Informal science education has critical importance in lifelong learning and supporting science learning and scientific literacy (Falk & Dierking, 2010). Science museum educators (SMEs) get into interaction with students in various ways in an informal learning setting (Shaby et al., 2019). Studies on informal learning settings mainly focused on how science teaching takes place in these settings, but very few examine the science museum educators’ (SMEs) role in the learning process (Tal, 2012; Plummer et al., 2021). Yet, the pedagogical choices and the ways of interactions with students in these settings has influence on the learning experiences (Tran, 2007). The studies pointed out the variation in informal educators’ teaching practices (Tal & Morag, 2007; Castle, 2006) and suggested that there is a need to examine how science teaching in these environments is socially mediated by focusing on the discursive moves of SMEs.

Social constructivism addresses that knowledge is constructed in social environments, which is constructed through language and discourse in science classrooms, underlining that social interaction takes place before scientific learning is internalized for individuals (Vygotsky, 1978). Classroom discourse is the specific verbal strategies that teachers utilize to facilitate teaching, which is critical for meaning-making of students (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). The discursive moves have been explored in the literature due to their influence on the social construction of knowledge (Chin, 2007; Soysal & Yılmaz-Tüzün, 2021). 

Chin (2007) examined how teachers utilize questioning in classroom discourse and how they scaffold science learning and the construction of scientific thinking. Six teachers were observed through 36 lessons, and a causal comparative method was implemented to reveal categories. The categories were found as Socratic, verbal jigsaw, semantic tapestry, and framing. By using Socratic questioning, the teachers aimed to facilitate students’ learning, use of framing helps teachers to make a summary and give a direction. Bansal (2018) examined teachers’ discursive moves and their aims in utilizing them. Observation and interview data were collected, and three dialogic moves were identified: foundation, initiation, and perpetuation, which were used for establishing classroom culture, eliciting students’ perspectives, and fostering idea exchange, respectively.

There were other studies examining discursive moves more in depth. Soysal (2019) examined discursive moves of science teachers during argumentation-based inquiry. The data were collected by videotaping, and the analysis of the lessons revealed six main higher-order categories of discursive moves: (1)knowledge providing/evaluating, (2)observe-compare-predict, (3)communication and framing, (4)evaluating-judging-critiquing, (5)challenging, and (6)managing discourse flow. The most frequently used discursive move was “challenging,” which was used to direct students to challenge in argumentation. In another study, Soysal and Yılmaz-Tüzün (2021) examined the association of teachers’ use of discursive moves and students’ cognitive contributions. In an argumentation-based inquiry teaching approach, chemistry activities were implemented in seventh-grade science classrooms, revealing that teachers were able to integrate variety of discursive moves, particularly communicating, evaluating-judging-critiquing, monitoring, and knowledge-providing-evaluating. The study underlined the importance of the relationship between the discourse of the teacher and the developing students’ understanding of scientific concepts.

In short, the studies of discourse in science classrooms show the factor of communication as an effective tool for science learning. These moves are used for diverse purposes, such as summarizing ideas (Bansal, 2018), facilitating thinking processes (Oh, 2010; Soysal, 2019; Chin, 2007), and elaborating on reasoning (Pimentel & McNeill, 2013). While numerous discursive moves have been identified within formal education learning environments, their application in informal learning settings remains underexplored. Therefore, the present study investigated the discursive moves of SMEs during the implementation of museum activities. This specific research question has guided the study:

• What are the discursive moves exhibited by science museum educators (SMEs) during activities in a science museum?

This instrumental case study (Yin, 2018) is designed to explore the discursive moves of SMEs during educational activities in a science museum. The qualitative approach enabled researchers to have an in-depth examination of SMEs’ practices in their natural settings (Creswell, 2007), which makes discursive moves an appropriate phenomenon to be examined. The activity implemented in the center was used as the case of the study. The unit of analysis was the SMEs’ discursive moves. Context and Participants Two science museum educators working in a science center in Ankara were selected via purposeful sampling as they were actively working in a science museum and offering educational activities in the museum. One of the activities of SMEs is observed, which focuses on recycling and Göbekli Tepe. These activities were selected as they offer rich opportunities for examination of the discursive moves of SMEs. Data Collection Two of the researchers collected data during these activities as non-participant observers. Data were collected using an observation protocol developed by researchers to record SMEs’ interactions and discursive moves systematically. The protocol consisted of two main sections: (a) contextual information part, such as covering duration, number of participants, and (b) discursive moves part, listing predetermined moves to enable the recording of them systematically. Data were collected simultaneously by the researchers. During the observations, SMEs’ interactions, questions, explanations, and answers were recorded on the protocol. Data Analysis The discursive moves were analyzed with the framework provided by Soysal (2019). With the codebook (Soysal, 2019), discursive moves were divided into ten higher-order categories considering their uses and functions in learning and teaching. Observations were examined individually based on predetermined categories. After the initial coding, the researchers compared their codes and reached consensus on the differences in the coding. Identified discursive moves and their subcategories were analyzed in detail, and the full codebook and its descriptions were presented in the results section.

Among 10 higher-order categories (Soysal, 2019), five of them were observed in the science museum, including knowledge providing and evaluating, communication, observe–compare–predict, monitoring and framing, and seeking evidence. Unique to this study, some new discursive moves emerged in this setting. A total of 127 discursive moves were detected and categorized in the scope of two activities observed. The “knowledge providing and evaluating” category was the most frequently observed discursive move (f=49; 38.58%). This category is used mostly for “presenting logical expositions” (f =41; 32.28%), whereas “direct affirmation” was the least frequent discursive move (f=3; 2.36%), indicating science museum knowledge transmission was used frequently. Communication was the second most frequent category (f=28; 22.05%). “Requesting clarification” and “reformulating” were not observed in this setting, but two new sub-categories (or discursive moves) emerged: “asking for definition” (f=6; 4.72%) and “asking for example” (f=2; 1.57%). “Probing” (f=11; 8.66%) and “embodying” (f=8; 6.30%) were also present, being positive indicators of communication, supporting engagement in science learning. The observe–compare–predict category was used more infrequently (f=17; 13.39%). “Making observations” dominated this category among the discursive moves (f=13; 10.27%), compared to “asking for comparison” (f=2; 1.57%) and “making predictions” (f=2; 1.57%), showing that children are encouraged to make observations very often in this setting. The monitoring and framing category (f=25, 19.69%) was mainly used for “prospective monitoring” (f=15; 11.81%). The other discursive moves were used much less, such as “monitoring (retrospective)” (f=5, 3.94%), “focusing” (f=3, 2.36%), “monitoring (on-moment)” (f=2, 1.57%), and “summarizing (consolidating)” (f=1, 0.79%), implying SMEs mainly focused on guiding learners’ thinking. For the seeking for evidence category (f=8, 6.30%), “asking for attachment” was used (f=5; 3.94%), and an additional sub-category emerged: “referring to visual evidence” (f=3, 2.36%). This highlights the role of visual materials in supporting evidence use in science museums.

Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891–1912. Castle, M. C. (2006). Blending pedagogy and content: A new curriculum for museum teachers. Journal of Museum Education, 31(2), 123–132 Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 815–843. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage. Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2010). The 95% solution. American Scientist, 98(6), 486–493. McMahon, K. (2012). Case Studies of Interactive Whole-Class Teaching in Primary Science: Communicative approach and pedagogic purposes. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1687–1708. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning-making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press. Oh, P. S. (2009). How can Teachers Help Students Formulate Scientific Hypotheses? Some Strategies Found in Abductive Inquiry Activities of Earth Science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541–560. Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367–394 Plummer, J. D., Ozcelik, T. A., & Crowl, M. M. (2021). Informal science educators engaging preschoolage audiences in science practices. International Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 91–109 Shaby, N., Assaraf, B. Z. O., & Tal, T. (2019). An examination of the interactions between museum educators and students on a school visit to science museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(2), 211–239 Soysal, Y. (2019). Fen öğretiminde öğretmenin söylemsel hamlelerinin öğrenenlerin akıl yürütme kalitelerin eetkisi: Söylem analizi yaklaşımı. Egitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi – Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(3), 994-1032. Soysal, Y., & Yilmaz‑Tuzun, O. (2021). Relationships between teacher discursive moves and middle school students’ cognitive contributions to science concepts. Research in Science Education, 51, 325–367. Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2007). School visits to natural history museums: Teaching or enriching? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 747–769 Tal, T. (2012). Out-of-school: Learning experiences, teaching and students’ learning. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tran, L. U. (2007). Teaching science in museums: The pedagogy and goals of museum educators. Science Education, 91(2), 278–297 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage.