The Potential of Photo-Talks to Reveal the Development of Scientific Discourses

doi:10.4236/ce.2012.32033

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2012. Vol.3, No.2, 208-216

Published Online April 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.32033

208

The Potential of Photo-Talks to Reveal the Development of

Scientific Discourses

Cassie Quigley1, Gayle Buck2

1Teacher Education, Clemson University, Clemson, USA

2Curriculum and Ins t ruction, Indiana University, Bloomingt o n , USA

Email: cassieq@clemson.edu

Received January 5th, 2012; revised February 15 th, 2012; accepted February 23rd, 2012

This study explores the potential of a photo-elicitation technique, photo-talks (Serriere, 2010), for under-

standing how young girls understand, employ and translate new scientific discourses. Over the course of a

nine week period, 24 kindergarten girls in an urban girls’ academy were observed, videotaped, photo-

graphed and interviewed while they were immersed into scientific discourse. This paper explicitly de-

scribes how their emerging discursive patterns were made visible through this methodological tool. The

findings are presented in vignettes in three themes uncovered during our analysis which are the following:

Presented the recollection of the scientific Discourse, Described the understanding of scientific Discourse,

and Created an opportunity for the translation into everyday discourse. Science educators can benefit

from this methodological tool as a reflective tool with their participants, to validate and/or complicate

data. Additionally, this methodological tool serves to make discourse patterns more visible by providing a

visual backdrop to the conversations thus revealing the development as it is occurring in young children.

Keywords: Photo-Elicitation; Photo-Talk; Science Education; Early Childhood Education

Introduction

“The butterfly is in the chrysalis stage!” Victory exclaimed

during a photo-talks conversation as she pointed to a digital

photograph of herself looking at the brown chrysalis in the jar

on the lab bench, “It was an egg then it formed its chrysalis or

pupa and then it will become a butterfly”. When asked how she

would describe this to her friends she remarked, “It is like when

you go into the dressing room and put on a church dress-you

act like someone different”. In this example, Victory, a kinder-

gartener in an all-girls urban public school, translated the scien-

tific language taught to her into her own language through the

use of an innovative photo-elicitation tool, photo-talks (Serriere,

2010). This tool provided a reflective moment in a democratic

and non-threatening way while providing a visual backdrop of

digital photographs taken during science lessons. We posit this

tool helped Victory to integrate her new scientific discourses.

This opportunity to discuss scientific knowledge while main-

taining her discursive identity is too often missing in science

classrooms; particularly those of marginalized children (Brown,

2004, 2006; Gallas, 1995; Lee, 2001; Lemke, 2001). Several

researchers (e.g., Chin, 2006; Delpit, 1988; Hanrahan, 1999,

2005; Lemke, 1990) discovered these language practices further

distances marginalized students from science while providing

support for more privileged students. Equitable instruction and

assessment practises for diverse students involve consideration

of their cultural experiences and local discourse, which enable

them to connect with science and maintain their identities (Lee,

2001).

By allowing students to maintain these identities, there is

support for their funds of knowledge which include the knowl-

edge students’ gain from their culture, communities, familial,

and linguistic backgrounds they bring with them to school

(Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). The use of integrated dis-

courses provides both the context and the tools needed for so-

cial and cognitive development, a missing link between home

and school still remains (Boyne, 2003; Gallas, 1995; Gutierrez

et al., 1999; Hogan & Carey, 2001; Lee & Fradd, 1998; Moje et

al., 2001). Presently there is a global initiative of maintaining

worldviews, languages, and environments of which science

education can be a part (McKinley, 2007). Using the frame-

work of congruence and third space informed by worldview

theorists, we are seeking to understand the how and the extent

to which scientific discourse is incorporated into the funds of

knowledge of kindergarten girls in an urban all girls science

academy. We sought to uncover the discourses through the use

of photo-methodologies.

With this study, we sought to explore the potential of a digi-

tal photo-elicitation method, photo-talks (Serriere, 2010), for

understanding integrated discourses (Moje et al., 2001). The

objective of this paper is to share this photo-elicitation tech-

nique, photo-talks (Serriere, 2010) with science educators so

they may use it as an innovative methodological tool to under-

stand the construction of integrated discourses (Moje et al.,

2001).

Framework for Understanding Science

Discourse in Classrooms

Engaging in scientific discourse is often difficult for young

children as they are learning to articulate their own ideas in

written and spoken language. To frame this study, we follow

Lemke’s (1990) lead that views science as having a specialized

system of words that require a particular set of language de-

pendent on concepts and themes. Often, this specialized system

of words is not readily made available to the students and can

C. QUIGLEY ET AL.

be difficult as they encounter new ways of talking, reading, and

writing. Moreover, school science requires students to integrate

the practises of prediction, observation, analysis, and presenta-

tion with science reading, writing, and language use (Lee &

Fradd, 1998). This ability to talk science has served as a gate-

keeper to the sciences for many students access to academic

success (Lemke, 1990). However research in elementary s cho ols

has demonstrated that students can understand and articulate

concepts such as observations, inferences, and predictions

through instruction that makes explicit connections to science

and allows the students to reflect (Akerson & Donnelly, in

press; Akerson & Volrich, 2006; Akerson, Hanson, & Cullen,

2007).

Studies of discourse in science offer a range of views and

provide examples of learning in science classrooms. These

discourse studies of classroom interaction revealed how science

is framed, who gets to speak in regard to science, and how is-

sues of language use encourage or hinder science learning. Yet,

even as science is made available to students through appropri-

ate discourse techniques, many of the studies found limited

participation and achievement of students talking science (Carl-

sen, 1997; Chin, 2006; Lee & Fradd, 1998; Lemke, 1990; Moje

et al., 2001; van Zee & Minstrell, 1997). This demonstrates a

continual problem for science education and a call for discourse

studies in science education with attention on congruence.

We utilize “Discourse”, with the upper-case “D”, to distin-

guish the use of the term from a mere stretch of language,

lower-case “d”, and “discourse”. Any stretch of language (dis-

course) is embedded in a particular way of knowing (Dis-

course). This way of knowing is linked to communities of prac-

tise (Lave & Wegner, 1991) in that certain people share genres

of language specialized for a smaller community (e.g., science

talk, football talk, music talk). For instance, scientists use

words such as, “cell”, “bar”, “force”, and “face” in very differ-

ent ways than a musician uses those same words. Thus, a regis-

ter is non-vernacular or often not a natural language for cultural

outsiders (Brown & Ryoo, 2009).

Following the lead of several scholars (e.g., Bhabha, 1994;

Gutierrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004; Soja, 1996), we call

this integration of knowledges and Discourses (Moje et al.,

2004) from different spaces the construction of “third space”.

Third space blends the first space of home Discourse with the

second space of school Discourses. According to this frame-

work, third spaces are created when scientific and everyday

discourses are combined through authentic integration. By

validating everyday discourse, the students understand scien-

tific concepts and are able to incorporate them into their every-

day discourse (Moje et al., 2001).

Photo-Talks as a Means to Uncover How

Students Integrate Discourses

As sociologists using photo-elicitation discovered (Ewald,

1996, 2000; Ewald & Lightfoot, 2001; Kistler, 2005) using a

photograph instead of a question, particularly when the partici-

pant is the subject of that photograph, photo-methodology can

generate insightful and unexpected information from the inter-

viewees through reflection (Davis, 1998; Hyde, 2005). Similar

to both Photovoice (Wan g, 2005) and Interpersonal Recall (IPR)

(Kagan, 1980), this method, photo-talks (Serriere, 2010) is

meant to balance power between the researcher and participants

by allowing the participants control over the interview by stop-

ping the slideshow at any moment and comment on a photo.

Secondly, the participants can describe the moments to the

researcher or teacher, and render the data more complex. This

methodological tool is used as a way to remind students about

what happened, ask questions about these moments, and access

information about how they perceive the integration of dis-

courses into everyday language (Gutierrez, 2008; Moje et al.

2001). As well, photo-talks (Serriere, 2010) provides a tool to

understand the perspective of children who are learning to read,

write, and incorporate scientific discourse into their daily lives.

In this way, we extrapolate the potential of this methodological

tool for accessing young children’s knowledge of science words.

Presently, photo-talks are used in social studies education with

a primary focus on social reflection. We chose to work with this

particular methodological tool because of its ability to provide a

reflective component in a democratic and non-threatening way

while providing a visual cue to help the girls’ explain their use

of new and/or integrated discourses. Thus, in this paper, we

describe how photo-talks allowed us to gain understanding of

how these girls acquire and understand new scientific dis-

course.

Method

Timing and Duration of Study

To capture the everyday rituals and related discourses, we

were in a kindergarten classroom for approximately nine weeks

beginning in August with once a week follow-up visits for two

months ending in November. Researchers suggest that fluidity

and continuity in classrooms can be found in as little as three

weeks in the field (Cairns et al., 1995; Serriere, 2007), which

we were also able to find. We were in the classroom through

the completion of the first science unit, titled, “All about me/all

about my city”. The content of this unit is an integrated place-

based/problem based unit wherein the girls will le arn “all about

me”, which includes lessons on the human body (i.e. body parts,

functions of the parts, digestion) and a place-based component

titled, “all about my city”. In this component, the girls learned

what makes their city unique. The content of this component

included construction, understanding life cycles, season, water

quality, shapes, and measuring devices. During this time, the

girls visited local places sites. This unit was aligned to the state

standards meeting several standards across the curriculum (in-

cluding math, science, and language arts standards) with the

primary focus on science.

Context

The enrollment of the District in which we worked was

12,731 students. The ethnic/racial composition was 97% Afri-

can American, 1% Multiracial, 1% Caucasian, 1% Latino.

Sixty-eight percent of the cooperation was free lunch, 30% paid,

and 2% reduced. The percentage passing the state test is 50.4%.

