Abstract
This study explored the impact of argumentation-promoting collaborative inquiry and representational work in science on primary students’ representational fluency. Two hundred sixty-six year 6 students received instruction on natural disasters with a focus on collaborative inquiry. Students in the Comparison condition received only this instruction. Students in the Explanation condition were also instructed with a focus on explanations using representations. Students in the Argumentation condition received similar instruction to the Comparison and Explanation conditions but were also instructed with a focus on argumentation using representations. Conceptual understanding and representational competencies (interpreting, explaining and constructing representations) were measured prior to and immediately following the instruction. A small group collaborative representational task was video recorded at the end of the instruction and coded for modes of knowledge-building discourse; knowledge-sharing and knowledge-construction. Higher measures of conceptual understanding, representational competencies and knowledge-construction discourse were taken together as representational fluency. Students in all conditions showed significant improvement in conceptual understanding, interpreting representations and explaining representations. Students in the Comparison and Argumentation conditions also showed significantly improved scores in constructing representations. When compared to the other conditions, the Explanation group had the highest scores in conceptual understanding and also interpreting and explaining representations. While the Argumentation group had the highest scores for constructing representations, their scores for conceptual understanding as well as interpreting and explaining representations were also high. There was no difference between the groups in knowledge-sharing discourse; however, the Argumentation group displayed the highest incidence of knowledge-construction discourse. The paper discusses how a collaborative inquiry instructional focus on explanation-building using representations fosters representational competencies, while a collaborative inquiry instructional focus on argumentation and explanation using representations promotes representational fluency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
Ainsworth, S. (2011, August 31). Understanding and transforming multi-representational learning. Keynote speech at the EARLI 2011 conference. Resource document. http://www.earli2011.org/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=489. Accessed 6 November 2013.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2014). The Australian curriculum: science. Resource document. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science/curriculum/f-10?layout=1. Accessed 3 June, 2014.
Bereiter, C., & Scardmalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.
Berland, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science & Education, 93, 26–55.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability: a quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science & Education, 84, 577–610.
Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science & Education, 95(4), 639–669.
Bybee, R. W. (2006). Enhancing science teaching and student learning: a BSCS perspective. Boosting science learning: what it will take. ACER Research Conference. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.
Collins, A. (2011). Representational competence: a commentary on the Greeno analysis of classroom practice. In Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 105–111). Springer New York.
DiSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
Gillies, G., Nichols, K., & Kahn, A. (2014). The effect of scientific representations on primary students’ development of scientific discourse and conceptual understanding during cooperative contemporary inquiry-science. Cambridge Journal of Education. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2014.988681.
Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 29–44.
Hinze, S. R., Rapp, D. N., Williamson, V. M., Shultz, M. J., Deslongchamps, G., & Williamson, K. C. (2013). Beyond ball-and-stick: students’ processing of novel STEM visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 26, 12–21.
Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40, 5–28.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3–27): Springer.
Kockelman, P. (2007). The relation between meaning, power, and knowledge. Current Anthropology, 48(3), 375–401.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education, models and modelling in science education (Vol. 1, pp. 121–145). Netherlands: Springer.
Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. Resource document http://jaylemke.squarespace.com/storage/Literacies-of-science-2004.pdf Accessed 20 June 2007.
Mason, L., & Santi, M. (1994). Argumentation structure and metacognition in constructing shared knowledge at school. New Orleans: A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Mathai, S., & Ramadas, J. (2009). Visuals and visualisation of human body systems. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 439–458.
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359–377.
Moore, W. S. (2002). Understanding learning in a postmodern world: reconsidering the Perry scheme of intellectual and ethical development. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 17–36). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nichols, K., Hanan, J., & Ranasinghe, M. (2013a). Transforming the social practices of learning with representations: a study on disciplinary discourse. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 179–208.
Nichols, K., Ranasinghe, M., & Hanan, J. (2013b). Translating between representations in a social context: a study of undergraduate science students’ representational fluency. Instructional Science, 41(4), 699–728.
Nistal, A. A., Van Dooren, W., Clarebout, G., Elen, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Conceptualising, investigating and stimulating representational flexibility in mathematical problem solving and learning: a critical review. ZDM, 41, 627–636.
Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: a necessary distinction? Science & Education, 95(4), 627–638.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 285–299.
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2013). Interleaved practice in multi-dimensional learning tasks: which dimension should we interleave? Learning and Instruction, 23, 98–114.
Richards, A. R. (2003). Argument and authority in the visual representations of science. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12(3), 183–206.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37, 313–331.
Van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge construction, and knowledge creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 259–287.
Waldrip, B. & Prain, V. (2013). Teachers’ initial response to a representational focus. In R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in Science, pp 15–30. Sense Publisher.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Australian Research Council. We would like to thank Dr. Michael Boyle and Dr. Muditha Ranasinghe for their technical support in the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Pre/post-test for conceptual understanding and representational competencies (interpreting, explaining, creating representations)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nichols, K., Gillies, R. & Hedberg, J. Argumentation-Based Collaborative Inquiry in Science Through Representational Work: Impact on Primary Students’ Representational Fluency. Res Sci Educ 46, 343–364 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9456-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9456-4