• Margareta EnghagEmail author
  • Jonas Forsman
  • Cedric Linder
  • Allan MacKinnon
  • Ellen Moons


We carried out a case study in a wave physics course at a Swedish university in order to investigate the relations between the representations used in the lessons and the experience of meaning making in interview–discussions. The grounding of these interview–discussions also included obtaining a rich description of the lesson environment in terms of the communicative approaches used and the students’ preferences for modes of representations that best enable meaning making. The background for this grounding was the first two lessons of a 5-week course on wave physics (70 students). The data collection for both the grounding and the principal research questions consisted of video recordings from the first two lessons: a student questionnaire of student preferences for representations (given before and after the course) and video-recorded interview–discussions with students (seven pairs and one on their own). The results characterize the use of communicative approaches, what modes of representation were used in the lectures, and the trend in what representations students’ preferred for meaning making, all in order to illustrate how students engage with these representations with respect to their experienced meaning making. Interesting aspects that emerged from the study are discussed in terms of how representations do not, in themselves, necessarily enable a range of meaning making; that meaning making from representations is critically related to how the representations get situated in the learning environment; and how constellations of modes of disciplinary discourse may be necessary but not always sufficient. Finally, pedagogical comments and further research possibilities are presented.

Key words

communicative approaches disciplinary discourse meaning making physics education representations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Airey, J. (2009). Science, language and literacy. Case studies of learning in Swedish University Physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala Retrieved 2009-04-27, from
  2. Airey, J. & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1930, 1981, 2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M Bakhtin. In M. Holqvist (Ed.) Translated by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, D. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited: Making meaning through talk. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar
  6. Blumer, H. (1969, 1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dancy, M. H. & Beichner, R. (2006). Impact on animation on assessment of conceptual understanding in physics. Physics Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 2(010104), 1–6.Google Scholar
  8. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E. & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics lesson. Science, 332, 862–864.Google Scholar
  9. Dewey, J. (1938, 1997). Experience & Education. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  10. Enghag, M., Gustafsson, P. & Jonsson, G. (2007). From everyday life experiences to physics understanding occurring in small group work with context rich problems during introductory physics work at university. Research in Science Education, 37, 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erickson, G. (2007). In the path of Linnaeus: The development and nurturing of science educators for a complex world. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. Roberts, P.-O. Wickman, G. Erickson & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (The Teaching and Learning in Science Series, pp. 207–222). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Froyd, J. E. (2008). White paper on promising practices in undergraduate STEM education [Commissioned paper for the Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Project, The National Academies Board on Science Education, 2008].
  13. Gautreau, R. & Novemsky, L. (1997). Concepts first: A small group approach to physics learning. American Journal of Physics, 65(5), 418–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.Google Scholar
  15. Knight, R. D. (2004). Physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics. A strategic approach. San Francisco: Pearson Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. Kohl, P. B. & Finkelstein, N. D. (2006). Effects of representation on students solving physics problems: A fine-grained characterization. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 2, 010106.Google Scholar
  17. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J. & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Series in educational innovation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Mazur, E. (2007). Interactive teaching—promoting better learning using peer instruction and justin time teaching. Cambridge, MA: The Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, Harvard University in Association with Spectrum Media and Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  20. Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323, 50–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  22. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rimmele, R. (2002). Videograph. Kiel: IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science Education.Google Scholar
  25. Schön, D. (1978). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Siegel, S. & Castellan, N. J. J. (Eds.). (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research& Evaluation, 9(4).Google Scholar
  30. Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Overview, case study physics. American Journal of Physics, 59(10), 898–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Heuvelen, A. & Etkina, E. (2006). The physics active learning guide. San Francisco: Pearson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margareta Enghag
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Jonas Forsman
    • 2
  • Cedric Linder
    • 2
    • 5
  • Allan MacKinnon
    • 3
  • Ellen Moons
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physics and Electrical EngineeringKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden
  2. 2.Department of Physics and AstronomyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  4. 4.Department of Mathematics and Science EducationStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  5. 5.Department of PhysicsUniversity of the Western CapeCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations