Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 5–28 | Cite as

Teaching and Learning about Force with a Representational Focus: Pedagogy and Teacher Change

  • Peter Hubber
  • Russell Tytler
  • Filocha Haslam
Article

Abstract

A large body of research in the conceptual change tradition has shown the difficulty of learning fundamental science concepts, yet conceptual change schemes have failed to convincingly demonstrate improvements in supporting significant student learning. Recent work in cognitive science has challenged this purely conceptual view of learning, emphasising the role of language, and the importance of personal and contextual aspects of understanding science. The research described in this paper is designed around the notion that learning involves the recognition and development of students’ representational resources. In particular, we argue that conceptual difficulties with the concept of force are fundamentally representational in nature. This paper describes a classroom sequence in force that focuses on representations and their negotiation, and reports on the effectiveness of this perspective in guiding teaching, and in providing insight into student learning. Classroom sequences involving three teachers were videotaped using a combined focus on the teacher and groups of students. Video analysis software was used to capture the variety of representations used, and sequences of representational negotiation. Stimulated recall interviews were conducted with teachers and students. The paper reports on the nature of the pedagogies developed as part of this representational focus, its effectiveness in supporting student learning, and on the pedagogical and epistemological challenges negotiated by teachers in implementing this approach.

Keywords

Representations Science teaching and learning Teacher change Pedagogy Middle school students 

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S., & Iacovides, I. (2005, August). Learning by constructing self-explanation diagrams. Paper presented at the 11th Biennial Conference of European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
  5. Carolan, J., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science, 54(1), 18–23.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. diSessa, A. (2008). A bird’s eye view of the “pieces” vs “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 35–60). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. diSessa, A., Gillespie, N., & Esterley, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dolin, J. (2001). Representational forms in physics. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Bisdikian, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis, & E. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge-based society: Proceedings of the Third International Conference of the ESERA (pp. 359–361). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
  12. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of the literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duit, R. (2002). Bibliography—students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Retrieved January 07, 2006, from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html.
  14. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–16). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Florax, M., & Ploetzner R. (2005, August). Effects of active integration of texts and visualization in learning. Paper presented at the 11th Biennial Conference of European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  16. Gee, J. (2002, September). Playing the game: Language and learning science. Paper presented at the Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction and Teacher Education, International Conference, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  17. Gee, J. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Newark: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  18. Greeno, J., & Hall, R. (1997). Practicing representation: learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–367.Google Scholar
  19. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hubber, P., & Tytler, R. (2004). Conceptual change models of teaching and learning. In G. Venville & V. Dawson (Eds.), The art of science teaching (pp. 34–53). Perth: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  21. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Boston: MIT.Google Scholar
  22. Klein, P. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: from the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kress, G. (2003). Genres and the multimodal production of ‘scientificness’. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 173–186). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  24. Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Newark: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  25. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lofts, G., & Evergreen, M. J. (2006). Science quest 1 (3rd ed.). Milton: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Parnafes, O. (2005). Constructing coherent understanding of physical concepts through the interpretations of multiple representations. Paper presented at the 11th conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, August, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  28. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (vols. 1–8). Cambridge: Harvard University Press (Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, & Arthur W Burks [Eds.], Vols. 1–6; Arthur W. Burks, [Eds.], Vols. 7–8).Google Scholar
  29. Prain, V., Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representation in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787–808.Google Scholar
  30. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Russell, T., & McGuigan, L. (2001). Promoting understanding through representational redescription: An illustration referring to young pupils’ ideas about gravity. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Bisdikian, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis, & E. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge-based society: Proceedings of the Third International Conference of the ESERA (pp. 600–602). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
  32. Treagust, D., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: a discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 297–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tytler, R. (1998). The nature of students’ informal science conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 901–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2004). Young children learning about evaporation: insights from a longitudinal study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tytler, R., Peterson, S., & Prain, V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: learning science literacy through a particle representation. Teaching Science, the Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 52, 12–17.Google Scholar
  36. Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Learning: Research on alternative conceptions. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210 ). National Science Teachers Association: MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations