Advertisement

Talking About Electricity: The Importance of Hearing Gestures As Well As Words

  • Carol J. Callinan
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 2)

Abstract

Children’s gestures have been proposed to contain important cues and clues to their science ideas that may not be revealed in speech or written language. New and innovative research has begun to explore the way that these gestures can be used to inform on how children’s ideas for science concepts change. Such research is firmly embedded in a constructivist perspective (Driver R et al. Educ Res 23(7):5–12, 1994), which has a strong background of research exploring ‘alternative frameworks’ (Driver R, Bell, B, SSR 67:443455, 1986) and proposals for the identification and understanding of the underlying mechanisms that support such conceptual change dynamics (Vosniadou S, International handbook of research on conceptual change. Routledge, Oxon, 2008). Typically, conceptual change literature accesses children’s knowledge largely through verbal reports (e.g. Primary SPACE Projects 1990–1994). Whilst these approaches have been successful in revealing what children know, this bias towards language at the expense of other forms of communication may prevent a comprehensive understanding of knowledge growth (Goldin-Meadows S, Child Dev 71(1):231–239, 2000). This chapter discusses a recent study which explored the gestures that children used during discussions of their ideas about electricity and revealed that gestures can be categorised according to content (as highlighted in a pilot study by Callinan (Sharp JG, Prim Sci 120(Nov/Dec):29–31, 2011) and that the content of gestures can reveal elements of knowledge that is not verbalised in speech.

Keywords

Learning in science Constructivism Conceptual change Multimodal research Gesture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a PhD scholarship from Bishop Grosseteste University, Lincoln, UK; the author wishes to thank supervisor Professor John Sharp for his valuable support and constructive feedback throughout the project. Furthermore, the author is extremely grateful to all of the participating schools, head teachers, teachers, TAs and children who generously gave their time and made this project possible.

References

  1. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, P. (1991). Electricity and magnetism. Preston: Topical Resources.Google Scholar
  3. Callinan, C., & Sharp, J. G. (2011). Stuck for words. Primary Science, 120(Nov/Dec), 29–31.Google Scholar
  4. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cosgrove, M., & Osborne, R. (1985). Lesson frameworks for changing children’s ideas. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of Children’s science. Auckland: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  6. Crowder, E. M., & Newman, D. (1993). Telling what they know: The role of gesture and language in children’s scientific explanations. Pragmatics and Cognition, 1, 341–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students’ thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. SSR, 67, 443–455.Google Scholar
  10. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to conceptual development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finkelstein, N. (2005). Learning physics in context: A study of student learning about electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1187–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glauert, E. B. (2009). How young children understand electric circuits: Prediction, explanation and exploration. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1025–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldin-Meadows, S. (2000). Beyond words: The importance of gesture to researchers and learners. Child Development, 71(1), 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldin-Meadows, S., Alibali, M. W., & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in concept acquisition: Using the hand to read the mind. Psychological Review, 100(2), 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karmilloff-Smith, A. (1996). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: Rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Limon, M., & Mason, L. (2002). Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Osborne, R. (1981). Children’s ideas about electric circuits. New Zealand Science Teacher, 29, 12–19.Google Scholar
  21. Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children’s ideas about electric circuits. Research in Science and Technology Education, 1(1), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Auckland: Heinemann Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Osborne, J., Black, P., Smith, M., & Meadows, J. (1991). Electricity. Primary SPACE project research report. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roth, W. M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the emergence of abstract scientific concepts. Learning and Instruction, 12, 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37–53). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Sharp, J. G., & Kuerbis, P. (2006). Children’s ideas about the solar system and the chaos in learning science. Science Education, 90(1), 124–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shipstone, D. (1985). Electricity in simple circuits. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 33–51). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Solomon, J. (1985). The pupils’ view of electricity. European Journal of Science Education, 7(3), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vosniadou, S. (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Psychology, 57(1), 51–67.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social ScienceBishop Grosseteste UniversityLincolnUK

Personalised recommendations