Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting

Article

Abstract

This paper reports on a study of students’ conceptual sensemaking with science diagrams within a computer-based learning environment aimed at supporting collaborative learning. Through the microanalysis of students’ interactions in a project about energy and heat transfer, we demonstrate how representations become productive social and cognitive resources in the students’ conceptual sensemaking. Taking a socio-cultural approach, the study aims to contribute on two levels. First, by providing insight into the interactional processes in which students encounter a particular type of representation: science diagrams. Second, the study aims to demonstrate that an important aspect of students’ encounters with science representations concerns making sense of how to respond to institutional norms and social practices embedded within the context of schooling. The findings demonstrate how the science diagrams become productive social and individual resources for the students by slowing down the students’ conceptual sensemaking processes and by opening up a space for the interpretation and negotiation of scientific concepts, as well as of the representations themselves. The study also shows the challenges involved when students move from oral to written accounts in their inquiries.

Keywords

Conceptual sensemaking Interaction analysis Physics Representations Science diagrams Secondary school Socio-cultural perspective 

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers in Education, 33, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ares, N., Stroup, W. M., & Schademan, A. R. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourses. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  5. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188–128). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Çakir, M. P. (2009). The organization of graphical, narrative, and symbolic interactions. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for computer simulation based scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Dealing with complexity in learning environments (pp. 107–128). London: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. de Jong, T., Weinberger, A., Girault, I., Kluge, A., Lazonder, A. W., Pedaste, M., et al. (2012). Using scenarios to design complex technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 883–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Leone, C., & Oberem, G. (2004). Toward understanding student conceptions of the photoelectric effect. In J. Marx, S. Franklin, & K. Cummings (Eds.), 2003 Physics education research conference proceedings. Melville, NY: AIP.Google Scholar
  12. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dolonen, J., & Ludvigsen, S. (2012). Analyzing students’ interaction with a 3D geometry learning tool and their teacher. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction.. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.08.002.
  14. Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners’ classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Furberg, A. (2009). Sociocultural aspects of prompting students’ reflection in Web-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Furberg, A., & Arnseth, H. C. (2009). Reconsidering conceptual change from a socio-cultural perspective: Analyzing students’ meaning making in genetics in collaborative learning activities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 157–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Furberg, A. L., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). Students’ meaning making of socioscientific issues in computer mediated settings: Exploring learning through interaction trajectories. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1775–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan Education LTD.Google Scholar
  21. Glaser, R., & Chi, M. (1988). Overview. In M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv–xxviii). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Goodwin, C. (1997). The blackness of black. Color categories as situated practice. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning. Essays on situated cognition (pp. 111–140). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–367.Google Scholar
  24. Jordan, B., & Henderson, K. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karlsson, G. (2010). Animation and grammar in science education: Learners’ construal of animated educational software. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kluge, A., & Bakken, S. M. (2010). Simulation as science discovery: Ways of interactive meaning-making. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 5(3), 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krange, I., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). What does it mean? Students’ procedural and conceptual problem solving in a CSCL environment designed within the field of science education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2009). Images of learning, images of progress. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 731–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  33. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  34. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 3–28). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2011). Science learning and instruction. Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Ludvigsen, S., & Mørch, A. (2010). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Basic concepts, multiple perspectives, and emerging trends. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. MacGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 290–296). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ludvigsen, S. R., Rasmussen, I., Krange, I., Moen, A., & Middleton, D. (2011). Temporalities of learning in intersecting trajectories of participation. In S. R. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Mäkitalo, Å. (2003). Accounting practices as situated knowing: Dilemmas and dynamics in institutional categorization. Discourse Studies, 5(4), 495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKagan, S. B., Handley, W., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2009). A research-based curriculum for teaching the photoelectric effect. American Journal of Physics, 77(1), 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Medina, R., Suthers, D. D., & Vatrapu, R. (2009). Representational practices in VMT. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 185–205). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mehan, H. (1991). The school’s work of sorting students. In D. Zimmerman & D. Boden (Eds.), Talk and social structure (pp. 71–90). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2(1), 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pathak, S., Kim, B., Jacobson, M., & Zhang, B. (2011). Learning the physics of electricity: A qualitative analysis of collaborative processes involved in productive failure. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rasmussen, I., & Ludvigsen, S. (2010). Learning with computer tools and environments: A sociocultural perspective. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 399–435). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  47. Roschelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborating inquiry. In D. L. Day & D. K. Kovacs (Eds.), Computers, communication & mental models (pp. 13–25). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  48. Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.Google Scholar
  49. Säljö, R. (2005). Lärande & kulturella redskap: Om lärprocesser och det kollektiva minnet [Learning and cultural tools: About learning processes and the collective memory]. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.Google Scholar
  50. Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwarz, B., Schur, Y., Pensso, H., & Tayer, N. (2009). Perspective taking and synchronous argumentation for learning the day/night cycle. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scott, M., & Lyman, S. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition. Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher social processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  63. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. and Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.InterMediaUniversity of OsloBlindernNorway

Personalised recommendations