thread” that begins a new thematic interaction by
asking questions or making new comments
(Kaartinen & Kumpulainen, 2001). Replies are
closed-ended responses that provide closure, finality,
and/or conclusion of a particular topic. Follow-ups
are open-ended responses involving elaboration and
revoicing of the preceding message unit, continuation
of thought, and providing space for continued con-
versation.
144 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 15
Communicative Functions: This category elabor-
ates properties of discursive moves, which can con-
tain various meanings depending upon contexts of
discourse and the way message units are connected
to each other. For example, following-up can involve
either revoicing or affirming, depending upon pros-
odic, nonverbal, and contextual cues within a mes-
sage unit.
Communities of practice: Our analysis highlights
specific classroom practices that Margo and the
children engage in that facilitate participation in
evolving classroom and science discourse through
building a community of practice. This category de-
scribes how a teacher and students co-construct the
community of science practice together while parti-
cipating in science activities and discussions.
Science Practice: This category is central to the
present study. Science practice elaborates the way
activity structures involved in science inquiry (i.e.,
observing, predicting) occur in a sequential manner,
and describes how scientific language plays a role
in unfolding discourse.
Physical space and materials: In the three-year-
old classroom, science activities involve a variety of
hands-on materials, such as Jello and eyedroppers.
Physical space not only supports the special relation-
ship among the participants but also symbolizes the
sense of classroom community they build and share.
Findings
Discursive Moves
In Margo’s classroom, discursive moves reveal the
ways meaning is negotiated through the co-construc-
tion of specific conversational patterns. Our analysis
identified instances of Margo and children initiating,
responding, and following-up on the responses of
others, as well as the functions these moves served
in conversation and the different discursive patterns
that developed within large group and small group
settings.
In the large group setting, Margo commonly initi-
ates conversational sequences that are typically fol-
lowed by a child response. In the following excerpt,
Margo and the children are exploring the clear Jello
that they had made the day before. Margo regularly
considers and addresses children’s responses, some-
times taking this as an opportunity to segue into a
new initiation.
T: Ok let’s just watch and see what happens to
that, OK? OK.
T: ((holds up the dish of clear Jello)) Um…
C: That’s water.
T: Well, this is like water.
T: What’s happening to this? It’s what?
C: It’s turning
T: It’s…what?
C: Green.
T: Mmmmm…
C: Melting.
As illustrated in the selected excerpt, Margo’s initi-
ations require the children to think and take an active
role in the discussion. Margo does not use “known-
information” questions (e.g., Mehan, 1979) in initi-
ating, but rather calls for children to make observa-
tions and predictions. Margo, by directing children’s
attention accompanied by a call to observe (“let’s
just watch”), implicitly invites children to talk about
what they see. In addition, Margo frequently talks
about what is happening (“narrating”) and invites
children to do the same (“It’s turning”).
In the same excerpt, follow-ups trigger children’s
attention and encourage the children to continue to
express their opinions to the group. Margo’s follow-
ups are often open-ended and refrain from evaluation,
leaving room for children to explore the topic them-
selves. When the child in the above excerpt calls the
Jello “water,” Margo follows up with a comparison
(“This is like water”), providing information while
continuing the conversation on the topic put forth by
the child. Likewise, when children offer their opin-
ions of what is happening to the Jello, Margo’s re-
sponses (“It’s what? / Mmmmm…”) invite continued
discussion and input from the children without indic-
ating that a given answer is “right” or “wrong.” This
differs from typical “Initiation-Response-Evaluation”
practice in which children are guessing an already
known answer, and evaluation consists of a reply
without the intention to extend conversation or pro-
voke further questions or thoughts (e.g., Mehan,
1979).
In the small group, Margo takes the role of super-
vising small-group activities occurring simultan-
eously at two tables and managing children’s inter-
actions with the materials. Because her attention is
divided, she is not the primary initiator of conversa-
tional topics at either table. In the small group, Margo
does not attempt to guide discussion toward a partic-
ular topic or goal. Rather, topics of conversation
emerge from the children’s own comments as they
participate in the hands-on activity with frozen clear
Jello and food coloring.
