27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
The Impact of Inquiry-based Learning on Students’ Epistemic Beliefs and Beliefs in Biological Evolution
Andreani Baytelman1, Theoni Loizou2, Salomi Hadjiconstantinou2
1University of Cyprus, Cyprus; 2Cyprus Ministry of Education
Presenting Author: Baytelman, Andreani
Despite the importance of biological evolution as a central and overarching theory in life sciences, it is still poorly understood by students throughout their time in education (Spindler & Doherty, 2009), science teachers, and the public (Authors). This poor understanding has been attributed to diverse cognitive, religious, emotional, and epistemic factors (Rosengren et al., 2012) that evidently biological evolution education is generally not successfully coping with.This investigation explored the impact of inquiry-based learning on biological evolution on high school students' epistemic beliefs towards science and their beliefs in biological evolution. Inquiry-based learning, a student-centered, constructivist pedagogical approach, promotes active student engagement in the learning process, fostering conceptual understanding, higher-order thinking skills, such as critical and creative thinking (Sandoval, 2005), modeling and argumentation skills, communication, and cooperation skills (Minner et al., 2010; Authors). Epistemic beliefs towards science refer to students' beliefs about the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing (Authors; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, p.88; Muis et al., 2015). There are two overarching theoretical models of epistemic beliefs: those that examine epistemic beliefs from a developmental perspective, and those that explore epistemic beliefs from a multidimensional perspective (Author1). Developmental models focus on explaining the development of epistemic beliefs (Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000), whereas multidimensional perspective models focus primarily on the nature and the characteristics of epistemic beliefs. Various research studies argued that epistemic beliefs should be defined more purely, with dimensions concerning the nature of knowledge (what one believes knowledge is) and dimensions concerning the nature or process of knowing (how one comes to know). Dimensions concerning the nature of knowledge are beliefs about the simplicity (related with the structure of knowledge), certainty (related with the stability of knowledge), and development of knowledge. Dimensions concerning the nature of Knowing are Source of Knowledge, and Justification for Knowing (Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri & Harrisson, 2004; Hofer, 2016; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer-Aikins, 2004). Research has indicated that epistemic beliefs are related to students' learning, academic performance, comprehension, perspectives on science, career choices, teaching methodologies, motivation, and self-perception (Authors). On the other hand, students' beliefs in biological evolution pertain to their personal truths and subjective viewpoints on the theory of biological evolution. Research on the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning in shaping students' epistemic beliefs and beliefs in biological evolution remains scarce and inconclusive (Authors; To, Tenenbaum, & Hogh, 2017). This study aims to bridge this research gap by investigating the potential influence of inquiry-based learning on 12th-grade students' epistemic beliefs towards science and their beliefs in biological evolution. Based on previous research, we hypothesised that inquiry-based learning on biological evolution would foster students’ epistemic beliefs (Rutledge, & Warden, 2000; Sandoval, 2005), and beliefs in evolution (Chenf, Adams, & Loehr, 2001). The study involved 70 12th-grade students who underwent inquiry-based learning on biological evolution (The control group consisted of 20 students). Their epistemic beliefs and beliefs in biological evolution were assessed both before and after the intervention, using questionnaires and interviews. The inquiry-based learning intervention incorporated a Cyprus curriculum that employed a series of inquiry-based learning activities, allowing students to engage collaboratively in a guided inquiry approach. This approach empowered students to explore specific concepts and challenges related to biological evolution, deepening their understanding of evolutionary mechanisms and processes while simultaneously developing an epistemic understanding related to various aspects of the history of science, the nature of science, and the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing. The findings indicated a statistically significant improvement in participants' epistemic beliefs following exposure to inquiry-based instruction on biological evolution. However, no statistically significant improvement was observed in participants' beliefs in biological evolution.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used70 12th-grade students participated in the study as part of their biology classes (elective course), taught by their biology schoolteachers. For data collection we used two different questionnaires and semi-structured interviews before and after the inquiry-based learning intervention.
The inquiry-based learning intervention spanned five 90-minute class sessions, held twice a week. The learning activities, contextualized using local examples, fostered active student engagement and collaborative learning. They incorporated hands-on experiences, promoting interaction, discussion, and reflection throughout the various tasks. Each activity involved guided questions about the topic, as well as scientific information that students used to formulate hypotheses, make predictions, gather evidence, analyze data, construct arguments, draw conclusions, and communicate their findings. This information was presented in various forms, including text, diagrams, models, infographics, historical reports, biographies, conceptual maps, and geographical maps.
To measure students’ epistemicl beliefs, we used the Dimensions of Epistemological Beliefs toward Science (DEBS) Instrument (Author 1), which is based on the multidimensional perspective of epistemic beliefs. DEBS has been validated in the culture in which the research was conducted. The 30-item DEBS Instrument captures five epistemic dimensions: three dimensions related to nature of knowledge (Certainty, Simplicity, and Development of Knowledge), and two dimensions related to nature of knowing (Source and Justification of Knowledge). Each dimension of this instrument consists of six items rated on a four-point Likert-scale with the following scoring options: strongly disagree=1, disagree=2, agree=3 and strongly agree=4. High scores on this measure represent more sophisticated epistemic beliefs, while low scores represent less sophisticated beliefs.
To assess beliefs in biological evolution, we used a specific 4-item instrument which were rated on a four-point Likert-scale like epistemic beliefs. This 4-item instrument was designed to assess students’ beliefs in plant, animal, and human evolution, as well as human creation by God. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with12 students.
To investigate whether inquiry-based learning intervention improves 12th-grade students’ epistemological beliefs and beliefs in biological evolution, pre-and post-test scores were compared using paired samples test at 95% confidence. The results indicated that all dimensions of epistemic beliefs were improved after the inquiry-based intervention and were statistically significantly higher than the scores before the intervention. On the other hand, the beliefs in biological evolution were not statistically significant improved after the inquiry-based intervention. However, students’ scores on beliefs in human creation by God were slightly but not significant improved. The semi-structured interviews results indicated a similar pattern as the questionnaires.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis study expands on existing research exploring the impact of inquiry-based learning on students' epistemic beliefs and beliefs in biological evolution. Our findings indicated statistically significant improvements in all dimensions of epistemic beliefs (Certainty, Simplicity, Development, Source and Justification of Knowledge) following the inquiry-based intervention. While the current research design does not allow us to identify the exact mechanisms that drove these gains, our evidence suggests that inquiry-based learning activities played a crucial role in shaping students' epistemic beliefs. In contrast, no statistically significant changes were observed in students' beliefs in biological evolution after the intervention.
Our findings are in line with previous research, which have highlighted the positive impact of inquiry-based learning in promoting students' engagement with science, fostering an epistemic awareness of scientific processes and how science operates, as well as improving beliefs towards science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Sandoval, 2005; Shi, Ma, & Wang, 2020). Additionally, our findings have important educational implications indicating that teachers should use a well-designed inquiry-based learning activities on biological evolution to promote students’ epistemic beliefs, foster the development of their epistemic awareness of how science operates and set the boundaries on what science can address. Yet, our study contributes to the current body of knowledge and highlights the significance of promoting the understanding that science and religion operate under distinct epistemic frameworks. This distinction underscores that scientific knowledge is fundamentally different from religious and cultural beliefs. These findings underscore the importance of enhacing this understanding among students, teachers, and curriculum developers in the field of education.
The main limitations of this study are the following: The small size of our sample, and the fact that all students and teachers came from the same school, the same region and they have the same religion. Further research is required to replicate these findings.
ReferencesAuthors
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.
Chenf, A., Adams, G. & Loehr, J. (2001). What on "Earth" is evolution? The American Biology Teacher, 63(8), 182-188.
Conley, M., Pintrich, P., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186-204.
Hofer, B. K. (2016). Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 19–38). Routledge.
Hofer, B. K., Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological-theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing their relation to learning. Review of educational Research, 67(2), 88-140.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
Rosengren, K. L., Brem, S. K., Evans, E. M. & Sinatra, G. M. (Eds). (2012). Evolution Challenges Integrating Research and Practice in Teaching and Learning about Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rutledge, M., & Warden, M. (2000). Evolutionary theory, the nature of science & high school biology teachers: critical relationships. The American Biology Teacher, 62(1), 23-31.
Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436–1460.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 19–29.
Shi, W., Ma, L., W., J. (2020) Effects of Inquiry-Based Teaching on Chinese University Students' Epistemologies about Experimental Physics and Learning Performance. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(2) 289-297.
Spindler, L., & Doherty, J. (2009). Assessment of the teaching of evolution by natural selection through a hands‐on simulation. Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology, 6.
To, C., Tenenbaum, H., & Hogh, H. (2017). Secondary school students’ reasoning about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 54(2) 247—273.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Student Conceptions of Forms of Knowledge: An Onto-Epistemological Classification of Knowledge Across Three Subjects in Upper Secondary School
Casper Juul1, Jeffrey Greene2
1University of Southern Denmark, Denmark; 2University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
Presenting Author: Juul, Casper
Epistemic cognition (EC) has been a flourishing field of research in the past two decades (e.g., Sandoval et al., 2016). Even so, a matter of EC that stands unresolved is the degree to which individual conceptions about the nature of knowledge and knowing should be considered domain-general, domain-specific, or even topic-specific constructs (Sandoval et al., 2016). An intuitive way of elucidating this issue is by studying EC across different academic disciplines (e.g., Greene et al., 2010). However, quantitative instruments to measure EC have demonstrated poor psychometric properties (Greene & Yu, 2014), which has been hypothesized to partially be a result of the instruments not accounting for ontological categories of knowledge (Chi, 1992; Slotta et al., 1995), or forms of knowledge such as “a fact”, influencing the psychometric properties of the items. As an example, a question used by Schommer (1990) is “When I study, I look for specific facts”. Within the framework of onto-epistemological categories, as presented in this paper, across disciplines a “fact” could be interpreted as one of many distinct forms of knowledge. Furthermore, it has been argued, that some forms of knowledge are unique to particular academic disciplines, such as “historical empathy” (VanSledright & Maggioni, 2016). Thus, to measure EC quantitatively, there is a need to investigate which categories students verbalize in association with knowledge.
This paper intends to add to the current body of EC research by investigating which categories are used by students to describe different forms of knowledge, as well as to distinguish these categories as ontological by drawing on perspectives from EC research and theory. Furthermore, it intends to do so at the upper secondary school (USS) level, a level of educational institutions currently underrepresented in the literature, as well as in a geographical context in which no such systematic investigation has yet been undertaken. Drawing on a sample of Danish USS students interviewed in three distinct subjects, the research question is thus: In First Language Studies, Mathematics, and Social Science, what are the different classifications of knowledge that Danish USS students verbalize and how do those classifications differ ontologically from a lens of epistemic cognition?
I draw upon the theoretical frameworks of ontological categorization as proposed by Chi (1992, Slotta et al., 1995), as well as the Apt-AIR framework proposed by Barzilai and Chinn (2018; Chinn et al., 2011). Within Chi’s framework, ontological categories may be distinguished by means of their attributes. Ontological attributes may only be possessed by members of a category. Characteristic attributes are typically possessed by members of a category. Finally, defining attributes must be possessed by all members of a category, but not exclusively by members of that category. Furthermore, the framework allows for categories to be nested within broader categories, allowing for both horizontal and vertical connections. Thus, drawing on an example used by Slotta et al., (1995), all sparrows are birds, but not all birds are sparrows (vertical). In the Apt-AIR framework, aptness is defined as epistemic performance that successfully “…achieves valuable epistemic aims through competence” (Barzilai & Chinn, 2018). This approach allows for a situated approach towards the analysis of EC. The AIR framework consists of epistemic aims and values, epistemic ideals, and reliable processes for achieving epistemic aims (Chinn et al., 2011). Aims and values refer to the epistemic goals an actor may set as well as their perceived importance. Ideals refer to different criteria for evaluating whether a, epistemic goal has been successfully accomplished. Finally, reliable processes are the strategies and procedures used to achieve epistemic aims and create epistemic products (Barzilai & Chinn, 2018). The frameworks are supplemented by inductively generated codes.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedRegistry data was utilized to sample 12 students with different background characteristics from 2 Danish USS’s. Both were of the higher general examination type (STX). Interviews were conducted with one of the three subjects as its primary focus. Data collection was conducted as a qualitative multi-method study (Cresswell, 2019). First, observation was conducted in a lesson in one of the select subjects (80 minutes). During observation, I took detailed field notes (Emerson et al., 1995) about how class was conducted, what themes were discussed, and responding student behavior. The observations allowed me to identify students who were prime candidates for interviewing. Participants were recruited around half-way through the lesson, so that I could focus my attention on that student. Interviews were conducted during the following lesson so that the in-class experiences would still be fresh in memory for the students. A short break between lessons allowed me to structure my notes, so that I could select appropriate recalls to include during the interview. Interviews lasted between 40-88 minutes.