The graduation rate was 50.3% (IDOE, 2009). Within this dis-

trict, we concentrated on one school—Harmony Elementary

School. The majority of the 433 girls at the Harmony1 school

for science academy for girls2 live in one of the two public

housing developments within four blocks from the school. The

1The names of the school and participants are pseudonym s .

2The school became a gendered academy in 2004 as a part of a federal

restructuring mandate on the school.

C. QUIGLEY ET AL.

student population of the school is 99% Black and 1% Multira-

cial. Additionally, 88% of the students qualify for free lunch.

The gendered academy is in its sixth year and initiated a sci-

ence focus for their academy. For the past five years, the school

has made Adequate Yearly Progress for reading and math in all

grade levels.

This study took place in one kindergarten classroom in this

school. The teacher was Ms. Sanchez. She taught kindergarten

for 17 years and at Harmony since it opened its doors in 2004.

There were 32 African American girls in her classroom through

September; however, the classroom had to be reduced to 24

girls to comply with state laws. The average age of the girls

was 5 years and 4 months at the beginning of the study. All of

the girls’ parents identified their racial background as African-

American. All of the girls gave assent to participate in the study

and to be photographed. All of the girls’ parents gave consent

to participate in the study, to have their children be photo-

graphed and to have these photographs published.

Data Collection

Over the span of 9 weeks, we observed, videotaped, photo-

graphed and interviewed girls in a kindergarten classroom (n =

24) at an all girls elementary school in an urban area. For this

paper, our primary focus is to understand how the use of

photo-elicitation, specifically photo-talks (Serriere, 2010), pro-

vided insight into the girls’ acquisition of new science dis-

courses. The other data sources: field notes/observation and

videotaped recordings of classroom instruction were used vali-

date or complicate the data gathered from photo-talks (Serriere,

2010). We present snippets of the responses to the photo-talks

to highlight the potential of the photo-methodology, rather than

findings. In this methodological tool, which Serriere adapted

from Photovoice (Wang, 2005) and Interpersonal Process Re-

call (IPR; Kagan, 1980), digital photographs were taken of a

variety of science moments. A slideshow of these moments was

created and the girls were shown the pictures, allowing them to

stop the slideshow at any picture. Once the student stops the

slideshow, time was given so the student could make comments

or ask questions about the particular picture. Following these

comments, as did Serriere (2010) in her research, we asked

questions about what the students were thinking or understand-

ing. The following is an explanation of the three-step process of

this methodological tool.

Step 1: We secured permissions and sought to minimize our

authority. After proper permissions were obtained from parents,

we told the children as a group that she would be taking photos

around the classroom and if they do not want their photograph

taken, they can tell us or their teacher and no one would be

upset with them. Once we began taking photographs, we sought

to be as unobtrusive as possible in their already occurring play

and work. Generally, we did not hold the camera to her face but

instead operated it from a small tripod sitting on a piece of fur-

niture. Moreover, as the classroom was well lit, using a flash

was rarely necessary. Still any adult presence with a camera

could undoubtedly impact students’ perceived freedom of

choice and create a presence of surveillance (Foucault, 1975). It

was imperative to our goal that we sought out not only the most

visible and audible groups of children, but also those that may

have less voice in science episodes. Moments of integrated

discourse were also of central importance to capture in deciding

what to photograph.

Step 2: We uploaded the photos. As each morning’s science

lesson came to a close so did our field notes, audio recording

and photography. We then immediately uploaded that day’s

photos onto the laptop and put them in a slideshow mode.

Step 3: We talked to the girls about their photos. At this point,

we invited children one-at-a-time to view the morning’s photo-

graphs in a slide show format. Depending on their duration, we

generally led one to three photo-talks per day. We first re-

minded the children that they could get up and leave at anytime

and no one would be upset with them. Some children immedi-

ately took us up on this offer and returned to other classroom

activities. Most children seemed to have a sincere interest in

looking and talking about the photos. We allowed children to

control the forward button on the slideshow so they could de-

termine the length of time they would focus on any one photo.

They generally looked and talked about five to seven photos in

one sitting, which took about three minutes. We used our field

notes to remind children about words and actions surrounding

the scene of a photograph. Some children spontaneously led us

to the scene displayed in the digital photo, as if they wanted us

to better understand what happened. At other times, we asked

questions about a photo they found intriguing (see Appendix 1

for example of questions).

Data Analysis

In order to understand the extent to which this methodologi-

cal tool is useful for understanding student discourse for sci-

ence educators, we analysed the data using Miles and Huber-

man’s (1994) open-coding technique. In this way, we coded to

understand the methodological tool’s potential. Utilizing this

technique, we coded the data into related data sets using key-

words (i.e. self-correcting of science words, blending new

words). After the data was coded using keywords, we gathered

the data into related collections (i.e. use of science words)

which later became nested collections or the three themes pre-

sented in this paper: Presents recollection of scientific Dis-

course, Describes understanding of scientific Discourse, and

Provides an opportunity for translation into everyday dis-

course.

Findings

In this section, we present vignettes of the photo-talks in vivo.

The data is presented in snippets of the transcripts to allow the

reader to visualize how the photo-talks transpired, the questions

that we asked, the conversations that occurred between the girls

and us, and the language the girls used during photo-talks.

Presents Recollection of Scientific Discourse

This theme describes how the girls were able to recollect cer-

tain scientific Discourse via the photo-talks. Often, the girls

were able to use the words or invent their own pronunciation of

the words (i.e. “microscoper” for microscope). Other times, the

girls blended two words (i.e. the words, “pupa” and “caterpil-

lar” blend to become “caterpupa”; “magnifying glass” and “mi-

croscope” blend to become “magniscoper”). Similarly, the girls

used a word they had heard in class but were they were not

always used correctly. Through the use of photo-talks, we are

able to check the girls’ understanding of the words by showing

them a picture of a moment in which they used the word in

210

C. QUIGLEY ET AL.

class and then ask questions about that moment in time. In this

segment, Victory describes to us how she used the word, “pol-

linating” but does not fully understand the word. The picture

(see Figure 1) was taken during a “station time” in which the

girls were reading about plants and the conversation we had

about it:

CQ: You like this picture?

V: Yes!

CQ: What were you doing in that picture?

V: Showing you that they are getting nectar.

CQ: Nectar? What is nectar?

V: Food.

CQ: Food for whom?

V: The butterflies and bees.

CQ: Okay, and you were telling me that they were pollinat-

ing. Do you know what pollinating means?

V: No.

CQ: No? But you were using that word, huh?

V: Yeah.

CQ: So where had you learned that word?

V: In class.

CQ: In class, who had taught you that word?

V: Mrs. Sanchez.

CQ: Oh, okay so you knew it had something to do with this

bee and the flower?

V: Yes.

(PT1:V:05/05/2009:1-14)

Here, Victory was able to incorporate the scientific discourse

used by her teacher but not able to make meaning about this

word out of its context. This is interesting to note, that Victory

was able to use the word during class time but not during the

context of photo-talks. Through the use of photo-talks, we were

able to capture her use of this word, provide a prompt for recall

of this moment, and ask her about it. What is important to note

is that Victory understood some aspects of pollination and was

able to use the word correctly even though she does not fully

grasp the concept of pollination.

Another way photo-talks presented the recollection of scien-

tific discourse was when the girls attempted to use the new

words. In a conversation with Shauntaysia (see Figure 2), we

discovered that the girls would blend or invent new words even

though they conceptually understood the science word:

CQ: You wanna tell me about that picture? [Shauntaysia

nods] Okay, what do you wanna tell me?

S: I was lookin’ at the signs in the glasses, and I see a sight.

CQ: What was that glasses thing called?

S: Reindeer.

CQ: No. I mean that thing that, the tool that you were lookin’

through, what’s that called?

S: Magniscoper.

CQ: Almost. A magnifying glass. Do you know what a mag-

nifying glass is? What did it help you do?

S: It helped you to see somethin’ bigger.

(PT7S:09.10.2010:4-18)

In this example, Shauntaysia conceptually understood what a

magnifying glass was as she descri bed it as, “it helped you see

somethin’ bigger” and called it a “magniscoper”. Here, we

understood what she meant and asked her about its use. In this

way, photo-talks presented recollections of scientific Discourse

(including understanding of these words) by providing the girls

with a way to visibly discuss these words and ideas. By em-

Figure 1.

Victory shows me a book and tells me “they are pollinating”.

Figure 2.

Shauntaysia lookin g through the magnify ing glass.

ploying Gee’s conception of upper-case Discourse in combina-

tion with the photo-elicitation technique, we see the girls learn-

ing new Discourse even though they confuse, blend or invent

new words when attempting to discuss these words.

Describes an Understand in g of Scientific Discourse

In this theme, Describes an understanding scientific Dis-

course, photo-talks shed light on the girls’ knowledge of new

words. Photo-talks provided a space for insights into the girls’

comprehension of scientific Discourse. Additionally, this meth-

odological tool provided us with a tool to help the girls with

recall of what happened in class.

In this segment, Mrs. Sanchez was teaching the girls about

composting at the same time as she was teaching about plants.

She hoped the compost would be able to turn to soil and the

girls would be able to add it to the indoor vegetable garden they

created. In this segment, Victory describes the definition of a

new science word, “germinate”. During the classroom instruc-

tion, we witnessed a conversation between Victory and Mrs.

Sanchez about re-planting Victory’s plant (see Figure 3) be-

cause her seed did not germinate. Later, we spoke with Victory

about the conversation:

CQ: Okay, so let’s look at all the pictures first and then you

can tell me which is your favourite picture of you. Okay?

V: This one!

C. QUIGLEY ET AL.

Figure 3.

Victory is planting a new seed because her previous seed did not ger-

minate.

CQ: You like that one? Why do you like that one?

V: Because I’m putting a seed in the pot.

CQ: You are putting the seed in there. And why did you have

to put the seed in there again?

V: Because uh, the first one wasn’t growing.