C: It’s melting.
T: It is melting. ((touches Jello)) Yup.
C: See?
T: Yup.
C: See the ice?
In the above excerpt, the child initiates the topic us-
ing similar discourse patterns to those modeled in
the large group (establishing joint attention, calling
for and making observations). The child initiating
 CASSATA-WIDERA, KATO-JONES, DUCKLES, CONEZIO, FRENCH
conversation is establishing a shared understanding
with Margo about what is happening to the ice. In
this sequence, Margo supports an observation,
“testing” the claim “It’s melting” by gathering evid-
ence and touching the Jello herself, demonstrating
coordination of a nonverbal (tactile) observation with
a verbal expression of the observation. The second
“yup” by Margo indicates that she shares understand-
ing with the child, who concludes the sequence “See
the ice?” with a summative statement that describes
and creates a shared verbal representation of the
activity.
Communities of Practice
Examining the patterns of interactive moves becomes
more interesting when considered in conjunction
with the analytic category “building communities of
practice.” We found that many of the discursive
moves served not only communicative functions in
maintaining and extending conversations, but also
(as in the example “See the ice?” above) created and
sustained a community of practice.
Inclusive language. Our analysis uncovered how
both the teachers and children in our classroom build
a repertoire of classroom practices through a variety
of interactional moves that evidence the desire to
build and sustain a learning community. As we ana-
lyzed the discursive moves of both teachers and
children we found that “initiations” often involve
inclusive language, accomplished through the use
of collective “we” (“Well, we’re going to do some-
thing with colors”) and by activating familiar routines
(“cause that’s what we usually do next”).
Creating discursive spaces. Margo’s initiations
and follow-ups often create a discursive space for
the children, taking the form of open-ended re-
sponses, affirming, revoicing, and oral cloze. These
participation structures are taken up by the children
in this classroom as they respond by providing their
own ideas, using their own lifeworld language, and
offering their own interpretations.
T: Hmm, look at this…((showing children Jello
in container))
C: Glitter. That’s glitter.
T: Hmm.
C: It’s shiny.
T: It’s shiny.
Within this short exchange, Margo provides neutral
responses and open-ended statements to create space
for children to provide their own interpretations. In
addition, rather than providing evaluative responses,
the teacher revoices “it’s shiny” and expresses appre-
ciation of the child’s opinion. These strategies are
used to create the discursive space for multiple forms
of participation.
145
Encouraging distributed expertise. Just as she
creates a discursive space for children to voice their
ideas or opinions, Margo also encourages distributed
expertise by directly calling for children’s responses
and accepting a variety of opinions and interpreta-
tions, illustrated in the excerpt below. Acts of
agreeing and disagreeing are both welcome and
“correct answers” are trumped by participation. She
accomplishes this through asking for repetition, using
oral cloze patterns, and using open-ended responses.
T: ((holding out a pie plate filled with frozen
Jello)) Anya, do you think this is gonna fa..fall
out of here if I turn this upside down?
C: Uh-uh
T: You don’t think…
T: Uh, Lucas. Do you think this is gonna come
out if I turn this upside down?
C: Yeah
T: You do?
T: How about you Markell? You think it’s
gonna fall out?
C: ((nodding))
Using lifeworld language. As children share their
opinions and elaborate their views within this socially
shared activity, we also found evidence of them using
their lifeworld language in conversation.
T: ((tipping a bowl of Jello on its side)) Oh,
what’s gonna happen if I keep doing that?
C: It’ll mess it up.
T: It’s gonna what?
C: Melt
C: Spill
C: Fall down!
Providing opportunities for children to incorporate
lifeworld language is important, as research emphas-
izes that pedagogy directed toward supporting stu-
dents’ active participation in science learning must
be sensitive to children’s learning histories and cul-
tural identities (Kaartinen & Kumpulainen, 2001;
Varelas et al, 2005; Warren et al, 2001). Kaartinen
and Kumpulainen (2001) note that, “the histories and
identities of students can work as a resource for the
learning community, and, conversely, the interaction
of the learning community can work as a resource
for the individual student to negotiate and renegotiate
his/her position and interpretation” (p. 156).
Our analysis provides evidence of ways that both
children and adults are involved in creating a local
community of practice and points to pedagogical
strategies that support multiple modes of participa-
tion in science and classroom practices. Our next
section explores in more detail how the science
