Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 41-64

  Furberg, Anniken ^a   Kluge, Anders ^a   Ludvigsen, Sten ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874423755     PISSN: 15561607     EISSN: 15561615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11412-013-9165-4     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers in Education, 33, 131-152.
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
3. 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.
4. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Çakir, M. P. (2009). The organization of graphical, narrative, and symbolic interactions. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.
8. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331.
13. 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.
14. Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481-511.
15. 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.
16. Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427-466.
17. Furberg, A. (2009). Sociocultural aspects of prompting students' reflection in Web-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 397-409.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan Education LTD.
21. Glaser, R., & Chi, M. (1988). Overview. In M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv-xxviii). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. 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.
23. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361-367.
24. Jordan, B., & Henderson, K. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226.
28. 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.
29. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-99.
30. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
31. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2009). Images of learning, images of progress. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 731-735.
32. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
33. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
34. 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.
35. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2011). Science learning and instruction. Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Mäkitalo, Å. (2003). Accounting practices as situated knowing: Dilemmas and dynamics in institutional categorization. Discourse Studies, 5(4), 495-516.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137-168.
43. Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2(1), 151-171.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35-59.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children's understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44, 103-118.
52. 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.
53. Scott, M., & Lyman, S. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46-62.
54. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227-237.
55. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
56. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition. Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
57. Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher social processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
62. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. New York, NY: Plenum.
63. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
65. White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489-547.