CQ: So, here Mrs. Sanchez is looking at your shovel at the

seed. And she said to you, “That seed, your seed didn’t germi-

nate”. And you shook your head and said, “No”. Do you know

what germinate means?

V: Grow.

(PT1/V:05/10/2009:3-8)

During this segment of photo-talks, we were able to remind

Victory, what happened in the class. Victory was able to de-

scribe the word “germinate” as “grow”. During the classroom

instruction, she demonstrated her knowledge of this word when

responding to her teacher’s question about whether or not her

seed germinated. By capturing this moment and interviewing

her with photo-talks, we were able to discover if she understood

the word, “germinate” or if she was attempting to placate the

teacher by nodding. In this way, this methodological tool un-

covers an important component of discourse acquisition-use

and recollection of words.

Similarly as the girls grappled with difficult science words,

their understanding was demonstrated through this methodo-

logical tool. In the following example (see Figure 4), Kimberly

demonstrated her understanding of the lifecycle of the butterfly

but was confused about compost. She described compost as

something that the butterflies eat:

CQ: And how did they become butterflies?

KB: They first they were a caterpillar and then they kept eat-

ing and eating and then they turned into they chrysalis and then

one came into a butterfly and then the rest of them came.

CQ: Okay and what were they eating?

KB: Compost.

(PT3/KB:05/28/2009:19-23)

In this example, we were able to witness Kimberly’s under-

standing of how a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly but also

hear her confusion with what compost is and how it was related

to the butterfly lesson. Later (see Figure 5), she went on to

describe her understanding of compost as:

CQ: Kimberly, will you tell me about what went inside the

compost.

KB: Yes.

Figure 4.

Kimberly (far left) with classmates looking at the chrysalises.

Figure 5.

Kimberly (in bac k) l ooki ng i nto the compost bin.

CQ: What did you put inside there?

KB: Grapes, potato peels, paper, newspaper, coffee grounds.

But we didn’t put any cheese in there-cause you know it would

rot and stuff.

Her understanding of what did and did not belong in the

compost bin was clear and her ability to articulate this under-

standing was demonstrated during our photo-talk. In this way,

this methodological tool highlighted her understanding of the

word, “compost” but also described moments of confusion the

girls have during their process of language acquisition.

In another example, photo-talks presented the girls’ ability to

use integrated discourses. In a lesson about metamorphosis,

Sharelle pointed at the tadpoles and discovers one no longer has

a tail (see Figure 6). She exclaimed during the class, “It is a

frog now. It is a frog!” During the photo-talks interview, she

asked to look at this picture and wondered how the tadpoles

turned into frogs. During this discussion, she came to her own

decision about the lifecycle of a frog and used integrated dis-

courses to describe the process:

S: How do tadpoles grow into frogs?

I: You’ve been watching them in class. So, what did you no-

tice?

S: I noticed that they look like donuts but they are all gath-

ered up into a like, uh, sticky jelly like jelly donuts and then

when they crack open they will be tadpoles and then it grows

front legs and back legs and then moves its tail and then it

212

C. QUIGLEY ET AL.

Figure 6.

Sharelle pointing at the tadpoles.

looses its tail and then it become a frog.

I: Okay alright that is great.

(PT2/SF/05.08.2009/20-25)

Here, Sharelle was able to use the language that was avail-

able to her to describe the lifecycle stages between eggs, tad-

poles, and frogs. While she may not have had all of the techni-

cal vocabulary, she was able to talk about the process in her

own words using analogies such as the fish eggs looking like

jelly donuts. We posit that through the use of photo-talks she

was able to reflect on this moment. It provided her with another

opportunity to challenge her own thinking about the lifecycle of

frogs.

In another example, we talked with Talia and we learned

how she understood pollunation and some of the parts of a but-

terfly (see Figure 7). During this class session, in which the

girls were going outside to visit their butterflies that they had

released earlier that week, we took a picture of Talia and her

classmates running towards the grass.

In the photo-talks interview, she described her understand-

ings of the butterfly’s proboscis. Although she used the word

“straw” to describe it, through this conversation, she describes

this anatomy using her own words:

CQ: Okay and here you were running out. What were you

running out to go see?

T: The butterflies.

CQ: Oh, did you see any butterflies?

T: Yeah and some of them went to go get nectar but Nikaya

had swatted it. She made the butterflies go away.

CQ: What does nectar mean?

T: Nectar means honey.

CQ: And where do you find nectar?

T: In the flower.

CQ: Where in the flower-

T: It is deep down and my cousin, she had gotten honey on

my nose.

CQ: Oh my goodness. And so how does the butterfly eat the

honey?

T: It has a little straw and it goes down into the flower and

then it gets nectar.

CQ: Do you know what that thing is called that long part is

called?

T: It is called, a mouth.

(PT3/Talia/05.09.2009/20-33)

While “proboscis” is the accurate scientific word, “straw”

Figure 7.

Talia and her class ru nning after the butterflies.

also indicates that Talia understood the purpose of this structure

to remove the nectar. Considering proboscis is not a word her

teacher had used in the classroom, Talia had used the words she

had available to her and was able to describe the anatomy of the

butterfly. Through the use of this photo-elicitation technique,

we were able to check her understanding this word while pro-

vide her with a way she could talk to us about her language

skills.

An Opportunity for Translation into Everyday

Discourse

In this theme, we discovered photo-talks not only revealed

the girls’ emerging discourses, but also provided them with the

opportunity to translate new scientific discourse into their own

vernacular.

As a part of her observational focus, Mrs. Sanchez covered

lifecycles of a variety of objects throughout the year. One of her

favourite lessons was the lifecycle of the caterpillar. She bought

caterpillars from an online store and encouraged the girls to

observe their different stages. Then once they morphed into

butterflies, she allowed the girls to release the butterflies. On

this particular day, the girls noticed a change in the caterpil-

lar—it had turned into a pupa. The girls crowded around the

vented plastic container for a look. The girls were making ob-

servations about it. In this segment, Victory asked us to stop on

this picture of her and her friends looking at the chrysalis. Dur-

ing the interview (see Figure 8), she described to us how she

would describe the life cycle of the butterfly to her friends.

CQ: You want me to stop here?

V: Yes.

CQ: What are you doing here?

V: Looking at the chrysalis.

CQ: Can you tell me where the caterpillar is?

V: In there (pointing to the jar). First they were a caterpillar

then they formed a chrysalis and then they turned into a butter-

fly

CQ: Okay and tell me about that chrysalis. What does

chrysalis mean?

V: Like a pupa.

CQ: What did it look l i ke? What did the chrysalis look like?

V: Gray.

CQ: What is a chrysalis?

V: It was an egg then it formed its chrysalis or pupa and then

C. QUIGLEY ET AL.

Figure 8.

Victory and classmates looking at the jar with the chrysalis.

it will become a butterfly. It is like a dressing room.

CQ: Like a dressing room? How would you describe this to

your friends?

V: It is like when you go into the dressing room and put on a

church dress, you act like someone different.

CQ: And that is what the butterflies were doing? When the

caterpillars are changing into the butterflies? I like that exam-

ple. That is a really good way to describe that Victory. Did you

think of that all by yourself?

V: Yes.

(PT:V:05/08/2009:24-32)

In this example, Victory was not only able to define the life

stages of a butterfly but also translate the scientific discourse

into her own language. As she described the caterpillar morph-

ing into the butterfly, she used the analogy of changing into a

church dress. Although certainly there were misconceptions

revealed here, what we found important was that Victory was

able to make the comparison of the caterpillar’s life of becom-

ing a butterfly and when you put on a church dress, “you act

like someone else”. This ability to use analogies is a critical

factor in children’s learning of language and content. It not only

speaks to cursory understanding but a transfer of knowledge

that often leads to success in solving problems (Brown, Kane,

& Long, 1989). Similarly it speaks to Victory’s ability to feel

comfortable using the discourse available to her to describe a

scientific phenomenon. Photo-talks helped to demonstrate Vic-

tory’s ability to use discourse with and/or without meaning and

create analogies when translating the knowledge into everyday

discourse. This ability is a key component of Third Space con-

struction. Additionally, integrated discourses provide both the

context and the tools needed for social and cognitive develop-

ment (Brown, 2004, 2006; Brown & Ryoo, 2008; Brown, Gray,

& Henderson, 2009; Hogan & Corey, 2001; Lee & Fradd, 1998;

Moje et al., 2001).

Being able to readily translate the words into everyday dis-

course was also uncovered through the use of photo-talks. In

the following example (see Figure 9), Macy was able to de-

scribe the process of composting to us in her own words while

also using the scientific discourse.

CQ: And um can you tell me what that is right there?

M: Ummm, (pause) It is uh, it is soil.

CQ: Is it soil yet?

M: No.

CQ: Nope. What is in there right now?

M: Uh a worm and and compost.

CQ: What does compost mean?

Figure 9.

Macy and her classm a t e s t o uc h i n g t h e c ompost.

M: Garbage but it is not the stinky garbage it the peelings,

you know like the peelings off the banana and orange and

grape and apple.

(PT:M:05/29/2009:1-8)

During our conversation, she was able to clarify that it is not

soil yet and described it as similar to garbage but not “stinky

garbage”. Through this interview technique, the picture allowed

her to be reminded of what the compost looked like, she de-

scribed it to us and was allowed time for clarification. In this

lesson on composting, Mrs. Sanchez helped the girls to under-

stand scientific concepts such as composting as a process of

transformation. As we document the discourse in the classroom

that incorporates third space construction, we were drawn to

these moments where the girls were understanding science

concepts, translated these ideas into their own words, but were

still teetering between first and second spaces such as Macy’s

description of compost as “not stinky garbage” but conceptually

understanding it is different from the garbage she is familiar.

These moments of discourse documented in this classroom help

to demonstrate that moments of congruence are not always a

perfect blend of the two spaces but representative of both

(Bhabha, 1997).

Discussion

As a result of the photo-talks, we were able to follow the

girls’ language acquisition, which we could ultimately use to

explore and promote Third Space construction in their class-

room. In this way, these conversations are one tool that re-

searchers can use to describe Third Space construction from the

students’ point of view.

Habashi (2005) encourages child researchers to be cautious

about unpacking children’s narratives about the world around

them, watching out not to impose personal perspectives on

complex situations and instead making every effort to decon-

struct the child’s voice and vision before inserting one’s own.

These suggestions challenged us to explore a broader array of

data collection and data analyses options; allowing us to ex-

plore the many ways in which children communicate. Not im-

posing personal perspectives on complex situations, such as

language acquisition of young, African American girls, is an-

other reason to listen to their voices, and use photos to elicit

thoughts on the world around them.

These moments of discourse documented in this classroom

214

C. QUIGLEY ET AL.

help to demonstrate that moments of congruence are not always

a perfect blend of the two spaces but representative of both first

and second spaces (Bhabha, 1997). As the girls become more

comfortable with their new words, they are creating new

knowledge and discourse. Sometimes these discourses are more

integrated (i.e. Victory describing the metamorphosis of a but-

terfly as a dressing room) which represent the integrated dis-

courses that Moje et al. (2001) document.

Photo-talks were able to render our data more complex. For

example, when Victory speaks the new science word in class

“pollinating” (see Figure 1), but is not able to describe the

word to us in the photo-talks conversation, we were able to see

what words she was having difficulty adding to her register.

Without the use of photo-talks, we might have assumed she

understood the word when she correctly identified the word and

described it to her peer. However, during the conversation the

complexity of her understanding was revealed: while she could

use the word correctly, she still had difficulty describing its

meaning. While Victory was able to use the science word in the

second space, the science lab; she was having difficulty trans-

lating the word into her everyday discourse. In this example,

congruent Third Space for Victory was not yet achieved.

Secondly, when Shauntaysia names a magnifying glass as a

“magniscoper” without the ability to probe deeper, we might

have assumed she did not understand what a magnifying glass

was. However, she conceptually describes it as “something that

makes things bigger” and blended two new words, “magnifying

glass” and “microscope”. Both new words and new science

tools they were using in the science lab. Photo-talks allow sci-

ence educators to recognize students’ understandings rather

than see how they are wrong or incorrect. Thus, photo-talks add

a layer of reflection on the third space and a way for teachers to

understand students’ use but also a way for researchers to ac-

cess it.

Additionally, photo-talks allowed us to witness the girls us-

ing the scientific discourse. Bhabha (1994) discusses making

words “one’s own” and we posit through this methodological

tool, it provides another space for the girls’ to practise incorpo-

rating the new words into their vernacular (p. 293). Moreover,

this reflection time, allow the girls to dip into the third space

again and become constructors of this space. In this way, the

photos provide a backdrop to ask questions about their under-

standings of this Discourse.

Conclusion

Through the use of this methodological tool, we found the

conservations to be directed by the girls and insightful into their

learning of their new and/or integrated discourses. Through the

use of photo-talks, we gained an understanding of the girls’

language acquisition and Third space construction. In this way,

these conversations are one tool that researchers can use to

describe third space construction from the students’ point of

view. Additionally, conversations around photographs allowed

for different types of data that both confirmed and served as

anomalies in comparison to field notes, video observation, and

teacher interviews. Overall, this methodological tool provided

us a way to check initia l interp retations on third space construc-

tion and acquisition of science discourse in a kindergarten

classroom. In this way, science educators can benefit from this

methodological tool as a reflective tool with their participants,

to validate and/or complicate their data.

The majority of the science discourse research continues to

be focused on one particular space: either scientific or instruc-

tional discourse. However, in order to understand how students

integrate this knowledge in their daily lives and truly teach

science to all, we must include the other aspects that contribute

to authentic science learning through congruence. In order to

create congruent learning spaces in science, students must be

able to maintain their identities, language, and worldviews by

allowing students to translate scientific discourse into their

everyday language and photo-talks is a methodological tool that

can enable researchers to document these spaces.

As our science classrooms continue to become linguistically

diverse and increasingly complex, it is becoming more difficult

to prepare teachers to attend to the language needs of all stu-

dents (Lee & Fradd, 1998; United States Census Bureau, 2000).

As science educators, we must be able to help educators create

spaces that encourage third space construction so that these

marginalized students can succeed in science. By providing

educators with ways to integrate scientific and everyday dis-

courses, we can help achieve this goal. Photo-talks is one

methodological tool that helps to remove power issues during

research and provide a way to visualize these third space mo-

ments through conversations with students.

REFERENCES

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.

Biesta, G. (2004). “Mind the gap!”: Communication and the educa-

tional relation. In C. Bingham, & A. Sidorkin (Eds.), No education

without relation. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.

Boyne, G. M. (2003). Utilizing traditional knowledge in a scientific

setting. Winds of Change, 18, 52-53.

Brown, B. A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture

of science and its implications for minority students. Journal of Re-

search and Science Teaching , 41, 810-834. doi:10.1002/tea.20228

Brown, B. A. (2006). “It isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff”:

Language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal of

Research and Science Teach i n g, 43, 96-126. doi:10.1002/tea.20096

Calabrese, B. A., (2007). Science learning in urban settings: Seeking

new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Re-

search in Science Teaching, 38, 899-917.

Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning

and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science

Education, 28, 1315-1346. doi:10.1080/09500690600621100

Davis, J. M. (1998). Understanding the meanings of children: A reflex-

ive process. Children & Society, 12, 325-335.

doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.1998.tb00089.x

Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Pedagogy and power in

educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58,

280-298.

Ewald, W. (1996). Black self/white self. Double Take Magazine, Sum-

mer, 54-66.

Ewald, W. (2005). In peace and harmony: Carver portraits. Richmond,

VA: Hand Workshop Art Center.

Ewald, W., & Lightfoot, A. (2001). I wanna take me a picture: Teach-

ing photography and writing to children. Boston: Center for Docu-

mentary Studi es and Beacon Press.

Foucault, M. (1975). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical

perception. London: Routledge.

Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s

questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in dis-

courses (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowl-

edge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and class-

C. QUIGLEY ET AL.

216

rooms. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

Gutierrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, A. H., & Chiu, M. M. (1999). Build-

ing a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices.

Theory in Practice, 38, 87-93. doi:10.1080/00405849909543837

Gutierrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P., Tejead, C., & Rivera, A. (1999).

Hybridity as a tool for understanding literacy learning: Building on

a syncretic approach . American Educational Research Association.

Hanrahan, M. (1999). Conceptual change and changes of the heart: A

reflexive study of research in science literacy in the classroom. Un-

published Dissertation, Brisbane: Queensland University of Tech-

nology.

Hanrahan, M. (2006). Highlighting hybridity: A critical discourse

analysis of teacher talk in science classrooms. Science Education, 90,

8-43. doi:10.1002/sce.20087

Hogan, K., & Corey, C. (2001). Viewing classrooms as cultural con-

texts for fostering scientific literacy. Anthropology and Education

Quarterly, 32, 214-244. doi:10.1525/aeq.2001.32.2.214

Hyde, K. (2005). Portraits and collaborations; a reflection on the work

of Wendy Ewald. Visual Studie s, 20, 172-190.

doi:10.1080/14725860500244043

Kagan, N. (Ed.). (1980). Influencing human interaction—Eighteen

years with IPR. New York: Wiley.

Kistler, A. (2005). Making pictures in Carver. In A. Kistler (Ed.), In

peace and harmony: Carver portraits. Richmond, VA: Hand Work-

shop Art Center.

Lee, O. (2001). Culture and language in science education: What do we

know and what do we need to know? Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 38, 499- 501. doi:10.1002/tea.1015

Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from

non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27, 12-

21.

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lemke, J. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives

on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38,

296-316.

doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2

-R

McKinley, E. (2007). Postcolonialism, indigenous students, and science

education. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of

Research on Science Education (pp. 199-226). Mahwah, NJ: Law-

rence Erlbaum Associates.

Moje, E. B., Tehani, C., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). Maestro,

what is “quality”?: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based

science. Journal of Resear c h in Science Teaching, 38, 469-498.

doi:10.1002/tea.1014

Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: A review

of research. Regional Language Centre Journal, 13, 14-36.

Serriere, S. (2010). Carpettime democracy: Digital photography and

socialconsciousness in the early childhood classroom. The Social

Studies, 102, 60-68. doi:10.1080/00377990903285481

Wang, C. (2005). Photovoice: Social change through photography.

URL (last checked 6 April 2007). www.photovoice.com.

Appendix 1

Script: I am going to show you some pictures of your class.

You can stop me at any time to look at a picture again or ask

any questions. I am just going to ask your ideas about what was

happening. There are no right or wrong answers. At any time,

you can stop me and tell me that you do not want to do this any

more and no one will be upset with you.

1) What was your favorite picture of you? Why?

2) Looking at this picture, what were you doing here?

3) Why were you doing that?

4) What do you think you learned while doing this?

5) Here, your teacher said, “…” What did that mean to you?

6) Did you understand the word “…”? What does that word

mean to you?

7) Here, you said, “…” Would you like to add anything to

that?

8) If you were to describe to your friend, what you were do-

ing here, what would you say?

9) Have you heard anyone outside of school, like a parent,

brother or sister, use the word, “…”? What were they talking

about?

10) What about on television or in movies? Who do you hear

using these science words that your teacher used today?

11) Is there anybody you know who does not use words like

this? Why not?

12) Looking at this picture, were you enjoying/not enjoying

what you were doing? Why?

13) Think of one memory you have of <context of investiga-

tion>. Tell me about it.

14) Thinking back to <context of investigation>, what do

you remembe r?

15) What did the other people do during this time?

16) If there was one thing you would say about that event it

would be…

17) How would you describe how this made you <act, feel,

understand other words> during other times?

18) Is there anything else you’d like to tell me?

19) Did I miss anything.