Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Drawings and Connections Between Epistemic Practices in Grade 1 Science Lessons

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper reports how a teacher and her students use drawings as a resource for observations and how such observations are connected to different epistemic practices in science lessons. Interactional data in a 1st grade classroom were analyzed based on Ethnography in Education. Results show that the use of drawings materialized children’s transition process from sheer imagination to recording observations. Such transition reveals observation as more than simply introducing children to sensorial experiences or based in classical empiricism when other epistemic practices are considered. These practices emerged from the engagement of students in observations. Observing in science lessons was a tool for revising/refining a model and assess the merits of the model, in addition to serving as a source to present arguments and construct rebuttal. Finally, the observation itself was not given as something neutral or immune to debate. The same observation became a reason for disagreement among peers, which generated communicative demands for persuasion between them. Finally, implications towards research and pedagogical practice with children are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This paper does not analyze the content of the drawings but only their use by the participants. See (Cappelle, 2017) for an analysis of the content of these drawings using the Multimodal Social Semiotic Theory.

  2. Participants’ anonymity was ensured with the use of pseudonyms, and any features whatsoever that might identify them in images were altered (Spradley, 1980). This research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the institution responsible for it. Actions to ensure participants’ well-being were taken during the whole research process. Children were also instructed about the objectives and methodologies involved in the research. The research team came back to the school to disclose the results obtained and make research reports available.

  3. Differences in the number of lessons in each unit are due to the teacher’s planning choices and the curricular demands of the school.

References

  • Akerson, V., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What understandings can they attain? International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 97–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902717283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), (V W. McGee, Trans.), Speech genres and other late essays (60-102). Austin: University of Texas Press (Original work published 1953).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakthin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (p. 444). University of Texas Press (Original work published 1935).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bismack, A. A., Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2015). Examining student work for evidence of teacher uptake of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 816–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloome, D., Beierle, M., Grigorenko, M., & Goldman, S. (2009). Learning over time: Uses of intercontextuality, collective memories, and classroom chronotopes in the construction of learning opportunities in a ninth-grade language arts classroom. Language and education, 23(4), 313–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Madrid, S., Otto, S., Shuart-Faris, N., & Smith, M. (2008). Discourse analysis in classrooms: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 304–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (2004). The social construction of intertextuality in reading and writing lessons. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 17–64). Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, N. M., & Bogen, J. (2021). Theory and observation in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy available on <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/science-theory-observation/>

    Google Scholar 

  • Capelle, V. (2017). Constructing inquiry in science lessons: practices, modes of communication and temporal relations in the first three years of Elementary School (Doctoral thesis, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil). Retrieved from https://repositorio.ufmg.br/handle/1843/BUOS-AWKPY4.

  • Castanheira, M. L., Crawford, T., Dixon, C., & Green, J. (2001). Interactional ethnography: An Approach to studying the social construction of literate practices. Linguistics and education, 11(4), 353–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(00)00032-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. J., Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). Supporting scientific explanations with drawings and narratives on tablet computers: An analysis of explanation patterns. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25, 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0247-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H., Lin, T., Lee, M., Lee, S. W., Lin, T. C., Tan, A., & Tsai, C. (2020). A systematic review of trends and findings in research employing drawing assessment in science education. Studies in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1735822

  • Chang, H.-Y. (2018). Students’ representational competence with drawing technology across two domains of science. Science Education, 102, 1129–1149. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M. M., Stieff, M., & DeSutter, D. (2017). Sketching the invisible to predict the visible: From drawing to modeling in chemistry. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 902–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in 3 part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social goals. Review of Research In Education, 32, 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Planning and carrying out investigations: An entry to learning and to teacher professional development around NGSS science and engineering practices. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(12). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-014-0012-6

  • Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific observation: How children learn to observe the biologist’s world. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 39–68 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Drawing boundary conditions for learning by drawing. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 1115–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9444-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. J. (2005). The challenges of observing geologically: Third graders’ descriptions of rock and mineral properties. Science Education, 89(2), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Mila, M., Andersen, C., & Rojo, N. E. (2009). Representational practices and scientific inquiry. In C. Andersen, M. P. Perez-Echeverria, N. Scheur, & E. Teubal (Eds.), Representational systems and practices as learning tools in different fields of knowledge. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2012). Moving Young “scientists-in-waiting” onto science learning pathways: Focus on observation. In J. Shrager & S. Carver (Eds.), The journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences (pp. 155–169). American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2013). Validity evidence for learning progression-based assessment items that fuse core disciplinary ideas and science practices. Journal of research in science teaching, 50(5), 597–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J., & Wallat, C. (1981). Ethnography and language in educational settings. Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. L., Baker, W. D., Chian, M. M., Vanderhoof, C., Hooper, L., Kelly, G. J., Skukauskaite, A., & Kalainoff, M. Z. (2020). Studying the over-time construction of knowledge in educational settings: A microethnographic discourse analysis approach. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 161–194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x20903121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies (1st ed.). Cambrige University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, D. B., & Pitchford, S. (2016). Curating blood: How students’ and researchers’ drawings bring potential phenomena to light. International Journal of Science Education, 38(17), 2596–2620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1253901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1986). Rethinking the role and status of observation in science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18(4), 381–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027860180403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hokayem, H., & Schwarz, C. (2014). Engaging fifth graders in scientific modeling to learn about evaporation and condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9395-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras, B. (2017). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education. New directions in mathematics and science education. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In: Richard A. Duschl; R. E. Grandy (Orgs.), Teaching scientific inquiry. Recommendations for research and implementation. (pp. 99-117). , The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

  • Kelly, G. J. (2013). Inquiry teaching and learning: Philosophical considerations. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Handbook of historical and philosophical studies in science education. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (Eds.). (2019). Theory and methods for sociocultural research in science and engineering education. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Licona, P. (2018). Epistemic practices and science education. In M. Matthews (Ed.), History, Philosophy and science teaching (pp. 139–165). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Manz, E. (2015). Examining evidence construction as the transformation of the material world into community knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1113–1140. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2013). The relationships between modelling and argumentation from the perspective of the model of modelling diagram. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2407–2434. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.811615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteira, S. F., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2016). The practice of using evidence in kindergarten: The Role of purposeful observation. Journal of research in science teaching, 53(8), 1232–1258. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteira, S. F., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Siry, C. (2020). Scaffolding children’s production of representations along the three years of ECE: A longitudinal study. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09931-z

  • Murphy, C. (2012). Vygotsky and primary science. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 177–187). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • Oliveira, D. K. B. S., Justi, R., & Mendonça, P. C. C. (2015). The use of representations and argumentative and explanatory situations. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1402–1435. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1039095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., Van, R., Siswa, A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, M., Furberg, A., & Knain, E. (2023). Undergraduate biology students’ model-based reasoning in the laboratory: Exploring the role of drawings, talk, and gestures. Science Education, 107, 124–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Orlando.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing science practice in learning settings. Science Education, 99(6), 1033–1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21191

  • Tomkins, S. P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Looking for ideas: Observation, interpretation and hypothesis-making by 12-year-old pupils undertaking science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 791–813. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690119322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2006). A new framework for understanding how young children create external representations for puzzles and problems. In E. Teubal, J. Dockrell, & L. Tolchinsky (Eds.), Notational knowledge: Developmental and historical perspectives (pp. 159–178). Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Murcia, K., Hsiung, C. T., & Ramseger, J. (2017). Reasoning through representations. In M. W. Hackling, J. Ramseger, & H. L. S. Chen (Eds.), Quality teaching in primary science education: Cross cultural perspectives (pp. 149–179). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Joolingen, W. R., Aukes, A. V. A., Gijlers, H., & Bollen, L. (2015). Understanding elementary astronomy by making drawing-based models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9540-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Uum, S. J., Verhoeff, R. P., & Peeters, M. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: Towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 450–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1147660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2013). Children’s ways with science and literacy: Integrated multimodal enactments in urban elementary classrooms (240p). Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European psychology, 42(1), 7–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Brazilian Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pró-reitoria de Extensão, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Vanessa Cappelle

  2. Departamento de Métodos e Técnicas de Ensino, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Luiz Gustavo Franco

  3. Centro de Ciências Naturais e Humanas, Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil

    Danusa Munford

Authors
  1. Vanessa Cappelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luiz Gustavo Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Danusa Munford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Vanessa Cappelle, Luiz Gustavo Franco, and Danusa Munford. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Vanessa Cappelle, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanessa Cappelle.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

The paper is part of a research project approved by the Ethical Committee of the institutions (university and school) and the people involved were also consulted and signed a consent form.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cappelle, V., Franco, L.G. & Munford, D. Use of Drawings and Connections Between Epistemic Practices in Grade 1 Science Lessons. Sci & Educ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00458-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00458-z

Search

Navigation