Authors: Carol Callinan & John Sharp, Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln.

Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom: Understanding Conceptual

Change from a Multimodal Perspective
Introduction
Constructivism remains an influential approach to understanding how children learn in
science (Driver et al, 1994). The constructivist perspective and the work of Driver in
particular maintains the view that children will have formed for themselves some
representations of scientific phenomena in order to understand the world around them prior to
formal teaching in school. Drivers constructivist views of how children come to acquire
their knowledge of science and scientific concepts built upon existing, so called, global
approaches to constructivism developed from Piaget, Vygotsky and other key theorist (see
figure 1). While a full discussion of these early influences is beyond the scope of this
particular paper it is important to note that all of these key players have had a direct influence
on the contemporary view of constructivism as understood within science education today
and embodied within the work of Driver. Global approaches to constructivism aimed to
explain learning and understanding across all domains of experience and maintained the view
that children, like adults, were active builders of their own knowledge and understanding.
Driver adapted these diverse views into a coherent framework that explained for the first time
how and why children exhibited such diversity in their growing knowledge of science
concepts, why some children found it difficult to develop knowledge that was in line with
scientific thinking and why even when children had developed specific frameworks they were
reluctant to use them (Driver & Bell, 1986). Using her extensive investigations to guide her
conclusions, Drivers seminal work promoted the view that these initial or alternative
frameworks form the foundation of all subsequent learning (Driver & Easley, 1978).

Figure 1: The timeline of early constructivist views from European and North American
influences that are embodied within Rosalind Drivers approach to constructivism in science
education.
This significant finding, which focused on the need for changes to take place in the
frameworks of understanding in order for learning to progress, led to the development of a
1

conceptual change movement within science education, which has been dominant since the
1970s.
The Search for Conceptual Change Dynamics
Subsequently, a wide and diverse body of research was aimed at identifying and
understanding the underlying mechanisms that support such conceptual change dynamics (see
reviews in Vosniadou, 2008, Sharp & Kuerbis, 2006; Limon & Mason, 2002). This research
resulted in the development of many theoretical models, each with its own unique perspective
on how such changes in concepts and underlying frameworks may occur, particularly in light
of tuition. These resulting models of change range in depth and scope with some focusing on
cognitive processes such as memory, attention and recall (Rumelhart & Norman, 1978;
Posner et al, 1982) whilst others promote an appreciation of affective variables such as
motivation (Pintrich et al, 1993, Dole & Sinatra, 1998). A few of these models are
particularly notable. For example, Osborne and Wittrock (1983; 1985) produced one model
that was grounded in the information-processing paradigm popular in psychology at that
time. Osborne and Wittrocks model utilised evidence from neural studies of the brain and its
processes and suggested that conceptual change was reliant upon the attention of the learner,
the motivation that the learner had for developing their understanding of the subject matter,
existing knowledge and preconceptions, and the generation of a new model. In another
Luffiego et al.s systemic model of conceptual change proposed that the learning brain
behaves in the same manner as any other non-linear dynamic mechanism and exhibits the
patterns of chaos. According to Luffiego, previously learned concepts act as powerful
information attractors, they draw new information towards them which when combined with
new learning can result in unanticipated outcomes. Conceptual change for Luffiego et al.
takes place on two levels: a weak level in which the original attractor concepts remain the
same and new information is simply tagged on and a radical level in which the original
attractor concept is replaced by new information and the entire structure and meaning is
amended. Though relatively novel in approach confirmatory evidence has been presented by
Sharp and Kuerbis (2006) and Bloom (2001). The unanticipated outcomes demonstrated by
some children in these studies supported the chaos in cognition model. Worthy of note is
Vosniadous influential model within which childrens mental models are also susceptible to
both weak and radical restructuring process, whereby weak changes are associated with the
addition of new materials but the core concepts remain the same whilst radical changes result
in a change in the core concepts as well as the organisation of supporting information.
Essentially Vosnidaou, and a significant proportion of other proponents of change, proposes
that childrens models are underpinned by coherent theory like structures and it is these that
change when learning takes place. In contrast, diSessa (1988) refutes the idea that children
possess coherent theory like structures, instead he proposes that children begin with
fragments of information that become more systematically organised into theory like
structures over time. This position is currently one of the key areas of investigation and
dispute within conceptual change research (diSessa, 2008; diSessa et al. 2004).
What is clear is that most models of conceptual change appear to offer similar descriptions of
the processes of conceptual change making a detailed comparative analysis particularly
difficult. The reasons for the difficulty are largely due to the individual models frequently
drawing their evidence from different participant populations and from different scientific
domains (diSessa, 2006). Clearly, whilst it could be proposed that learning in different
domains of science requires slightly different processes of change, the most appropriate
method for providing a direct comparison of these models is to study their utility within the

