framing evolution discussion intellectually

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 48, NO. 3, PP. 257–280 (2011)

Framing Evolution Discussion Intellectually

Alandeom W. Oliveira,1 Kristin Cook,2 Gayle A. Buck2

1Educational Theory and Practice Department, State University of New York,

1400 Washington Avenue, ED 113B, Albany, NY 122222Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

Received 15 March 2010; Accepted 10 October 2010

Abstract: This study examines how a first-year biology teacher facilitates a series of whole-class discussions about

evolution during the implementation of a problem-based unit. A communicative theoretical perspective is adopted

wherein evolution discussions are viewed as social events that the teacher can frame intellectually (i.e., present or

organize as exchanges of an intellectual nature). Furthermore, we characterize teacher framing of evolution discussion in

terms of five communicative components: focus, orientation, social structure, mood, and participatory nature. Our video-

based analyses revealed that the teacher paid little attention to the conceptual contents and history of evolutionary theory,

framing evolution discussions as moderately playful and partially mandatory events focused mainly on student sharing of

ideas (i.e., personal opinions) and polite communication of evolution. Within this framing, the teacher adopted the role of

a neutral (though admittedly biased) facilitator with an intermediary expert status (less knowledgeable than evolutionary

biologists) and whowas legally required (though also inclined) to discuss evolution. The main significance of this study is

that it provides new and useful insights into social phenomena such as respect, politeness, and humor in the context of

evolution discussion as well as a robust theoretical framework for analyzing evolution discussion from a social

perspective. � 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 257–280, 2011

Keywords: evolution; intellectual discussion; neutrality; controversial issues; frame; science; discourse; politeness;

humor; epistemology

Discussing a topic as controversial as evolution with students presents many challenges to science

educators. Teachers often strugglewith the issue of disclosure versus neutrality, that is, whether to share their

own personal views and opinions with students or to adopt the role of an impartial facilitator during the

deliberation of evolution (Hermann, 2008; Miller-Lane, Denton, & May, 2006). Many teachers are also

unsure about how to prevent conflict and effectively deal with student disruption and hostility (Griffith &

Brem, 2004), how to navigate a topic that may not fit with students’ worldviews and perceptions (Smith,

1994), and how to deal with heated controversy (Nickels, Nelson, & Beard, 1996). Others are unable to

promote in-depth student participation (Sandoval & Daniszewski, 2004), lack training on how to approach

controversy safely and meaningfully through discussion (Hermann, 2008), and are unsure how to discuss a

topic considered taboo (Jackson, Doster, Meadows, & Wood, 1995; McGinnis & Simmons, 1999).

Nonetheless, teaching approaches that emphasize discussion provide instructorswith an effectivemeans

to elicit students’ ideas about evolutionary phenomena, engage them in articulation and justification of their

intuitive explanations, and offer students opportunities to explore evolutionary theory from multiple

perspectives. Although research on evolution education has focused on encouraging discussion within

student groups (Duveen& Solomon, 1994; Jensen & Finley, 1997;Morishita, 1991; Scharmann, 1990), little

attention has been paid to the teacher–student dialogue that sets the tone for the exploration of evolutionary

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article.

Contract grant sponsor: National Science Foundation Small Grant for Exploratory Research (SGER); Contract

grant number: 0738247.

Correspondence to: A.W. Oliveira; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20396

Published online 23 November 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

� 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

theory. To successfully engage students in such intellectual dialogue, teachers must cope with complex

challenges such as being respectful and cognitively engaging, staying neutral, and valuing students’ ideas

while guiding them toward an acceptable understanding of content (Jackson et al., 1995; Sandoval &

Daniszewski, 2004; van Zee & Minstrell, 1997).

Scholarly research on classroom discussion of controversial issues is relatively limited, being found in

varied fields such as science education, social studies education, and communication. This literature

emphasizes that teacher disclosure (i.e., explicit communication of personal opinion on a controversial issue)

is itself a very controversial issue, with educators’ opinions varying greatly. While some worry that teacher

disclosure can lead to indoctrination (i.e., shaping of students’ views) (Miller-Lane et al., 2006), others argue

that it can lead to more authentic, meaningful, and productive discussions (Kelly, 1986; McCully, 2006).

Some advocate neutral teaching approaches (Hermann, 2008) whereas others argue that teacher neutrality is

impossible (McCully, 2006). Furthermore, this body of research provides evidence that discussants can

implicitly communicate or disclose their personal views (Cotton, 2006; Craig & Sanusi, 2000; Niemi &

Niemi, 2007) and that explicit teacher disclosure can lead to reduced student participation (Hess, 2009). This

study adds to this limited body of research by exploring how a secondary teacher manages the challenge

of facilitating classroom discussions about evolution. More specifically, we address the question: what

strategies does the teacher employ to ‘‘frame’’ evolution discussion intellectually (i.e., orally organize

classroom verbal exchanges about evolution as social events or occasions of an intellectual nature)?

Framing Intellectual Discussion

In this section and the next, we draw together previous research from the fields of communication,

linguistics, and science education to create an analytical framework for exploring teacher-led evolution

discussions.

Frame and Framing

As originally proposed by Bateson (1955, 1972), the term ‘‘frame’’ refers to frameworks of

understanding that enable participants (otters, monkeys as well as humans) to make sense of social situations

and to distinguish among different types of interactional action or activity (e.g., playful fighting from serious

combat). This theoretical construct was later expanded by Goffman (1974) who used the term ‘‘primary

framework’’ in reference to interpretive schemata that enable individuals to recognize particular types of

social events (e.g., joking, storytelling). According toGoffman (1974), ‘‘we [humans] tend to perceive events

in terms of primary frameworks, and the type of framework we employ provides a way of describing the event

to which it is applied.’’ Simply put, a frame or framework refers to a person’s sense or perception of the

specific nature of what goes on in a given social engagement.

An individual’s frame is contingent upon the provision and recognition of (meta)communicative clues

or signals. Silverstein and Urban (1996) describe how certain linguistic expressions—termed metadis-

courses—are characteristic of particular types of communicative events. Such expressions are used by

participants as general guides or frameworks for interpreting themultiplemeanings of utterances in unfolding

verbal communication and provide participants with clues that help them recognize social occasions as

particular types of communicative events. Metadiscourses are the linguistic landmarks that help us perceive

and navigate local communication. Similarly, Schiffrin (1987) describes how participants commonly employ

discourse markers (e.g., um, oh, like, well, by the way) as a means to organize conversational exchanges by

marking or signaling to interlocutors that upcoming speech is to be interpreted in particular ways (i.e., evoke

specific conversational frames).

Competent speakers can actively produce ‘‘framing,’’ that is, are able to organize, establish, evoke, and

transform their interlocutors’ frame of a social situation through strategic employment and effective

manipulation of (meta)communicative clues. Goffman (1974) describes how primary frameworks can

undergo keying—a process of systematic transformation or alteration wherein participants frame their social

acts in non-literal ways, that is, encourage interlocutors to interpret actual social activity as non-literal and not

actually occurring (e.g., utterances can be keyed as sarcastic through the use of signals such as facial

expression and shifts in voice inflection). Participants’ interpretative frame for the ongoing flow of talk may

also be altered through a shift in footing, that is, a shift in the particular positions taken up by participants

258 OLIVEIRA, COOK, AND BUCK

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

(their interactional alignment) (Goffman, 1981). A good example is small talk at the beginning and end of

serious engagements (participants shift into a casual footing).While interacting, participants can change their

footing on a moment-to-moment basis and in unexpected ways. Knowledgeable speakers rely on

metadiscursive expressions to do this (re)framing of interaction.

In this study, we explore the framing of whole-class evolution discussions by a secondary teacher acting

as a facilitator. More specifically, we examine the extent to which the teacher’s discursive moves function as

metadiscourses or metacommunicative signals, and contribute to the presentation of evolution discussions in

an intellectual frame.

Intellectual Discussion

Communication researchers characterize intellectual discussion as a type of verbal exchange that

typically occurs in academic settings—universities and conferences—where scholars who are interested in a

common topic come together to participate in social events such as colloquia, graduate seminars, symposia,

round tables, and presentations (Dabbs, 1985; Davison, 2003; Tracy, 1997; Tracy & Baratz, 1993; Tracy &

Carjuzaa, 1993; Waring, 2002). These researchers emphasize that intellectuals usually frame their

discussions as events more focused on the exchange of ideas and information than on social relationships. In

other words, intellectual framing is primarily concerned with sharing information, exploring and developing

ideas, and advancing particular intellectual positions on practical and abstract issues. Social or relational

matters such as saving face,making friends, and developing alliances and networks of social relationships are

considered secondary or of minimal importance. As Dabbs (1985) notes

in purely intellectual conversation, ideas are more central than social relationships. [The partners]

communicate matters of fact, formulate ideas, [and] stimulate each other’s thoughts. . . The purpose of

their conversation is to pursue the consequences of theoretical or practical matters; how they feel about

one another is not at issue (p. 183).

Tannen (1985) distinguishes between involvement-framed communicative events (e.g., everyday

conversations) and message-framed communicative events (e.g., lectures). The former is described as

informal, emotional, and as having a high degree of interpersonal involvement (i.e., close social

relationships). In contrast, message-framed events are described as formal, detached, and concerned mainly

with the clear statement of content or information. Detachment (social distance) is a result of the emphasis

placed by participants on the content being communicated instead of interpersonal involvement with others,

who are expected to process discourse analytically and objectively by suppressing their emotional responses.

From this linguistic perspective, intellectual discussion constitutes a message-framed type of event.

Tracy (1997) challenged the above characterizations, arguing that the goal of developing understanding

through rigorous and systematic exploration of ideas cannot be achieved in a frame completely devoid of

social involvement since unrestrained academic exchange can damage the social fabric that makes the

advancement of knowledge possible. Although in a less visible manner, intellectuals do build social bonds

and relate to each other as they share information and explore differences of opinions. Taking this subtle

social involvement into account, Tracy (1997) analyzes intellectually framed communicative events in terms

of four components: (1) focus, participants’ emphasis on expository detachment (i.e., information-sharing)

versus social involvement (i.e., politeness, trust, respect); (2) social structure, participants’ relative authority

or expert social status; (3) mood, participants’ emphasis on seriousness (a boring, lifeless, and defensive

climate in which feelings are suppressed) versus playfulness (a lively and humorous environment in which

emotions are openly expressed); and (4) participatory nature, participants’ degree of obligation versus

freedom (i.e., whether participation is mandatory or voluntarily chosen due to participants’ shared interest in

and commitment to a topic or issue).

Evolution Instruction as a Communicative Event

Whenviewed as an intellectually framed communicative event, evolution instruction can be understood

in terms ofTracy’s four components. In this section,we first describewhat our reviewof the science education

literature from this communicative perspective revealed with regard to the focus, social structure, mood, and

FRAMING EVOLUTION DISCUSSION 259


participatory nature of commonly adopted evolution teaching practices. We then introduce a fifth

communicative component that emerged from our literature review, namely the orientation of evolution

instruction (defined below).

Focus

Biology instructors have typically framed evolution instruction as a communicative event explicitly and

directly focused on evolutionary concepts. Marcelos and Nagem (2010) offer the use of analogies and

metaphors gleaned fromOn the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection to help students understand

evolutionary explanations. Banet and Ayuso (2003) teach biological inheritance and evolution through a

program focused on students’ conceptual schemes. Demastes, Good, and Peebles (1996) describe a biology

course designed to provoke changes in students’ evolutionary conceptions (i.e., cognitive restructuring).

Trowbridge and Wandersee (1994) seek to promote meaningful learning of evolutionary concepts by means

of ‘‘micromaps’’ (i.e., concept maps). In all of these studies, evolution instruction is framed as a conceptually

oriented event wherein instructors make use of activities focused mainly at eliciting students’ prior

knowledge, promoting cognitive conflict or disequilibrium, and provoking conceptual change or assimilation

of scientifically acceptable conceptions. Little attention is given to the creation of a level of social

involvement that is conducive to such conceptual change.

Other educators have framed evolution instruction as a communicative event only implicitly and

indirectly focused on evolutionary concepts. Cherif, Adams, and Loehr (2001) avoid explicit employment of

the word ‘‘evolution,’’ instead encouraging students to ‘‘discover’’ evolution by themselves through

collaborative inquiry and neutrally guided discussion. Moore (2001) points out that many publishers of

biology textbooks avoid mentioning the word ‘‘evolution,’’ employing instead euphemisms such as

‘‘change’’ and ‘‘development.’’ Goldston and Kyzer (2009) note that biology teachers often resort to

examples of lower animals and plants when teaching evolution to avoid offending students who may hold

religious objection to human evolution. Other teachers avoid addressing evolution explicitly as a separate

instructional unit, instead teaching it only in an implicit manner through instruction on related biological

topics (Scharmann, 1990; Scharmann & Harris, 1992). These indirect ways of talking and writing about

evolution constitute a form of negative politeness (Oliveira, 2009b), that is, a discursive strategy aimed at

saving students’ face (or sense of personal dignity) by addressing evolution in manner that is respectful

(i.e., not too demanding or imposing) to students’ personal beliefs. By resorting to indirectness, these

educators seek to avoid crossing the line that separates the promotion of student understanding (i.e.,

informing students about the theory of evolution) from the promotion of student acceptance (i.e., telling

students to believe in the theory of evolution). Such emphasis on politeness and respectfulness is indicative

of a more involved framing of evolution discussion (i.e., instruction more strongly focused on social

relationships and feelings).

Social Structure

A growing number of biology instructors have sought to frame evolution instruction as a less

authoritative communicative event by resorting to small group work. Geraedts and Boersma’s (2006)

‘‘guided reinvention’’strategy encourages students to ‘‘reinvent’’ or infer the natural selection by answering a

sequence of logically organized questionswith only limited guidance from the teacher. Passmore and Stewart

(2002) adopt amodeling approach inwhich small student groups investigate changes in animal traits, explore

realistic data sets, and formulate Darwinian explanations. Fifield and Fall (1992) describe a hands-on

simulation inwhich student groups use circular construction paper chips of different colors and sizes tomodel

the evolutionary change. Brem, Ranney, & Schindel (2003) provide student groups with opportunities to

discuss varying perspectives on evolution, formulate their own beliefs, and considermultiple epistemologies.

These studies provide little (if any) information about the role or value of biology instructors’ knowledge,

which suggests a weak commitment to teacher expertise and the framing of evolution instruction as an event

with a non-authoritative structure.

Other instructional strategies that serve to frame evolution instruction less authoritatively have also been

reported. Tabak and Baumgartner (2004) describe how a high school teacher strategically and fluidly moves

between the roles of a mentor (an authoritative expert who models inquiry practices, steers students toward



accepted explanations, and controls their actions) and a partner (a co-inquirer who investigates alongside

students). Scharmann (1990) adopts a diversified instructional approach that combines reflective individual

writing with small-group discussions and formal lectures in which the teacher provides interactive

instruction, clarifies students’ misconceptions, and answers student questions. Cherif et al. (2001) integrates

teacher-centered activities such as lecture and demonstration with student-centered learning modes such as

collaborative experimentation and group work. In these studies, biology educators play the roles of both a

sage on the stage (i.e., a content expert) and a guide on the side (i.e., a more equal and neutral guiding partner)

when teaching evolution. In doing so, these educators reduce the teacher-social gap, thus framing evolution

instruction as a communicative event with a less authoritative social structure.

Mood

Previous studies have paid little attention to the mood of evolution instruction. The scant evidence that

exists suggests that the potential for controversy, criticism, and student resistance leads to the prevalence of a

very serious and tense framing in which teachers are often nervous and uncomfortable (Goldston & Kyzer,

2009). A few instructors have been shown to make tactful and strategic use of humor when talking about

evolution. Sandoval and Daniszewski (2004) describe a biology teacher who, while reacting to students’

evolutionary ideas, resorts to ‘‘parody challenges.’’ For instance, when a student tries to explain how a genetic

change such as the disappearance of human appendix might spread throughout the population, the teacher

utters ‘‘. . .[because] you don’t have an appendix and you just go out andmate. You’re like ‘I have no appendix,I got to mate!’ [in a louder and dramatic voice]. . . I’m just wondering, I’ve got to watch out for those people.

Steer clear [chuckles in room].’’ Similarly, when the same student introduces the idea of DNAmutation but

fails to explain what may be the cause of such mutation, the teacher replies ‘‘I would like some serious

mutations. I would like webbed feet, personally. I don’t know why. I think I could swim better. [laughter]

Faster. And webbed hands. I’d be like aqua guy. [makes some swimming motions] Cruising through

the water.’’ The teacher’s humorous comments serve not only to elicit evolutionary biological mechanisms

from students but also to frame evolution instruction as a less serious, tense, and formal communicative event.

Participatory Nature

Few biology educators have sought to frame evolution instruction as an event with reduced degree of

obligation. Trowbridge andWandersee (1994) give students the opportunity to voluntarily construct concept

maps for extra credits. Duveen and Solomon (1994) implement a fictitious trial with no definite ending in

which students are relatively free to choose the role they want to play (witness, judge, jury, and clerk) and

articulate the characters’ responses and opinions about Darwin’s theory. Morishita (1991) gives students the

choice to support either evolution or creationism while reviewing a collection of law-related articles and

preparing their case for amoot appellate court. Scharmann, Smith, James,& Jensen (2005) permit students to

label constructs such as Intelligent Design (ID) as less scientific without forcing them to necessarily dismiss

ID entirely if they do not feel comfortable doing so. In providing students with opportunities tomake choices,

these instructors frame evolution instruction as partially optional (i.e., not entirely mandatory).

Orientation

Our literature review also revealed that some educators orient evolution instruction toward the rigorous,

explicit, clear, precise, specific, thorough and objective expression, and criticism of ideas (student

understandings and opinions), whereas others are oriented toward personal perspectives, social and historical

issues, and human agency.We called this particular aspect of evolution instruction orientation to ideas versus

historical people, a fifth communicative component absent from Tracy’s (1997) theoretical work but very

important for the framing of evolution instruction.

Some studies show that biology instructors often adopt a strong orientation to evolutionary ideas.

Sandoval and Daniszewski (2004) describe ‘‘problematized explanation dialogues,’’ extended exchanges

wherein the teacher guides and pushes students toward clear and in-depth articulation of their understandings

of a evolutionary ideas by continuously posing questions, requesting elaboration, and challenging



students. Nieswandt and Bellomo (2009) encourage students to produce comprehensive and detailed

articulations of new-Darwinian understandings by means of ‘‘written extended-response questions.’’

Tavares, Jimenez-Aleixandre, and Mortimer (2010) support students’ sophisticated articulation of concepts

through the use of argumentation tomake sense of how natural selection acts on pre-existing variation. These

educators frame evolution instruction as events oriented mainly toward rigorous, explicit, clear, precise,

specific, and thorough expression of ideas.

In contrast, other studies describe evolution-teaching practices that are more oriented toward people

(scientists and historical figures) than evolutionary ideas. Goldston and Kyzer (2009) describe a whole-class

discussion focused primarily on Darwin himself (i.e., his life, background, interests, and personal conflicts).

Duveen and Solomon (1994) describe a role-play activity in which students debate Darwin’s theory of

evolution as they enact a fictitious trial for blasphemy. Mead and Scharmann (1994) ask students to make

daily journal entries on one of the main characters in the fictional movie Inherit the Wind. Kampourakis and

McComas (2010) address nature of science aspects through discussions of the life’s work of Charles Darwin.

Winslow, Staver, and Scharmann (2009) emphasize the importance of Christian role models—Christians

who are also scientists. These educators frame evolution instructions as a communicative event oriented

primarily toward understanding the historical context, social implications, and different perspectives on

Darwin’s theory.

Other educators have oriented evolution instruction toward both evolutionary ideas and people. Cook

(2009) has students explore the history of the theory of evolution as well as its connections to modern day,

allowing students not only to observe its applications but also understand the evidence and history that behind

it. Jensen and Finley (1996, 1997) teach evolution through a historically rich curriculumwherein students are

provided with information about not only scientists’ life histories but also how each scientist would explain

the evolution of animals such as fast-running cheetahs and blind cave salamanders. In doing so, these

educators frame evolution instruction as a communicative event oriented to both ideas and people.

The above literature review was used to construct an analytical framework for exploring teacher oral

framing of evolution discussion (Figure 1). Our framework conceives of evolution discussion as a

communicative event that can be situated along a continuum depending upon the teacher’s oral framing and

systematically analyzed in terms of five components, namely focus, orientation, social structure, mood, and

participatory nature.