practices take form in this classroom within dis-
course, through sequences of interactional moves
146 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 15
and participation structures made available within
the community of practice.
Science Practices
Peterson and French (2008) have demonstrated that
scientific explanations in preschool settings are ac-
complished across utterances in extended discourse.
Our current analysis reveals that, in addition to ex-
planation, several other science discourse forms may
also be co-constructed among multiple speakers in
preschool classrooms, comprising activity structures
important for inquiry such as observation, prediction,
testing, and argumentation. We will illustrate three
prominent activity structures occurring in selected
discourse segments: observation, prediction, and ar-
gumentation sequences, highlighting the ways these
forms of inquiry are co-constructed through lan-
guage.
Observation sequences. In this classroom, obser-
vation sequences are initiated in three general pat-
terns. First, Margo frequently begins an observation
sequence by asking observation questions, as indic-
ated in the following excerpt.
T: Can you…Can you see through this?
((holds up frozen Jello in a metal dish))
Children: No.
T: Can you see me? ((holds up the dish in front
of her face))
Children: No.
T: Noooo.
Asking specific questions about the object of interest
guides children to attend to specific attributes of the
materials, such as whether the metal dish is transpar-
ent. Second, Margo encourages children to make
observations, including both explicit (i.e., “look at
this”) and implicit (i.e., “hmm”) comments.
T: Hmm, look at this. ((shows Jello in a contain-
er))
Kaitlin: Glitter. That’s glitter.
T: Hmm.
Sara: It’s shiny.
In this excerpt, Margo provides less direction about
which details to observe, and children make two
different observations based on the perceived qualit-
ies of Jello. Kaitlin sees glitter on the surface of the
Jello, and Sara instead focuses on the light-reflecting
property of the glitter. Margo’s comment “hmm” in
response to Kaitlin’s observational statement is cre-
ating discursive space for other children to expand
on Kaitlin’s observation. Third, children’s own initi-
ations of observation sequences are also apparent,
typically observed during the small group science
activity. A child may begin the observation sequence
by pointing at a material, exclaiming, “look at it!”
in order to call for an observation, or by narrating
her own action, “I’m making blue.”
Both scientific and lifeworld languages are ob-
served in this activity structure. Observation state-
ments are classified into three categories of scientific
language: naming, describing, and narrating. State-
ments such as “color” while looking at food coloring
and “Jello” while pointing at a box of Jello mix are
examples of observation through the naming of ma-
terials. When unfamiliar with the names of materials
they encounter in the classroom, children participate
in conversation by using lifeworld language. For
example, children make comments such as
“squishes” and “doesn’t it get medicine?” while re-
ferring to an eyedropper, relying on their prior exper-
iences.
Observation statements are also indicated by de-
scriptions of objects or events, for example, by stat-
ing, “it’s shiny” while looking at glitter reflecting
light, or commenting “it’s melting” while looking at
frozen Jello melting in a dish. The act of “narrating,”
or talking about what is happening while engaged in
an activity, is a common form of observation used
by both Margo and the children. When children are
participating in hands-on science activities during
small group, they are especially likely to express
their observation through narrating their actions,
such as “look what I made - circle” and “I’m making
blue like you.”
Prediction sequences. Prediction sequences begin
with Margo asking explicit questions that grasp
children’s attention to call for their predictions. Two
different types of prediction-provoking questions
were identified in this analysis: closed-ended ques-
tions beginning with a “do you think…” clause, and
open-ended questions typically composed of a
“what’s gonna happen…” clause. With a closed-
ended prediction question, children are expected to
reply with “yes-no” answers, but even so, Margo’s
reply often allows space for the child to elaborate
further.
T: Do you think this one if I turn it ((dish)) up-
side down, do you think this ((Jello)) is gonna
come out?
C: Yeah.
T: You do?
C: Yeah.
Although children are encouraged to verbally express
their opinions to the group, they sometimes provide
nonverbal replies by nodding (“yes”), or shaking
their head (“no”). On the other hand, with an open-
ended prediction question, children reply to the
question in various ways, using lifeworld language
(Gee, 2004).
 CASSATA-WIDERA, KATO-JONES, DUCKLES, CONEZIO, FRENCH
T: Oh, what’s gonna happen if I keep doing
that. ((tilts Jello bowl))
C: It’ll mess it up
T: It’s gonna what?
C: Melt.
C: Spill.
C: Fall down.
T: It’s gonna fall down.
Incorporating lifeworld language into their predic-
tions, children bring their various funds of knowledge
from everyday experience to the science practice in
school (Varelas & Pappas, 2006). In addition to
lifeworld language, instances of scientific language
are also seen in prediction activity structure. When
Margo asks prediction questions, she frequently uses
an “if-then” causal statement, such as “if I turn it
upside down, do you think this is gonna come out?”
or “what’s gonna happen if I keep doing that?” This
“if-then” causal statement establishes a specific dis-
course pattern governing many variations of predic-
tion sequences.
In Margo’s classroom, science activities are organ-
ized around hands-on exploration of materials in or-
der to make science experience concrete. Therefore,
any prediction questions Margo asks children are
always paired with a presentation of materials. For
example, when Margo asks children a question (e.g.,
“what’s gonna happen if I keep doing that?”), she
tilts the Jello bowl at the same time, providing chil-
dren a visual clue of what to predict. In this
classroom discourse, making an observation of ma-
terials is a prerequisite for making a prediction,
situating the act of observation within a prediction
discourse pattern. This pattern of embedding smaller
activity structures within larger, more complex
structures was frequently observed in the discourse
(See Appendix B).
Argumentation sequence. We observed argument-
ation in this classroom as a conversation in which
alternative viewpoints were expressed. Children
construct evidence within the argumentation se-
quence based on their concrete observations of ma-
terials, providing another example of embedded
activity structures.
Tara: I’m making blue like you, Isaac.
((points at Isaac, as mixing Jello water mixture
with green food coloring))
Isaac: I’m blue?
T: ((to Isaac)) No, you are making green.
Isaac: ((to Tara)) You making, you making
green.
T: ((to Tara)) Ok, put it in the dish.
Tara: It’s green.
T: Um…that’s enough.
Damian: ((from the adjacent table)) We all
green.
147
In this excerpt from a small group science activity,
Isaac uses the teacher’s feedback (“no, you are
making green”) as evidence and attempts to make
an argument against Tara (“you making, you making
green”). Through the disagreement, Isaac presents
an alternative viewpoint of what color they are ma-
nipulating. Tara agrees that she is making green (“it’s
green”) and Damian who overheard the interaction
between Tara and Isaac completes the sequence by
drawing a conclusion, “we all green.” This is an in-
triguing example of the extent to which three-year-
olds can build a preliminary yet strong argumentation
discourse with little guidance from an adult.
In this classroom, children appear to be comfort-
able disagreeing with one another, enabling construct-
ive argumentation. This comfort with expressing
multiple perspectives may be attributed to their sci-
ence practice in the large group, where Margo models
building argumentation by asking multiple children
the same questions and commenting, in a non-evalu-
ative manner, on the differences in their opinions.
Summary of science activity structures. Both
Margo and the children in her classroom use scientif-
ic language in activity structures, particularly inform-
ative language that communicates information about
ideas and events to others (Halliday, 2004; Pinnell,
1975). Specifically, making an observation often in-
volves observational statements including naming,
describing, and narrating when referring to objects
and events. The act of making predictions utilizes
both “if-then” causal statements and prediction
statements (e.g., “do you think”), and the argument-
ation sequence involves narrating and drawing con-
clusions. Together, these smaller activity structures
comprise a larger process of scientific inquiry. In
addition to elements of scientific language, lifeworld
language is also incorporated into the science dis-
course of this classroom. This integration, or hybrid-
ization (Varelas & Pappas, 2006), of science and
lifeworld languages allows children to make connec-
tions between their ideas and scientific thought.
Conclusion
Our initial research task was to look for evidence of
the science “process skills” enacted through the sci-
ence cycle implemented in the preschool classrooms
using the ScienceStart! Curriculum. We found that
these “skills” are always embedded within ongoing
activity and social exchanges. They can be conceptu-
alized as complex interactional sequences or activity
structures that occur within quick succession, often
overlap, and occur on the micro-level of discourse.
This finding, along with our grounding in sociocul-
tural theories and our evolving understanding of
science as a social practice, led us to a multi-dimen-
sional analysis of classroom discourse. The analysis
148 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 15

presented in this paper has added to our understand-
ing of children’s emerging participation in the lan-
guage and practices of science and has substantiated
the claim that preschoolers can “do science.”
Varelas and Pappas (2006) call into question re-
commendations of science standards that limit sci-
ence for young children to observing and describing.
Our analysis demonstrates that young children en-
gage in multiple science activity structures in addi-
tion to observing, such as predicting and arguing,
and are actively appropriating science discourse. In
addition, our micro-analysis has highlighted some
of the patterns of interaction that nurture diverse
modes of participation in science discourse and
practices. Discursive sequences are created and
maintained as Margo uses responses and follow-ups
to extend conversations. Participation structures are
made available for active participation in a com-
munity of practice by establishing joint attention,
creating discursive spaces, distributing expertise,
and building on children’s lifeworld language. Margo
allows the space for science discourse in this
classroom to take many forms. It is truly hybrid, in-
corporating narrative as well as paradigmatic fea-
tures, and bringing together lifeworld language, home
discourse patterns and school “science talk.”
This work adds to our understanding of the mul-
tiple repertoires of practice and discourse that young
children can engage in. Margo’s classroom is a spe-
cific community of practice in which young chil-
dren’s participation takes form. While these modes
of participation are particular to this classroom, they
point to pedagogical practices that can be adopted
by others. Our analysis thus informs curriculum and
pedagogy by providing insights into how children’s
emerging participation in science discourse and
practices can be nurtured in classrooms by creating
a range of participation structures that encourage and
support engagement of diverse students in science
discourse and practices. The heuristic we have cre-
ated to analyze ongoing interaction from several
analytic dimensions can also be used in multiple
contexts to examine relationships between discursive
sequences, participation structures, and the activity
structures that children and teachers enact through
moment-by-moment interaction.
As Edwards (1993) suggests, as we explore chil-
dren’s learning we have the option of “heading for
the laboratory” or of taking discourse more seriously
and asking specific questions of it (p. 213). Analysis
of discourse can reveal how science activity struc-
tures are enacted locally – at how observing, predict-
ing, and arguing take form in the moment by moment
interaction of members of an evolving community
of practice, even when most of the members of that
community are three years old.
Acknowledgement
This Research Project was supported by Grant #
S359B040093 from the US Department of Education,
“Early Reading First in an Integrated Content-based
Curriculum.” Special thanks are given to the
classroom teacher and students in our participating
classroom.