In the first phase of the semi-structured interview, students were questioned about their thought on the subject and the recall prompts from the observation notes were used. The interview-guide was designed to probe the Apt-AIR conceptualization of EC (Barzilai & Chinn, 2018). In the second phase, the student was presented with two vignettes (Atzmüller & Steiner, 2010) representing authentic subject-oriented tasks. Students were asked to first explain how they comprehended the task at hand. They were then asked to explain, how they would approach solving the task. After they had provided me with their suggested solution, I interrogated them regarding this solution, inspired by the framework used by Deanne Kuhn (1991), which specifically focuses on having participants provide argumentative reasoning for claims.
A codebook was developed to systematize the process of coding the data. For this study, it was important to let the data “speak” as opposed to imposing pre-conceived ideas upon it. As such, constant comparison methods (Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021; Hallberg, 2006) were used to move between theory and data, identifying both theory- and data-driven codes (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011). This process continued iteratively until the point of saturation was reached and no new codes were identified in the material.
Subsequently, an analysis of different categorized of knowledge verbalized by the students were undertaken, using relevant codes as means of exploring attributes of knowledge that might demarcate forms of knowledge.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBy drawing on EC theory and research, this paper will demonstrate that it is possible to distinguish onto-epistemological categories, or “forms of knowledge”, via how students verbalize expressions about different school subjects. These forms of knowledge can be distinguished in terms of which epistemic attributes students associate with each form. As demonstrated, such attributions analytically fall in both the ontological, characteristic, and descriptive attribution categories. Thus, it is possible to illustrate not only how the forms of knowledge used by students are distinct, but how they are interrelated in hierarchical families. As a select example, a distinct onto-epistemological category identified is the “Term”. To the participants, these are nested within subjects with the epistemic aim of “understanding” them. Epistemic values regarding their usefulness reveals that they are useful for exam situations, but not in the daily life of the student. To understand a term is laden with the ideal of “correctness”. To fulfil this ideal, one’s understanding and application of a term must conform to the boundaries set by a recognized authority on knowledge, such as the teacher or the textbook. Some of the reliable process associated with achieving the goal of understanding a term includes “testing boundaries for correctness of understanding” and rote learning. While not explicated here, the term as an onto-epistemological category stands in contrast to another identified category, the “opinion”, which is associated with vastly different, subjective, and tentative characteristics.
The findings presented in this paper has shown how a sample of Danish USS students use distinct forms of knowledge across three distinct subjects. By drawing on the Apt-AIR framework, it has been exemplified how they distinguish these onto-epistemological categories.
ReferencesAtzmüller, C., & Steiner, P. M. (2010). Experimental Vignette Studies in Survey Research. Methodology, 6(3), 128-138.
Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the Goals of Epistemic Education: Promoting Apt Epistemic Performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353-389.
Charmaz, K. and R. Thornberg (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative research in psychology, 18(3), 305-327.
Chi, M. (1992). Conceptual Change within and across Ontological Categories: Examples from Learning and Discovery in Science. In R. Giere & H. Feigl (Eds.), Cognitive Models of Science (Vol. 15, pp. 129-186). University of Minnesota Press.
Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the Dimensions of Epistemic Cognition: Arguments From Philosophy and Psychology. Educational psychologist, 46(3), 141-167.
Creswell, J. W. and T. C. Guetterman (2019). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson.
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and Using a Codebook for the Analysis of Interview Data: An Example from a Professional Development Research Project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.
Greene, J. A., Torney-Purta, J., & Azevedo, R. (2010). Empirical Evidence Regarding Relations Among a Model of Epistemic and Ontological Cognition, Academic Performance, and Educational Level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 234-255.
Greene, J. A., & Yu, S. B. (2014). Modeling and measuring epistemic cognition: A qualitative re-investigation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(1), 12-28.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. In J. E. Adler & L. J. Rips (Eds.), Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations (pp. 678-693). Cambridge University Press.
Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Understanding and Promoting Thinking About Knowledge: Origins, Issues, and Future Directions of Research on Epistemic Cognition. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 457-496.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing Students' Misclassifications of Physics Concepts: An Ontological Basis for Conceptual Change. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 373-400.
VanSledright, B., & Maggioni, L. (2016). Epistemic cognition in history. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of Epistemic Cognition (pp. 128-146). Routledge.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Spontaneous Gestures As ‘Objects’ To Explain With In Science: An Examination Of Learners’ Gestural Engagement In Self-Explanatory Talk.