Research Design

This instrumental case study was part of a larger research program aimed at providing baseline

knowledge of the changes teachers and students experience in implementing project-based curriculum. This

particular inquiry adopted a qualitative research approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Creswell, 2003) had a

phenomenological underpinning, and was aligned with socio-constructivist perspectives on human

interaction (Robson, 2002). Patton (1990) states that case studies are used when ‘‘one needs to understand

some special people, particular problems, or unique situation in great depth. . .’’ (p. 54). We sought to

understand how a teacher from a Project-Based Learning (PBL) school framed evolution discussions

intellectually and redraw generalizations within this area. The phenomenological orientation indicates our

concern with participants’ first-hand experience of the phenomenon (Merriam, 1998). Thus, the focus

departed from taking face value of participants’ verbal understandings to probe for and discover the actual

‘experience’ and issues that emerge fromexperiential differences. This casewas explored throughdescriptive

data systematically collected through open-ended research methods (video-recorded observations and

informal debriefing) and analyzed inductively to build a naturalistic account (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of a

secondary instructor’s evolution teaching strategies.

Participants

This case study was based on a bounded system; a PBL evolution unit taught in one ninth-grade section

of an integrated Biology–Literature class. The participants explored in the experience included Mr. Howe

(a male Caucasian, first-year biology instructor) and approximately 46 freshman students in one of his three

sections. The class was on a block-schedule; lasting 110minutes and meeting in the afternoons Monday to



Friday. This particular classroom was selected because it (1) was one of four science classes involved in the

research program noted earlier, (2) was one of two class sections (one in the morning and another in the

afternoon) experiencing a project-based unit on evolution, and (3) retained the majority of the students that

returned signed assent and consent forms to take part in this research study. The demographic make-up of the

students was 29males and 17 females. Included in this populationwere four Latino, three African-American,

and 39 White students.

Also present in Mr. Howe’s class was his English co-teacher Mrs. Nelson, a female Caucasian English

instructor with more than 20 years of experience. Both of them were in their second semester of reform to a

21st century teaching reformmodel of a project-based high school. Mr. Howewas selected as a participant in

this study because he was the teacher responsible for the learning components involving science content

standards and, despite his limited time as a classroom teacher, had a bachelors degree in Biology and

Chemistry, training in project-based science teaching, and had successfully taught several PBLBiology units

to this student population. In addition, he taught alongside a teacher who was very experienced with the

student population in his class. In our view, assurances that his oral practices on a PBL evolution unit were

worth careful analytical examination. He understood it was necessary to teach the science content standards

(Supplementary Appendix A), uphold the ideals of the project-based reform initiatives at his school, and

encourage students to think beyond the scientific explanations of biological change. At the time, he expressed

apprehension and concern about not offending his students who he perceived as being mostly skeptical about

evolution. Nonetheless, he understood the need to teach evolution and often referred to the state standards as

a justification for why he was teaching it to his sometimes resistant students. Though students seemed to

understand the constraints their teacher faced, some of them did not feel it was a good idea to discuss such a

contentious issue.

Figure 1. Evolution discussion as an intellectually framed communicative event.



AlthoughMrs. Nelsonwas also present in the class, she had no scientific background, had not previously

taught evolution, and played only a secondary instructor role. Her participation in the evolution discussion

was minimal, being more actively involved with classroommanagement. In contrast, Mr. Howe participated

more actively and was usually in charge of the facilitation of these verbal exchanges. These differences in

participation and expertisemotivated our decision to limit our data analysis and collection toMr. Howe’s oral

framing practices and exclude Mrs. Nelson as a participant in this study.

Because students in both morning and afternoon sections were taught by the same teachers and

experienced the same project-based evolution unit, we decided to limit the scope of this study to the afternoon

section. Initial inspection of our data revealed thatMr.Howe’s oral framing of evolution discussions persisted

across both sections, that Mrs. Nelson’s participation was minimal in both sessions, and that the best

illustrative examples of teacher oral framing could be found in the afternoon evolution discussions.

Therefore, this methodological decision did not bias our analysis to either teacher or to any specific oral

framing strategies.

Mr. Howe taught the integrated Biology–Literature class at a large high school with an enrollment of

1,589 students located in a large city. The demographic make-up of the student population at this school was

3.7%Latino; 83.8%White, 10%AfricanAmerican, and .6%Asian. The students in this study attended one of

six small learning academies within the school. This newly formed academy was a PBL school developed to

prepare students for the 21st century.

Instructional Context

Mr. Howe’s class comprised several instructional units wherein students collaboratively worked on

computer-based projects that integrated Biology and Literature throughout the school year. Within this

project-based curriculum, the teacher acted as a facilitator seeking to guide students and help them navigate

their projects. Though the project outlines for each unit changed in terms of outcome expectations, grading,

and homework, guidelines remained standard throughout the class. Because the evolution unit was

implemented in the middle of the second semester, students were experienced with project formats and class

expectations.

The 3-week evolution unit was designed by Mr. Howe with the goal of having students research the

evidence for and against varying aspects of evolution and present their thoughts on how the theory should be

taught. In the first two days of the unit, Mr. Howe facilitated three whole-class discussions: a debate, a mini

lecture, and a chalk talk (Table 1). The former two were implemented on the first day, whereas the latter was

facilitated on the second day of the unit.With variable length and focus, these discussions served to introduce

students to the evolution debate, provide themwith background information, and allow them to express their

thoughts, views, and opinions. Students then worked on their projects in groups of three, exploring different

lines of evidence related to evolution (fossils, vestigial organs, andDNA) and addressing controversial topics

such as whether evolution should be taught in schools and the age of the Earth. The embedded literature

component of the unit, also implemented subsequent to the evolution discussions,was to read the book Inherit

the wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee who provide a fictional account of the Scopes Trial. This

study focuses exclusively on the oral framing strategies used by Mr. Howe to engage his students in an

intellectual dialogue about evolution while leading the three whole-class discussions early in the unit.

Data Collection

As a case study, our focus was holistic and intensive. To examineMr. Howe’s BL strategies with regard

to evolution we employed naturalistic observational data collection strategies (Angrosino & Perez, 2000)

during the 3-week evolution unit. The classroom interactions during this time were thoroughly captured

through the use of three digital camcorders with enhanced audio support (boom and multidirectional

microphones). The first camera focused on teacher–student interactions, the second camerawas directed to a

single student focus group, and the third camera was redirected throughout the discussions to capture various

other student groups. One researcher was present at all taping sessions to adjust the video and audio

equipment. The extensive amount of observational data collected during this unit was reviewed for key

cultural scenes (Erickson, 1996), that is, short stretches of naturally occurring communicative interactions in

the immediate classroom context of evolution discussions.



Although formal interviews were not conducted due to time constraints, Mr. Howe was debriefed

immediately prior and subsequent to the evolution discussions. These informal data provided us with

information regarding the teacher’s perspective (i.e., his learning goals, aims, and plans) and were used to

inform and validate our theoretical interpretations of the teacher’s oral framing of evolution discussion.

As with any naturalistic observation studies, we acknowledge that our presence influenced the natural

setting (Angrosino & Perez, 2000). That influence was minimized in two ways. First, we assured that the

teacher and students were accustomed to our presence as researchers, as we had been observing and

interviewing them throughout the 2007–2008 school year about their project-based learning experiences.

Second, we took a ‘‘peripheral-member researcher’’ approach. As such, the students knew us by name, they

were welcome to ask us for help with minute tasks, and we would engage in friendly small talk when

appropriate; however, we were viewed as visitors in the classroom throughout the course of the study.

Data Analysis

A microethnographic analysis of the video-recordings was performed to describe and illustrate

evolution teaching strategies in the context of teacher-led, whole-class discussions.Microethnography refers

to the study of video-recorded social interaction in minute detail through an up-close and exhaustive

examination of how people use language and other forms of communication to realize the social work of their

daily lives (Erickson, 1996). This microethnographic approach combined systematic examination of

transcribed recordings with detailed sequential analysis and playback of video-recorded interaction. More

specifically, discursive records were carefully examined to identify the focus, orientation, social structure,

mood, and participatory nature of evolution discussions at two analytical levels: teacher utterance (individual

units of teacher speech, including statements, sentences, and propositions) and episode (discursive stretches

of variable numbers of utterances, including teacher monologues, short teacher–student exchanges, and

longer topical discussions).

Construct validity was enhanced through the use of peer debriefing sessions. The debriefers were a

science classroom discourse analyst, a science educator who specializes in gender and diversity issues in

urban areas, and a biology educator who researches evolution instruction. This diversity in academic

expertise and research focus allowed for the emergence, consideration, and negotiation of different

Table 1

Evolution discussions facilitated by Mr. Howe.

Discussion Description

Article debate Mr. Howe: encourages students to share their thoughts and opinions.Students: share their reactions to a recent newspaper article entitled ‘‘Scientist says creation debate too

hostile’’ (Roberts, 2008)*.Duration: 11minutes.

Mini lecture Mr. Howe: introduces biological concepts, provides illustrative examples, and answers students’questions.

Students: (1) are provided with background information on the scientific perspective on the origin oflife and several evolutionary concepts such as biological change, micro-evolution, macro-evolution,species, adaptation, and mutation; (2) participate in an activity about the nature of science.

Duration: 25minutes.Chalk talk Mr. Howe: introduces discussion questions at the beginning and reacts to students’ responses at the end.

Students: (1) use post-it notes to anonymously respond to questions placed on poster boards around theroom***; (2) read post-it responses aloud; and, (3) discuss post-it responses.

Duration: 31minutes.

*Prior to participating in the debate, students were asked to read and reflect about the article (available on the classroom computers) in small

groups.

**Mr. Howe highlights that evidence is subject to interpretation by writing the two sets ‘‘A13 C’’ and ‘‘12 13 14’’ on the board and having

different groups of students read and then compare their interpretations ofmiddle term. Students who look at the first set interpret themiddle

term as the letter B, whereas students who read the second set interpret the middle term as the number thirteen.

***Poster board questions: (1) ‘‘What should schools teach about evolution?’’ (2) ‘‘Do you agree with Darwin’s theory?’’ (3) ‘‘Questions

about evolution?’’ (4) ‘‘Are faith and science incompatible?’’



theoretical interpretations. During our debriefing sessions key scenes were examined collectively, individual

analyses shared, and interpretations discussed extensively. The emergent account was gradually adjusted to

include any variation that surfaced from this reflective group interpretation. These sessions were frequently

held to triangulate emerging interpretations of the data and guard against individual researcher biases

(Robson, 2002).

