Abstract
There is increasing recognition of the multimodal representational nature of science discovery practices and the roles of multiple and multimodal representations in students’ meaning making in science (Lemke, 1998; Tytler, Prain, Hubber, & Waldrip, 2013; Tang, International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2069–2095, 2016). However, research in this area is only starting to explore how these different modal meanings interact (Tytler, Prain, Aranda, Ferguson, & Gorur, 2020) and particularly of the nature of the ‘transduction’ (Airey & Linder, Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49, 2009) or ‘re-description’ (Lehrer & Schauble, 2013) of one modal representation to another and their coordination in model-based reasoning in science. This paper explores ways in which groups of secondary students orchestrated multimodal representations to gain an understanding of the lever principle in a collaborative learning environment of a Science of Learning Research Classroom. The analysis of video data and student artefacts suggests that mathematical formulations on their own were limited in allowing students to satisfactorily engage with science ideas and that a key feature of cross-modal translation is the flexibility in application of these ideas afforded by the different modes and understanding the nature of these interactions. Using a Peircean socio-semiotic approach (Peirce, 1992, 1998) and Pickering’s notion of scientific research involving a ‘mangle of practice’ (Pickering, 1995, p. 23), this paper argues that a robust understanding of the lever principle necessarily involves students coordinating a range of modal representations, including visual-spatial, manipulative, embodied and abstract mathematical drawing on the distinctive affordances each brings to learning. We also describe the way these representations push back on learners in unexpected ways.
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(3), 183–198.
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: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49.
Dahlin, B. (2003). The ontological reversal: a figure of thought of importance for science education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 77–88.
Dahlin, B., Østergaard, E., & Hugo, A. (2009). An argument for reversing the bases of science education - a phenomenological alternative to cognitionism. Nordina, 5(2), 201–215.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.
Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. Elmore, A. Skukauskaite, & E. Grace (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary methods in educational research (pp. 177–192). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Ferguson, J., Aranda, G., Tytler, R., & Gorur, R. (2019). Video research—Purposeful selection from rich data sets. In L. Xu, G. Aranda, & D. Clarke (Eds.), Video-based research in education: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 124–139). Oxon, England: Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: Problems and prospects. Ethnography and Education, 1(1), 3–14.
Harvey, C. W. (1989). Husserl’s phenomenology and the foundations of natural science. Athens, Greece: Ohio University Press.
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267.
Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910123753.
Klein, P. D., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). Multimodal literacies in science: Currency, coherence and focus. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 87–92.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. New York, NY: Continuum.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London, England: Arnold Publishers.
Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Leder, L., Hansson, L., & Ideland, M. (2020). The mangle of school science practice: Teacher’ negotiations of two nature of science activities at different levels of contextualization. Science Education, 104(1), 5–26.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2013). Representational re-description as a catalyst for conceptual change. In B. Brizuela & B. Gravel (Eds.), Show me what you know: Exploring student representations across STEM disciplines (pp. 244–250). London, England: Teachers College Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm
Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson (Ed.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215–234). Ottawa, Canada: Legas.
MacLure, M. (2010). The offence of theory. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 277–286.
Manz, E. (2015). Resistance and development of scientific practice: Designing the mangle into science instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 33(2), 89–124.
Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W. M. (1998). Assessing students’ understanding about levers: Better test instruments are not enough. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 813–832.
Moro, L., Mortimer, E., & Tiberghien, A. (2019). The use of social semiotics multimodality and joint action theory to describe teaching practices: Two cases studies with experienced teachers. Classroom Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1570528.
Nersessian, N. J. (2010). Creating scientific concepts. Boston, MA: MIT press.
Ogbu, J. (1981). School ethnography: A multilevel approach. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12(1), 3–29.
Peirce, C. S. (1992). The essential peirce - selected philosophical writings (1867-1893) (vol. 1). In N. Houser & C. Kloesel (Eds.), Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential peirce - selected philosophical writings (1893-1913) (vol. 2). In N. Houser, A. De Tienne, J. R. Eller, C. L. Clark, A. C. Lewis, & D. B. Davis (Eds.), Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press.
Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559–589.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pickering, A. (2012). The robustness of science and the dance of agency. In L. Soler, E. Trizio, T. Nickles, & W. Wimsatt (Eds.), Characterizing the robustness of science (pp. 317–327). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Prain, V., Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representation in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787–808.
Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751–2773.
Tang, K. S. (2016). The interplay of representations and patterns of classroom discourse in science teaching sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2069–2095. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1218568.
TIMSS (2007). Science framework. Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/timss2007/PDF/T07_AF_chapter2.pdf
Tytler, R., & Prain, V. (2013). Representation construction to support conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 560–579). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Aranda, G., Ferguson, J., & Gorur, R. (2020). Drawing to reason and learn in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21590.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Vosniadou, S. (2007). The cognitive-situative divide and the problem of conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 55–66.
Waldrip, B., & Prain, V. (2017). Engaging students in learning science through promoting creative reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2052–2072.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding provided by the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative that supported the research reported in this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, L., Ferguson, J. & Tytler, R. Student Reasoning About the Lever Principle Through Multimodal Representations: a Socio-Semiotic Approach. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 19, 1167–1186 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10102-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10102-9