Abstract
Research on the multiple and multimodal representational nature of science and science learning is a well established field within science education research (Tang et al. Science Education, 98(2), 305–326, 2014). The key suggestion for effective science pedagogy drawn from such studies is that student-generated representations better support development of scientific understandings (Hubber et al. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5–28, 2010; Tytler and Prain International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 2055–2078, 2010; Waldrip et al. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65–80, 2010). In addition to strong conceptual gains and higher levels of student engagement this approach to teaching and learning is seen to hold significant epistemological implications for teachers and learners (Hubber et al. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5–28, 2010; Prain and Tytler International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751–2773, 2012). In seeking to explore the relationships between these aspects of engagement and the development of conceptual and epistemological understandings a framing analysis was employed to study the effects of a student-generated representation on learning and applying particle model ideas. The concept of framing has been extensively developed and utilized to inform understanding in varied disciplines including sociology, linguistics, anthropology and more recently education (Berland and Hammer Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94, 2012). Drawing on its use in these traditions this concept appears to provide a promising multi-frame lens with which to identify and analyze positional, conceptual and epistemological aspects of learning. The construction of such framings by students and teachers is considered as a potential indicator of the effectiveness of a representation-focused pedagogy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler Press.
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.
Bétrancourt, M., Ainsworth, S., de Vries, E., Boucheix, J. M., & Lowe, R. K. (2012). Graphicacy: Do readers of science textbooks need it? In E. de Vries & K. Scheiter (Eds.), Proceedings EARLI special interest group text and graphics: Staging knowledge and experience: How to take advantage of representational technologies in education and training? (pp. 37–39). Grenoble: Université Pierre-Mendès-France.
Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2012). Epistemic complexity and the journeyman-expert transition. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010105, 1–12.
Eilam, B. (2012). Teaching, learning, and visual literacy: The dual role of visual representation in the teaching profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 409–434). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, M., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Refining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–33.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Greeno, J. G. (2009). A theory bite on contextualizing, framing, and positioning: A companion to son and goldstone. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 269–275.
Greeno, J. G., & MacWhinney, B. (2006). Learning as perspective taking: Conceptual alignment in the classroom. Paper presented at the 7th international conference on learning sciences, Bloomington, 27 June–1 July 2006 (Poster).
Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9–23.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–120). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383.
Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5–28.
Justi, R., Gilbert, J. K., & Ferreira, F. M. (2009). The application of a ‘model of modelling’ to illustrate the importance of metavisualisation in respect to the three types of representation. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 285–307). Dordrecht: Springer.
Linn, M. C., Chang, H. Y., Chiu, J. L., Zhang, H., & McElhaney, K. (2010). Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations? In A. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 239–262). New York: Routledge.
MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of grammar from perspective taking. In D. Pecher & R. Zwann (Eds.), The grounding of cognition (pp. 198–233). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Magnani, L. (2013). Is abduction ignorance-preserving? Conventions, models and fictions in science. Logic Journal of IGPL, 21, 882.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Understanding discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751–2773.
Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI, Bologna.
Roberts, D. (1996). Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: The potential role of teacher communities: a response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry, 26, 417–431.
Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 147–174.
Shemwell, J. T., & Furtak, E. M. (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation: A study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15(3), 222–250.
Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2009). Contextualization in perspective. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 51–89.
van de Sande, C., & Greeno, J. G. (2010). A framing of instructional explanations: Let us explain with you instructional explanations in the disciplines (Vol. 2, pp. 69–82). Boston: Springer.
van de Sande, C., & Greeno, J. (2012). Achieving alignment of perspectival framings in problem-solving discourse. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 1–44.
Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.
Weisberg, M. (2007). Who is a modeler? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58, 207–233.
Woods, J., & Rosales, A. (2010). Virtuous distortion: Abstraction and idealisation in model-based science. In L. Magnani, W. Carnielli, & C. Pizzi (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in science and technology (pp. 3–30). Berlin: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carolan, J. (2016). Using a Framing Analysis to Elucidate Learning from a Pedagogy of Student-Constructed Representations in Science. In: Hand, B., McDermott, M., Prain, V. (eds) Using Multimodal Representations to Support Learning in the Science Classroom. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16449-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16450-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)