Abstract
Transformation is a central meta-representational competency. It involves learners’ conversion of a source – comprising referent-related information presented in a particular representational form (e.g., video-recording, pie-graph) and specific modality (e.g., auditory, visual) – into a different representational form/modality for the same information – the target. Transformational abilities enable better management and processing of represented information by: increasing information accessibility (e.g., capturing and preserving ephemeral information of movement by notating it); emphasizing/complementing peripheral/tacit/missing informational aspects (e.g., a line graph showing a trend; a map showing highly populated areas); organizing information (e.g., A table of data collected in the field); and limiting interpretations (e.g., a visual representation of a descriptive text like “A is sitting near B” showing A sitting to the right of B). Yet, transformation can also be constrained by learners’ knowledge deficits and social or task demands. This chapter discusses a learning environment designed to provide ample diverse opportunities for promoting students’ transformational competence. Fourth-grade girls (N = 16) studied a yearlong multidimensional theoretical and experiential curriculum, with practice in transforming ephemeral human movements from verbal-conceptual (“left hand forward”) into live-motor (movement performance) and vice versa. Four groups collaboratively enacted increasingly complex transformations from ephemeral-dynamic motor sequences (observing teacher’s live demonstrations) into enduring-static visual-graphic products (representing movements on paper). Peer decipherers transformed these visual-graphic representations into live-motor movements, attempting to replicate teacher’s source movements. The need to transform representations/modalities for communication purposes enabled students to identify inaccuracies in their representational products and refine them. Students’ transformations also revealed their relevant meta-representational considerations, abilities, and difficulties.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ainsworth, S. E. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
Azevedo, F. S. (2000). Designing representations of terrain: A study in meta-representational competence. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 443–480.
Bamberger, J. (2007). Restructuring conceptual intuitions through invented notations: From path-making to map-making. In E. Teubal, J. Dockrell, & L. Tolchinsky (Eds.), Notational knowledge (pp. 81–112). Rotterdam: Sense.
Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. .(Chap. 39 (pp. 505–518). New York: Springer.
Bertin, J. (2007). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams, networks, maps. (original 1983, translated by berg, W.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (2000). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315–368.
Eilam, B. (2012). Teaching, learning, and visual literacy: The dual role of visual representation in the teaching profession. New-York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Eilam, B., & Gilbert, J. (2014). The significance of visual representations in the teaching of science. In B. Eilam & J. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers use of visual representations, Series of Models and modeling in science education: Springer. (pp. 3–28). Switzerland: Springer.
Eilam, B., & Ofer, S. (2016). Meta-representational competence: Self-generating representations of human movement. Manuscript in advance preparation.
Eshkol, N., & Wachman, A. (1958). Movement notation. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Gallahue, D., & Ozmun, J. (1998). Understanding motor development: Infants, children adolescents, adults (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill..
Hammill, D., Pearson, N. A., & Voress, J. K. (1993). Developmental test of visual perception – Second edition (DTVP2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.
Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Carpenter, S., & Penner, D. (2000). The interrelated development of inscriptions and conceptual understanding. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classroom: Perspective on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 325–360). Mawah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum associates, Inc.
Ofer, S. (2001). Movement literacy: Development of the concept and its implications for curriculum (Unpublished masters’ thesis). University of Haifa, Israel (Hebrew with English abstract).
Ofer, S. (2009). Development of symbolic language to represent movement among fourth graders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Haifa, Israel (Hebrew with English abstract).
Parnafes, O. (2012). Developing explanations and developing understanding: Students explain the phases of the moon using visual representations. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 359–403.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pluta, W. A., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 486–511.
diSessa, A. A. (2002). Students criteria for rep adequacy. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oer, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 105–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Meta representation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331.
diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 385–398.
diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227–237.
Sherin, B. (2000). How students invent representations of motion. Journal of Mathematic Behavior, 19, 399–441.
Transform. (2014). In Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transform
Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tversky, B. (2005). Functional significance of visuospatial representations. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 1–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 129–140.
Verschaffel, L., Reybrouck, M., Jans, C., & Van Dooren, W. (2010). Children’s criteria for representational adequacy in the perception of simple sonic stimuli. Cognition and Instruction, 28, 475–502.
Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualization? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1177–1198.
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 7–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Eilam, B., Ofer, S. (2018). Similar Information, Different Representations: Designing a Learning Environment for Promoting Transformational Competence. In: Daniel, K. (eds) Towards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89945-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89945-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89943-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89945-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)