References
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Conezio, K, & French, L. A. (2002, September). Science in the preschool classroom: capitalizing on children’s fascination
with the everyday world to foster language and literacy development. Young Children, 12-18.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals.
Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291.
Edwards, D. (1993). But what do children really think? Discourse analysis and conceptual content in children’s talk.
Cognition and Instruction, 11 (3 & 4), 201-225.
Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. ScienceEducation, 89(2), 335-347.
French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 19, 138-149.
French, L. A., & Peterson, S. M. (in press). Learning language through preschool science. In N. Scheuer, M. Puy Pérez
Echeverría, C. Andersen, & E. Teubal (Eds.), Representational systems and practices as learning tools in different
fields of knowledge. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Gee, J.P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social language as the heart of school-based literacy. In E.
W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction; perspectives on theory and practice (pp.10-
32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association; Arlington.
Gee, J.P., & Green, J.L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research
in Education, 23, 119-169.
Gelman, R. & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
19, 150-158.
Glaser, B.G. & Holton, J. (2004, March). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 5 (2), Article 4. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://217.160.35.246/fqs-texte/2-
04/2-04glaser-e.pdf
 CASSATA-WIDERA, KATO-JONES, DUCKLES, CONEZIO, FRENCH 149

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.
Green, J.L. & Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations – A sociolinguistic ethnography. In J.L. Green & C.
Wallat (Ed.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 161-205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). Learning on how to mean. In J. Webster (Ed.), Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, Volume 4:
The language of early childhood (pp.28-59). London: Continuum.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kaartinen, S., & Kumpulainen, K. (2001). Negotiating meaning in science classroom communities: Case across age levels.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2), 4-28.
Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2007). The social construction of participation in an elementary classroom community.
International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 141-158.
Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R.M. Lerner, K.A. Renninger &
I.E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Volume 4, Child Psychology in Practice, 6 th ed. (pp.153-196).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Li, J. & Klahr, D. (2006). The psychology of scientific thinking: Implications for science teaching and learning. In J. Rhoton
& P. Shane (Eds.), Teaching science in the 21 st century. National Science Teachers Association and National
Science Education Leadership Association: NSTA Press. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from
http://www.psy.cmu.edu:16080/lessonplans/NSTA%20Li%20Klahr.pdf
Lind, K.K. (1997). Science in the developmentally appropriate integrated curriculum. In D. Burts, C. Hart, and R. Charlesworth
(Eds.), Integrated curriculum and developmentally appropriate practice. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Mehan, H. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into
Practice, 18, 285-294.
Peterson, S. M. (in press). Narrative and paradigmatic explanations in preschool science discourse. Discourse Processes.
Peterson, S. M., & French, L. A. (2008). Supporting young children’s explanations through inquiry science in preschool.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 395-408.
Pinnell, G.S. (1975). Language in primary classrooms. Theory into Practice, 14 (5), 318-327.
Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Goncu, A., Mosier, C., Chavajay, P., & Heath, S.B. (1993). Guided participation in cultural activity
by toddlers and caregivers. Monographs of the Society in Child Development, 53 (8), i-179.
Roth, W.M. (2005). Telling in purposeful activity and the emergence of scientific language. In R. Yerrick & W.M. Roth
(Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research
(pp. 45-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schleppegrell, M.J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education 12(4), 431-459.
Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. (2006). Intertexuality in read-alouds of integrated science-literacy units in urban primary classrooms:
Opportunities for the development of thought and language. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 211-259.
Varelas, M., Pappas, C., & Rife, A. (2005). Dialogic inquiry in an urban second-grade classroom: How intertexuality shapes
and is shaped by social interactions and scientific understandings. In R. Yerrick & W.M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing
scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp.139-174).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowsky, M., Rosebery, A.S., & Hudecourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning
science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Worth, K. & Grollman, S. (2003). Worms, shadows, and whirlpools: Science in the early childhood classroom. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
150 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 15

Appendix A

Table A:1 Large Group Prediction Excerpt

Line Transcribed Moves1 Communicative Communities of Science Practices Space and
Discourse Function Practice Materials
T: Now, do initiating, engaging establishing joint asking for a prediction Margo holds
you think, if I others attention, using in- (“do you think”), us- up flashlight
put the flash- clusive language ing scientific language in one hand,
26 light on… TI (collective “you”), (causal statement bowl of Jello
encouraging parti- “if…then”), naming in other hand
cipation, distribut- (“flashlight”)
ing expertise
T: Oh what’s initiating, engaging establishing joint asking for a prediction tips Jello
gonna happen others, open-ended attention, creating a (“what’s gonna hap- bowl
27 if I keep doing TI question discursive space, pen”), using scientific
that? encouraging parti- language (causal
cipation statement “if…then”)
C: It’ll mess it Responding using lifeworld lan- asking a prediction referring to
28 up CR guage, expressing using a lifeworld lan- Jello
opinion to group guage
1
Codes for Discursive Moves: TI (teacher initiations), TR (teacher responses)
CI (child initiations), CR (child responses), CF (child follow-ups)

Table A:2 Small Group Argumentation Excerpt

Line Transcribed Moves Communicative Communities of Science Practices Space and Ma-
Discourse Function Practice terials
Tara: I’m mak- Initiating, Narrating expressing opinion making a comparis- referring to ma-
ing blue like to a peer, using in- on, naming terials: bowl
7 you, Isaac CI clusive language (“blue”), making an with colored
((points at (“like you”) observation water, Jello,
Isaac)) eyedropper
Isaac: I’m questioning, continu- negotiating meaning building argumenta- referring to ma-
8 CF
blue? ing, revoicing tion terials
T: ((to Isaac)) disagreeing, narrat- participating in building argumenta- referring to ma-
No, you are ing child-initiated con- tion, making an ob- terials
9 TR
making green versation servation, naming
(“green”)
Isaac: ((to extending, narrat- distributing expert- using argumenta- referring to ma-
Tara)) You ing, revoicing ise (many view- tion, making an ob- terials
10 CF
making, you points are ex- servation, naming
making green pressed) (“green”)
 CASSATA-WIDERA, KATO-JONES, DUCKLES, CONEZIO, FRENCH 151

Appendix B

Table B:1 Science Activity Structures

Line Transcribed Discourse
1 T: Ok. Before we..before we go to snack. Before we go have our snack. ‘Cause that’s what
we usually do next. We’re gonna do something a little different.
2

Shaun: Color.

3 T: Well, we’re gonna do something with colors.

4 Kaitlin: Jello-O. Let’s make Jell-O.
5 T: Hmm, look at this. ((shows Jell-O in a container))
6 Kaitlin: Glitter. That’s glitter.
7 T: Hmm.
8 Sara: It’s shiny.
9 T2: It is shiny.
10 T: It’s...It’s... ((points at Sara))
11 Children: ((talking))
12 T: No, no. Look at Sara. Look at Sara.
13 T: (to Sara) Say it again..again Sara, it’s what?
14 Sara: Shiny.
15 T: It’s shiny, she said.
16 C: I don’t like that.
17 T: Do you think if we turn the lights out…
18

C: I like it.

19 T: Do you think if we turn the lights out, this would still be shiny?
20 Children: Yeah.
21 T: Ok
22 T: Ah, Craig. Can you turn the lights out?
23

Craig: ((stands up to turn the light off))

24 T: Is it shiny?
152 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 15

25 Some children: Yeah.

About the Authors

Amy Cassata-Widera
Amy Cassata-Widera is a PhD candidate in Education at the University of Rochester, Warner School of Education
and Human Development. With a research concentration in Human Development in Educational Contexts, she
examines the ways classroom talk, teaching practices and the use of mediating tools facilitate the development
of cognitive and metacognitive skills in young children.

Yuko Kato-Jones
Yuko Kato-Jones is a research assistant for ScienceStart! She investigates how preschoolers learn science
activity structures through interaction and participation in a classroom community.

Joyce Mahler Duckles

Joyce M. Duckles is a PhD student in Human Development at the Warner School at the University of Rochester
where she teaches and conducts research on families as contexts for learning and development.

Kathleen Conezio
Kathleen Conezio is a doctoral candidate in Education at the University of Rochester, Warner School of Education
and Human Development. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary Education and a Master of
Science degree in Elementary Education. Her current research focuses on early literacy development within the
context of inquiry based science activities in preschool classroom, especially focusing on the role of co-constructed
writing activities as a tool for understanding the ways that literacies can be developed within preschool. She
has worked on grants from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education developing
curriculum, designing and implementing professional development in the areas of science inquiry and early
literacy learning, and has led a team of classroom mentors for the Early Reading First grant. She has recently
presented her work at the National Science Teachers Conference and the NAEYC Professional Development
Institute.

