Abstract
Representations are now broadly recognized as crucial tools students need to use to become scientifically literate. The key question is what experiences and purposes are likely to optimize student interest in and capabilities with these tools? Research over the last 20 years has provided some answers and theories to address this question, but more research is needed to engage with emerging complexities. In this chapter I review how representations as learning tools are currently conceptualized, as well as theories that claim to account for students becoming competent in how to use them. While there has been extensive research on how and why students should learn canonical representations, here I consider research on students constructing their own representations as claims. This approach entails increased challenges for teachers, but there is a growing case for the value of students engaging in this creative activity. In reviewing relevant research, I note current competing theoretical accounts of what and how students learn from this activity and also the need for multi-theoretical perspectives to inform future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096–1097.
Barsalou, L. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts. A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195.
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication. A social-semiotic frame. New York: Routledge.
Carolan, J., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science: The Journal of The Australian Science Teachers Association, 54(1), 18–23.
Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343–363.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. Sternber (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
De Freitas, E., & Sinclair, N. (2012). Diagrams, gesture, agency: Theorizing embodiment in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1), 133–152.
diSessa, A. (2004). Meta-representation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331.
Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2019). Models in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2017 edn). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/models-science. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
Frigg, R., & Nguyen, J. (2019). Scientific representation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/scientific-representation. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
Furtak, E., Hardy, I., & Beinbrech, C. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 175–196.
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Gillies, R. M., & Baffour, B. (2017). The effects of teacher-introduced multimodal representations and discourse on students’ task engagement and scientific language during cooperative, inquiry-based science. Instructional Science, 45(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9414-4
Gooding, D. (2006). From phenomenology to field theory: Faraday’s visual reasoning. Perspectives on Science, 14(1), 40–65.
Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Braten, I. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of epistemic cognition. New York: Routledge.
Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–368.
Hand, B., McDermott, M., & Prain, V. (2016). Using multimodal representations to support learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Hoban, G., Loughran, J., & Nielsen, W. (2011). Slowmation: Preservice elementary teachers representing science knowledge through creating multimodal digital animations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 985–1009.
Hodges, W. (2005, October). How reasoning depends on representations. Queen Mary: University of London.
Hughes, R. (1997). Models and representations. Philosophy of Science, 64, 325–336.
Johansson, A.-M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2011). A pragmatist approach to learning progressions. In B. Hudson & M. A. Meyer (Eds.), Beyond fragmentation: Didactics, learning, and teaching (pp. 47–59). Leverkusen, Germany: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1, 1–26.
Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI and Society, 25, 441–454.
Klein, P. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 143–178.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Latour, B. (2014). The more manipulations, the better. In E. Coopmans, J. Vertesi, M. Lynch, & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice revisited (pp. 347–350). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2017). Children’s conception of sampling in local ecosystems investigations. Science Education, 101, 968–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21297
Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Sawyer, K. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–387). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Magnani, L. (2015). Naturalizing logic: Errors of reasoning vindicated: Logic reapproaches cognitive science. Journal of Applied Logic, 13(1), 13–36.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Three abductive solutions to the Meno paradox – With instinct, inference and distributed cognition. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 24, 235–253.
Pande, P., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2017). Representational competence: Towards a distributed and embodied cognition account. Studies in Science Education, 53(2), 1–43.
Peirce, C. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, 8 Volumes (C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, A. W. Burks, Eds., Vols 1–6), (Arthur W. Burks, Ed., Vols 7–8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2016). Coming to know more through and from writing. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 430–434.
Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2751–2773.
Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843–1866.
Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. G. (2013). Situated cognition. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4, 463–478.
Rowlands, S. (2011). Disciplinary boundaries for creativity. Creative Education, 2(1), 47–55.
Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press.
Starbuck, W. (2016). 60th anniversary essay: How journals could improve research practices in social science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(2), 165–183.
Tang, K. S., Delgrado, C., & Moje, E. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98(2), 305–326.
Tytler, R., Murcia, K., Hsiung, C., & Ramseger, J. (2017). Reasoning from representations. In M. Hackling, J. Ramseger, & H. L. S. Chen (Eds.), Quality teaching in primary science education; cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 149–179). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Sellings, P. (2013). Explaining Newton’s laws of motion: Using student reasoning through representations to develop conceptual understanding. Instructional Science, 41, 165–189.
Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix: Being a personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York: Atheneum.
Weick, K. (1998). Introductory essay—Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9(5), 543–555.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Prain, V. (2019). Future Research in Learning with, Through and from Scientific Representations. In: Prain, V., Hand, B. (eds) Theorizing the Future of Science Education Research. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 49. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24013-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24013-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24012-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24013-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)