Skip to main content

Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. For a more detailed description of the SCY-Lab and Science Created by You project, see de Jong et al. (2012).

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers in Education, 33, 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furberg, A. (2009). Sociocultural aspects of prompting students’ reflection in Web-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan Education LTD.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, K. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2009). Images of learning, images of progress. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 731–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2011). Science learning and instruction. Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mäkitalo, Å. (2003). Accounting practices as situated knowing: Dilemmas and dynamics in institutional categorization. Discourse Studies, 5(4), 495–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2(1), 151–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44, 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M., & Lyman, S. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition. Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. New York, NY: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by InterMedia, University of Oslo. We would like to thank our colleagues in the Change Research Group for their constructive feedback on earlier drafts, and Edith Isdal for reconstructing the solar panel diagrams. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and valuable comments. The study was conducted in the context of Science Created by You (SCY), which is funded by the European Community under the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) theme of the 7th Framework Programme for R&D (Grant agreement 212814). This document does not represent the opinions of the European Community, and the European Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of its content.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anniken Furberg.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table 1

Table 1 Transcript conventions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Furberg, A., Kluge, A. & Ludvigsen, S. Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting. Computer Supported Learning 8, 41–64 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9165-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9165-4

Keywords

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