This document summarizes a study on power relations in inquiry-based science classrooms. It discusses the background of the study, difficulties with open inquiry approaches, and the centrality of power in pedagogy. It then describes direct and indirect techniques teachers use to enact power in the classroom, including surveillance, regulation, distribution, normalization, partisanship, persuasive discourse, and ownership of ideas. The document concludes by discussing implications for balancing understanding with task completion and allowing perplexity in science education.

1. Dr. Dermot F. Donnelly
Post-Doctoral Researcher
Technology Enhanced Learning in Science (TELS)
dfdonnelly@berkeley.edu; Twitter: @donn00

2. Overview
 Background of the Study
 Difficulties with Inquiry
 The Centrality of Power
 Direct and Indirect Techniques of Power
 Implications for (Science) Education

3. Background of the Study
(Yaron et al., 2003)

4. Spectrum of Inquiry
Open
Inquiry
Guided
Inquiry
Structured
Inquiry
Closed
Inquiry
Teacher
centered
Student
centered
(Blanchard et al., 2010)

5. Difficulties with Open Inquiry
 New roles that inquiry dictates.
 Political and cultural resistance.
(Smithenry, 2010)

6. Centrality of Power
 Continuity of power in pedagogy.
(Gore, 1995)
 A society without power is an abstraction.
(Foucault, 1983)
 ‘Didactic Contract’, ‘Classroom Game’, ‘Ritualized
Routines’.
(Brousseau, 1998; Lemke, 1990; Nuthall, 2005)

7. Centrality of Power
 ‘Who makes decisions for me?’
 ‘Who is preventing me from doing this and telling me
to do that?’
(Foucault, 1980, p. 145)

8. Micro and Macro Levels of Power
 Micro – Dynamic between individuals/groups.
(Cornelius & Herrenkohl, 2004)
 Macro – Very explicit manifestation of power.
(Gore, 1995)
 Direct and Indirect Techniques of Power Enactment.
(Donnelly, McGarr, & O’Reilly, in press)

9. Direct Power Techniques
1. Surveillance
Logistical – ‘Now, how’s it coming along?’
Conceptual – ‘What do you need to know about the
base?’
Nature of Interaction – Chance for meaning making?
(Mortimer & Scott, 2003)

10. Direct Power Techniques
2. Regulation
 Enforcing explicit rules through sanctions and
rewards.
(Gore, 1995)
 See Oral (2013) for examples – 13-14 year olds.

11. Direct Power Techniques
3. Distribution
 Student: I can’t log on.
 Teacher: Okay come over here to this one [computer].
Okay go on to that side. Thank you.

12. Indirect Power Techniques
4. Normalization
 Problem procedure – ‘If I see them going way off track
you have to pull them back a little bit so that they’re
not wasting the whole time’.
 Student conceptions – Volumes/Indicator to use.

13. Indirect Power Techniques
4. Normalization
Student/Teacher Roles
 ‘Pretty much just prepare for the exam and once you
get the information on it just use it in the exam and
that’s it.’ (Female student, Shane)
 ‘I like that the way that if you don’t understand
something you just put up your hand and you know
he’ll try and explain it to you.’ (Male student, Eric)

14. Indirect Power Techniques
5. Partisanship
 Student interaction with concepts and with each other.
(Cornelius & Herrenkohl, 2004)

15. Indirect Power Techniques
6. Persuasive Discourse
 Teacher: ... Do you understand the problem?
 Student: Yes, it’s to find the concentration of the ethanoic
acid in the vinegar.
 Teacher: Not really. What’s he [the problem] asking you
here?
 Student: With the concentration you can determine how
much water....
 Teacher: But what’s he asking you?
 Student: Oh it’s to decide whether or not the vinegar is up
to proper...

16. Indirect Power Techniques
7. Ownership of Ideas
 ‘for most of their experience in secondary school, the
teacher has chopped everything down into these very
easily digested nuggets of information’ (Eric).
 ‘I’ve never needed to be inventive outside of the virtual
lab.’ (Male student, Eric).
 ‘I can be very creative and imaginative in science.’
(Male student, Eric).

17. Implications for Science Education
 Power relations can be productive.
 Balance between understanding and ‘completion’.
 Predefined scenario with predefined outcomes.
 Tolerance for perplexed students.

18. Thank you!
Go raibh maith agaibh!
Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona!
Questions?
dfdonnelly@berkeley.edu
Twitter: donn00
www.slideshare.net/mynameisdermot

19. Bibliography
 Blanchard, M., Southerland, S., Osborne, J., Sampson, V., Annetta, L.,
& Granger, E. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A
quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry
and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–
616.
 Brousseau, G. (1998). Theorie des situations didactiques [Theory of
didactic situations]. Grenoble: La pensee sauvage. Coll. Recherches en
didactique des mathematiques [Research on the teaching of
mathematics].
 Cornelius, L. & Herrenkohl, L. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the
classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other
and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467–498.
 Donnelly, D. F., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (n.d.). “Just Be Quiet and
Listen to Exactly What He’s Saying”: Conceptualising Power Relations
in Inquiry Oriented Classrooms. International Journal of Science
Education. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.889867

20. Bibliography
 Gore, J. (1995). On the continuity of power relations in pedagogy.
International Studies in Sociology of Education, 5(2), 165–188.
 Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Selected
interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (pp. 134–145). Brighton:
Harvester.
 Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rainbow
(Eds.), Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed., pp. 208–226).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
 Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary
science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

21. Bibliography
 Nuthall, G. (2005). The cultural myths and realities of classroom
teaching and learning: A personal journey. Teachers College Record,
107(5), 895–934.
 Oral, Y. (2013). “The right things are what I expect them to do”:
negotiation of power relations in an english classroom. Journal of
Language, Identity & Education, 12(2), 96–115.
doi:10.1080/15348458.2013.775877
 Smithenry, D. (2010). Integrating guided inquiry into a traditional
chemistry curricular framework. International Journal of Science
Education, 32(13), 1689–1714.
 Yaron, D., Evans, K., & Karabinos, M. (2003). Scenes and labs
supporting online chemistry. In 83rd Annual AERA National
Conference, Chicago, IL.