This study investigated: i) whether Indonesian students transfer their Indonesian (L1) schema, rhetorical structures, and cultural conventions when engaged in seminars in English (L2) in Indonesian academic contexts; ii) whether Australian students transfer their Australian English (L1) schema, rhetorical structures, and cultural conventions when engaged in seminar presentations in Indonesian (L2) in Australian academic contexts; iii) the extent to which and in what ways the respective schema, rhetorical structures, and cultural conventions differ; iv) the functions of discourse markers in these seminars; and v) the use of signposts in presentations.The analysis of the schema, the rhetorical structures, and cultural conventions is limited to: i) the overall schema of a seminar; ii) the major components of a presentation; iii) the exchange structure of the question and answer sessions; iv) the rhetorical structure of presentation introductions; iv) the rhetorical structure of questions; and v) the rhetorical structure of answers.The data were obtained from tape and video recordings of four groups of student seminars as presented below.1. Indonesian students' seminars conducted in Indonesian in Indonesian academic settings.2. Indonesian students' seminars conducted in English in Indonesian academic settings.3. Australian students' seminars conducted in English in Australian academic settings.4. Australian students' seminars conducted in Indonesian in Australian academic settings.The Indonesian students' seminars in Indonesian and in English were held at the IKIP (Higher Institution for Teacher Training) Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia. The Australian students' seminars in English were held at Curtin University of Technology, Australia. The Australian students' seminars in Indonesian were held at Curtin University of Technology and Murdoch University, Australia. The ++ / seminars were part of students' course assignments. The topics of the seminars were social and educational issues. The age of the students ranged from 20 to 30 years old.A total of 67 seminars comprised the data. The findings have shown that:(i) Indonesian students transfer their Ll schema, rhetorical structures, and cultural conventions when engaging in seminars conducted in English in Indonesian academic settings.(ii) Australian students transfer their Ll schema, rhetorical structures, and cultural conventions when engaging in seminars conducted in Indonesian in Australian academic settings.(iii) Indonesian students' schema, rhetorical structures, and cultural conventions in seminars conducted in Indonesian differ from the Australian students' schema, rhetorical structures, and cultural conventions in seminars conducted in English.(iv) The equivalent discourse markers across the four groups have the same functions.(v) Indonesian students used more signposts in their presentations in English than the rest of the groups.The report of the study is presented in nine sections as shown below.Section A presents the introduction, review of the related literature, and methodology. Section B presents findings of the Indonesian data in Indonesian.Section C presents findings of the Australian data in English.Section D compares the findings of the Indonesian data in Indonesian and the Australian data in English.Section E presents the findings of the Indonesian data in English.Section F compares the findings between: i) the Indonesian data in Indonesian and the Indonesian data in English; and ii) the Indonesian data in English and the Australian data in English.Section G presents the findings of the Australian data in Indonesian.Section H compares the findings between: i) the Australian data in English and the Australian data in Indonesian; and ii) the Australian data in ++ / Indonesian and the Indonesian data in Indonesian.Section I presents conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further study.

There is a distinct divide between theory and practice in American science education. Research indicates that a constructivist philosophy, in which students construct their own knowledge, is conductive to learning, while in many cases teachers continue to present science in a more traditional manner. This study sought to explore possible relationships between a socioscientific issues based curriculum and three outcome variables: nature of science understanding, reflective judgment, and argumentation skill. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to examine both whole class differences as well as individual differences between the beginning and end of a semester of high school Biology I. Results indicated that the socioscientific issues based curriculum did not produce statistically significant changes over the course of one semester. However, the treatment group scored better on all three instruments than the comparison group. The small sample size may have contributed to the inability to find statistical significance in this study. The qualitative interviews did indicate that some students provided more sophisticated views on nature of science and reflective judgment, and were able to provide slightly more complex argumentation structures. Theoretical implications regarding the use of explicit use of socioscientific issues in the classroom are presented.

Recent scholarly work in mathematics education has included a focus on learning mathematics with understanding (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992; Hiebert et al., 1997; Fennema & Romberg, 1999; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). Hiebert et al. (1997) discussed two processes that they suggested increase understanding and that are central to this study: reflection and communication. Learning mathematics with understanding requires that the students create a deeper knowledge of mathematics through reflection and communication. The environment in which such learning can take place must include patterns of behavior, known as social norms that promote deeper thinking. When the social norms encourage reflection and communication among the members of the classroom community, or supports learning with understanding, it becomes what I term a productive discourse community. The purpose of this study is to find out what a teacher does to create and maintain a productive discourse community where students can reason and learn with understanding. To accomplish this purpose, this research asks the following question: In what ways does the teacher in the study direct mathematical discourse in order to facilitate understanding? To answer this research question, data was gathered from eight class periods. The classroom discourse was analyzed and six discourse generating tools were found to be used by the teacher: (1) using lower-order questions to engage students, (2) persisting in eliciting students' reasoning, (3) encouraging as many student participations as possible, (4) encouraging students to analyze and evaluate each other's comments, (5) encouraging students to share as many strategies as possible and (6) using a focusing discourse pattern. There were also three social norms found to be established in the classroom at the time of the data collection. These norms are: all students are expected to (a) participate (b) share their reasoning when called upon, and (c) listen to, analyze, and evaluate each other's comments. Through further analysis, it was found that the six discourse generating tools reinforced the social norms, while the social norms supported the six discourse generating tools. Thus creating an environment where reflection and communication occurred in a way that promoted learning mathematics with understanding.