Conference Agenda

Problem solving and collaboration are crucial components of the 21^st century skills and the combined ‘collaborative problem solving’ has received remarkable academic attention and been integrated into major educational frameworks such as PISA 2015 (van Laar et al. 2020; Scoular et al. 2020). While frameworks such as PISA focus on students' strategies for surmounting difficulties, academics also argue that struggling with a problem can have a unique learning potential, through reflecting on what the problem consists of (e.g., Schön 1987). A noteworthy contribution to this tradition is Manu Kapur and his notion of productive failure. Herein Kapur emphasizes that spending time on open-ended, non-scaffolded problems allows students to discuss the limits of a problem, which he found supported students’ long-term learning (Kapur 2008). In this paper, I am investigating the circumstances in artefact-based group work that facilitate or hinder students’ engagement in meaningful problem-solving conversations.

For understanding students’ discussions during problem-solving challenges, I am interested in whether students are comparing and contrasting different solutions, in so-called exploratory talk (Littleton and Mercer 2013). Several articles suggest that the use of tools and artefacts is important for how group members can work together (Knight and Littleton 2015; Wegerif 1996). The distribution of access to instruments or digital artefacts is co-constructing how individuals can take part in their groups, as exemplified in the use of all-participating-at-once at interactive tabletops vs the turn-taking when groups are collaborating around a single ipad (Fleck, Vasalou, and Stasinou 2021). As the artefacts can restrict access to task-relevant information, it influences the need for information-sharing within the group, whether that be vocal or physical through turn-taking. This focus emphasizes the importance of the body and the near-material sphere for understanding how collaboration happens around (digital) tools in education (Gourlay 2021; Davidsen and Ryberg 2017).

Exploratory talk thus shows promise as an effective learning strategy but places demands on group communication to establish a shared understanding. With a lack of common ground (Stahl 2011), groups might turn to either advance their own ideas without discussing them (dispositional talk), or just accept others’ ideas without having any basis to challenge them on (cumulative talk) (Littleton and Mercer 2013). By investigating relevant situations where student groups face problems, this project seeks to identify mechanisms that affect the exploratory talk in group work. This is in line with a ~30 years old discussion on the sequence of sharing tools and artefacts (Wegerif 1996). This article is based on the following research question:

How is group-members’ engagement with the artefacts affecting the orchestration of the work, the establishment of common ground and their exploratory talk?

To address this question, I observe student groups at an activity center, in which 8^th graders participate in a one-day science lab. The work in this article is part of a bigger project, which through combining ethnography and sensors, badges, and cameras will investigate in what situations groups remain courageous and curious in science despite encountering challenges (Bjerre-Nielsen and Glavind 2022). While important in its own right, this ethnographic investigation is also serving to ground our analysis, and to help pinpoint indicators for a quantitative ethnographic layer of the project (Shaffer 2017). While language has been highlighted as the primary modality to investigate exploratory talk through (Littleton and Mercer 2013), my focus is on how artefacts are part of co-creating the group work centers the physical use and showing, and the access to the resources (Fleck et al. 2009; Fleck, Vasalou, and Stasinou 2021; Davidsen and Ryberg 2017).

This research project is associated with a Ph.D. investigation, which aims to develop (design, implement, and evaluate the impact) a didact resource based on comics for science communication and science education (science comics), related to the Health Education field. The context of action and investigation is a non-formal education environment – a science center based in Portugal – and the target audience is composed of children from the first years of schooling.

The methodology is based on the Research and Development (R&D) ideas, combining principles of qualitative research (Creswell, 2012) with the process of Design Thinking (DT) for Educators (Riverdale & IDEO, 2012).

The research question is “How to communicate science to children, using comics, in order to foster learning?".

To answer this research question, three specific objectives were defined:

1. Understand how the characteristics of comics can be used to communicate scientific content and what competencies can be developed in this process.
2. Develop (design, implement, and evaluate the impact) the didact resource based on comics, through activities implemented in a non-formal educational context.
3. Co-create, with the education and communication experts involved in this process, a framework to develop didact resources based on comics for science communication and education (science comics).

In the field of science communication and science education, comics emerge as a powerful mediator tool, fostering engaging and effective learning experiences. In this context, we can use the term science comics, i.e. the “comics which have as one of their main aims to communicate science or to educate the reader about some non-fictional, scientific concept or theme” (Tatalovic, 2009, p.4). Previous studies (omitted for blind review) concluded that comics are an interesting resource for science communication and education since they have the potential to explain concepts that are difficult to visualize (such as abstract scientific concepts) and, as a didactic resource, it is important to be combined with a didactic strategy adapted to the learning objectives, the target audience, and the educational context.

Many authors have been studying science communication and science education simultaneously (Baram-Tsabari & Osborne, 2015; Lewenstein, 2015; McKinnon & Vos, 2015) to comprehend the relationship between both. They are distinct disciplinary areas but may share some characteristics, such as similar goals, strategies, and learning contexts. It is important to comprehend the relationship between science communication and science education to understand how comics can contribute to achieving the expected results of both disciplinary areas.

One of the main goals is to promote scientific literacy, and it is important to develop this competency in children since the first years of schooling, to develop critical citizens who can make informed decisions based on science. According to McKinnon and Vos (2015), “Each definition of scientific literacy incorporates common elements: principally an understanding of scientific concepts and the nature of science, interest in science and an ability to find and evaluate information in order to make decisions about science-based issues” (p. 301)

Nowadays, non-formal science education contexts have an important role in promoting scientific literacy in society. According to Rodrigues (2016), non-formal education is an important ally of formal education and even informal education, as a lifelong learning strategy. Schools are no longer seen as the only space for learning and other educational contexts have gained importance to ensure the scientific culture of society.

The promotion of scientific literacy is associated with the development of competencies, considering that “the concept of competency implies more than just the acquisition of knowledge and skills; it involves the mobilization of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values to meet complex demands” (OECD, 2018).

This paper is a methodological discussion regarding doing Poetic Transcription jointly with the research participants to create data. Within the frame of a larger research project centred on Early Career Academics experiences of teaching in Higher Education, learning for their role and learning to teach, this paper explores the conversations had with all 11 UK participants regarding the use of Joint Poetic Transcription to produce the data for the research project.

Early Career Academics (ECAs) often step into Higher Education Institution (HEI) teaching roles without the necessary pedagogical know-how (Emmioğlu, et al., 2017; Salimzadeh et al., 2017), adding to their already extensive list of challenges (Hollywood et al., 2020; Nästesjö, 2020). This situation raises questions about how academics in higher education navigate their experiences of teaching. The main project behind this paper aims to illuminate the learning journey of ECAs experiencing teaching in a UK University. On top of that, it advocates for Art-based Research via Poetic Transcription to research and reflect on this process, as it has gained some attention for researching experiences (Sánchez, 2023).

Art-based research understands research as a dynamic interplay among various elements and actors and acknowledges the role of methods in not just describing but actively shaping our understanding of reality (Law, 2004). Thus, research becomes a creative craft, itself producing an experience (Clough, 2009). For the main project, Art-based Research was deemed good to provide answers to its questions, using poetry as a means of expression that offers rich, complex avenues to create meaning (Leggo, 2018). Thus, within the broad research field of Poetic Inquiry, Poetic Transcription was selected as the appropriate approach (Faulkner, 2019; Vincent, 2018; Glesne, 1997). Typically, it involves interviewing participants, transcribing the conversations, and creating poems based on these transcripts (Loads et al., 2019; Burdick, 2011). For the project, and following the constructed, relational and collective understanding of both research and experience (Sánchez, 2023), participant collaboration was added to the process, thus creating Joint Poetic Transcription.

Recognizing research as a creative craft, Joint Poetic Transcription involves participant collaboration in creating poems as data. This collaborative poetic process surpasses the prior by actively involving participants in the creation of poetry: they became co-creators of the poems by crafting the poem alongside the research team. In a nutshell, the transcription is shared, and both produce meaning together through poetry. Parts of the transcript verbatim are intertwined with arising ideas, woven into poems using poetic license. As a joint constructive process, this approach seeks to redefine research as an experiential, participatory and productive journey.

This transformative, participatory process redefines research as experiential and productive, and thus some challenges arise. Specifically responding to the literature regarding the quality of this methodology, this paper argues that engaging participants in crafting poems would offer a unique avenue for learning from their experiences and thus provide a way to argue for the value of said method.

Specifically in Poetic Inquiry, some emphasize the importance of engaging with the craft itself as a marker of quality, like in Leavy's focus on authenticity and resonance (2017). Faulkner's proposed criteria for assessing quality involve methodological, artistic, and technical elements, encompassing rigor, impact, and the development of craft within the research process (Faulkner, 2016).

In this paper, one of the signs of quality suggested by Faulkner (2016) is explored: Participant Response. The aim of the present paper is to explore the merits and quality of the method directly with the participants. Through Participant Response, a way of evaluating if the methodology was well executed in its transformative and learning character could be provided.