Kalliopi Paridi, Constantinos Constantinou
Learning in Science Group, Department of Education, University of Cyprus
Presenting Author: Paridi, Kalliopi
Traditionally, research in science education has concentrated on uncovering students' conceptualizations regarding various physical phenomena (Driver, Guesne, Tiberghien, 1985). Unlike earlier methods that overly prioritized verbal explanations, recent studies have encouraged students to express their ideas combining drawings with oral and written language (Tytler, et al., 2020; Tversky et al., 2009). Modern approaches also involve the collection of video-based data, allowing for a more comprehensive exploration of various aspects of student reasoning (Givry, & Delserieys, 2013). This multimodal account of learners’ ideas enables a more accurate understanding and a more effective response to their educational needs compared to previous methods.
In this study, we examine the distributive function facilitated by spontaneous gestures of young learners, seen as a lens of an embodied engagement in explanatory talk in science. By spontaneous gestures we refer to body/hand movements performed without learners being asked purposefully to move their hands but do so naturally (and idiosyncratically) during their verbal utterances. These movements co-occur with speech and are not ergotic, physical actions upon manipulatives or conventional emblematic signs. Our interest in spontaneous gestures is induced by documented analyses of gestures during authentic discourse, particularly when externalizing or constructing explanations of scientific phenomena (Mathayas, et al., 2019; Becvar, et al., 2008). Our examination is grounded in the theoretical perspective that views this kind of gestures as 'objects to think with', as artifacts. This consideration is based on the referential and representational function of gestures in the visual-spatial modality and on their capacity to communicate what is known as embodied knowledge (Abrahamson, & Howison, 2010).
This work aligns with “4E” perspectives on cognition (Hutchins 1996; Clark, 2012) whereas thinking is seen as embodied, extended (or distributed), enacted and embedded (or situated). Our understanding of the world is inherently embodied, structured within conceptual systems rooted in physical experiences and sensations, and actualized through bodily engagement (Clark, 2012). These notions are appealing in orienting our attention to the possibly embedded/extended cognitive role of gestures. The contemporary view is that gestures are extensions of the mind. The mind uses the body to support internal cognitive processes, providing it with an external physical and visual presence.
Gesture studies is an interdisciplinary field, bridging research traditions and motivating the inquiry on the roles that gestures. Extensive research (McNeill, 1992) indicates that co-speech gestures benefits thinking, observed in various situations like describing landscapes, navigating maps, machines, narrating stories, explaining solutions to puzzles or maths problems (e.g., Beattie & Shovelton, 1999). In science education, gesture studies are dispersed, often focusing on higher education and teachers' gestures rather than those of young learners often in specific contexts. Examples include studies on matter properties (Wallon, & Brown, 2019), astronomical phenomena (Crowder, & Newman, 1993), kinematics (Scherr, 2008), and stereochemistry (Ping et al., 2021). Based on our review of the literature, our standpoint is that spontaneous gestures as a form of bodily engagement, has a unique meaning potential with a special signature as part of science language.
This empirical study focuses on how learners employ their bodies alongside their words when engaged in explanatory talk. We will present key findings, guided by the following research questions:
- How do middle school learners use spontaneous gestures to elaborate their thinking when engaged in a process of explaining every day physical phenomena?
- How can the identified gestures be classified based on their functionality?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe presented study is part of a wider multi-case study which consists of two phases of data collection. Its sample consists of 20 Cypriot middle-school learners within the age-range of 10-13 years. The sampling of the second study includes purposefully selected cases of learners with a special focus on their cognitive profile. The sample of the two interrelated phases is based on the general objective of selecting learner-cases to establish variability in the phenomenon of learners’ gesturing during explanations.
The methodological approach builds on the long-standing tradition of using clinical interviews as a main collection tool with no accessible probs. Effective depth cameras are used to capture hand/body movement. Two interview protocols are implemented in two separate interview sessions The protocols include questions that relate to the nature of light and the formation of a mechanical wave. Pilot procedures have been implemented to improve the quality of elicited data and integrate techniques facilitating reflection and promoting explanatory discussion with the interviewee. The questions engage learners in authentic dialogues, prompting students to explain, elaborate, reflect, argue on given statements. In clinical conditions, learners are seen to naturally gesture along with language. The researcher establishes a good relationship with the learner so that the learner can express him/herself freely (minimize the gesture-threshold). This approach is appropriate because it affords a detailed examination of how students convey their ideas. The interview protocols were formatively constructed combining a thorough review of children’s ideas on the corresponding concepts and with the invited feedback comments by two research experts in the Science Education field of matured research experience (15 and 30 years of experience) in the field.
Multimodal data include a) verbal transcribed texts of students’ explanations during the interview sessions, b) self-produced drawings on sketchbooks (minimizing load – triangulation), c) video-footages during the interviews d) cognitive-ability test scores.
Spontaneous gestures are transcribed from video-episodes of students and are analysed in the context of the accompanying speech using Atlas.ti software. We are using an emerging coding system for identifying patterns and functions of co-speech gestures using a micro-analysis process involving four stages of fine-graining, qualitative analysis of sequences of talk and action, what we call semiotic dialectic (a bundle of meaning). The detailed procedure provides a ground-up development of a typology of gestures. Reliability of the process will be assessed where possible with a second transcriber independently, where agreement on codes will be pursued upon discussion.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur preliminary analysis has found that all students used gestures spontaneously and integrally in their explanations but with distinct differences, seen as serving their need to convey meaning. Key findings show that the way learners integrate the gestural space in their explanatory talk is linked with the nature of their conceptual ideas. Learners with similarities in their trail of thought regarding abstract concepts, have highlighted common gestural patterns.
Our emerging coding scheme, finds common ground with earlier studies on students' explanations (Nathan and Martinez, 2015; Roth and Welzel, 2001; Crowder and Newman, 1993) and reveal that gestures play epistemic roles: (1) connecting phenomenal and conceptual layers of content, (2) indicating the use of mental models and dynamic imagery, (3) distinguishing between descriptions and explanations, (4) guiding students towards generalizations, and (5) representing unseen entities.
One of the implications resolving from this work is contributing to an existing conversation around the re-defining of the concept of language by examining its unique relationship with gesture. This work provides empirical support for the unique place of children’s gestures in the process of engaging in exploratory and explanatory talk. We anticipate that the findings not only will show the value of gestures but also offer a few critical thoughts in the forefront. The crucial role of seeing gestures as objects to explain with, finds important links with the core idea of artifacts as tools to scaffold learning. In pedagogical practice, science educators should be able to realize this meaning potential of embodied literacies as special form of communication and for enhancing learning.
ReferencesAbrahamson,D., & Howison,M. (2010). Embodied artifacts: coordinated action as an object-to think-with. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver,CO.
Beattie, G., & Shovelton, H. (1999). Do iconic hand gestures really contribute anything to the semantic information conveyed by speech? An experimental investigation. Semiotica, 123(1-2), 1-30.
Becvar, A., Hollan, J., & Hutchins, E. (2008). Representational gestures as cognitive artifacts for developing theories in a scientific laboratory. In Resources, Co-Evolution and Artifacts (pp. 117-143). Springer, London
Clark, A. (2012). Embodied, embedded, and extended cognition. The Cambridge handbook of cognitive science, 275-291.
Crowder, E. M., & Newman, D. (1993). Telling what they know: The role of gesture and language in children’s science explanations. Pragmatics and Cognition, 1(2), 341-376.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Some features of children’s ideas and their implications for teaching. Children’s ideas in science, 193-201.
Givry, D., & Delserieys, A. (2013, September). Contributions of talk, gesture and salient elements of the setting to analyse student's ideas in science through video. In E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science Education Research For Evidence-based Teaching and Coherence in Learning. Part (Vol. 3, pp. 509-518).
Mathayas, N., Brown, D. E., Wallon, R. C., & Lindgren, R. (2019). Representational gesturing as an epistemic tool for the development of mechanistic explanatory models. Science Education, 103(4), 1047- 1079.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago press.
Nathan, M. J., & Martinez, C. V. (2015). Gesture as model enactment: the role of gesture in mental model construction and inference making when learning from text. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 4-37
Ping,R., Church, R.B., Decatur, M. A., Larson, S. W., Zinchenko, E., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2021). Unpacking the gestures of chemistry learners: What the hands tell us about correct and incorrect conceptions of stereochemistry. Discourse Processes, 1-20.
Roth, W., & Welzel, M. (2001). From activity to gestures and scientific language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 103–136
Scherr, R.E. (2008). Gesture analysis for physics education researchers. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 4(1), 1-9
Tytler,R., Prain,V., Aranda,G., Ferguson,J., & Gorur,R. (2020). Drawing to reason and learn in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(2), 209-231.
Wallon,R.C., & Brown,D.E. (2019). Personification of particles in middle school students’ explanations of gas pressure. Physics Teaching and Learning: Challenging the Paradigm, 135.
|
