Student Difficulties in Learning Density: A Distributed Cognition Perspective
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Density has been reported as one of the most difficult concepts for secondary school students (e.g. Smith et al. 1997). Discussion about the difficulties of learning this concept has been largely focused on the complexity of the concept itself or student misconceptions. Few, if any, have investigated how the concept of density was constituted in classroom interactions, and what consequences these interactions have for individual students’ conceptual understanding. This paper reports a detailed analysis of two lessons on density in a 7th Grade Australian science classroom, employing the theory of Distributed Cognition (Hollan et al. 1999; Hutchins 1995). The analysis demonstrated that student understanding of density was shaped strongly by the public classroom discussion on the density of two metal blocks. It also revealed the ambiguities associated with the teacher demonstration and the student practical work. These ambiguities contributed to student difficulties with the concept of density identified in this classroom. The results of this study suggest that deliberate effort is needed to establish shared understanding not only about the purpose of the activities, but also about the meaning of scientific language and the utility of tools. It also suggests the importance of appropriate employment of instructional resources in order to facilitate student scientific understanding.
- Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969. CrossRef
- Alac, M., & Hutchins, E. (2004). I see what you are saying: action as cognition in fMRI brain mapping practice. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3), 629–661. CrossRef
- Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.
- Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A Cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Driver, R., & Leeds National Curriculum Science Support Project. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. New York: Routledge.
- Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
- Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28(1), 1–26. CrossRef
- Greeno, J. G., & The Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and researching. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26. CrossRef
- Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A. B. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1–13. CrossRef
- Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (1999). Distributed Cognition: a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. TOCHI Special Issue on Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millennium, 7(2), 174–196.
- Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Hutchins, E. (2000). The cognitive consequences of patterns of information flow. Intellectica, 1(30), 53–74.
- Hutchins, E. (2001). Cognitive artifacts. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 126–127). Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Hutchins, E., & Hazlehurst, B. (2002). Auto-organization and emergence of shared language structure. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (Eds.), Simulating the evolution of language (pp. 279–305). London: Springer. CrossRef
- Hutchins, E., & Palen, L. (1997). Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech. In L. B. Resnick, R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 23–40). Heidelberg: Springer.
- Johnson, P., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). Rethinking the introduction of Particle Theory: a substance-based framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 130–150.
- Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34, 71–96. CrossRef
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
- Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Pub. Corp.
- Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications.
- McDonald, G., Le, H., Higgins, J., & Podmore, V. (2005). Artifacts, tools, and classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(2), 113–127. CrossRef
- Moore, J. L., & Rocklin, T. R. (1998). The distribution of distributed cognition: multiple interpretations and uses. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 97–113. CrossRef
- Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
- Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
- Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Renström, L. (1988). Conception of matter: a phenomenographic approach. Goteburg Studies in Educational Sciences, 69, 1–268.
- Roth, W.-M. (1996). Art and artifact of children’s designing: a situated cognition perspective. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 129–166. CrossRef
- Rowell, J. A., & Dawson, C. J. (1977). Teaching about floating and sinking: an attempt to link cognitive psychology with classroom practice. Science Education, 61(2), 245–253. CrossRef
- Ruthven, K., Laborde, C., Leach, J., & Tiberghien, A. (2009). Design tools in didactical research: instrumenting the epistemological and cognitive aspects of the design of teaching sequences. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 329–342. CrossRef
- Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry (pp. 1–104). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Smith, C., Maclin, D., Grosslight, L., & Davis, H. (1997). Teaching for understanding: a study of students’ pre-instruction theories of matter and a comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 317–393. CrossRef
- Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Developmental Science, 10(1), 121–125. CrossRef
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Xu, L., & Clarke, D. (2011). What does Distributed Cognition tell us about student learning of science? Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9207-8
- Student Difficulties in Learning Density: A Distributed Cognition Perspective
Research in Science Education
Volume 42, Issue 4 , pp 769-789
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Cognitive artefacts
- Conceptual understanding
- Distributed Cognition
- Student difficulties
- Social interactions