Findings

Described below are the focus, orientation, social structure, mood, and participatory nature of the

evolution discussions as framed by Mr. Howe.

Focus

The evolution discussions facilitated by Mr. Howe were more focused on fostering a positive social

atmosphere through respect and politeness than on the promotion of conceptual change. Evidence can be

found in the directives given to students at the beginning of the mini-lecture and chalk-talk discussions

(see Supplementary Appendix B for transcription conventions):

Mr. Howe: It’s absolutely imperative that we share our opinionswith respect and that we don’t jump on

other peoples’ case if they say something we disagree with. The best thing to do when someone says

something that you disagree with is decidewhat you think about it, consider it, and then offer your own

opinion back, but not in a you’re stupid, you’re wrong way.

Mr. Howe: You may put more than one comment and you may respond to others’ comments in a polite

and respectful way. Disagreeing with somebody or having a question with a different viewpoint is fine,

but being disrespectful or saying that’s stupid, I hope we’re all grown up enough to know that is

ridiculous.

Mr. Howe’s approach is to begin each evolution discussion by framing it in terms of polite and respectful

student participation. He also provides illustrative examples of verbal behavior (e.g., ‘‘you’re stupid’’) that

would be inconsistent with his framing of the discussion. His directives invariably focus on the social

conditions for participating in and contributing to discussions, namely that students will express their views

and resolve their differences in opinions about evolution through a polite, respectful, thoughtful, and mature

argumentative frame.

The teacher’s respectful framing of evolution discussion was also evident in his choice of instructional

activities. The first whole-class discussion facilitated by Mr. Howe was a debate of the article ‘‘Scientist

says creation debate too hostile’’ (Roberts, 2008) which reports a movie night event at the Salt Lake

Public Library wherein an evolutionary biologist shows Flock of Dodos (a documentary that emphasizes

the need for better communication between scientists and the general public) and then argues that

‘‘a problem exists in the dialogue between scientists and those naı̈ve to facts.’’ By focusing the first discussion

on an article that highlights the need for improved (i.e., less hostile or more polite) dialogue, the teacher

framed classroom discussions as exchanges mainly about how to discuss or communicate the topic of

evolution.

The instructional format of the chalk talk discussion also suggested a polite and respectful framing. Mr.

Howe asked students towrite anonymous responses on post-it notes and then place them on poster boards that

were subsequently read aloud and discussed by the entire class. This anonymity provided students with a

relatively safe channel of communication through which to express their views and opinions about evolution

without the threat of losing face—that is, their sense of personal dignity or self-respect (Oliveira, 2009a)—if

their ideas happened to be rejected, dismissed, or interpreted as wrong by others. It also afforded pupils with

an opportunity to criticize ideas without worry that their comments could possibly be construed as personally

offensive or hostile to the people behind the ideas. Such instructional format reinforced the teacher’s framing

of evolution discussion in terms of respectful and polite student participation.

Although relatively limited throughout the evolution discussions, Mr. Howe did make a few conceptual

parenthetical remarks while facilitating the mini lecture:



Mr. Howe: so there are two terms when we refer to the theory of evolution that we kind of combine

together. . . macro-evolution refers to the idea of change between species. . . [and] micro-evolution

would be change within a species.

Mr. Howe: I haven’t really defined species yet but I need to do this in order to help you understand,

species is animals or, I should say organisms because is not always just animals, ok? Organisms that

can reproduce and produce fertile offspring.

Mr. Howemakes explicit the precise scientific meanings associated with terms such as ‘‘evolution’’ and

‘‘species.’’ The former is described as referring to distinct processes of biological change (micro andmacro),

whereas the latter is defined in terms of the production of fertile offspring. By being explicit about his use of

this terminology,Mr. Howemomentarily changes his footing, adopting an expert-novice type of interactional

alignment, and re-framing these particular moments of discussion as periods focused mainly on the

development of students’ biological ideas. Despite the occurrence of these short periods of conceptually

framed interaction, a polite and respectful framing predominated throughout most of the discussions.

Orientation. Mr.Howe adopted aweak orientation to historical people, overlooking personal and social

issues surrounding the development of evolution theory. For instance, during the article debate, students

posed questions about Darwin’s authorship of evolutionary concepts:

Student 1: Did Darwin actually come up with evolution ‘cause I’ve heard something that he never even

said that.

Mr. Howe: Yeah, tomorrow we’re going to learn more about Darwin himself.

Student 2: One of the more common things he [Darwin] is attributed with is survival of the fittest, and

he never actually came up with that theory.

Mr. Howe: I’m not sure if he used that term. . . that’s something we can look into.

Instead of clarifying the issues raised by the students with regard to Darwin’s authorship and coining of

terms such as evolution and survival of the fittest,Mr.Howe reacts by providing vague reactive comments that

serve to avoid discussion of these historical facts—the topic of history of evolution remained unaddressed in

the discussions. His evasive maneuvering prevents a historical framing from emerging within the evolution

discussions.

Throughout the evolution discussions, Mr. Howe adopted a strong orientation to students’ ideas related

to the nature of scientific theories. This orientation is illustrated in the two excerpts below. The first excerpt

shows comments hemadewhile facilitating the nature of science activity (toward the end of themini lecture),

whereas the second one containsMr.Howe’s reactions to students’ anonymous contributions to the chalk talk:

Mr. Howe: You guys saw the letter B, [but] they saw the number 13. . . your expectation determined

what you saw in the evidence. . . [likewise] some people look at that [DNA] evidence and say it’s clear

that we came from the same ancestor, other people look at that same evidence and then say it’s clear

that. . . we were created in the same way, same evidence, different interpretation.

Mr. Howe: While it’s true that science doesn’t know everything, that scientific theories have changed,

even ones that we were absolutely ‘‘sure’’ we were right have changed, that doesn’t mean that we can’t

learn anything from it, I don’t think we know everything about medicine but most of you still take

medicine.

In the first comment,Mr. Howe resorts to an analogy (reading letters/numbers on the board as an analog

to interpreting evidence) to highlight how a single observation or piece of evidence can be interpreted in

multiple ways by different people depending upon their expectations, hence underscoring the subjective

nature of science. In the second comment, Mr. Howe points out how most people take medicine despite the

fact that it is based on scientific theories that, like evolution, are tentative and subject to change, hence

highlighting the tentative yet reliable nature of science. Mr. Howe’s comments take the form of parenthetical

remarks and constitute shifts in footing. Mr. Howe momentarily changes his footing into an expert role, thus

re-framing these short periods of discussion as an informational, expert-novice type of exchange.



Social Structure. Mr. Howe promoted a less authoritative social structure while facilitating the

discussions. To do so, he positioned himself as a non-authoritative expert, that is, a relatively knowledgeable

and biased facilitatorwhose effortswere aimed at neutrally informingwithout imposing his ownbeliefs about

evolution onto students. One framing strategy adopted byMr. Howe to downplay his authoritative status was

to explicitly acknowledge limitations in his knowledge about the history of evolution theory. For instance,

when a student stated that, contrary to common belief, Darwin did not come up with the notion of survival of

the fittest, Mr. Howe replied: ‘‘I’m not sure if he [Darwin] ever used that term. . . I’m certainly not theworld’s

expert.’’ Not only doesMr. Howe admits to his uncertainty about this historical fact but also positions himself

as an intermediary expert on evolution (a person who is more knowledgeable than the students but less

knowledgeable than evolutionary biologists). As a result, the discussion is framed as an exchange among

individuals separated by a reduced social gap.

Another framing strategy adopted by Mr. Howe was to talk about what he considered to be the

more controversial parts of evolutionary theory in less authoritative and less imposingways.Mr.Howe

adopted this strategy during the mini lecture when he introduced students to the notions of micro- and

macro-evolution and used hypothetical examples of changes in bacterial organisms to illustrate these

two evolutionary processes (see Table 2).

Table 2 shows that Mr. Howe adopts strikingly different ways of talking about bacterial micro-

and macro-evolution. While talking about micro-evolution (a topic he considered to be non-

controversial), Mr. Howe positions himself as an authoritative science expert by talking without

hesitation, avoiding expressions of uncertainty, employing technical terms (‘‘penicillin,’’ ‘‘pre-existing

mutation,’’ and ‘‘change in conditions’’), describing micro-evolution as the way changes occur in the

bacterial world, and avoiding references to human agents or actors (‘‘there is a change of conditions’’

instead of ‘‘a scientist promotes a change of conditions,’’ ‘‘you get a short of penicillin’’ instead of ‘‘a

doctor gives you shot of penicillin’’). In contrast, while talking about macro-evolution, which he

considers a controversial part of evolutionary theory, Mr. Howe hesitates and employs tentative

language (‘‘I don’t know’’ and ‘‘theoretically’’) to create the impression of uncertainty, attributes the

ideas being discussed to unnamed science experts and macro-evolution theory itself (‘‘they would say’’

and ‘‘macro-evolution says’’) to remain neutral and distance himself from these ideas, and explicitly

states his intention to promote understanding rather than acceptance (‘‘again, Iwant you to understand

this, ok?).As a result,Mr.Howeneutrally presentsmacro-evolution as scientists’ attempt tomake sense

of differences among different species of microorganisms. Moreover, Mr. Howe shifts his footing,

framing the discussion as a verbal exchange between novices and a non-authoritative science expert,

that is, a facilitator who, although knowledgeable about the topic of macro-evolution, is neutral and

non-imposing with regard to its acceptance by the novices.

Table 2

Mr. Howe’s oral account of micro- and macro-evolution of bacteria.

Bacterial Micro-Evolution Bacterial Macro-Evolution

Maybe there is a million bacteria in your body and you geta shot of penicillin, and two of those bacteria had theability to resist penicillin, guess what, those two aregoing to stay alive and they are going to reproduce andgrow, and so all of the sudden you are growing moreof the resistant bacteria, so that in a sense, that’sevolution, you take a pre-existing mutation, ok? Andthere is a change of conditions and all of the suddenthat mutation is more favorable, more of those bacteriasurvive, so they reproduce, and then there is more ofthem, and then there is some change in the population,however, that really is an example of micro-evolution,they are still bacteria, they haven’t turned into birds,they haven’t turned into spiders, ok?

