Gwaza Terseer Henry


This study looks at dialogue as a vital tool for teaching and learning in a Physical and Life Science classroom. Dialogue could elicit responses that could raise issues bothering science learners as well as science teachers, while teaching and learning goes on in the classroom or even out of classroom situations. Physical and Life Science is perceived as tough disciplines. This perhaps explains why using dialogue could discover strengths and weakness of both learners and teachers in these disciplines. The data for this qualitative study was collected from a focus group interviews. The response from Both Physical and Life Sciences learners (students), who offer between Mathematics and Mathematics literacy, were interviewed. The feedback from the interviews were transcribed, coded and categorized into themes, as supported by Saldana (2009).The Issues discovered from this study range from, students’ background, creating an authentic environment for teaching and learning through Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), learners attitude, language used for communication while teaching and learning. This study got different feedbacks which supported discussions considered by the researcher. These feedbacks are from the Physical and Life Sciences Learners. In this context, Physical Science is made up of Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics. Biology and Health Sciences makes up Life Sciences in this study. The results suggest Learners had different interpretations about their teaching and learning in the classroom. This research was carried out in a township school in South Africa. In this qualitative study, however, it explains how dialogue could be used as a psychological tool (lens) to discover strengths and weakness of both learners and teachers in and out of the classroom learning situation.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



dialogue, feedbacks, learners’ background, parental roles. learners’ attitude, teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge, (PCK) and language discourse

Full Text:



Abell, S. K. & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76(6), 581: 595.

Blatchford, P. & Kutnick, P. (2003) (Eds). Special Issue: Developing group work in everyday classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1&2), 1:170.

Edwards, B., & Marullo, S. (1999). Universities in troubled times-Institutional responses. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(5), 754:765.

Hackling, M. W., Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. (2001). The state of science in Australian secondary schools. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 47(4), 6:17.

Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understandings in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323-337.

Kiemer, K. Groschner, A. Pehmer, A., & Siedel, T. (2015). Effects of a Classroom Discourse Intervention on Teachers’ Practice and Student’s Motivation to Learn Mathematics and Science. Science Journal of Learning and Instruction, 3(5), 94.

Lewthwaite, B (2000). Teaching Primary Science: How teachers see the problems. New Zealand: Research & Curriculum Divisions, Ministry of Education.

Matthew, S. (2008). Bridging the Language Barrier in Mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 372.

Odora-Hoppers, C. (2002). Indigenous Knowledge and Integration of Knowledge Systems: Towards a Conceptual and Methodological Framework. In C. Odora Hoppers (ED.). Indigenous Knowledge and the Integration of Knowledge Systems: Towards a Philosophy of Articulation. New Africa Books: South Africa.

Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In Piaget and his school. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin.

Robertson, K. (2007). Connect Students’ Background Knowledge to Content in the ELL Classroom. Retrieved 9 06, 2019, from

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers.London:Sage Publications.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs for the study of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Hand book of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Sun, L. & Bradley, K. (2006). Factors Impacting Science Achievement Running head: Factors Impacting Science Achievement. A Multi-level Model Approach to Investigating factors Impacting Science Achievement for secondary school students-PISA. Kentucky: University of Kentucky.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. London: Harvard University Press.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Gwaza Terseer Henry

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).