The Joint Work of Connecting Multiple (Re)presentations in Science Classrooms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to advance current understanding of the transactional processes that characterize students’ sense‐making practices when they are confronted with multiple representations of scientific phenomena. Data for the study are derived from a design experiment that involves a technology‐rich, inquiry‐based sequence of activities. We draw on interaction analysis to examine the work by means of which a group of upper secondary school students make sense of a number of different ways in which a physical phenomenon—a phase transition—is presented to them. Our analytical perspective, grounded in a cultural‐historical framework, involves scrutinizing how the different materials emerge and evolve as signifiers for something other than themselves during teacher–student and student–student transactions. This approach allows us to trace the emergence of students’ interpretations of the relations between phenomena and their diverse presentations without committing to any preconceived notion of what these presentations stand for. We describe how students’ bodily and pragmatic actions become reified in conceptual terms and how these relate to lived‐in experiences rather than to formal underlying concepts. Findings are discussed with regard to the central role of body and praxis in research on learning science with multiple representations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it