Now macro-evolution says, we’re still taking these sameprinciples and saying there is mutations and thingschange overtime, but eventually, ok? Again, I want youto understand this, ok? What they would say is you’vegot one pool of let’s just say bacteria again, ok? You’vegot the kind that resist and the kind that doesn’t resist,so something happens and they get put in differentbeakers, I don’t know, ok? I’m just, ok? So, overtimethese bacteria change that they can no longer interbreedwith these bacteria, ok? Enough mutations, enoughchanges overtime, all of the sudden, theoretically[quotation marks] these are different species, ok?That would be, and then, theoretically, you can keepon branching.



Mr.Howe adopted similar framing strategies while discussing themacro-evolution of humans and

other animals:

Mr. Howe: Everybody thinks that theory of evolution says that we’ve evolved from monkeys

and it doesn’t, what evolution says, whether you agree with it or not, evolution says that there was [sic]

these one-cell animals, and they evolved in all sorts of different ways, you know, different

populations evolved in different ways, maybe one of them evolved into a fish, ok? And then those

fish get populations, one of them grew legs, I don’t know, I’m a bad artist, ok? [laughter] Then from

there, then all of the sudden you had some kind of primordial, you know, early ape thingie, ok?

And then the theory says, ok? The theory says that from the same ancestor came modern apes and,

and me [referring to his drawing on the board] [laughter] I’m a little dwarf, you didn’t know that

[laughter]

Mr. Howe prefaces each of his controversial statements with an attribution to evolutionary theory

(‘‘theory of evolution says that we’ve evolved from monkeys’’). Mr. Howe also hesitates (‘‘I don’ know’’),

employs tentative terms such as ‘‘maybe’’ and ‘‘theory’’ (commonly interpreted by students as a tentative

idea), uses imprecise and non-scientific terminology (‘‘early ape thingie’’), resorts to non-imposing

pronominal choices (‘‘from the same ancestor came modern apes and me’’ instead of ‘‘you’’ ‘‘men’’ or

‘‘humans’’) and de-emphasizes acceptance (‘‘whether you agree with it or not’’). As a result, Mr. Howe

frames the discussion about human macro-evolution as an event facilitated by a non-authoritative, neutral,

and non-imposing expert.

Mr. Howe also explicitly stated his intention to remain neutral:

Mr. Howe: I’m going to try to be real neutral through this whole thing [discussion], of course I have

my opinions and my beliefs, but I think it’s interesting when people think about things in new ways.

Mr. Howe: I’m going to play both sides of this as we go along, you guys will find that out, because

I want us to think about it, ok?

Although Mr. Howe acknowledges in the first comment that he has his own opinions and beliefs about

evolution,Mr. Howe does not tell students exactlywhat his stance on evolutionary theory is, choosing instead

to encourage students to consider different ways of thinking. And, in his second comment,Mr.Howe declares

that hewill play both sides of the evolution debate, again encouraging students to engage in cognitive activity.

In doing so, Mr. Howe frames the evolution discussion neutrally, that is, as a social event facilitated by a

neutral party.

Despite his neutral framing, Mr. Howe did not remain completely neutral. During the mini lecture,

he made the following comments with a clearly ironical and critical keying:

Mr. Howe: Tomorrow is actually ‘‘Darwin Day’’ [air quotes] apparently. Yeah, ironically enough [his

voice changes to slow, drawn-out tone, smirking] [students laugh].

Through the combined use of several metadiscourses (air quotes, slower pace, and drawn-out tone)

while referring toDarwinDay,Mr.Howe’ utterance is keyed as a sarcastic comment, that is,Mr.Howe signals

to students that his comment is to be interpreted as a criticism toward themerit of this celebratory day.Despite

the occurrence of this sarcastically framed moment, a neutral framing persisted throughout most of the

discussions.

Mood. Mr. Howe fostered a moderately playful classroom climate in which humor was used with

moderation. His use of humor was particularly frequent during the mini lecture when participants discussed

macro-evolution. Mr. Howe made several humorous remarks while drawing an evolutionary tree on the

board. For instance, while describing how terrestrial animals evolved from fish, Mr. Howe made fun of his

own competence as an artist (‘‘and then those fish populations get, one of them grew legs, I don’t know, I’m a

bad artist, ok? [laughter]’’). Later, Mr. Howe drew a little man on the evolutionary treewhich he humorously

identified as himself (‘‘from the same ancestor camemodern apes and, andme [laughter]. . . I’m a little dwarf,



you didn’t know that [laughter]’’). By infusing humor while drawing the evolutionary tree, Mr. Howe

strategically shifts from a serious into a playful footing, framing a potentially controversial moment in the

discussion as a casual exchange. His casual framing serves to foster a less serious, less tense, and less

threatening social context in which to discuss macro-evolution.

Mr. Howe reinforced his casual framing of themacro-evolution discussion by allowing students tomake

use of humor and playfulness while discussing the concept of species:

Mr. Howe: Can a Labrador and a Dalmatian have a puppy?

Students: YES.

Mr. Howe: Yes, they are the same species, they are dogs. Can a Dalmatian have a baby with an

alligator?

Students: YES, NO, YES [laughter ensues in class]

Mr. Howe: No [he laughs] among other reasons, they do no have the same number of chromosomes.

After pointing out that different dog breeds can reproduce because they belong to the same species,

Mr. Howe asks whether a dog and an alligator would be able to reproduce. Students then reply with a

humorously keyednegative response.Rather than discouraging students’ humor,Mr.Howe laughs alongwith

them,maintaining a degreeof commitment to seriousness by immediately offering a scientific explanation for

the correct negative response (‘‘different number of chromosomes’’). By framing this discussion casually, the

teacher fosters a less tense and more enjoyable classroom atmosphere wherein students could comfortably

discuss sensitive topics such as macro-evolution and animal reproduction.

Participatory Nature. Mr. Howe framed evolution discussions as events partially obligatory and

partially voluntary in nature. At the beginning of the mini lecture, he uttered:

Mr. Howe: As a science teacher in a science class [holds up state science education standards]

I’m required by law to make sure that you understand, ok? To the best of my ability [places hand over

heart as if under oath] and I want to do this, to make sure that you understand Darwin’s ideas, ok?

Mr. Howe initially appeals both verbally and physically to an external authority (i.e., the state science

standards), positioning himself as a teacher who is legally obligated to promote student understanding of

evolution and framing the upcoming discussion as a mandatory social event. Mr. Howe then inserts a

parenthetical remark (‘‘I want to do this’’) that indicates a certain degree of volitional involvement or

voluntary inclination on his part, thus re-framing the evolution discussion as a social event that is only

partially mandatory.

Mr. Howe’s partially mandatory framing was further reinforced during the facilitation of the chalk talk

discussion when he made the following comments:

Mr. Howe: I would want to teach it [evolution] anyway because it’s important, even if state standards,

yeah I told I had to teach you because of that, I would want to teach it anyway because it is important

for you to know about it, whatever you think about it, it is important for you to know about it, ok? I

mean, I really, I really think it’s is important for you to learn about it, whatever you think of it.

By stating that hewould voluntarily teach a topic as important as evolution even if hewas not required by

state standards, Mr. Howe frames the evolution discussion as a stated-mandated activity that he would

voluntarily choose to implement due to its informative value.

Mr. Howe also adopted other strategies to frame evolution discussions as partially mandatory. These

strategies were adopted during the mini lecture:

Mr. Howe: I want to make sure that you understand Darwin’s ideas, theory of evolution. . . you may

not like them, you may not agree with them, but I am asking that you try to understand them. . . so

whether you agree or disagree, it’s worth learning about, regardless of what you believe, it’s a very

important scientific theory. . . there are parts of the theory that to my knowledge are not controversial



at all, that are very helpful, and then there are parts that are more controversial and still, depending on

your point of view, you may think they are helpful or not.

Mr. Howe adopts two framing strategies. First, he uses the cognitive verb understand to indicate to

students that discussing evolution merely serves an informative goal, that is, it is not meant to change

students’ beliefs or acceptance of evolution. Second, Mr. Howe continuously use plural terms (i.e.,

‘‘Darwin’s ideas’’ ‘‘parts of the theory’’) while referring to evolution. In doing so, Mr. Howe avoids framing

the activity as a mandatory debate over a single controversial issue aimed at changing students’ beliefs about

evolution. Instead, he frames the activity as an informative discussion about multiple evolutionary topics

(some being more controversial than others) which students are required to discuss but are not obligated to

accept. Furthermore, by referring to evolution as a theory composed of multiple parts with varied levels of

controversy, Mr. Howe underscores the possibility of partial acceptance of evolutionary theory by students

(i.e., their voluntary acceptance of the less controversial parts of the theory of evolution).

Discussion

The intellectual framing of evolution discussion constitutes a challenging instructional endeavor

contingent upon teachers’ ability to foster a focus, orientation, social structure, mood, and participatory

nature appropriate for the particular educational context wherein evolution discussion takes place. In this

section, we discuss how our findings inform this challenge.

Focus on Politeness

The evolution discussions facilitated byMr. Howewere more focused on politeness and respect than on

standard concepts. Evidence of such was found in the teacher’s directives to students (which invariably

emphasized politeness and respect as conditions for student participation), facilitation of a discussion on the

need for polite and respectful communication of evolution, and provision of an anonymous communicative

channel that students could use to politely express and criticize particular views and opinions about evolution.

Through the adoption of these oral practices, Mr. Howe framed evolution discussions as occasions for

learning mainly about how to politely communicate evolution (as opposed to the conceptual contents of

evolutionary theory). Such focus is surprising and inconsistent with the evolution teaching practices of other

biology instructorswho have typically prioritized detached promotion of conceptual change (Banet&Ayuso,

2003; Demastes et al., 1996; Trowbridge & Wandersee, 1994) over creation of ‘‘positive intellectual

relations’’ in the classroom (Boaler, 2008).

The significance of this polite framing of evolution discussion can be understood in terms of Chazan and

Ball’s (1999) metaphorical view of classroom discussion as a process of biological fermentation wherein the

generation of learning can be accelerated or catalyzed by the presence of an ‘‘intellectual ferment,’’ namely

reflective disagreement (i.e., thoughtful and engaged focus on alternative ideas). Like yeast can be killed by

too much heat, so can the process of intellectual fermentation be ended by disrespectful and excessive

disagreement which is not only personally unpleasant and frustrating to students but also likely to lead to

unproductive confrontation and social conflict. On the other hand, excessive focus on respect and politeness

can lead to unreflective agreement and offer little intellectual challenge to students who may become

disengaged. Therefore, facilitation of productive classroom discussions requires teachers to focus on

reflective disagreement while maintaining a social climate that is conducive to learning. When applied to the

reported findings, this metaphor reveals that, althoughMr. Howewas able to create a safe and sensitive social

atmosphere, his evolution discussions lacked intellectual ferment, thus turning the whole-class exchanges

into polite and respectful sharing of views and opinions that did not generate much conceptual talk or

scientific reasoning.

