Student Engagement with Artefacts and Scientific Ideas in a Laboratory and a Concept-Mapping Activity

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 35, Issue 13, 2013, Pages 2254-2277

  Hamza, Karim Mikael ^a   Wickman, Per Olof ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Chemistry education; Concept mapping; Discourse; High school; Laboratory work; Learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882280633     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.743696     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abrahams, I. and Millar, R. 2008. Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (14): 1945 - 1969. (doi:10.1080/09500690701749305)
2. Åhlberg, M. (2004, September). Varieties of concept mapping. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain.
3. Bernhard, J. 2010. Insightful learning in the laboratory: Some experiences from 10 years of designing and using conceptual labs. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35 (3): 271 - 287. (doi:10.1080/03043791003739759)
4. van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J. and Kanselaar, G. 2000. The use of textbooks as a tool during collaborative physics learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69 (1): 57 - 76. (doi:10.1080/00220970009600649)
5. van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E. and Erkens, G. 2002. Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory Into Practice, 41 (1): 40 - 46. (doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4101_7)
6. Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J. and Windschitl, M. A. 1998. Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 75 (12): 1658 - 1661. (doi:10.1021/ed075p1658)
7. Granott, N. 2005. Scaffolding dynamically toward change: Previous and new perspectives. New Ideas in Psychology, 23 (3): 140 - 151. (doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.07.002)
8. Hamza, K. M. and Wickman, P.-O. 2008. Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92 (1): 141 - 164. (doi:10.1002/sce.20233)
9. Hamza, K. M. and Wickman, P.-O. 2009. Beyond explanations: What else do students need to understand science?. Science Education, 93 (6): 1026 - 1049. (doi:10.1002/sce.20343)
10. Hodson, D. 1990. A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70: 33 - 40.
11. Hodson, D. 1993. Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22 (1): 85 - 142. (doi:10.1080/03057269308560022)
12. Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V. N. 2004. The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88 (1): 28 - 54. (doi:10.1002/sce.10106)
13. Howe, C. and Tolmie, A. 1999. " Productive interaction in the context of computer-supported learning in science ". In Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction, Edited by: Littleton, K. and Light, P. 24 - 45. London: Routledge.
14. Howe, C., Tolmie, A. and Rodgers, C. 1990. Physics in the primary school: Peer interaction and the understanding of floating and sinking. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 5 (4): 459 - 475. (doi:10.1007/BF03173132)
15. Hubber, P., Tytler, R. and Haslam, F. 2010. Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40 (1): 5 - 28. (doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9154-9)
16. Huddle, P. A., White, M. D. and Rogers, F. 2000. Using a teaching model to correct known misconceptions in electrochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77 (1): 104 - 110. (doi:10.1021/ed077p104)
17. Hwang, S. and Roth, W.-M. 2007. From designing artifacts to learning science: A dialectical perspective. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1 (3): 423 - 450. (doi:10.1007/s11422-006-9018-9)
18. Jakobson, B. and Wickman, P.-O. 2007a. The roles of aesthetic experience in elementary school science. Research in Science Education, 38 (1): 45 - 65. (doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9039-8)
19. Jakobson, B. and Wickman, P.-O. 2007b. Transformation through language use: Children's spontaneous metaphors in elementary school science. Science & Education, 16: 267 - 289. (doi:10.1007/s11191-006-9018-x)
20. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P. and Reigosa, C. 2006. Contextualizing practices across epistemic levels in the chemistry laboratory. Science Education, 90 (4): 707 - 733. (doi:10.1002/sce.20132)
21. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B. and Duschl, R. A. 2000. "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84 (6): 757 - 792. (doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F)
22. Johansson, A.-M. and Wickman, P.-O. 2011. " A pragmatist approach to learning progressions ". In Beyond fragmentation: Didactics, learning, and teaching, Edited by: Hudson, B. and Meyer, M. A. 47 - 59. Leverkusen, Germany: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
23. Kariotoglou, P. 2002. " A laboratory-based teaching learning sequence on fluids: Developing primary student teachers' conceptual and procedural knowledge ". In Teaching and learning in the science laboratory, Edited by: Psillos, D. and Niedderer, H. 79 - 90. Secaucus, NJ: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
24. Kelly, G. J. 2004. " Discourse, description, and science education ". In Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research, Edited by: Yerrick, R. 79 - 104. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Kelly, G. J. and Crawford, T. 1996. Students' interaction with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (7): 693 - 707. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199609)33:7<693::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-I)
26. Kelly, G. J. and Crawford, T. 1997. An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81 (5): 533 - 559. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199709)81:5<533::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-B)
27. Kirschner, P. and Huisman, W. 1998. Dry laboratories' in science education: Computer-based practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 20 (6): 665 - 682. (doi:10.1080/0950069980200605)
28. Lundegård, I. and Wickman, P.-O. 2007. Conflicts of interest: An indispensable element of education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 13 (1): 1 - 15. (doi:10.1080/13504620601122566)
29. Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A. and Clough, M. P. 2007. " Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice ". In Handbook of research on science education, Edited by: Abell, S. K. and Lederman, N. G. 393 - 441. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. and Dawes, L. 1999. Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25 (1): 95 - 111. (doi:10.1080/0141192990250107)
31. Nicoll, G. 2001. A three-tier system for assessing concept map links: A methodological study. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (8): 863 - 875. (doi:10.1080/09500690010025003)
32. Novak, J. D. 1990. Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (10): 937 - 949. (doi:10.1002/tea.3660271003)
33. Novak, J. D. 2002. Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86 (4): 548 - 571. (doi:10.1002/sce.10032)
34. Odom, A. L. and Kelly, P. V. 2001. Integrating concept mapping and the Learning Cycle to teach diffusion and osmosis concepts to high school biology students. Science Education, 85 (6): 615 - 635. (doi:10.1002/sce.1029)
35. Osborne, J. 1998. " Science education without a laboratory ". In Practical work in school science: Which way now?, Edited by: Wellington, J. 156 - 173. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.
36. Piqueras, J., Wickman, P.-O. and Hamza, K. M. 2011. " Student teachers' moment-to-moment reasoning and the development of discursive themes ". In Understanding interactions at science centers and museums: A sociocultural perspective, Edited by: Davidsson, E. and Jakobsson, A. 79 - 96. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers B.V.
37. Puntambekar, S. and Hubscher, R. 2005. Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?. Educational Psychologist, 40 (1): 1 - 12. (doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1)
38. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R. and van der Veen, J. T. 2012. The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers and Education, 58 (1): 136 - 153. (doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017)
39. Sensevy, G., Schubauer-Leoni, M-L., Mercier, A., Ligozat, F. and Perrot, G. 2005. An attempt to model the teacher's action in the mathematics class. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59 (1-3): 153 - 181. (doi:10.1007/s10649-005-5887-1)
40. Sharpe, T. 2006. 'Unpacking' scaffolding: Identifying discourse and multimodal strategies that support learning. Language & Education: An International Journal, 20 (3): 211 - 231. (doi:10.1080/09500780608668724)
41. Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J. and Edelson, D. 2004. Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (3): 387 - 421. (doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_5)
42. Slotte, V. and Lonka, K. 1999. Spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of scientific concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (5): 515 - 531. (doi:10.1080/095006999290552)
43. Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C. and Geban, O. 2001. The contribution of conceptual change texts accompanied by concept mapping to students' understanding of the human circulatory system. School Science & Mathematics, 101 (2): 91 - 101. (doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18010.x)
44. Van Zele, E., Lenaerts, J. and Wieme, W. 2004. Improving the usefulness of concept maps as a research tool for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (9): 1043 - 1064. (doi:10.1080/1468181032000158336)
45. Wells, G. 1996. Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture & Activity, 3 (2): 74 - 101. (doi:10.1207/s15327884mca0302_2)
46. White, R. T. 1996. The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18 (7): 761 - 773. (doi:10.1080/0950069960180703)
47. Wickman, P.-O. 2004. The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88 (3): 325 - 344. (doi:10.1002/sce.10129)
48. Wickman, P.-O. and Ligozat, F. 2010. " Scientific literacy as action: Consequences for content progression ". In Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy, Edited by: Linder, C., Östman, L., Roberts, D. A., Wickman, P. O. and Erickson, G. 145 - 159. London: Routledge.
49. Wickman, P.-O. and Östman, L. 2002a. Induction as an empirical problem: How students generalize during practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (5): 465 - 486. (doi:10.1080/09500690110074756)
50. Wickman, P.-O. and Östman, L. 2002b. Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86 (5): 601 - 623. (doi:10.1002/sce.10036)
51. Woolnough, B. E. 1991. " Setting the scene ". In Practical science, Edited by: Woolnough, B. E. 3 - 9. Buckingham: Open University Press.
52. Xu, L. and Clarke, D. 2012. What does distributed cognition tell us about student learning of science?. Research in Science Education, 42 (3): 491 - 510. (doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9207-8)