Lucia French
Dr. French investigates the relationship between cognitive and language development. As a Fulbright Scholar
in South Korea, she investigated how the language experiences of Korean preschoolers prepare them for aca-
demic success. She led the research team that created ScienceStart!, which has fostered the development of a
rich knowledge base, vocabulary, and cognitive skills for hundreds of preschoolers.
 EDITORS
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Michael Apple, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.
David Barton, Lancaster University, UK.
Mario Bello, University of Science, Technology and Environment, Cuba.
Robert Devillar, Kennesaw State University, USA.
Manuela du Bois-Reymond, Universiteit Leiden, Netherlands.
Ruth Finnegan, Open University, UK.
James Paul Gee, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.
Kris Gutierrez, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Anne Hickling-Hudson, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia.
Roz Ivanic, Lancaster University, UK.
Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Carey Jewitt, Institute of Education, University of London, UK.
Andeas Kazamias, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA
Peter Kell, University of Wollongong, Australia.
Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA.
Gunther Kress, Institute of Education, University of London.
Colin Lankshear, James Cook University, Australia.
Daniel Madrid Fernandez, University of Granada, Spain.
Sarah Michaels, Clark University, Massachusetts, USA.
Denise Newfield, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa.
Ernest O’Neil, Ministry of Education, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
José-Luis Ortega, University of Granada, Spain.
Francisco Fernandez Palomares, University of Granada, Spain.
Ambigapathy Pandian, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.
Miguel A. Pereyra, University of Granada, Spain.
Scott Poynting, University of Western Sydney, Australia.
Angela Samuels, Montego Bay Community College, Montego Bay, Jamaica.
Juana M. Sancho Gil, University of Barcelona, Spain.
Michel Singh, University of Western Sydney, Australia.
Helen Smith, RMIT University, Australia.
Richard Sohmer, Clark University, Massachusetts, USA.
Pippa Stein, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa.
Brian Street, King's College, University of London, UK.
Giorgos Tsiakalos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Salim Vally, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
Gella Varnava-Skoura, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece.
Cecile Walden, Sam Sharpe Teachers College, Montego Bay, Jamaica.
Nicola Yelland, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
Wang Yingjie, School of Education, Beijing Normal University, China.
Zhou Zuoyu, School of Education, Beijing Normal University, China.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Learning-Journal.com

for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.
 THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

International Journal of the Arts in Society

Creates a space for dialogue on innovative theories and practices in the arts, and their inter-relationships with society.
ISSN: 1833-1866
http://www.Arts-Journal.com
International Journal of the Book
Explores the past, present and future of books, publishing, libraries, information, literacy and learning in the information
society. ISSN: 1447-9567
http://www.Book-Journal.com
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal
Examines the meaning and purpose of ‘design’ while also speaking in grounded ways about the task of design and the
use of designed artefacts and processes. ISSN: 1833-1874
http://www.Design-Journal.com
International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations
Provides a forum for discussion and builds a body of knowledge on the forms and dynamics of difference and diversity.
ISSN: 1447-9583
http://www.Diversity-Journal.com
International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability
Draws from the various fields and perspectives through which we can address fundamental questions of sustainability.
ISSN: 1832-2077
http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com
Global Studies Journal
Maps and interprets new trends and patterns in globalization. ISSN 1835-4432
http://www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com
International Journal of the Humanities
Discusses the role of the humanities in contemplating the future and the human, in an era otherwise dominated by
scientific, technical and economic rationalisms. ISSN: 1447-9559
http://www.Humanities-Journal.com
International Journal of the Inclusive Museum
Addresses the key question: How can the institution of the museum become more inclusive? ISSN 1835-2014
http://www.Museum-Journal.com
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences
Discusses disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge creation within and across the various social
sciences and between the social, natural and applied sciences.
ISSN: 1833-1882
http://www.Socialsciences-Journal.com
International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management
Creates a space for discussion of the nature and future of organisations, in all their forms and manifestations.
ISSN: 1447-9575
http://www.Management-Journal.com
International Journal of Learning
Sets out to foster inquiry, invite dialogue and build a body of knowledge on the nature and future of learning.
ISSN: 1447-9540
http://www.Learning-Journal.com
International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society
Focuses on a range of critically important themes in the various fields that address the complex and subtle relationships
between technology, knowledge and society. ISSN: 1832-3669
http://www.Technology-Journal.com
Journal of the World Universities Forum
Explores the meaning and purpose of the academy in times of striking social transformation.
ISSN 1835-2030
http://www.Universities-Journal.com

FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT

subscriptions@commonground.com.au

View publication stats