It is important to note that the term ‘‘politeness’’ can have alternativemeanings in the context of teacher-

facilitated evolution discussion, a possibility that underscores its elusive nature and the need for further

theoretical elaboration. Politeness can be conceived in terms of teacher adoption of indirect approaches to

evolution instruction, including avoidance of the term ‘‘evolution’’ (Cherif et al., 2001; Goldston & Kyzer,

2009; Moore, 2001) and failure to implement a separate unit on evolution (Scharmann, 1990; Scharmann &



Harris, 1992). In politeness theory (Brown&Levinson, 1978), this indirectness in teacher communication of

evolution constitutes ‘‘negative politeness.’’ Alternatively, politeness can be conceived in terms of oral

strategies other than indirectness (e.g., demands for respectful student participation) that teachers can use to

promote a positive and non-threatening social context for evolution discussion wherein students’ points of

view and opinions are respected and students feel comfortable expressing their beliefs and ideas

intellectually. Mr. Howe’s polite framing of evolution discussion is more consistent with the latter as his

instructional approach did not rely on communicative indirectness.

While in some educational contexts it might be appropriate and even necessary for teachers to adopt and

maintain a certain degreeof indirectnesswhendiscussing evolutionwith students (e.g., in the case of potential

community/parent backlash or when the teacher job is on the line), such practice is inconsistent with current

pedagogical approaches to evolution instruction which have for the most part favored explicit instruction

(Banet & Ayuso, 2003; Demastes et al., 1996; Marcelos & Nagem, 2010; Trowbridge &Wandersee, 1994).

Furthermore, if used in excess ormisused, teacher indirectness can potentially confuse and frustrate students.

Nonetheless, the importance of framing evolution discussion politely (i.e., in terms of respectful student

participation) should not be overlooked.Unless teachers provide studentswith a positive and non-threatening

social context in which to express their evolution-related ideas and opinions without fear of losing face or

their sense of personal dignity (Brown & Levinson, 1978), it is unlikely that they will be able to truly engage

students intellectually.

It should also be noted that framing evolution discussion politely is not equivalent to fostering a

relativistic classroom atmosphere (Perry, 1970). To frame evolution discussion politely is to orally shape the

classroom social context in ways that can make students feel respected, not threatened, and comfortable

expressing their ideas and opinions. In contrast, to adopt a relativist epistemological position during the

discussion of evolution is to treat all opinions equally valid regardless of evidence. The former is about

socially acceptable ways of communicating ideas, whereas the latter is about epistemologically sound ways

of treating or assessing the validity of communicated ideas based on available evidence. Like the

communication of ideas, epistemological treatment of ideas can be performed either politely or impolitely by

teachers during evolution discussion; the teachers’ social approach does not determine and should not be

confused with their epistemological stance on the topic of evolution.

Orientation to Ideas

Mr. Howe adopted a strong orientation to students’ nature of science ideas (i.e., their views of the nature

of science). This was evident in the teacher’s parenthetical remarks and directives to students which

emphasized the need for explicit, clear, and in-depth articulation of NOS ideas such as subjectivity,

tentativeness, and compatibility with religion. In sharp contrast, the teacher repeatedly avoided discussion of

personal issues raised by studentswith regard to the history of evolution (e.g., authorship and coining of terms

by particular scientists), thus preventing evolution discussion from becoming historically and personally

framed.

Mr. Howe’s weak orientation to historical figures is inconsistent with the teaching practices of other

biology educators (Duveen & Solomon, 1994; Jensen & Finley, 1996, 1997; Mead & Scharmann, 1994;

Morishita, 1991)who have paid increased attention to the historical foundations of evolutionary theory. Cook

(2009) argues that, rather than simply providing students with de-contextualized and disconnected examples

of evolution (e.g., peppered moths), teachers should engage students in discussions about the historical

significance of the scientific contributions of figures such as Linnaeus, Darwin,Wallace, and Lamarck. These

historical discussions combined with student exploration of scientists’ original texts can promote a stronger

orientation to the historical figures behind particular evolutionary ideas, thus providing students with the

historical information that Mr. Howe’s evolution discussions seemed to lack.

Neutral Social Structure

Mr. Howe positioned himself as a neutral (though admittedly biased) facilitator, framing evolution

discussions as informative and impartially facilitated social events. To maintain a degree of neutrality,

Mr. Howe resorted to attribution prefaces (e.g., ‘‘the theory says. . .’’), repeatedly attributing bacterial and



human macro-evolution (but not micro-evolution) to unnamed science experts and to the theory itself.

Another discursive strategy that helped promote a neutral social structure was Mr. Howe’s adoption of a

neutral impartiality demeanor through repeated statement of his intended neutrality and acknowledgement

without explicit disclosure of his personal bias (i.e., his stance on evolution).

Mr.Howe’s neutral impartiality is defined byKelly (1986) as a facilitative role assumed by teacherswho

refrain fromexplicitly disclosing their position on controversial issues to students. Kelly (1986) considers this

impartial facilitator teacher role less than ideal, arguing that teachers should instead adopt a committed

partiality facilitative stance by disclosing their personal views on controversial issues under discussion to

model the thinking process of a person who takes a stand on an issue not to advocate a particular position or

change student opinion. However,Miller-Lane et al. (2006) point out that secondary teachers generally reject

Kelly’s (1986) call for disclosure of their views on controversial issues for fear of community reprisal,

uncertainty about the impact of their disclosure on sensitive students, and a desire to focus discussions on

student thinking rather than their own. Instead of revealing their opinions on controversial matters, these

teachers prefer to disclose their commitment to basic social values or principles such as respectful treatment

of each other, tolerance for differences in opinion, and equality. Similarly,Mr. Howewithheld his position on

evolution, choosing instead to disclose (through his directives) a strong commitment to social values such as

politeness and respect.

Mr. Howe’s announcements of his intention to remain neutral served as standpoint denials (Craig &

Sanusi, 2000), argumentative moves frequently performed in discussions of controversial topics where a

participant’s utterance is normatively expected to reflect the participant’s underlying standpoint on the issue

under discussion.Due to this expectation, neutral presentation an argument for or against a particular position

requires participants to explicitly deny that their utterances express an underlying standpoint. Similarly,

by making his desire to remain neutral explicit while introducing scientists’ stance on macro-evolution,

Mr. Howe denied that his utterances represented his personal standpoint on this issue.

Mr. Howe’s evolution teaching practices are also consistent with procedural neutrality, an instructional

approach advocated by Hermann (2008) wherein the teacher acknowledges the controversial nature of

evolution by providing students with an opportunity to express their opinions and to participate in in-depth

and open discussion of a variety of perspectives on evolution. Instead of attempting to promote student

adoption of the scientific perspective (advocacy approach) or neutrally lecturing about different standpoints

on evolution (affirmative neutrality approach), the teacher facilitates extended discussions in which he

neutrally elicits different viewpoints from students and instructional materials without suggesting that

alternative views of evolution are invalid, inferior, or irrational. It is precisely this neutral discursive

exploration of multiple perspectives on evolution that Mr. Howe offered his students.

The theoreticalmeaning and appropriateness of teacher neutrality deserves further consideration.While

facilitating evolution discussion, teachers can convey particular evaluative attitudes toward the message

(evolution theory), interlocutors (participating students), larger social groups (e.g., scientists, religious

groups, general public), and the discussion itself. Inappropriate and excessive communication of these

evaluative attitudes by teachers can lead to a ‘‘debate’’ (Feldman, 1986), that is, a social context wherein

participants argue incompatible positions and awinner is declared based on one’s ability tomake an effective

presentation or on ones’ institutional authority (in the case of the teacher), not evidence. The competitiveness

and threatening nature of this learning situation canmake teachers and students become fixated on preserving

their own ideas, proving others wrong, and defending their sense of competence. As a result, participants are

more likely to become close-minded and refuse to incorporate information provided by their opponents, thus

limiting the degree of conceptualization of issues under discussion. While this evaluative framing of

evolution discussion as debatemight be appropriate in certain education contexts, teachers do have the option

of framing evolution discussion neutrally by not verbalizing or explicitly communicating at least some

evaluative attitudes to students (e.g., not accusing individuals or social groups of being wrong). Such neutral

framing is consistent what Rowland (1999) calls a ‘‘Zone of Conjectural Neutrality,’’ a classroom social

context in which conjectures are evaluated, not students.

A neutral framing should not be confused with a relativistic framing (Perry, 1970). To frame evolution

discussion neutrally is to provide students with a safe and non-threatening social context in which to

exchange, explore, and evaluate the validity of ideas without the fear of being dismissed, rejected, or



criticized by an authoritative facilitator who endorses a particular perspective on evolution. This is clearly not

the same as adopting a relativistic epistemological position in which all ideas and perspectives are treated

equally regardless of evidence; the withholding of certain evaluative attitudes by teachers does not preclude

the epistemological possibility of evidence-based validation of ideas during evolution discussion. In other

words, the social features of evolution discussion (i.e., its social climate) should not be mistaken for its

epistemological features (i.e., how participants assess the validity of ideas under discussion); the former does

not determine and is not dependent upon the latter.

Non-Authoritative Social Structure

Mr. Howe framed evolution discussions non-authoritatively by downplaying his authority or expert

social status. This framing was related to his employment of tentative language (e.g., ‘‘maybe’’ and ‘‘I don’t

know’’) while talking about bacterial and human macro-evolution (but not micro-evolution). By attaching

tentativeness to their assertions, the teacher introduced macro-evolution non-authoritatively, as a plausible

evidence-based idea rather than an unquestionable fact. The non-authoritative framing of evolution

discussion was also related to Mr. Howe’s adoption of an intermediary expert footing (an expert facilitator

whose knowledge was relatively limited compared to that of evolutionary biologists).

