Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change

Research in Science Education

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 5-28

  Hubber, Peter ^a   Tytler, Russell ^a   Haslam, Filocha ^a  

^a DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Middle school students; Pedagogy; Representations; Science teaching and learning; Teacher change

Indexed keywords

EID: 76449097513     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-009-9154-9     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131-152.
2. Ainsworth, S., & Iacovides, I. (2005, August). Learning by constructing self-explanation diagrams. Paper presented at the 11th Biennial Conference of European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.
3. Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
5. Carolan, J., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science, 54(1), 18-23.
6. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: MIT Press.
7. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students' preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241-1257.
8. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343-363.
9. diSessa, A. (2008). A bird's eye view of the "pieces" vs "coherence" controversy (from the "pieces" side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 35-60). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
10. diSessa, A., Gillespie, N., & Esterley, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843-900.
11. Dolin, J. (2001). Representational forms in physics. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Bisdikian, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis, & E. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge-based society: Proceedings of the Third International Conference of the ESERA (pp. 359-361). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
12. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of the literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
13. Duit, R. (2002). Bibliography-students' and teachers' conceptions and science education. Retrieved January 07, 2006, from http://www. ipn. uni-kiel. de/aktuell/stcse/stcse. html.
14. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3-16). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
15. Florax, M., & Ploetzner R. (2005, August). Effects of active integration of texts and visualization in learning. Paper presented at the 11th Biennial Conference of European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.
16. Gee, J. (2002, September). Playing the game: Language and learning science. Paper presented at the Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction and Teacher Education, International Conference, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
17. Gee, J. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 13-32). Newark: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.
18. Greeno, J., & Hall, R. (1997). Practicing representation: learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361-367.
19. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 1-36.
20. Hubber, P., & Tytler, R. (2004). Conceptual change models of teaching and learning. In G. Venville & V. Dawson (Eds.), The art of science teaching (pp. 34-53). Perth: Allen and Unwin.
21. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Boston: MIT.
22. Klein, P. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: from the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 143-178.
23. Kress, G. (2003). Genres and the multimodal production of 'scientificness'. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 173-186). New York: Peter Lang.
24. Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33-47). Newark: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.
25. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
26. Lofts, G., & Evergreen, M. J. (2006). Science quest 1 (3rd ed.). Milton: Wiley.
27. Parnafes, O. (2005). Constructing coherent understanding of physical concepts through the interpretations of multiple representations. Paper presented at the 11th conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, August, Nicosia, Cyprus.
28. Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (vols. 1-8). Cambridge: Harvard University Press (Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, & Arthur W Burks [Eds.], Vols. 1-6; Arthur W. Burks, [Eds.], Vols. 7-8).
29. Prain, V., Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representation in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787-808.
30. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
31. Russell, T., & McGuigan, L. (2001). Promoting understanding through representational redescription: An illustration referring to young pupils' ideas about gravity. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Bisdikian, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis, & E. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge-based society: Proceedings of the Third International Conference of the ESERA (pp. 600-602). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
32. Treagust, D., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: a discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 297-328.
33. Tytler, R. (1998). The nature of students' informal science conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 901-927.
34. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2004). Young children learning about evaporation: insights from a longitudinal study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4, 111-126.
35. Tytler, R., Peterson, S., & Prain, V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: learning science literacy through a particle representation. Teaching Science, the Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 52, 12-17.
36. Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37, 313-331.
37. Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
38. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Learning: Research on alternative conceptions. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 177-210). National Science Teachers Association: MacMillan Publishing Company.