same science domain. One point that is clear from this diverse body of research is that the
current level of diversity between the cognitive models of conceptual change is unhelpful to
both teachers and researchers not least of all because it restricts the pragmatic incorporation
of key ideas into everyday practices. In addition, criticism can also be raised at the methods
of investigation that are typically used to elicit information regarding the processes of
conceptual change as these methods may underestimate what children actually know and can
do.
Studying Childrens Ideas: Old and New Approaches
Typically, childrens ideas research accesses conceptual knowledge through verbal reports
gained during individual interviews or task-based activities (for example, Primary SPACE
Project Publications, 1990-1994). Whilst these have been extremely successful in helping to
raise understanding of what children know and can do there has perhaps been a tendency
towards language and linguistic capabilities at the expense of other forms of communication.
Such tendencies perhaps inhibit a comprehensive understanding of knowledge growth
particularly if children are not able to clearly or fully articulate their ideas (Goldin-Meadows,
2000). The limitations of this language-based approach are widely acknowledged by a range
of researchers and in some cases multiple methods have often been adopted in order to
minimise these problems. However, more recent research investigating learning from a
multimodal approach may also be productive in this area whilst having the potential, through
its very depth, to bridge the cognitive social constructivist divide. Recent research
investigating learning from a multimodal approach has suggested that when children acquire
scientific ideas and concepts they utilise a number of different modes of communication
(Kress et al., 2001). These modes include verbal dialogue, written pieces, drawings and other
expressive art forms and non-verbal communication such as gesture, eye gaze and body
posture (Kress et al, 2001). Whilst Kress et al.s research focused on how different modes of
activity support childrens acquisition of concepts in science other researchers (for example
Goldin-Meadows, 2000; Roth and Lawless, 2002) have investigated the role that non-verbal
language such as gesture has in revealing childrens existing conceptual knowledge. One
early analysis conducted by Crowder and Newman (1993) investigated the gesture and
speech of thirteen children who were learning about concepts associated with seasonal
change. The results revealed that some gestures were redundant, others served to enhance
the ideas expressed through speech, and in some cases gestures served as carriers of scientific
meaning that was not present in language. This led Crowder and Newman to conclude that
as long as ideas outstrip scientific vocabulary, one can expect to see gestures used by
elementary science students to carry unstated ideas (p.176). Roth and Lawless (2002) who
demonstrated that gesture could reveal conceptual knowledge that is unavailable in the verbal
reports that children make later presented similar findings. As well as presenting a route to
exploring unarticulated conceptual knowledge, it is also proposed that analyses comparing
the content of verbal and non-verbal responses may be able to offer a window on the learning
process (Goldin-Meadows et al. 1993). In a summary paper that drew on a body of research
investigating different areas of childrens problem solving ability, Goldin-Meadows et al.
(1993) suggested that stability between speech and gesture characterised a stable
understanding of a concept. In contrast a mismatch between these two communication
strategies characterised the time in which children are moving between conceptual
understandings. It was argued that the gesture-speech mismatch signals to the social world
that an individual is in a transitional knowledge state (Goldin-Meadows et al., 1993, p.279).
This was a particularly attractive idea as it highlighted an original and potentially productive

approach through which it may be possible to capture the processes of conceptual change as
it actually occurs. In the work presented here it is proposed that by attending to multiple
modes of communication a more comprehensive exploration of how conceptual
understanding develops may be achieved and a comparative analysis of different models of
conceptual change may be possible. This notion of approaching research through a
multimodal fashion, though occasionally referred to, is rarely if ever undertaken within the
domain of conceptual change.
Current Study
This paper reports on the preliminary findings from an ongoing doctoral level research
project currently in the main data collection and early analysis phases. The research was
designed to investigate how and to what extent multimodal analyses of childrens
communication, verbal and non-verbal, facilitate understanding of the ideas and concepts
associated with electricity and floating and sinking (the Archimedes principle) in children
aged 7, 11 and 14 in England.
Method
The study utilised a multimodal, task-based approach to investigating the science ideas and
concepts of children aged 7, 11, and 14 (Year 2, 6, and 9). Participants were drawn from a
village primary school and a village secondary school; both schools were located within easy
commuting distances of a small city in the East Midlands, England. In all cases, the
researcher received parental consent for childrens participation in the activities and for the
audio-video recordings to be made, consent from the head teacher or science co-ordinators
within the schools, and consent from the children themselves. Children also were made
aware of their right to withdraw from the study during a brief prior to the activities. The
sample discussed here consisted of the following children:

19 Year 2 (average age is 7 years);

28 Year 6 (average age is 11 years);
15 Year 9 (average age is 14 years).

All children participating in the study took part in two practical science activities, one in
electricity, and one in floating and sinking. The practical activities were dialogic in nature
and conducted in collaborative groups. The dialogic approach encourages the use of talk
between the adult and the children rather than focusing on a teachers presentation of
materials that is to be learned. The activities were designed to elicit childrens ideas by
probing understanding as they completed familiar tasks (for example, testing which materials
float) whilst subsequent tasks were designed to challenge existing ideas (for example,
pressing an inflated balloon into water in order to feel the upthrust force on the balloon and
observe the change in water level). These activities permitted analysis of both existing ideas
and concepts and the opportunity to observe outcomes when concepts began to change or
were challenged.
The Science Activities
The two science activities were structured conventionally as follows:

The electricity activity began with an initial discussion of what children think
electricity is and the completion of worksheet that included a drawing completion task
and a written probe of why bulbs in a complete circuit light. This was followed by
circuit construction, the grouping, and testing of materials that conduct or insulate.
Finishing on a role-play analogy using smarties to represent electron movement in a
circuit;
The floating and sinking activity began with a discussion of what children think
causes some objects to float and sink and the completion of a worksheet that included
a drawing completion task and a written probe of ideas for why floating and sinking
occurs. This was followed by grouping and testing materials, a plasticine modelling
activity in order to explore childrens approaches to making it float. Finishing on a
practical demonstration of upthrust and water displacement using an inflated balloon.

The practical science activities took place in small groups. The activities were highly
contextualised to the concepts studied, interactive and dialogic in nature and included
protocols from participant observation and interview methodologies. Each practical science
activity lasted up to an hour depending on the age and level of interest of the participants. All
were audio-video recorded in order to capture events fully and to obtain gesture in
transmission. The activities were all transcribed using Nvivo qualitative research software
including the video and audio streams and were coded for both verbal and non-verbal
responses, these were interpreted and compared in order to facilitate a match / mismatch
comparison of the two response types. Analyses of the data also included within and between
age group comparisons.
Approach to Data Transcription / Analysis
In accordance with guidance from the multimodal research field (for example, Jewitt, 2011;
Taylor, 2006) the audio-video data were transcribed across three conditions: with sound and
vision, with vision alone and with sound alone. In order to capture all aspects of the
childrens responses the data were analysed and compared at a number of different levels (see
figure 2).

Figure 2: The different layers of analysis and comparison that were completed during the
data analysis of the multimodal research project.
5

Capturing this number of levels facilitated a comprehensive analysis of childrens responses

to the probes and tasks that formed the basis of the study.
Results
The results presented here represent an early preliminary qualitative analysis of the data
generated by the study as well as a discussion of overall impressions from the data collection.
In order to give an overall impression of the results to these two distinct activities results
from both activities are presented here. These results include a comparison of childrens
drawings and written responses to their verbal responses elicited during the floating and
sinking activity, a cross-age comparison of childrens knowledge of conductors and insulators
drawn from the electricity activity, and a comparison of childrens verbal and non-verbal
responses to questions and tasks elicited during the two science activities.
Floating and Sinking
A qualitative content analysis of childrens drawings was completed in order to explore how
these changed over time. In most cases, although there were exceptions, the drawings
contained two objects. Typically across all age groups one object was drawn above or
directly touching the water line and one was drawn at the base of the tank usually touching
the bottom. The range of objects that were drawn varied but there were some emerging
themes: floating objects included boats, ducks, balloons and people whilst sinking objects
included bricks, blocks and rocks. Interestingly as the age of the children increased the
drawings were more likely to contain identical objects in both the floating and sinking
positions, perhaps indicating that as children get older they become more aware that the
surface characteristics of the objects, e.g. what they look like from the outside, cannot always
be used to decide whether objects will float or sink (see figure 3).

Figure 3: The placement and type of objects that the three different age groups of children
drew before completing the floating and sinking activity.
Qualitative content analyses of the written responses generated by the children across the
different age groups revealed striking differences in the type of reasons given for why things
6

float or sink. Notably, younger children (Year 2) frequently did not complete the written task
at all and those that did only discussed the weight of the object as a factor for the occurrence
of the phenomenon. In contrast, children in Year 6 more frequently provided a written
response to the questions and these responses included a wider range of variability. Some
children still discussed the weight of the object as a critical factor whilst other explanations
included size, the presence of holes in the material, whether the object is airtight, the ability
to balance on the water and gravity. Children in Year 9 always provided written responses to
the question, these responses demonstrated extensive variability with some children still
indicating that the weight of the object was important for whether things float or sink.
However at this age it was noted that childrens ideas appear to shift from an object-centred
frame to one which included both the characteristics of the object and the characteristics of
the liquid in which the object is placed. Explanation provided included factors such as, water
displacement, density of the object, the objects weight in comparison to the liquid, and the
objects ability to be lifted by the water based on its weight.
A comparison between the verbal responses that children generate when asked why some
things float and some sink and their written responses on the work sheet revealed that for the
younger children (Year 2) there was a disparity between the contents of childrens verbal
responses and the contents of what they had written. The written responses on the worksheet
discussed above demonstrated that children frequently failed to write any response and those
that did focused their discussions on the factor weight of the object. In contrast, verbal
responses to probes asking children to discuss why they think things float and sink revealed
that children of this age whilst still adopting an object-centred frame also consider additional
features including, the presence of holes in object, the presence of trapped air inside the
object, and the material that objects are made of. This effect was reduced within the Year 6
children and was not evident in the responses of the Year 9 children, suggested that there is an
age effect that may be related to the writing process rather than the underlying frameworks
that the children hold. It could be suggested that the task demands of the written task make
this element of the worksheet more difficult for the younger children to complete and because
of this; although the children may hold these ideas they may find it difficult to put these on
paper.
Electricity
A qualitative cross-age comparison of childrens understanding of electricity conductivity as
drawn from the electricity activity was conducted. This initial comparison utilised evidence
drawn from both the accuracy with which children categorise materials according to whether
they will conduct electricity and childrens discussions of the factors that they believe
influence a materials ability to conduct electricity.
The cross-age comparison results do suggest that childrens ideas used to explain the
conductivity found in different materials does become more scientific over time as children
become older. Accuracy measure revealed a high degree of accuracy for predicting
conductivity was evident across all three age groups, for example, all three age groups
correctly identified that metal objects typically conduct electricity. However, there were
some significant inconsistent occurrences, many Year 2 and 6 children thought that the glass
marble would conduct electricity, whilst no Year 9 children predicted this outcome. Children
in Years 2 and 6 often thought that a transparent disk of plastic would conduct electricity
because they were able to see through it, whilst this never occurred in Year 9. In addition,
many Year 2 and 6 thought that a two pence coin would not conduct electricity, whilst

children in Year 9 frequently cited this material as a good conductor because it was the same
material as wires were made of.
Preliminary analysis of the reasons why children thought some materials conduct electricity
revealed that at Year 2 children frequently stated surface details such as category
membership, for example, metal things always let electricity pass through. When probed
children were unable to suggest any reasons why this occurs. By Year 6 childrens responses
revealed an evolving conception with some children suggesting that they thought
conductivity had something to do with the type of material, for example, what it was like
inside, but when probed they remained uncertain as to why this might be. Finally, the Year 9
children, whilst including all of the explanations given by the other age groups, suggested
that conductivity might also be linked to the materials placement on the periodic table.
Multimodality in Floating and Sinking and Electricity
A preliminary comparison of the children responses revealed that for those children who do
gesture non-verbally when explaining their ideas these gestures can in some cases provide
additional evidence of underlying conceptions that is not present in verbal responses. The
following two examples drawn from the floating and sinking activity provide some evidence
to support this proposal.
Amy, a Year 2, child is discussing her ideas for why things float, she states that light things
float, however, as she states this she also makes a cupping motion with her hands. The
gesture begins with the hands together and the fingers interlaced, as she speaks she moves her
hands apart, pauses and holds the hands stationary, moves the hands apart a little more then
pauses again and then finally moves them apart again. Whilst Amys verbal response appears
to attend only to the weight of the object, the non-verbal gesture appears to be considering
size as a factor too.
In another example, a group of five Year 6 children are discussing their ideas of why things
float. One group member, Sally, has just stated that things float because they are light, her
colleague Amy, raises her hand and states but you know boats are really heavy but they
float. In response, the researcher asks the group why they think boats float. Sally and Amy
both state that they do not know but Jack, another group member, suggests that it is
something to do with the bottom of the boat. When probed as to what he thinks it is about the
bottom of the boat Jack states that he thinks it is something to do with the shape, as he states
this he uses both hands to produce a gesture that reveals his ideas regarding the shape that
this might be. His palms are facing upwards, with the side of the hands are drawn together
making a cupping motion, viewed from the side the hands appear to make a u shape.
Another child, Alan, steps in to the discussion to show how he thinks boats are shaped
underneath, this time his verbal response only includes cues, such as, you have the bottom
bit then youve kind of got a line. As he talks he makes a broad gesture in which he brings
in both of his hands from the sides of his body, draws them together so that the palms are
facing upwards, the gesture appears to represent a large curved shape. He follows this action
by withdrawing both hands, then brings only his left hand forward, the action begins at his
chest and he uses his hand to motion a path from his chest until his arm is fully outstretched
in front of him. His hand completes this path by making slightly curved motion and as he
reaches the end of the path gesture he states like that (see figure 4).

Figure 4: Alans gesture used to represent the shape of the bottom of a boat.
It is suggested that even though Jack is only able to vaguely describe his ideas his gesture
reveals a form of underlying knowledge that is not evident in his verbal response. Notably,
he states that he thinks it is because of shape and then further represents this understanding
through his non-verbal response. The shape that he makes with his hands does represent a
shape that would be capable of displacing water in order to keep an object afloat. In Alans
case, his non-verbal response appears to be deliberately generated in order to represent his
understanding. Taken together Jack and Alans responses suggest that these children do have
ideas that are relevant for the topic that they are both unable to verbalise and instead they use
their gesture in order to complete their discussions.
Initial impressions drawn from the participants responses suggest support for Crowder and
Newmans proposal that children use gestures in three different types of ways. For example,
sometimes the non-verbal gestures that are produced appear to be unrelated to the topic of
discussion and are largely redundant. However, on other occasions the children appear to use
gestures that offer further support for their discussions. For example, during the floating and
sinking activity children would often discuss how the weight of an object plays a critical role
in deciding whether it would float or sink, at the same time as speaking children would nonverbally act out an empty handed weighing scale mime. Such mimes appear to reveal an
unconscious knowledge that weight can be assessed by the way that objects feel within the
hands. Finally, childrens gestures also appear to go beyond their verbal discussions. One
example of this can be drawn from the referential gestures that children appear to use.
Referential gestures, which include pointing, enable children to refer to objects present in the
environment even though these may not be discussed directly. These types of gestures appear
to add additional information to the childrens discussions and may be able to reveal some
qualities of the underlying conceptual structure. For example, children may find it difficult to
discuss their ideas of electricity but may trace paths using their fingers around a circuit that
can reveal how they think electricity acts within a circuit. Initial impressions suggest that
these traced paths may be able to uncover alternative frameworks that are not present in
language. Notably, some children state that the electricity goes from the battery to the bulb
but their non-verbal gestures appear to contain additional information, which can include the
extent to which they think electricity travels, e.g. stopping at the bulb or continuing back to
the battery, or the direction in which they think it moves. Some children draw a two handed
simultaneous path from both the left and right sides of the battery to the bulb, whilst other
children trace a unidirectional path with one index finger from the battery to the bulb,
sometimes this path continues back to the battery, and in other cases it stops at the bulb.
Clearly, whilst the verbal response is the same the non-verbal gestures offer strikingly
different explanations. Although not yet fully explored initial impressions appear to support
the view that both kinds of response type need to be attended to particularly in the younger
9

children who can find verbally expressing such ideas difficult. Further anecdotal support for
this view was evident in some of the children who clearly stated to the researcher that they
were unable to discuss their ideas and that they found it difficult to find the words to express
what they knew. In addition, on some occasions children stated that they did not know the
response to some of the probes used throughout the activities but at the same time generated
gestures that implied some level of conceptual understanding.
Challenging Existing Concepts: Some Impressions from Floating and Sinking
At this time, a full analysis of the results to the conceptual challenge aspects of the science
activities has not been undertaken. However, early impressions suggest that children at
different ages may respond differently to this aspect of the tasks. Many children did revise
their responses between the initial probe and the final probe but this appeared to be more
evident in older children. For example, following the demonstration of water displacement
children in Year 2 were more likely to still attribute floating to the properties of the objects,
children in Year 6 were more likely to talk about the objects ability to move water and
children in Year 9 provided explanations that included an awareness of the density of both the
object and the fluid. These preliminary impressions tentatively suggest that it may be
possible to capture moments of change; however, these changes may be mediated by other
factors that have yet to be explored.
In order to assess the success of the practical activities and the demonstrations that aimed to
challenge or develop childrens conceptual understanding the researcher always asked the
children whether they felt that the explanations and activities had helped them to understand
the science areas better. In almost all cases the children confirmed that they felt that the
activities had helped. However, the children did express a preference for the floating and
sinking activity as they felt this was easier to discuss.
Conclusion, Discussion and Implications
Although the findings reported here offer preliminary results and initial impressions of the
data these do highlight some intriguing results for two key areas of science learning, one that
is fairly well researched, electricity, and one that is underdeveloped, floating and sinking.
The next stage of this project will aim to test the results against some of the popularly
published frameworks for both of these science areas (for example, Borges & Gilbert, 1999;
Havu-Nuutinen, 2005). In addition, further analyses will be conducted to consolidate and
develop the results presented here in order to assess the value of the multimodal approach for
investigating children ideas. Furthermore, the dialogic approach and collaborative learning
method adopted to promote or at least challenge concepts will be evaluated for its
application.
Analyses comparing the content of childrens drawing and written responses to their verbal
responses as elicited through the tasks do revealed that in younger children there was a
disparity of content. Notably when writing about the reasons why objects float the children
in Year 2 rarely discussed any other factors than weight, yet when talking through their ideas
they discussed further factors including the presence of holes in an object and the presence of
air contained within an object. These results may in part be explained by the task difficulties
associated with the sentence completion task and evidence drawn from the older children
suggests that this effect does diminish over time. However, these results do highlight the

10

importance of using a range of assessment strategies in order to uncover childrens ideas so

that childrens knowledge is not underestimated.
Between subjects analyses demonstrated that childrens ideas of scientific phenomena change
over time and become increasingly more scientific as children get older. For example, the
children aged 7 years initially demonstrated stable knowledge of the types of materials that
are conductors or insulators of electricity but found it extremely difficult to state why the
materials had these properties. The children aged 11 also demonstrated a stable knowledge of
conductors and insulators and frequently referred to surface properties of the materials such
as category membership (e.g. metal). The children aged 14 demonstrated a more advanced
knowledge of conductors and insulators with some children referring to the properties of
materials according to their placement on the periodic table.
The match mismatch analyses of verbal and non-verbal communication revealed that for
children who produce non-verbal gestures these can contain valuable information regarding
their ideas that are not included in the verbal responses. For example, analyses of non-verbal
communication produced during the floating and sinking activity revealed that children might
be considering variables such as the shape of objects even though such references are omitted
from verbal responses.
The preliminary results to the study suggest that the multimodal, task-based approach
developed within this study offers a more comprehensive route for studying childrens ideas
and concepts of scientific phenomena. The comparative analysis suggests that using verbal
analyses of childrens responses in isolation may be insufficient and could potentially lead to
biased interpretations of childrens actual knowledge. The multimodal approach also proved
particularly useful for investigating younger childrens ideas particularly when they have
difficulty in articulating what they know coherently or comprehensively. The results to this
study also have implications in terms of wider applications, for example, further investigation
is necessary in order to understand the way in which older participants may use multimodal
representations in order to explain their science ideas. Such research should ideally explore a
range of participants including post G.C.S.E., A level and H.E. students as well as student
teachers. By exploring the way in which gestures are used to complement and extend verbal
explanations of science concepts and ideas it may be possible to better understand how
knowledge of science is communicated and it is suggested that this might have implications
for assessment, pedagogy, and curriculum development.
References
Bloom, J. W. (2001). Discourse, cognition and chaotic systems: An examination of students
arguments about density. The Journal of Learning Science, 10:4, 447-492.
Borges, A. T., & Gilbert, J. K. (1999). Mental Models of Electricity. International Journal of Science
Education, 21:1, 95-117.
Crowder, E. M., & Newman, D. (1993). Telling what they know: the role of gesture and language in
childrens scientific explanations. Pragmatics and Cognition, 1, 341-376.
diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in Pieces. In G. Forman, & P. B. Pufall (Eds.) Constructivism in the
Computer Age (pp. 49-70) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing.
diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the
development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843-900.
diSessa, A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: threads and fault lines, In: K.
Sawyer. , The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge MA: Cambridge
University Press. 265-282.

11

diSessa, A. (2008). A Birds-Eye View of the Pieces vs. Coherence Controversy (From the Pieces
Side of the Fence). In S. Vosniadou (ed.) International Handbook of Research on Conceptual
Change (pp. 35 60). Oxon: Routledge.
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing Change in the Cognitive Construction of
Knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33: 2/3, 109-128.
Driver, R. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and Paradigms: a Review of Literature Related to Conceptual
Development in Adolescent Science Students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students thinking and the learning of science: a constructivist view.
School Science Review, 67, 443-455.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing Scientific knowledge
in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23:7, 5-12.
Goldin-Meadows, S., Alibali, M. W., & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in Concept Acquisition:
Using the Hand to Read the Mind. Psychological Review, 100:2, 279-297.
Goldin-Meadows, S. (2000). Beyond Words: The Importance of Gesture to Researchers and Learners.
Child Development, 71:1, 231-239.
Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2005). Examining young childrens conceptual change process in floating and
sinking from a social constructivist perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 27:3,
259-279.
Jewitt, C. (2011). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Oxon: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal Teaching and Learning:
rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Limon, M, & Mason, L. (2002). Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Acadmeic Publishers.
Luffiego, M., Bastida, M. F., Ramos, F., & Soto, J. (1994). Systemic model of conceptual evolution.
International Journal of Science Education, 16:3, 305-313.
Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning Science: A generative process. Science Education,
67:4, 489-508.
Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The Generative Learning Model and Its Implications for Science
Education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59-87.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: the role of
motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review
of Educational Research, 63:2, 167-199.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66:2, 211-227.
Primary SPACE Project Reports (1990-1994). Available online at
http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/primary-science-and-space (Accessed 25th May 2011).
Roth, W. M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the
emergence of abstract scientific concepts. Learning and Instruction, 12, 285-304.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, Tuning and Restructuring: Three modes of
learning. In J. W. Cotton, & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.) Semantic Factors in Cognition (pp. 37-53)
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing.
Taylor, R. (2006). Actions speak as loud as words: a multimodal analysis of boys talk in the
classroom. English in Education, 40:3, 66-82.
Sharp, J. G. & Kuerbis, P. (2006). Childrens ideas about the solar system and the chaos in learning
science. Science Education, 90:1, 124-147.
Vosniadou, S., & Brwer, W. F. (1987). Theories of Knowledge Restructuring in Development. Review
of Educational Psychology, 57:1, 51-67.
Vosniadou, S. (2008). International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change. Oxon: Routledge.

12