The importance of tentative language for the establishment of an academic and intellectual social

context has been previously underscored by discourse analysts. Hyland (2005) highlights that hedging

(i.e., the use of tentative forms of language) allows intellectuals to engage their peers in a dialogue wherein

ideas are strategically presented as provisional and open to dispute and alternative interpretations, thus

serving an important dialogic function in academic discourse. Rowland (2000) argues that, to avoid exposing

students to intellectual injury, teachers need to be able to foster a ‘‘fallibalistic classroom atmosphere’’

wherein students are encouraged to engage in intellectual risk-takingwithout the fear of failing to provide the

right answers. The promotion of such intellectual atmosphere is contingent upon instructors’ ability to make

effective use of hedges. It is precisely this ability that Mr. Howe demonstrated during his facilitation of the

evolution discussions. His tentative language created a discursive space wherein controversial evolutionary

ideas (e.g., human and bacterial macro-evolution) were presented as conjectures open to further intellectual

dialogue and disagreement.

It should be noted that teacher hedging has social as well as epistemic implications for evolution

discussion. In addition to downplaying teacher authority and reducing the teacher–student social gap, the use

of hedges by teachers also communicates the epistemic status of particular evolutionary concepts to students.

For instance, through his differential use of hedges,Mr.Howe presentedmacro-evolution as a tentative notion

to students, whereas micro-evolution as introduced as a scientific fact. Such oral practice can be problematic

in the sense that it can potentially devalue and reduce the intellectual status of particular concepts such as

macro-evolution to ‘‘just a theory’’ (a mere opinion put forward by scientists), thus encouraging students to

misperceivemacro-evolution. Similarly, differential teacher hedging across various science topics can create

the false impression that evolutionary theory is epistemically distinct from (i.e., more tentative than)

other scientific theories. To avoid fostering such misconceptions, teachers need to ensure that their oral

employment of hedges stays consistent across discussions of different scientific theories and evolutionary

concepts and is contextually appropriate. By doing so, teachers will be able to frame evolution discussion

non-authoritatively and at the same time avoidmiscommunicating the epistemic status of evolutionary theory

and concepts to students.

Mr. Howe also framed evolution discussions non-authoritatively by lowering his social status to an

intermediary science expert. Previous theoretical work on the notion of authority can shed some light on this

particular finding. Oyler (1996) argues that teacher authority has a ‘‘content dimension’’ (i.e., the teacher has

control over the knowledge that students are to learn in the classroom and determines what constitutes true,

legitimate, and relevant information) and a ‘‘process dimension’’ (i.e., the teacher has control over the flow of

talk in the classroom, following up on some ideas and dismissing others). AlthoughMr. Howemaintained his

process authority (i.e., remained in control of the flow of evolution discussions), he chose to partially

relinquish his evolutionary content authority (i.e., exert a reduced level of control over the knowledge

students were expected to learn) by positioning himself as an intermediary expert. Such oral practice also has



social and epistemic implications that teachers must take into account when facilitating evolution discussion.

While effective non-authoritative positioning can be conducive to a positive social context, excessive

emphasis on reduction of social status and promotion of equality over evolutionary content expertise has the

potential to foster an epistemically inappropriate relativistic atmosphere (Perry, 1970). Its appropriateness

must be critically and reflectively assessed by teachers in light of their specific educational context.

Moderately Playful Mood

Mr. Howe framed evolution discussions casually (as serious yet enjoyable social events) by strategically

shifting into a playful footing and resorting to self-deprecating humor (i.e., comical insertion of a self-portrait

into an evolutionary tree drawn on the board), consenting to non-disruptive and moderate levels of student

humor, and joining students in laughter. Research on the social functions of humor sheds some light on these

humorous practices. Seizer (1997) posits that humor serves an important liberating social function. Talking

about serious, sensitive, and controversial topics in unserious or joking ways allows speakers to escape

discursive constraints typically placed on issues considered taboo, at the same time protecting themselves

against criticism and negative repercussion. Meyer (2000) adds that ‘‘laughing together’’ provides

participants with a socially acceptable outlet through which to release tension, reduce uncertainty related to

controversial issues, promote good feelings, and group cohesiveness (i.e., closer social bonds). Tracy (1997)

describes how presenters’ humorous remarks at the beginning of presentations and faculty members’ joking

comments at each others’ beliefs and interactional styles during a university departmental colloquium serves

to foster an ‘‘intellectual community,’’ a well-functioning social group where people who care about and

support each others’ intellectual concerns jointly pursue intellectual aims. Likewise, Mr. Howe’s humorous

evolution teaching practices had tension-relieving, liberating, and social bonding effects, hence enabling him

to foster an intellectual classroom communitywheremembers felt free to engage in friendly humor and group

laughter while remaining committed to serious intellectual engagement.

Partially Mandatory Participation

Mr. Howe framed evolution discussion as a partially mandatory social event in the sense that students

were required to discuss but were not obligated to accept evolution. To do so, the teacher downplayed the

obligatory nature of evolution discussions by strategically highlighting the informative value of discussing

evolution, acknowledging his volitional involvement in the facilitation of these discussions, repeatedly

identifying promotion of student understanding (as opposed to acceptance) as his instructional aim, and

referring to evolution as a theory with multiple conceptual components.

Mr. Howe’s practice of making his instructional goal of promoting understanding explicit to students is

consistent with recommendations of biology educators (Cobern, 1994; Cooper, 2001) who argue that a clear

distinction should be made between teaching for acceptance (i.e., instruction aimed at changing students’

beliefs about the validity or truth of evolution) and teaching for understanding (instruction aimed at simply

informing students about different perspectives on evolution). Donnelly, Kazempour, and Airshokoohi

(2009) add that ‘‘acknowledging acceptance [is not required] early during instruction may relieve students’

tensions about learning evolution and communicate teachers’ respect for students’ views.’’

Teaching for understanding is not equivalent to framing evolution discussion in terms of taking a poll

on a controversial issue (i.e., as simply a matter of opinion). This important distinction is illustrated by

Mr. Howe’s non-authoritative framing of evolution discussions. Although students were afforded the option

to disagreewith the validity of evolutionary theory, the teacher did not establish a basis for rejection, choosing

instead to simply state students’ right to disagree (‘‘whether you agree with it [evolutionary theory] or not’’

and ‘‘you may not agree with them [Darwin’s ideas]’’). Such framing is problematic because it has the

potential to foster student misconceptions about the nature of science by creating the impression that

judgments about the validity and reliability of scientific theories and claims are based on opinions

rather rigorous collection and analysis of empirical data. Instead of simply granting students the option to

disagree or reject evolution, teachers should inform students explicitly about how differences of opinion

and disagreement are resolved in science and frame their participation in evolution discussion accordingly

(i.e., in terms of optional evidence-based acceptance or disagreement).



Mr. Howe’s appeal to the state standards to justify his request for student participation in evolution

discussion supports arguments previously made by educational researchers with the regard to the value and

usefulness of quality evolution standards. As emphasized by Donnelly and Boone (2007), state standards can

provide biology teacherswith an effectiveway of justifying the teaching of evolution to doubtful and resistant

students, thus alleviating some of the burden and pressure commonly experienced by teachers during

evolution instruction. However, as our findings show, to effectively frame evolution discussions as

intellectual activities, teachers need to use state standards not as an excuse for ‘‘having to’’ discuss evolution

with students but rather as a reasonable and useful state mandate being implemented with a certain degree of

volition or voluntary inclination for its informative value.

Significance and Limitations

We believe that our findings have practical as well as scholarly significance. At a practical level, we can

glean from this study a sense ofwhat constitutes intellectual evolution discussion in classroom settings with a

raised awareness of a variety of oral strategies that biology teachers can strategically use to framewhole-class

discussions about evolution intellectually. We can also draw from these findings a raised awareness of the

many alternative ways that teachers can orally frame evolution discussion including as verbal exchanges

about varied topics such as standard concepts, students’ ideas and opinions, evolution communication, nature

of science, and history of evolution. Furthermore, student participation in these teacher–student verbal

exchanges can be framed as polite and respectful, serious, moderately playful, partially mandatory, optional,

expertise-based or partially independent of social status. Moreover, in framing evolution discussion

intellectually, teachers can align themselves with different social groups, including historical figures such as

Darwin, scientists who are experts in evolution, the general public, and state officials who establish the

science learning standards. These alternative forms of orally framing evolution discussion can have important

social and epistemological implications for student learning which teachers should carefully and critically

consider to select the most appropriate and effective facilitative approach to evolution discussion for their

specific educational context.

Our research findings illuminate subtle aspects of teacher oral practice that can afford and constraint

classroom discussion of a topic as controversial and complex as evolution. This type of exploratory discourse

analysis is essential if science educators are to develop an improved understanding of how evolution can be

effectively communicated in classroom settings, and an ability to skillfully support teachers and students

struggling with the communicative, social, cognitive, and epistemological demands of evolution discussion.

As this study shows, such research can provide new and useful insights into social phenomena such as

respect, politeness, and humor that have been for the most part overlooked by science educators who set

out to teach evolution through discussion but that are very important for the effective management of

classroom deliberation of controversy and engagement of students in a productive, high-quality, intellectual

dialogue.

Themain scholarly implication of our study is that it underscores the need for educational researchers to

attend to the social dimension of teacher-facilitated evolution discussions. Previous research has focused

primarily on the cognitive challenges of discussing evolution in classroom settings. However, evolution

discussion is fundamentally a social activity. The social work that effective framing of evolution discussion

requires is not merely a distraction from cognitive issues and conceptual argumentation. Instead, it enables

teachers to establish and sustain a social matrix within which intellectual argumentation and meaningful

debate of evolution becomes possible. Understanding this social dimension in its complexity requires a robust

theoretical framework, which is precisely the main scholarly contribution of this study to the literature on

evolution instruction. Our framework can be further utilized by researchers to conduct empirical studies on

the challenges of teacher-led evolution discourse.

Despite its practical and theoretical significance, we would like to note various limitations of this study.

One important limitation is our characterization of a teacher’s oral framing strategies based exclusively on

data from video-recordings of three relatively short evolution discussions in a single classroom setting.

Because of this limited scope, many relevant issues remained unaddressed in our exploratory analysis of

evolution instruction, including the extent to which the oral framing strategies reported in this study can be

effectively and appropriately adopted by teachers to facilitate evolution discussions across varied education



contexts (conservative, liberal, suburban, rural, and urban), how teachers’ oral framing practices relate to

their evolution understandings (content knowledge, acceptance, and epistemological stance), and the impact

of teachers’ oral framing of evolution discussion on learning outcomes (e.g., students’ conceptual

understandings, acceptance of evolution, views of the nature of science, epistemological positions, and views

of evolution instruction). Additional studies will be necessary to explore these aspects of teacher-led

evolution discussion.

This study also has an important methodological limitation, namely the unavailability of teacher

interview data. Because time constraints prevented us from conducting formal interviewswithMr. Howe, we

were unable to elicit teacher reflection on the reasons behind his oral framing strategies, including his specific

learning goals, aims, plans, and intentions for facilitating evolution discussion the way he did. Nonetheless,

our informal interactions with the teacher provided us with a substantial amount of information on the

teacher’s perspective. This informal data was used to inform and validate our theoretical interpretations of

the teacher’s oral framing of evolution discussion. As emphasized by language theorists such as de Saussure

(1972), speakers’ intentions, goals, and aims are not independent from the meanings of the words they utter.

Therefore, it can be argued that for the most part Mr. Howe’s linguistic choices in orally framing evolution

discussionwere indeed indicative of his intentions and educational goals. Any potential discrepancy between

his intentions and our analytical interpretations of the theoretical reasons behind their oral practices was

reasonably minimized during our informal debriefing.

Our findings afford some interesting directions for future research on evolution instruction. Researchers

can examine both quantitatively and qualitatively how student understanding and acceptance of evolution

relate to different aspects of teachers’ oral framing of evolution discussion, namely the focus, orientation,

social structure, mood, and participatory nature of such instructional activity. This research is likely to offer

biology educators valuable insights on how to effectively frame intellectual evolution discussion in the

secondary classroom.

This project was funded by the National Science Foundation Small Grant for Exploratory Research

(SGER) program Grant #0738247.

References

Angrosino,M.V., & Perez, K.A. (2000). Rethinking observation: Frommethod to context. In N. Denzin&Y. Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 673–702) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Banet, E., &Ayuso, G.E. (2003). Teaching biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school.

International Journal of Science Education, 25, 373–407.

Bateson, G. (1955). The message ‘‘This is play’’. In B. Schaffner (Ed.), Transactions of the second conference on

group processes. (pp. 145–242) New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.

Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed

ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34, 167–194.

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods

(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Brem, S.K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. (2003). Perceived consequences of evolution: College students perceive

negative personal and social impact in evolutionary theory. Science Education, 87, 181–206.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals of language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Chazan, D., & Ball, D. (1999). Beyond being told not to tell. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19, 2–10.

Cherif, A., Adams, G., & Loehr, J. (2001). What on ‘‘earth’’ is evolution: The geological perspective of teaching

evolutionary biology effectively. The American Biology Teacher, 63, 569–591.

Cobern, W.W. (1994). Point: Belief, understanding, and the teaching of evolution. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 31, 583–590.

Cook,K. (2009).A suggested project-based evolution unit for high school: Teaching content through application. The

American Biology Teacher, 71, 95–98.

Cooper, R.A. (2001). The goal of evolution instruction: Should we aim for belief or scientific literacy? Reports of the

National Center for Science Education, 21, 14–18.



Cotton, D.R.E. (2006). Teaching controversial environmental issues: Neutrality and balance in the reality of the

classroom. Educational Research, 48, 223–241.

Craig,R.T.,&Sanusi,A.L. (2000). ‘‘I’m just saying. . .’: Discoursemarkers of standpoint continuity.Argumentation,

14, 425–445.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Dabbs, J.M. (1985). Temporal patterns of speech and gaze in social and intellectual conversation. In H. Giles & R.N.

St. Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication and social psychology. (pp. 182–198). London: Erlbaum.

Davison, R.M. (2003). Discussants and the quality of interaction at conferences. Communications of the Association

of Information Systems, 11, 128–137.

de Saussure, F. (1972). Course in general linguistics. (pp. 8–17). La Salle, IL: Open Court Classics.

Demastes, S.S., Good, R.G., & Peebles, P. (1996). Patterns of conceptual change in evolution. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 33, 407–431.

Donnelly, L.A., & Boone, W.J. (2007). Biology teachers’ attitudes toward and use of Indiana’s evolution standards.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 236–257.

Donnelly, L.A., Kazempour, M., & Airshokoohi, A. (2009). High school students’ perceptions of evolution

instruction: Acceptance and evolution learning experiences. Research in Science Education, 39, 643–660.

Duveen, J., & Solomon, J. (1994). The great evolution trial: Use of role-play in the classroom. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 31, 575–582.

Erickson, F. (1996). Ethnographic microanalysis. In S.L. McKay & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and

language teaching. (pp. 283–306). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feldman, R. (Ed.). (1986). The social psychology of education: Current research and theory. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Fifield, S., & Fall, B. (1992). A hands-on simulation of natural selection in an imaginary organism,Platysoma apoda.

The American Biology Teacher, 54, 230–235.

Geraedts, C.L., & Boersma, K.T. (2006). Reinventing natural selection. International Journal of Science Education,

28, 843–870.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row

Publishers.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goldston, M.J.D., & Kyzer, P. (2009). Teaching evolution: Narratives with a view from three southern biology

teachers in the USA. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 762–790.

Griffith, J.A., &Brem, S.K. (2004). Teaching evolutionary biology: Pressures, stress and coping. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 41, 791–809.

Hermann, R.S. (2008). Evolution as a controversial issue: A review of instructional approaches. Science and

Education, 17, 1011–1032.

Hess, D.E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7,

173–192.

Jackson, D.F., Doster, E.C., Meadows, L., & Wood, T. (1995). Hearts and minds in the science classroom: The

education of a confirmed evolutionist. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 585–611.

Jensen, M.S., & Finley, F.N. (1996). Changes in students’ understanding of evolution resulting from different

curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 879–900.

Jensen,M.S.,&Finley, F.N. (1997). Teaching evolution using a historically rich curriculum&paired problem solving

instructional strategy. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 208–212.

Kampourakis, K., & McComas, W. (2010). Charles Darwin and evolution: Illustrating human aspects of science.

Science & Education, 19, 637–654.

Kelly, T.E. (1986). Discussing controversial issue: Four perspectives on the teachers’ role. Theory and Research in

Social Education, 19, 113–138.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Marcelos, M., & Nagem, R. (2010). Comparative structural models of similarities and differences between vehicle

and target in order to teach Darwinian evolution. Science & Education, 19, 599–623.

McCully, A. (2006). Practitioner perceptions of their role in facilitating the handling of controversial issues in

contested societies: A Northern Irish experience. Educational Review, 58, 51–65.

McGinnis, J.R., & Simmons, P. (1999). Teachers’ perspectives of teaching science–technology–society in local

cultures: A sociocultural analysis. Science Education, 83, 179–211.



Mead, J.M., & Scharmann, L.D. (1994). Enhancing critical thinking through structured academic controversy.

The American Biology Teacher, 56, 416–419.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, J.C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication

Theory, 10, 310–331.

Miller-Lane, J., Denton, E., & May, A. (2006). Social studies teachers’ views on committed impartiality and

discussion. Social Studies Research and Practice, 1, 30–44.

Moore, R. (2001). The lingering impact of the Scopes trial on high school biology textbooks. Bioscience, 51,

790–796.

Morishita, F. (1991). Teaching about controversial issues: Resolving conflict between creationism and evolution

through a law-related education. The American Biology Teacher, 53, 91–93.

Nickels, M.K., Nelson, C.E., & Beard, J. (1996). Better biology teaching by emphasizing evolution and the nature of

science. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 332–336.

Niemi, N.S., & Niemi, R.G. (2007). Partisanship, participation, and political trust as taught (or not) in high school

history and government classes. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35, 32–61.

Nieswandt, M., & Bellomo, K. (2009). Written extended-response questions as classroom assessment tools for

meaningful understanding of evolutionary theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 333–356.

Oliveira, A.W. (2009a). ‘‘Kindergarten, can I have your eyes and ears?’’ Politeness and teacher directive behaviors in

inquiry-based science classrooms. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 803–846.

Oliveira, A.W. (2009b). From professional development to classroom instruction: Addressing issues related to

science inquiry discourse. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 865–873.

Oyler, C. (1996). Making room for students: Sharing teacher authority in room 104. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). Amodeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 39, 185–204.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Perry,W.G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston, Inc.

Roberts, D. (2008). Scientist says creation debate too hostile. Retrieved October 23rd, 2009 from http:/ /

media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/news/scientist-says-creation-debate-too-hostile-1.343233#4

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.

Rowland, T. (1999). Pronouns in mathematics talk: Power, vagueness and generalization. For the Learning of

Mathematics, 19, 19–25.

Rowland, T. (2000). The pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse. London:

Falmer Press.

Sandoval, W.A., & Daniszewski, K. (2004). Mapping trade-offs in teachers’ integration of technology-supported

inquiry in high school science classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 161–178.

Scharmann, L.C. (1990). Enhancing an understanding of the premises of evolutionary theory: The influence of a

diversified instructional strategy. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 91–100.

Scharmann, L.C., & Harris, W.M. (1992). Teaching evolution: Understanding and applying the nature of science.


Scharmann, L., Smith, M., James, M., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction:

Evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 27–41.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seizer, S. (1997). Jokes, gender, and discursive distance on the Tamil popular stage. American Ethnologist, 24,

62–90.

Silverstein, M., & Urban, G. (1996). The natural history of discourse. In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds.), Natural

histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smith, M.U. (1994). Belief, understanding, and the teaching of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

31, 591–597.

Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity

work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 393–429.

Tannen, D. (1985). Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In D.R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A.

Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing. (pp. 124–147).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Tavares, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., & Mortimer, E. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and

argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science & Education, 19, 573–598.

Tracy, K. (1997). Colloquium: Dilemmas of academic discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tracy, K., & Baratz, S. (1993). Intellectual discussion in the academy as situated discourse. Communication

Monographs, 60, 300–320.

Tracy, K., & Carjuzaa, J. (1993). Identity enactment in intellectual discussion. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology, 12, 171–194.

Trowbridge, J.E.,&Wandersee, J.H. (1994). Identifying critical junctures in learning in a college course on evolution.


van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 6(2), 227–271.

Waring, H.Z. (2002). Displaying substantive recipiency in seminar discussion. Research on Language and Social

Interaction, 35, 453–479.

Winslow, M., Staver, J., & Scharmann, L. (2009). Evolution and personal religious belief: Christian biology-related

majors’ search for reconciliation at a Christian university. In NARSTannual international conference [CD ROM]. Garden

Grove, CA: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.



framing evolution discussion intellectually

Documents