The impact of classroom context upon 1st and 2nd grade students’ critical criteria for science representations
- 362 Downloads
We report on a design based research study exploring how the organization of classroom activity impacts early elementary students’ critical criteria for evaluating representations in science class. The ability to critique representations produced by others as well as one’s own is an important practice when working with representations. Effective critique requires understanding the purpose of the representation and the context of its use. We use Activity Theory to explore how a change in teacher prompts can facilitate a shift in how the teacher and the students organize their collective activity ultimately resulting in a change to the nature of their critical criteria for evaluating their peers’ representations. To explore this relationship, we worked with a teacher to iteratively adapt and refine whole-group discussions of students’ representations to provide a context in which students critique their peers’ work on scientific grounds. After each representational activity, the teacher engaged the students in discussing the representations (three groups of students across a total of six sessions, N = 39). Findings indicate that contextual cues lead to a statistically significant shift in students talk. Video analysis indicates that shifts in contextual cues resulted in dramatic shifts in how the activity is mediated, resulting in the verbalization and application of increasingly robust scientific criteria across three different sessions.
KeywordsScience representations Activity theory Early elementary
Portions of this work were funded by the Proffitt Endowment to Indiana University. We would also like to thank David Phelps, DiAnna Washington, Johanna Keene and Alejandro Andrade-Lotero for their help in completing this research. As always, we are also indebted to the teachers and students who participated in this study.
- Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Representations, 3, 5.Google Scholar
- Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Danish, J. A. (2010). The primary interactive pathway: An analytic tool for examining and comparing students’ representational activities. In Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
- Danish, J. A., & Phelps, D. (2010). Representational practices by the numbers: How kindergarten and first-grade students create, evaluate, and modify their science representations. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2069–2094. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.525798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Danish, J. A., & Saleh, A. (2014). Examining how activity shapes students' interactions while creating representations in early elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 1–21. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.923127.
- diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representationsal expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.Google Scholar
- Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity—theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
- Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., Delacruz, G., & Kumar, M. (2012). Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1–32.Google Scholar
- Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–367.Google Scholar
- Kelly, G. J. (2014). Discourse practicies in science learning and teaching. Handbook of Research on Science Education, 2, 321–336.Google Scholar
- Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in the elementary grades. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathemat:cs and science matters (pp. 29–53). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- NRC. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Parnafes, O. (2010). Representational practices in the activity of student-generated representations (SGR) for promoting conceptual understanding. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2010) (Vol. 1, pp. 301–308)., Full papers Chicago: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
- Schwendimann, B. (2009). Critiquing concepts maps for a coherent understanding of biology. In J. Shen (Ed.), Critique to learn science. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.Google Scholar
- van Dijk, A. M., Gijlers, H., & Weinberger, A. (2013). Scripted collaborative drawing in elementary science education. Instructional Science, 42, 1–20.Google Scholar
- Vlach, H. A., & Carver, S. M. (2008). The effects of observation coaching on children’s graphic representations. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 10. http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v10n1/vlach.html.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Willats, J. (2005). Making sense of children’s drawings. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar