Abstract
Many researchers have reported that bridging analogies can productively support students’ scientific meaning-making. How this can be understood semiotically is, however, not well understood. This research followed an ethnographic case study approach to investigate Year 11 students meaning-making through a process of transduction (Kress, 2000; Volkwyn, 2020) across the submicroscopic and symbolic domains of Johnstone’s (1991) chemistry triangle. A “cross-and-portion” (CPO) model was devised as a bridging representation for learning the molar concentration and dilution concepts, informed by Peirce’s triadic model (1931) which relates the meaning of a concept to its representation in a sign, and its referent. The study drew on video capture of the classroom and small group activity, and interviews.
The research findings indicated that the CPO model acted as a visualisation tool that facilitated students to link from the submicroscopic to symbolic domains of Johnstone’s triangle. A recursive model of meaning-making was formulated to describe how bridging representations are re-purposed to occupy shifting positions in Peirce’s triad to enable meaning through the system of interpretance. Students constructed, critiqued and transducted across multiple, multimodal representations to achieve discursive fluency across the dimensions of Johnstone’s triangle. The recursive model provides a fresh perspective on how students coordinate multimodal representations to learn science/chemistry.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bucat, B., & Mocerino, M. (2009). Learning at the sub-micro level: Structural representations. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education, models and modeling in science education, 4 (pp. 11–29). Springer.
Carolan, J., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 54(1), 18–23.
Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. Routledge.
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257.
Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92, 848–867.
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1–8). Springer.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.
Kleinman, R. W., Griffin, H. C., & Kerner, N. K. (1987). Images in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(9), 766–776.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–146). Springer.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. Routledge.
Kress, G. (2000). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.) Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Routledge: pp.153 - 161
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. Continuum.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing.
Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E.W. Saul (Ed.) Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Newark DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
Loughran, J. (2014). Slowmation: A process of explicit visualization. In B. Eilam & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers’ use of visual representations (p. 89). Springer.
Peirce, C. (1931). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In B. Justus (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (1893–1910) (pp. 98–119). New York: Dover, Reprint 1955.
Pham, L. (2020). Students constructing representations to problem-solve and learn in senior chemistry. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751–2773.
Savinainen, A., Scott, P., & Viiri, J. (2004). Using a bridging representation and social interactions to foster conceptual change: Designing and evaluating an instructional sequence for Newton’s Third Law. Science Education, 89(2), 175–195.
Svensson, K., & Eriksson, U. (2020). Concept of a transductive link. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(2), 026101.
Taber, K. S. (2009). Learning at the symbolic level. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemistry, models and modeling in science education (pp. 75–105). Springer.
Tytler, R., Hubber, P., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2013). A representation construction approach. In R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in science (pp. 135–149). Sense Publishers.
Volkwyn, T. S. (2020) Learning physics through transduction: A social semiotic approach. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1475470&dswid=6869
Volkwyn, T. S., Airey, J., Gregorcic, B., & Heijkenskjöld, F. (2019). Transduction and science learning: Multimodality in the physics laboratory. Designs for Learning, 11(1), 16–29.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.): Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Zoupidis, A., Pnevmatikos, D., Spyrtou, A., & Kariotoglou, P. (2016). The impact of procedural and epistemological knowledge on conceptual understanding: The case of density and floating–Sinking phenomena. Instructional Science, 44, 315–334.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pham, L., Tytler, R. The Semiotic Function of a Bridging Representation to Support Students’ Meaning-Making in Solution Chemistry. Res Sci Educ 52, 853–869 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10022-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10022-w