Abstract
The ability to use a scientific concept is intimately linked to the ability to “fluently juggle with its verbal, mathematical, and visual/graphical aspects, applying whichever is most appropriate in the moment and freely translating back and forth among them” (Lemke 1994). This translation across multiple modes of representation places a high demand on cognitive resources, particularly for young children. This chapter details a project that examines the effects of using an SWH approach with younger children (K-3rd grade). Most projects that have examined the effects of SWH have focused on older children (i.e., 3rd grade and older). As part of the project, a coding scheme was developed to better understand what modes of representation children this age used to represent scientific concepts, whether and how these modes were linked to one another, and how these modes and links varied by grade level. In addition to the examination of these child level outcomes, key indicators of teachers’ implementation of the approach were studied in another early childhood sample. In the second project, we explored the classroom environment conditions in relation to the use of language that can promote young children’s engagement in science when using the SWH approach. By using the framework of learning about language, through using language as you live the language of science the research was able to explore what are some of the crucial language features teachers engage with in promoting understanding of the science. In particular the study focused on the difference between teachers with 2 years of experience vs teachers with 3 years of experience using the SWH approach.
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
Aguirre-Mendez, C. P., Yoon, S., Keles, N., Linebarger, D. L., & Hand, B. M. (2013, March). Early learners’ multiple representation in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Pittsburg, PA.
Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry based approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745–1765.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299.
Barr, R., & Brito, N. (2013). From specificity to flexibility: Developmental changes during infancy. In P. Bauer & R. Fivush (Eds.), Wiley-Blackwell handbook on the development of children’s memory (pp. 453–479). Chichester: Wiley and Sons.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Burke, K., Greenbowe, T., & Hand, B. (2006). Implementing the Science Writing Heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 1032–1038.
Conezio, K., & French, L. (2002). Science in the preschool classroom: Capitalizing on children’s fascination with the everyday world to foster language and literacy development. Young Children, 57(5), 12–18.
Cook, C., Goodman, N. D., & Schulz, L. E. (2011). Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in preschoolers’ exploratory play. Cognition, 120, 341–349.
Damon, W., Kuhn, D., & Siegler, R. (1998). Handbook of child psychology. New York: Wiley.
Danish, J. A., & Phelps, D. (2011). The interactional role of kindergarten and first grade students’ representational practices. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Fantuzzo, J., Sekino, Y., & Cohen, H. L. (2004). An examination of the contributions of interactive peer play to salient classroom competencies for urban Head Start children. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 323–336.
Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Chapter 1: Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32.
Gopnik, A. (2012). Scientific thinking in young children: Theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science, 337(6102), 1623–1627.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Arnod Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hand, B. (Ed.). (2008). Science inquiry, argument and language: The case for the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27–29.
Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2015). Aligning teaching and learning: A 3–year study of embedding authentic language and science practices within elementary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, pp. 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9622-9.
Hayne, H. (2006). Bridging the gap: The relation between learning and memory during infancy. In M. H. Johnson & Y. Munakata (Eds.), Attention and performance XXI: Processes of change in brain and cognitive development (pp. 209–231). London: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, C. (2011). Hide and seek and the air in the closet: Environments for learning. In B. Hand & L. Norton-Meier (Eds.), Voices from the classroom: Elementary teachers’ experience with argument-based inquiry. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7–19.
Kress, G. R. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. New York: Routledge.
Lany, J., & Saffran, J. R. (2013). Statistical learning mechanisms in infancy. In J. L. R. Rubenstein & P. Rakic (Eds.), Comprehensive developmental neuroscience: Neural circuit development and function in the brain (Vol. 3, pp. 231–248). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lemke, J. (1994). The missing context in science education: Science. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Atlanta, April 1992. Arlington: ERIC Documents Service (ED 363 511), 1994.
Malin, J. (2011). What’s the big ideas? Putting concept maps into the hands of your students. In B. Hand & L. Norton-Meier (Eds.), Voices from the classroom: Elementary teachers’ experience with argument-based inquiry. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Nelson, S. (2011). Science argumentation and the arts. In B. Hand & L. Norton-Meier (Eds.), Voices from the classroom: Elementary teachers’ experience with argument-based inquiry. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
Norton-Meier, L. (2008). Creating border convergence between science and language: A case for the Science Writing Heuristic. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language: The case for the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) (pp. 13–24). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Cavagnetto, A., Akkus, R., & Gunel, M. (2009). Pedagogy, implementation and professional development for teaching science literacy: How students and teacher know and learn. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 169–188). Dordrecht: Springer.
O’Keeffe, M. (2010). Media and the making of scientists. Unpublished dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. pp. 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9622-9.
Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (Eds.). (2006). Travel notes from the new literacy studies: Instances of practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Richmond, J., & Nelson, C. A. (2007). Accounting for change in declarative memory: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Developmental Review, 27, 349–373.
Sanders, J. (2011). Implementing science conversations with young learners. In B. Hand & L. Norton-Meier (Eds.), Voices from the classroom: Elementary teachers’ experience with argument-based inquiry. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.
Sigel, I. E. (1999). Approaches to representation as a psychological construct: A treatise in diversity. In I. E. Sigel (Ed.), Development of mental representation: Theories and applications (pp. 3–12). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Teale, W., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood: Ablex.
Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Guided play: Where curricular goals meet a playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(2), 104–112.
Yelland, N. J., O’Rourke, M. E., Lee, L., & Harrison, C. (2008). Rethinking learning in early childhood education. Buckingham: OUP.
Yoon, S. (2012). Dual processing and discourse space: Exploring fifth grade students’ language, reasoning, and understanding through writing. Unpublished dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
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
Linebarger, D.L., Norton-Meier, L. (2016). Scientific Concepts, Multiple Modalities, and Young Children. 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_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16449-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16450-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)