Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 283–303 | Cite as

The Interplay Between Content, Expressions and Their Meaning When Expressing Understanding

  • C. Alvegård
  • E. Anderberg
  • L. Svensson
  • T. Johansson
Article

Abstract

In the intentional-expressive approach, a development within the phenomenographic tradition, an alternative view of the role of language is adopted. The approach focuses the learner’s use of expressions and intended meanings, in relation to his/her conception of a phenomenon. The article presents empirical findings from a study made at a university of technology using a special dialogue structure. The aim of the dialogue is to capture the individual’s way of reflecting on the interplay between the expressions he or she uses, their intended meanings, and his or her conception of the phenomenon. Twenty-four students participated and were presented an everyday situation involving the physical motion of a body. The results show that the interplay was ambiguous and dynamic. The relationships between expression and meaning were much weaker than between meaning and conception. In learning situations, this may cause problems concerning students’ knowledge formation, since a stable relationship is often taken for granted in learning and teaching.

Keywords

Gravitational Force Conceptual Change Gravitational Acceleration Technical Term Intended Meaning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This project has financial support from Swedish Research Council.

References

  1. Anderberg, E. (1999). The relation between language and thought revealed in reflecting upon words used to express the conception of a problem (Diss.). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderberg, E. (2000). Word meaning and conceptions. An empirical study of relationships between students’ thinking and use of language when reasoning about a problem. Instructional Science, 28, 89–113.Google Scholar
  3. Anderberg, E. (2003). Språkanvändningens funktion vid utveckling av kunskap om objekt, (Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 198). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  4. Anderberg, E., Svensson, L., Alvegård, C. & Johansson, T. (2008). The epistemological role of language use in learning. A phenomenographic intentional-expressive approach. Educational Research Review, 3, 14–29.Google Scholar
  5. Alvegård, C., & Anderberg, E. (2006). The interplay between content, language meaning and expressions. Paper presented in the symposium, the interplay between language and thought in understanding problems from a student perspective at AERA (American Educational Research Association) Annual Meeting, San Francisco, April 8–12.Google Scholar
  6. Carmichael, P., Driver, R., Holding, B., Phillips, I., Twigger, D., & Watts, M. (1990). Research on students’ conceptions in science: A bibliography. Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science & Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  7. diSessa, A. (1996). What do just plain folk know about physics? In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development; New models of learning teaching and schooling (pp. 709–730). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. diSessa, A. (1998). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Foreman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. diSessa, A., & Sherin, B. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1155–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography STCSE—Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Retrieved August 27, 2009, from IPN—Leibniz Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel, Kiel. Web site: http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/.
  11. Fensham, P. (2001). Science content as problematic—Issues for research. In H. Behrent, et al. (Eds.), Research in science education—Past present and future (pp. 27–41). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meaning of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2, 5–61.Google Scholar
  15. Johansson, B., Marton, F., & Svensson, L. (1985). An approach to describing learning as change between qualitatively different conceptions. In L. A. Pines & L. H. T. West (Eds.), Cognitive structures and conceptual change (pp. 233–258). Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Johansson, T., Svensson, L., Anderberg, E. & Alvegård, C. (2006). A phenomenographic view of the interplay between language use and learning, (Pedagogical Reports, 24), Lund: Department of Education, Lund University.Google Scholar
  17. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language learning and values. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  18. Lemke, J. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography. Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. McDermott, L., & Redish, E. (1999). Resource letter PER-1: Physics educational research. American Journal of Physics, 67, 755–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Posner, G., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schulte, J. (2001). On wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations, 24, 162–169.Google Scholar
  25. Svensson, L. (1978). Some notes on a methodological problem in the study of the relationship between thought and language—describing the thought content in terms of different conceptions of the same phenomenon. Göteborg: Department of Education and Educational Research, Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
  26. Svensson, L. (1989). The conceptualization of cases of physical motion. European Journal of Psychology of Education, IV, 529–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education Research & Development, 16, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Svensson, L., Anderberg, E., Alvegård, C. & Johansson, T. (2009). The use of language in understanding subject matter. Instructional Science, 37, 205–225.Google Scholar
  29. Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Education, 1, 205–221.Google Scholar
  30. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Conceptual change in physical sciences. Learning and Instruction, 4, 1–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vosniadou, S. (1996). Towards a revised cognitive psychology for new advances in learning and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 6, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 14, 445–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wittgenstein, L. (1974). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Alvegård
    • 1
  • E. Anderberg
    • 1
  • L. Svensson
    • 2
  • T. Johansson
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Education and CommunicationJönköping UniversityJönköpingSweden
  2. 2.Department of EducationLund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations