Paying Attention to Gesture when Students Talk Chemistry

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Paying Attention to Gesture when Students Talk Chemistry: Interactional Resources for Responsive Teaching Virginia J. Flood,*,†,‡,⊥ François G. Amar,*,†,‡ Ricardo Nemirovsky,∥ Benedikt W. Harrer,§,¶ Mitchell R. M. Bruce,†,‡ and Michael C. Wittmann†,§ †

Center for Research in STEM Education, ‡Department of Chemistry, and §Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, United States ⊥ Graduate School of Education and ¶Cal Teach, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720, United States ∥ Department of Mathematics and Statistics, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182, United States ABSTRACT: When students share and explore chemistry ideas with others, they use gestures and their bodies to perform their understanding. As a publicly visible, spatio−dynamic medium of expression, gestures and the body provide productive resources for imagining the submicroscopic, three-dimensional, and dynamic phenomena of chemistry together. In this paper, we analyze the role of gestures and the body as interactional resources in interactive spaces for collaborative meaning-making in chemistry. With our moment-by-moment analysis of video-recorded interviews, we demonstrate how creating spaces for, attending to, and interacting with students’ gestures and bodily performances generate opportunities for learning. Implications for teaching and assessment that are responsive to students’ ideas in chemistry are discussed.

KEYWORDS: Chemical Education Research, Testing/Assessment, Atomic Properties/Structure, Learning Theories, Molecular Properties/Structure, Communication/Writing, First-Year Undergraduate/General FEATURE: Chemical Education Research

■

Multimodality in Science Learning and Teaching

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

“To do science, to talk science, to read and write science it is necessary to juggle and combine in various canonical ways verbal discourse, mathematical expression, graphical−visual representation, and motor operations in the world.”7 To fully understand the processes of science teaching and learning, we must broaden our analytical gaze to all forms of interaction that occur in the classroom.6,8,11 Instructors and students constantly engage in meaning-making processes that integrate different modes of communication and activity.12 Among others, these modes may be linguistic (e.g., spoken or written language), visual (e.g., images, three-dimensional models), or visuo-dynamic (e.g., animations, visible action while manipulating a model, gesture).13 Generating and making sense of signs are bodily and kinesthetic engagements. To understand these processes, we must treat bodies acting in social and material environments as loci for meaning production.14 Historically, research in science education focused on written or verbal modalities of communication.15 Chemistry education

Scientific Practice as Meaning-Making through Social Interaction

Producing, negotiating, and sharing chemical knowledge is a social process,1−4 whether it be among graduate students in a laboratory, between seasoned scholars through the pages of Nature, or within the chemistry classroom. Describing the natural world to one another, co-constructing scientific meaning, requires chemists as well as students and teachers of chemistry alike to generate and make sense of representations (signs) that express diverse aspects of natural phenomena. The process of making meaning in any natural science, be it at its frontiers or in its classrooms, is therefore a social, semiotic process.5−8 We begin this article with the premise that the construction of chemical knowledge involves the collaborative, interpretive work of making meaning (semiosis) through social interaction. With this, we adopt the perspective that the process of learning science in general and chemistry in particular consists of evolving forms of participation in disciplinary practices of cooperative meaning-making.9,10 © 2014 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Published: October 21, 2014 11

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400477b | J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 11−22

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

toward the end of his turn. The pitch increase, a prosodic feature of speech, is an interactional resource. The intonation may be recognized and interpreted as a sign of tentativeness or questioning and used to inform the construction of a response. While interactional resources may be used for the design of subsequent interactional turns, their ontological status does not depend on evidence that they are recognized by a co-present speaker.53 In the example described above, a video analyst can still recognize the pitch increase as a resource, even if the teacher does not apparently use it to construct her turn. Therefore, interactional resources can be considered publicly recognizable, available potentials for meaning construction. In this study, we seek to understand how interactional resources become available in students’ chemistry explanations in face-to-face interactions. We highlight interactional resources that involve gesture to show how interactive spaces for multimodal meaning-making can become productive for students’ learning. Our present focus on the nature of multimodal meaning-making in chemistry is inspired by research on responsive teaching that implores educators to take seriously and interact with the disciplinary substance of students’ emergent scientific ideas.54,55 Productive learning experiences are fostered when interactive spaces are created for students to explore ideas by engaging in activities like reflecting, clarifying, elaborating, and arguing with others.56 We adopt this perspective and extend the research base for it by providing evidence that students’ multimodal contributions are useful building blocks that can be developed into more sophisticated, disciplinarily appropriate ideas through teacher−student interactions.57 In this paper, we (1) show how gestures are interactional resources in students’ utterances about chemistry and (2) demonstrate how attending to and interacting with gestures creates opportunities for productive forms of participation in collaborative chemistry meaning-making. First, we examine two kinds of previously described gesture-speech phenomena to explore how they can generate key interactional resources for chemistry meaning-making. Next, we demonstrate how a student’s multimodal performances in a problem-solving situation change and function as interactional resources that give them space to resolve a problem and allow both the student and the instructor to share the solution. Finally, we conclude with an episode that elucidates the processes through which multimodal interaction with the substance of a student’s idea leads to the co-construction of chemical meaning.

researchers, for example, have investigated students’ experiences with written text and visual formats (multiple external representations, MER),16−19 but few have considered the role of the body in visualizing and making meaning.20 In the past decade, researchers in various areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education have increasingly attended to additional modes, especially the role of the body and gesture, in their investigations of learners’ formulation and communication of ideas. Gesture as a resource for meaning-making in learning and teaching is explored in mathematics education,21−28 physics education,29−33 and geoscience education,34,35 but has received less attention in chemistry learning and teaching contexts.36 In this paper we elaborate on the significance of embodied ways of knowing that are performative and ephemeral37 and are commonly undervalued in favor of texts and written diagrams. We propose that the creation of interactive learning spaces for spontaneous and improvisational multimodal performances by teachers and students is of great relevance to enrich chemistry learning. Gesture and the Body in Chemistry

As a readily available, visible, three-dimensional, spatio− dynamic mode, gesture is particularly well-suited to meaningmaking at the molecular level. Chemistry phenomena are frequently submicroscopic (inaccessible to our senses38), threedimensional (spatial), and involve motion or change (dynamic). Gesture, as publicly visible, spontaneous action,39 is available for the collaborative imagining of unobservable, invisible realms.25,26,40 For example, in a pantomime performance, the hands and the body can bring entities, such as molecules or electrons, to illusory presence and materiality in spite of their not being directly perceivable. Gesture also allows for the marking out41 of shapes of complex three-dimensional phenomena (e.g., p- or d-orbitals) in space. In addition, gestures of the hands and body can demonstrate movement,42 and enact the translation, vibration, or rotational motion of chemical entities. For example, consider how the vibrational modes of a water moleculea submicroscopic, three-dimensional, dynamic phenomenonmight be uniquely performed using gestures. Arms and bodies can enact bending and wagging dynamically in three dimensions on demand. In contrast, typical visual representations of molecules lie dormant on the pages of textbooksstatic and two-dimensionaland perhaps only come to life briefly in a simulation on a lecture slide. Many chemistry education researchers have lamented students’ struggles with understanding submicroscopic, three-dimensional, dynamic topics43−46 and stressed the importance of multimedia as a visualization resource.47−50 However, the threedimensional representational and visualization capacity of gestures as a medium for participating in the exploration of chemistry phenomena remains mostly untapped and unexplored.20

■

METHODS

Initial Study Design

To understand how multimodality contributes to how students and teachers formulate chemical meanings, a detailed analysis of how interaction occurs during these processes is necessary. We selected a corpus of video-recorded interviews that were originally conducted for the purpose of understanding students’ experiences in a newly revised learning activity in which they participated as part of peer-led team learning (PLTL) workshops.58 The students were enrolled in a first-semester general chemistry course at the University of Maine during the spring semester of 2011. The interview questions were predominantly focused on the PLTL classroom activity and were designed to collect responses that might inform its subsequent revision. During the activity, students were asked to map the energy levels of the hydrogen

Multimodality as Interactional Resource: Attending to the Substance of Student Ideas

In this paper, we focus on the role that gesture plays as an interactional resource for meaning-making in chemistry. Interactional resources are features of utterances that are available to participants for constructing meaning, like pauses in speech, tone of voice, or the trajectory of a gesture.51,52 Consider, for example, a student who answers a teacher’s question with a statement spoken with an audible pitch increase 12



Article

atom (En = −EH/n2, n = 1, 2, 3, . . .) to a staircase of a stadiumstyle lecture hall and to act out the absorption of a photon and the consequent transition between electronic levels. In addition to the interview questions about this activity, students were asked unrelated questions about the molecular geometry of the molecules methane, ammonia, and PF5 to explore what roles the students’ hands and bodies play in explaining threedimensional phenomena. The interviews took place during the last week of the course before the final exam. Each interview lasted approximately 60 min and was conducted by the first author, V.J.F. The students were not explicitly encouraged to gesture at any time during the interviews and were not aware that their gestures were a topic of study. Our interest in the role that gestures play as interactional resources for responsive teaching while students share chemistry ideas emerged from repeated viewings of the video records. Even though the interviews were not intended to be instructional, we recognized interactional patterns enacted by the students and V.J.F. that are similar to the interactions generated in practices of responsive teaching. For example, V.J.F. “provided space for students to articulate their ideas; she took up student thinking by rephrasing, challenging, and building on it; she probed for further clarification; and she shifted the direction of the discussion in ways that addressed student ideas.”57 Each interview followed a semistructured59 format: V.J.F. aimed to ask specific questions but also attempted to fully understand what the students meant before moving on with the interview. This required careful attention to the substance of students’ ideas and reacting in the moment to ask follow up questions and elicit clarification or elaboration. In addition, V.J.F. explained to students that she was not interested in comparing their ideas to prototypical chemistry concepts and that instead, she wanted to understand how they were thinking about various chemical phenomena and models. The students’ responses throughout the interview included stretches of self-reported speculative talk, which suggests that they framed the interview space as nonevaluative and a place to explore ideas.

through the reciprocal actions of either participant; it emerges from complex coordinations of bodily activity, talk, and artifact manipulation.14 In our interviews, as in many teaching situations, V.J.F. was aware of what would constitute a textbook or canonical answer to the interview questions; however, she could not anticipate how the students would approach and interpret the questions, how they would attempt to describe three-dimensional structures, etc. Therefore, both parties were engaged in the joint task of discovering and negotiating chemical meanings together. We consider these meanings to be ongoing interactional achievements.56 We are obligated to take the point of view of the two actors in these moments to understand how the collaborative sensemaking of ideas is accomplished. This involves the reconstruction of the meanings that the participants themselves assign in the unfolding interaction. We avoid the preordination of categorical labels (derived from outside the interaction) for the participants’ roles and the topics or concepts that appear in the conversation. Instead, we consider how social realities such as roles, questions, concepts, or topicsare produced through interaction via particular coordinations of resources including talk, gesture, and action. We worked to establish how the local actors themselves construe what counts as a topic, a question, and so forth, by considering how they publicly demonstrate their interpretations for each other. This is a distinction between a methodologically objectivist stance and an interpretivist stance (for more discussion on this difference, Erickson63 and Heap66 are helpful). Episodes of video that contain interactional sequences of interest were presented to discipline-based education research graduate students and faculty in a video club to collect and discuss observations and interpretations of these events. Subsequently, these chosen episodes were viewed repeatedly by the team of authors in the tradition of interaction analysis.65 During the collaborative analysis of the video, we generated alternative hypotheses and competing interpretations of “what is going on” and negotiated as to which interpretations were best supported by the evidence available in the video record.67 Analysis as group work therefore helps reveal and resolve idiosyncratic interpretations that can arise from analyzing video alone.65 We purposefully selected68 the episodes in this paper to illustrate how interactional resources become available in students’ multimodal utterances. Despite not being explicitly told to gesture in our interviews, participating students may have been particularly encouraged or stimulated to gesture by their past experiences in the PLTL activity that required fullbody engagement. In addition, their instructor demonstrated chemical phenomena in lecture by gesturing or using his body. At the same time, we do not have evidence to support that the use of gesture to communicate chemistry ideas would be extraordinary or limited to this situation. There is a wealth of literature in experimental psychology that suggests that gesture plays a critical role when people think about and communicate spatio−dynamic relations.69 We submit that the cases we present here demonstrate the importance of providing students with spaces for multimodal communication. Such spaces are particularly powerful and meaningful for students and instructors to build and explore chemistry ideas together.

Multimodal Microanalysis of Interviews

The video record of these interviews offers a unique opportunity to understand the processes by which two individuals attempt to construct the meaning of a student’s chemistry idea and to understand the processes by which publicly visible interactional resources become available in these circumstances. Audio−visual recordings of events can be played back repeatedly, which allows for the in-depth microanalysis necessary to examine how interactions unfold moment-tomoment. To keep track of the necessary details, we employed specialized video annotation software that permits the description and tracing of intervals of occurrences of various parallel actions (changes in gesture, posture, gaze, talk, etc. that occur over time).60 Our method of analysis was inspired by the tenets of conversation analysis,61 microethnography,62 microethnographic analysis of interaction,63,64 and interaction analysis65an interrelated family of approaches that are designed to study how human realities are produced through social action as it unfolds moment-by-moment. These approaches submit that processes of thinking and understanding are made publicly available when people attempt to accomplish a task together (e.g., having a conversation, conducting an experiment). Meaning is subject to constant negotiation and revision 13



■

Article

BEYOND WORDS: TWO KINDS OF INTERACTIONAL RESOURCES INVOLVING GESTURE

However, Sophie and Peter both enact gestures that seem to tell a different story. They each trace a two-dimensional circle in the air with one hand around their second hand, synchronized with their use of the word orbital (Figure 1). While their speech and gestures seem mismatched from a chemist’s perspective, Sophie’s and Peter’s hands supply a recognizable depiction of the two-dimensional circular electron orbit in the Bohr model. During these explanations, Sophie’s and Peter’s gestures are critical interactional resources to fully appreciate the substance of their ideas about the Bohr model. Without the gesture, their “orbital” must be interpreted, in the chemical sense, to mean a three-dimensional probability distribution for the location of an electron at any given moment. Where terminology in speech only conveys discrete, typological meaning (e.g., an animal can be a sheep or a dog), gesture allows for the sharing of continuous, topological meaning such as paths of motion,8 like the trajectory of an electron circling a nucleus. Where different modes within students’ utterances contain conflicting information, an opportunity is generated to reconcile the conflict.72 For example, a listener might seek clarification about whether the verbal utterance and gesture were intended to match. We conjecture that attending to a gesture and speech in this case would allow a teacher to recognize the disparity between the students’ productive ideas about the Bohr model (expressed in gesture) and the terminology they used. Once identified, the teacher has an opportunity to respond to this disparity in a more targeted way, for example, by reenacting the gesture and relabeling it, “Did you mean an orbit?” In Peter’s case, V.J.F. followed up by adopting Peter’s word “orbital” and asking, “What do you see the orbitals as made out of?” Peter answered that he thinks of the orbitals as being similar to pieces of rope that electrons are strung onto like beads on an abacus. Here, V.J.F.’s responsiveness to Peter’s multimodally expressed idea created a space for Peter to continue to explore this idea and introduce a useful analogy. Another kind of a gesture−speech mismatch occurs when a speaker’s gestures provide additional, complementary information to the speech. A third student, Drew, was also asked to discuss the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom (Figure 2a−c). Drew also used the word orbital but used different gestures than did Peter and Sophie. As Drew describes the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, he starts with his hands nearly clasped together (Figure 2a). Next, his hands move apart and form arcs in opposite directions. When his hands land, they are open and curved (Figure 2b). He repeats the motion once more and further spreads his right and left hands (Figure 2c). In examining Drew’s gestures, it is difficult to decide if the “orbitals” Drew enacts are threedimensional spheres or two-dimensional circles. Regardless of this ambiguity, Drew’s gestures still provide an opportunity to recognize salient information beyond what is revealed by his words. Through these gestures, Drew supplies the tacit information that these “orbitals” are concentric, which adds further specificity to the spoken idea of “surrounding.” Like Sophie and Peter, Drew’s gestures accurately represent an aspect of the planetary model of electron motion described by Bohr. Drew takes advantage of the quasi-permanence of gesture to create a series of hand movements that enact concentricity. Along with the verbal description, Drew’s gestures become interactional resources that add topological meaning by producing a recognizable spatial relationship.

Nonredundant Meanings in Gesture and Speech

The phenomenon of gestures produced by a speaker not matching the content of their speech is studied extensively by psychologists.70 Goldin-Meadow and her team analyzed children that were explaining Piagetian conservation tasks and observed notable discrepancies between what students expressed with their hands and what they expressed with words. For instance, after water was poured from a tall, skinny glass into a short, wide one, children were asked if the amount of water had changed and to justify their responses. One girl answered yes, explaining, “’cause this one’s lower than this one.”70 While announcing this, she used her hands to indicate the difference in the widths (and not the heights) of the glasses. The child’s gestures convey distinct information from her speech. Mismatches like this illustrate that gesture and speech are not redundant and that simultaneous talk and gesture may be important to generate complex ideas by synthesizing multiple qualitatively different aspects at once. During our interviews, we asked students to share their thinking about the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom. Two studentsSophie and Peterused the word “orbital” as they discussed the location of the electron in the model (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Sophie and Peter say “orbitals” but their gestures indicate circular orbits.

For chemists, the word orbital is typically associated with the quantum mechanical wave function treatment of atoms and visualizations of three-dimensional electron density isosurfaces.71 Considering Sophie’s and Peter’s speech alone, it might appear that these students are conflating elements of two different models of the hydrogen atom by adding orbitals to the Bohr model. 14



Article

PF5. To respond, students often first attempted to articulate the name of the shape (e.g., trigonal bipyramidal). Below, we demonstrate cases where they were unsuccessful with the name but went on to demonstrate the correct shape of the molecule by using their hands and bodies. When asked to describe the molecular geometry of PF5, Peter says at first, “So that’s gonna be uh (pause) pyra-. How do I want to say this? Pyramidal? I think? It’s pyramidal. It’s something else before the pyramidal. Pyra-.” After about a minute of trying to explain the shape by drawing with pencil and paper, Peter spontaneously switches to using his free hands in three-dimensional space. He first designates his open right palm as a plane (Figure 3a). Then, he

Figure 2. Drew’s gestures as he talks about orbitals.

Predicting and Explaining Molecular Geometry with the Hands and Body

As students begin to tackle the difficult task of making sense of new ideas in science, they often do not have words to describe phenomena. Roth and colleagues documented students in secondary physics using gestures and artifacts to explain and explore their ideas before they have appropriated technical scientific language.30,31,73 In one example, a student was able to recognizably describe compression in a model bridge by enacting the contributing forces with their hands. As the instructional unit proceeded, the students’ verbal descriptions of the phenomena became more robust and incorporated appropriate physics terminology.73 Roth argued that the use of gesture to fill in these gaps helped students develop and share their reasoning about abstract concepts before they had the necessary arsenal of vocabulary. The use of the hands and body to construct and explore scientific ideas in the absence of verbal technical descriptions is not just a feature of student explanations and inquiries. Becvar et al.74 found that members of a biochemistry research group used gestures to conceptualize and communicate emergent theories of the spatio−dynamic features of the binding mechanisms of macromolecules. In the study, the advisor of the group used her fingers and palm to explain a new theory about the three-dimensional conformational changes localized at the active site of thrombin when it binds with thrombulin. In the meeting, several other researchers adopted the hand movement, and in each case, while they showed the conformational change with their hands, they did not verbally describe specific features of the motion. Similarly, Myers75 presented the example of a senior protein crystallographer who twisted her body into uncomfortable conformations to communicate the sense that some predicted protein conformations are unlikely. These examples suggest that gesture plays an important role in scientific meaning-making. Even at advanced levels of chemical inquiry, gesture is an important performative medium for the development and communication of scientific knowledge. In our interviews, we asked participants to describe the molecular geometry of three small molecules: CH4, NH3, and

Figure 3. Peter explains the shape of PF5 with his hands.

uses his left hand to assign locations of three fluorine atoms in an equilateral triangle on his right hand (Figure 3b−d). Next, he indicates that there is a phosphorus atom in the center of the palm of his right hand (Figure 3e). Finally, he marks the positions of the two remaining atoms, one below and one above the plane of his right hand (Figure 3f,g). Peter calls these final atoms phosphorus, but when V.J.F. asks if he means fluorine, he agrees. Peter successfully constructs the trigonal bipyramidal geometry of the PF5 molecule with his hands, despite his initial struggle to give the shape a name. He does not produce the canonical terms axial or equatorial to describe the locations of the ligands in space but clearly distinguishes the two different types of ligands by pointing out positions in the physical space on and around his hands. With this complex system of gestures, 15



Article

to be hydrogen ligands, while Peter points to positions for fluorine ligands around his outstretched hand. These different affordances of gesture facilitate collaborative meaning-making. In coordination with other modes, students’ gestures are key interactional resources for productively negotiating the shapes of molecules without a need to produce technical language. From an instructional standpoint, these cases bring to light some of the limitations of particular forms of assessment in chemistry teaching and learning contexts. While traditional forms of assessing students’ knowledge, like paper and pencil tests, may be able to demonstrate how fluent a student is with a particular style of diagram or naming convention, they would probably not be able to capture what Drew and Peter know about the shapes of molecules. Similarly, the converse is true. A student may be able to produce a conventionalized drawing of a tetrahedron for an exam, but this ability is no guarantee that this student appreciates the actual shape in three dimensions as Drew does.

Peter is able to recognizably enact the shape of a trigonal bipyramidal molecule and generate a transient, yet public threedimensional model for him and V.J.F. to consider together. This coordination of gesture and speech provides V.J.F. an opportunity to find out whether Peter is unsure about the position of specific kinds of atoms. He calls three atoms “phosphorus,” which creates a mismatch with V.J.F.’s expectation that the final two parts of the gesture will position the remaining two fluorine atoms. This mismatch is an interactional resource that V.J.F. uses to construct her next turn and initiate the resolution of the conflict. V.J.F. asks whether Peter meant to call the last two (axial) atoms fluorine. Peter’s swift agreement amends his original idea. Peter’s rich performance of gestures provides critical interactional resources for appreciating his knowledge of the three-dimensional positions of atoms in a trigonal bipyramidally shaped molecule. Drew, when asked about the molecular geometry of methane during the interview, also first tries to think of the name for the geometry. Drew says, “This is (pause) it’s not trigonal planar, but, I’m trying to think of the actual term, but I don’t know.” Despite saying he does not know, Drew enlists his entire body to demonstrate the shape of methane. Drew plants his feet and uses his hands to indicate that his legs mark the positions of two hydrogen atoms (Figure 4a). Then, he twists his torso and raises his arms to be nearly perpendicular to the direction his feet are facing (Figure 4b).

■

COLLABORATIVE MEANING-MAKING WITH MULTIMODAL INTERACTIONAL RESOURCES

Attending to Gesture and Making Space for Sense-Making

Gesture can be used to help distinguish students that are sharing a description of previously thought-out science ideas from students who are engaged in the process of sense-making or constructing new ideas. Crowder77 defined sense-making as “the action of coordinating theory and evidence and developing reasonable models of that coordination.” Crowder found that middle-school students gestured and spoke differently depending on whether they were sense-making or describing when asked to explain how the seasons change. Students who were sense-making tended to have disfluent speech (characterized by frequent pauses and stops and starts), made less eye contact with their listeners, and gestured more privately, as if to themselves. Additionally, they often gestured before they started to talk or gestured in silence. When students conveyed previously thought-out ideas, Crowder found that their speech was fluent and more synchronized with their gestures. Their gaze was directed toward their listeners, and their gestures were aimed toward an audience. While Crowder’s results are drawn from middle-school students, we extend them to the realm of undergraduate science learning. When Drew is asked to describe the molecular geometry of PF5, he draws the correct Lewis dot structure of the molecule onto a whiteboard on the wall. Then, he tries to determine a three-dimensional shape that would result in equal spacing between the five fluorine ligands. As Drew’s idea develops, he enacts a complex sequence of gestures (Figure 5a−d). Drew holds his hands apart and rotates them as he first considers how the ligands could “equally be separated” (Figure 5a). As he continues, he moves closer to the board and circles some of the ligands with the marker (Figure 5b). While Drew does this, he mentions that some of the fluorine atoms might be in a plane, but as soon as he circles this portion of his drawing, he rejects the idea. Still at the board, he enacts a new idea that there might be “three down and two up” (Figure 5c,d). Drew points the fingers on both hands down as he says, “Three down” (Figure 5c). Drew’s fingers seem to indicate general directions in Figure 5, panel c as if he is not sure where exactly the three ligands belong. In this first part of the episode, Drew’s performance suggests that he is sense-making. His gaze and body are turned away

Figure 4. Drew creates the molecular geometry of methane with his entire body.

The orientation of Drew’s body in space mimics the tetrahedral shape of methane.76 By attending to Drew’s performance, V.J.F. is able to recognize this shape and infer that Drew’s abdomen matches the location of the carbon atom that Drew did not mention. V.J.F. asks, “And that would make your torso like carbon?” Drew pats his stomach and confirms, “Yes, yes. This is carbon.” Drew’s full-body performance of the molecular geometry of methane made available interactional resources that allowed V.J.F. to formulate a question and probe deeper into Drew’s idea by following up about missing information. Both Drew and Peter are able to take advantage of the unique affordances of the human body to generate publicly viewable and recognizable geometries. Notably, Drew and Peter both use gesture in two distinct ways to coordinate aspects of these enacted shapes. First, both use stationary body parts as material placeholders to stand in for entities. Peter creates a plane with an outstretched hand, and Drew holds his arms and legs out as hydrogen ligands. Second, both use gestures to point out and assign significance to empty spaces or body parts. Drew uses his outstretched hands to point out that he wants his legs 16



Article

Figure 6. Drew demonstrates the shape of PF5.

become nervous during an interaction with an instructor), we find Crowder’s work useful for interpreting the interactional resources inherent in Drew’s different activities. By considering gesture, body posture, and gaze, an instructor−listener can recognize whether a student is in the process of constructing an explanation in the moment or if the student is performing their current understanding and looking for feedback. These different activities require distinct responses from an instructor. The ability to recognize when students are making sense of particular phenomena allows instructors to give students the space and time to work out their own solutions. When afforded the opportunity to explore their emergent ideas with minimal intervention from an instructor, learners often arrive at productive outcomes.78−81 In the example above, V.J.F. provides Drew with the space to work out a reasonable shape for PF5. The opportunity to engage in this multimodal exploratory activity is fruitful for Drew as he comes up with a reasonable solution by using productive tools like the valence-shell electron pair repulsion theory.82

Figure 5. How Drew develops the shape of PF5.

from his listener while he gestures and speaks. Drew gestures toward the whiteboard, and his gaze remains on the board and on his hands. Notably, he continues to gesture when he pauses his speech in Figure 5, panels a and b. Also, he enacts an early possibility (Figure 5b) but rejects and revises it to “three down and two up.” In addition to his gestures, Drew’s accompanying speech is disfluent. It is filled with pauses, and he stops and starts talking without finishing his sentences. In light of Crowder’s findings outlined above, Drew’s gestures and speech suggest that he is working out a solution as he goes. Later in the episode, prompted by V.J.F., Drew demonstrates a solution for the shape of PF5 (Figure 6a,b). In contrast to the previous sequence, his gestures and speech now suggest that he is describing an already worked-out solution. Drew turns his body to face V.J.F. as he demonstrates this final solution. Drew’s fingers now show concrete positions for the ligands in space. He makes eye contact with V.J.F. as he creates this shape. Drew appears to put distance between his body and his hands as he deliberately holds them out for public viewing, while V.J.F. tries to mimic his gesture. According to Crowder’s characterizations, Drew now seems to describe his previously worked-out answer to the problem and is no longer sensemaking. Drew’s multimodal performances, which reflect perceivable differences in gaze, speech fluency, and gesture, are recognizable interactional resources that correspond with the different activities of sharing a solution versus working one out. While changes in gesture and speech patterns could stem from a variety of emotional causes (for example, a student may

Interacting with Student Gesture: Co-Constructing Meaning

When Drew drops his hands and steps away from the board in the episode described above, V.J.F. attempts to recreate his idea with her own hands (Figure 6, line 1). She starts by holding out her left hand with three fingers extended, which creates an opportunity for Drew to guide her reconstruction. Drew confirms by extending three fingers of his right hand downward and calling the shape a “tripod” (Figure 6, line 2). V.J.F. echoes the verbal description while moving her right hand with two fingers extended to join her left hand “tripod” (Figure 6, line 3). Before her hands touch, Drew acknowledges her verbal description and uses two fingers of his left hand to complete the shape (Figure 6, line 4). V.J.F. completes the mirror gesture and asks, “And then two sticking up?” (Figure 6, line 5), to which Drew agrees (Figure 6, line 6). In this interaction, Drew and V.J.F. co-construct a finalized version of Drew’s idea about the shape of PF5. They are able to accomplish gesture synchronization. Notably, Drew and V.J.F. are able to negotiate and share an understanding of this shape through this synchronization without using academic language. This episode is an example of an instructor and a student who are able to accomplish mutual understanding in multiple communicative modes. 17



Article

(Figure 7c). Peter’s gaze remains on his hands for several seconds and he repeats softly, “I think. I think.” After another short pause, he says, “This is the ultratetrahedral [sic], I think.” Peter keeps his right hand in position and he points with his left hand to the curled palm of his right hand and says, “This would be fluorine.” He then returns his left hand to the bottom of the configuration and points out another fluorine in his curled palm. Peter resumes the configuration with both hands and adds, “These would be the three spaced-out fluorines.” In response to this ambiguous utterance, V.J.F. circles her right hand over a plane created with her left hand. She physically reintroduces a gestural form, the flat plane hand, from Peter’s prior enacted shape and connects it with the new shape while she simultaneously asks, “The ones that you are saying are in...” and Peter finishes the sentence “in a plane,” just before she starts to say the same words. After this agreement, Peter proceeds to indicate that the phosphorus atom would be in the center of the open space between the two hands. Together, Peter and V.J.F. found Peter’s earlier proposed shape of PF5 within the previously mysterious hand configuration from class. During this episode, we recognize instances of Peter (1) producing a gesture to express a shape that he does not initially have technical words to describe, (2) giving it a name that would suggest a different shape (a mismatch), and (3) expressing that he is trying to figure something out in the moment. He creates a configuration with his hands to share with V.J.F. that he knows has some significance for the shape of PF5 but at first cannot articulate what that significance might be (1). Later, he gives the configuration a name, “ultratetrahedral,” which is not a canonical term for the molecular geometry of PF5 (2). Despite that, he goes on to point out the shape of PF5 contained in the configuration. Throughout the construction, he keeps his gaze directed on his hands, which signals that he is sense-making (3). Peter’s performance highlights the importance of gesture in coordination with other modes as an interactional resource in collaborative chemistry meaning-making. By attending to and interacting with Peter’s gestures, V.J.F. uses the available interactional resources to create a learning opportunity by enabling him to participate in the joint decoding of the shape. When Peter is ready to dismiss his gesture, she encourages him to repeat it and draws attention to certain features of the configuration by asking Peter about them. In response to Peter’s unfolding explanation, V.J.F. proposes a connection to the shape he had enacted before. By highlighting particular features of the gesture and introducing continuity from a previous gesture, V.J.F. engages with the multimodal disciplinary substance of Peter’s idea. Together, they co-construct a meaning for an unfamiliar symbolic hand configuration through gesture. Both come to understand the symbolic gesture from class by finding Peter’s initially proposed shape of PF5 within this hand configuration.

Subsequently, V.J.F. and Drew use the shared reference of the shape they both hold to continue to explore Drew’s idea and to advance their shared understanding of PF5. V.J.F. formulates a question with the established gesture and asks, “What’s the goal with that?” while she holds up the coconstructed shape and indexes it with “that.” Drew expresses the productive idea that the ligands need “equal distance between them.” Notably, the final shape that Drew constructs with V.J.F. is close to a rotated trigonal bipyramidal shape. We conjecture that when instructors check their understanding of a student idea by creating a gesture, they encourage and thus authorize the use of gesture as an appropriate medium for meaning-making in chemistry. Peter and V.J.F. also successfully use gesture to co-construct meaning. This last episode that we present occurs immediately after Peter enacted his successful demonstration of the shape of PF5 (see Figure 3). Peter spontaneously creates a new shape with two hands that he attributes to the instructor of his general chemistry course (Figure 7a);83 however, with his eyes on his

Figure 7. Co-constructing meaning through gesture.

hands, he remarks several times, “I don’t know what that means” and eventually abandons the hand configuration. This verbalization suggests that Peter regards this particular gesture as a predefined symbol that holds a particular significance for the shape of PF5, even though this significance is at first mysterious to him. Because she recognizes what might be the outlines of a bipyramidal geometrical figure in the configuration, V.J.F. asks Peter if he could show the shape to her again. While V.J.F. speaks, she creates a partial version of what he did with her own hands, which encourages Peter to begin to reform the shape (Figure 7b). Peter now holds the shape with just three fingers, a revision from the first incarnation with four, but he once again insists while he looks down at it, “I don’t know.” V.J.F. then points out each of the three places where Peter’s fingers connect and asks what his fingers represent in these locations

■

CONCLUSION In this article, we demonstrated that students and instructors can take advantage of the visible, three-dimensional, and spatio−dynamic capacities of gesture to negotiate chemical meanings in interaction. We highlighted ways in which interactional resources that emerge from multimodal performances allow for the co-construction of mutual understanding. Our work contributes a much-needed investigation into how gesture can be a productive medium for the representation and 18



Article

Attending to and interacting with students’ multimodally performed ideas about spatial phenomena are necessary for a teacher to recognize the disciplinary substance in these ideas,87 which is a crucial step in learner-centered, responsive teaching: “The teacher needs to listen carefully to the substance of students’ ideas, assess the merits of those ideas, and make nextmove decisions accordingly.”88 Interactional resources that emerge from the expression and co-construction of ideas in gesture can mediate the design of instructional moves that are responsive to students’ ideas and therefore foster learning. Incorporating ways for students to explore and express their ideas in multiple modes into chemistry assessments potentially allows instructors to better understand students’ three-dimensional comprehension of the spatio−dynamic features of molecules and other chemistry phenomena. Written, verbal, or drawn answers to paper or oral test questions may not completely reveal what a student knows about three-dimensional relationships in chemistry, such as molecular geometry. Instead, they may reflect difficulties with the appropriation of the technical language of chemistry (e.g., orbits versus orbitals; geometric terms) and its representational practices (i.e., wedgeand-dash diagrams). Assessment strategies that include face-toface interactions give instructors the opportunity to attend to students’ gestures. These strategies may provide instructors greater insight into the ideas that students convey, what they actually know about chemical phenomena, and where they may need more support. While the small class sizes of middle-, secondary-level, upperdivision postsecondary chemistry courses, and laboratory sections permit frequent face-to-face interactions between instructors and students (both individually or in groups), the large-enrollment lecture formats that characterize many introductory postsecondary chemistry courses pose a challenge.89 However, a number of current reform effortsflipped classrooms,90 the implementation of small group work,91−93 peer-led team learning,58 and process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL)94have successfully created spaces for interactive learning in large-enrollment chemistry courses and are able to increase the frequency of face-to-face interactions between the instructor and student(s). In these formats, instructors (e.g., faculty, teaching assistants, or peer leaders) engage with students during problem-solving and sense-making activities, which affords more possibilities to be responsive to students’ multimodal explorations of chemistry ideas. Our results support the need for more reform efforts that promote occasions for students’ multimodal interaction with instructors and peers in chemistry courses.

visualization of submicroscopic, spatial, and dynamic phenomena when learners and instructors negotiate chemistry ideas. In particular, we illustrated how learners’ gestures enrich the complexity of their ideas about the Bohr model. We also analyzed how learners use gesture to describe molecular geometry on their way to develop technical language. Additionally, we showed how opportunities for learning were created by making space for and encouraging students to engage in multimodal, interactive meaning-making practices. We believe our episodes demonstrate how gesture and the body provide particularly powerful and meaningful ways to build and explore chemistry ideas together. Our analysis suggests that opportunities to participate in multimodal meaning-making are productive for the learning of chemistry. A limitation of our study is that we cannot draw immediate conclusions about the external generalizability of our findings from the cases we presented to other settings.84 Our work is not intended to yield abstract universals63 about multimodality in chemistry learning and teaching. The strength of our interpretive microethnographic investigation lies in its ability to contribute to the emergence of concrete universals63 through comparisons across collections of cases of multimodal interaction. The presented details of how interactional resources become available through gesture, are used in interaction, and create opportunities for learning allow for comparisons with other cases that were studied in detail. More work is necessary to better understand the practices of multimodal meaning-making in chemistry teaching and learning. Our findings make it possible to identify features that are unique or common across many cases. Further, we believe that our fine-grained analysis of purposefully selected exemplar cases can serve as a valuable resource for understanding the details and processes involved in teaching and learning interactions with productive outcomes. Following Erickson, we assert that advice for practitioners is most useful when it can clearly specify and demonstrate processes rather than speak in generalities such as, “Clarify when students are confused.”64 Details from exemplar interactions allow for these practices to be experimented with and adopted in the field. Implications for Teaching and Assessment

Our findings have implications for the teaching of chemistry at multiple levels from elementary grades through university courses. Gesture is an easily accessible, public medium for students to explore and express ideas in three dimensions. Because of this, attending to gesture affords teachers the opportunity to co-construct a shared understanding of a student’s idea that can inform instruction in the moment. When space is provided for a student’s multimodal idea generation and expression during assessments, a more robust measurement of the student’s understanding is occasioned. While mastery of the conventional representational systems of chemistry is crucial to learning the subject,85,86 the ability to reason about dynamic three-dimensional phenomena is a distinct skill. Many topics in chemistry, for example, appreciating stereochemistry, imagining symmetry operations, or predicting frontier orbital interactions, require an understanding of the respective phenomena in three dimensions. Gesture provides a useful medium for students to share and explore their understanding of these topics in three dimensions with others.

Creating Spaces for Whole-Body, Gestural Idea Development and Expression Enriches Chemistry Learning

The creation of spaces for students to engage in improvisations of innovative and spontaneous gestural performance may open up new approaches to chemistry teaching and learning. The design of spaces that afford bodily and gestural engagement with submicroscopic, three-dimensional, and dynamic ideas is a promising avenue for pedagogical innovation and research in chemical education. Future work is needed to investigate the impacts of such modifications on student learning in a variety of educational environments and contexts in chemistry.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Authors

*E-mail: fl[email protected]. 19



Article

*E-mail: [email protected].

Representations Used during Instruction and Assessment. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (6), 800−806. (19) Nakhleh, M. B.; Postek, B. Learning Chemistry Using Multiple External Representations. In Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education; Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., Nakhleh, M. B., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp 209−231. (20) For example, Gilbert, J. K. Visualization: An Emergent Field of Practice and Enquiry in Science Education. In Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education; Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., Nakhleh, M. B., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp 3−24. (21) Alibali, M. W.; Nathan, M. J. Embodiment in Mathematics Teaching and Learning: Evidence From Learners’ and Teachers’ Gestures. J. Learn. Sci. 2012, 21, 247−286. (22) Cook, S. W.; Goldin-Meadow, S. The Role of Gesture in Learning: Do Children Use Their Hands To Change Their Minds? J. Cognit. Dev. 2006, 7, 211−232. (23) Edwards, L. D. Gestures and Conceptual Integration in Mathematical Talk. Educ. Stud. Math. 2008, 70, 127−141. (24) Kim, M.; Roth, W.-M.; Thom, J. Children’s Gestures and the Embodied Knowledge of Geometry. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2011, 9, 207−238. (25) Nemirovsky, R.; Ferrara, F. Mathematical Imagination and Embodied Cognition. Educ. Stud. Math. 2009, 70, 159−174. (26) Nemirovsky, R.; Rasmussen, C.; Sweeney, G.; Wawro, M. When the Classroom Floor Becomes the Complex Plane: Addition and Multiplication as Ways of Bodily Navigation. J. Learn. Sci. 2012, 21, 287−323. (27) Radford, L. Why do Gestures Matter? Sensuous Cognition and the Palpability of Mathematical Meanings. Educ. Stud. Math. 2008, 70, 111−126. (28) Wittmann, M.; Flood, V.; Black, K. Algebraic Manipulation As Motion within a Landscape. Educ. Stud. Math. 2013, 82, 169−181. (29) Hwang, S.; Roth, W.-M. The (Embodied) Performance of Physics Concepts in Lectures. Res. Sci. Educ. 2010, 41, 461−477. (30) Roth, W.-M.; Lawless, D. Scientific Investigations, Metaphorical Gestures, and the Emergence of Abstract Scientific Concepts. Learn. Instr. 2002, 12, 285−304. (31) Roth, W.-M.; Welzel, M. From Activity to Gestures and Scientific Language. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2001, 38, 103−136. (32) Scherr, R. E. Gesture Analysis for Physics Education Researchers. Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.Phys. Educ. Res. 2008, 4, 1−9. (33) Scherr, R. E.; Close, H. G.; Close, E. W.; Flood, V. J.; McKagan, S. B.; Robertson, A. D.; Seeley, L.; Wittmann, M. C.; Vokos, S. Negotiating Energy Dynamics through Embodied Action in a Materially Structured Environment. Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.Phys. Educ. Res. 2013, 9, 020105. (34) Kastens, K.; Agrawal, S.; Liben, L. Research Methodologies in Science Education: The Role of Gestures in Geoscience Teaching and Learning. J. Geosci. Educ. 2008, 56, 362−368. (35) Singer, M.; Radinsky, J.; Goldman, S. R. The Role of Gesture in Meaning Construction. Discourse Process. 2008, 45, 365−386. (36) Chue, S.; Tan, K. C. D. Issues and Challenges in Science Education Research. In Issues and Challenges in Science Education Research: Moving Forward; Tan, K. C. D., Kim, M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp 55−71. (37) Conquergood, D. Performance Studies: Interventions and Radical Research. Drama Rev. 2002, 46, 145−156. (38) Johnstone, A. H. Why is Science Difficult To Learn? Things are Seldom What They Seem. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 1991, 7, 75−83. (39) Kendon, A. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2004; p 400. (40) Murphy, K. M. Imagination as Joint Activity: The Case of Architectural Interaction. Mind, Cult., Act. 2004, 11, 267−278. (41) Kirsh, D. How Marking in Dance Constitutes Thinking with the Body. Versus: Quad. di Stud. Semiot. 2011, 113−115, 179−210. (42) For example, Scherr, R. E.; Close, H. G.; Close, E. W.; Flood, V. J.; McKagan, S. B.; Robertson, A. D.; Seeley, L.; Wittmann, M. C.; Vokos, S. Negotiating Energy Dynamics through Embodied Action in

Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

■

REFERENCES

The authors would like to thank Michael Smith and Molly Kelton for many helpful discussions. We are also grateful to the University of Maine Video Club members. Lastly, we thank the reviewers for their thoughtful feedback. This research was partially supported by a Transforming Research in Undergraduate STEM Education (TRUSE) conference mini-grant (NSF-DUE 0941515 and 0941191). This work was also supported in part by the Maine Academic Prominence Initiative through a grant to the Maine Center for Research in STEM Education at the University of Maine.

(1) Brickhouse, N. W. Teachers’ Beliefs about the Nature of Science and Their Relationship to Classroom Practice. J. Teach. Educ. 1990, 41, 53−62. (2) Nentwig, P. M.; Demuth, R.; Parchmann, I.; Ralle, B.; Gräsel, C. Chemie im Kontext: Situating Learning in Relevant Contexts while Systematically Developing Basic Chemical Concepts. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 1439−1444. (3) Nye, M. J. Philosophies of Chemistry Since the Eighteenth Century. In Chemical Sciences in the Modern World; Thackray, A., Ed.; University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, PA, 1993; pp 3−24. (4) Shiland, T. W. Constructivism: The Implications for Laboratory Work. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 107−109. (5) Halliday, M. A. K. Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning. Linguist. Educ. 1993, 5, 93−116. (6) Kress, G.; Jewitt, C.; Ogborn, J.; Tsatsarelis, C. Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom; Continuum: London and New York, 2001. (7) Lemke, J. L. Multiplying Meaning: Visual and Verbal Semiotics in Scientific Text. In Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science; Martin, J. R., Veel, R., Eds.; Routledge: London, 1998; pp 87−114. (8) Lemke, J. L. Typological and Topological Meaning in Diagnostic Discourse. Discourse Process. 1999, 27, 173−185. (9) Lemke, J. L. Talking Science; Ablex: Norwood, NJ, 1990. (10) Lave, J.; Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991. (11) Givry, D.; Roth, W.-M. Toward a New Conception of Conceptions: Interplay of Talk, Gestures, and Structures in the Setting. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2006, 43, 1086−1109. (12) Cheng, M.; Gilbert, J. K. Multiple Representations in Chemical Education; Gilbert, J. K., Treagust, D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; Vol. 4, pp 55−73. (13) Gilbert, J. K. Visualization: A Metacognitive Skill in Science and Science Education. In Visualization in Science Education; Gilbert, J. K., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp 9−27. (14) Streeck, J.; Goodwin, C.; LeBaron, C. Embodied Interaction in the Material World: An Introduction. In Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World; Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., LeBaron, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2011; pp 1−26. (15) Roth, W.-M. Gestures: Their Role in Teaching and Learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 2001, 71, 365−392. (16) Domin, D.; Bodner, G. Using Students’ Representations Constructed during Problem Solving To Infer Conceptual Understanding. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 837−843. (17) Multiple Representations in Chemical Education; Gilbert, J. K., Treagust, D. F., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. (18) Linenberger, K. J.; Holme, T. A. Results of a National Survey of Biochemistry Instructors To Determine the Prevalence and Types of 20



Article

(64) Erickson, F. Ethnographic Microanalysis of Interaction. In The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education; LeCompte, M. D., Millroy, W. L., Preissle, J., Eds.; Academic Press, Inc.: San Diego, CA, 1992; pp 201−225. (65) Jordan, B.; Henderson, A. Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. J. Learn. Sci. 1995, 4, 39−103. (66) Heap, J. L. Applied Ethnomethodology: Looking for the Local Rationality of Reading Activities. Hum. Stud. 1990, 13, 39−72. (67) Barron, B.; Engle, R. A. Analyzing Data Derived from Video Records. In Guidelines for Video Research in Education; Derry, S. J., Ed.; Data Research and Development Center: Chicago, IL, 2007; pp 23− 43. (68) Goldman, R.; Erickson, F.; Lemke, J. L.; Derry, S. J. Selection in Video. In Guidelines for Video Research in Education; Derry, S. J., Ed.; Data Research and Development Center: Chicago, IL, 2007; pp 15− 23. (69) For a review, see Alibali, M. W. Gesture in Spatial Cognition: Expressing, Communicating, and Thinking about Spatial Information. Spat. Cognit. Comput. 2005, 5, 307−331. (70) Goldin-Meadow, S. Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think; Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. (71) Ramachandran, B.; Kong, P. Three-Dimensional Graphical Visualization of One-Electron Atomic Orbitals. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 406. (72) In the field of sociolinguistics, this phenomenon is referred to as other-repair: Liebscher, G.; Dailey-O’Cain, J. Conversational Repair as a Role-Defining Mechanism in Classroom Interaction. Mod. Lang. J. 2003, 87, 375−390. (73) Roth, W.-M. From Gesture to Scientific Language. J. Pragmat. 2000, 32, 1683−1714. (74) Becvar, L. A.; Hollan, J.; Hutchins, E. Hands as Molecules: Representational Gestures Used for Developing Theory in a Scientific Laboratory. Semiotica 2005, 4, 89−112. (75) Myers, N. Molecular Embodiments and the Body-Work of Modeling in Protein Crystallography. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2008, 38, 163− 199. (76) The instructor of Drew’s general chemistry course used a similar full-body demonstration to explain the repulsion of the four electron domains of methane during his lecture. The instructor spread his arms and legs, first in a planar configuration and then twisted his arms out of the plane of his legs to depict the larger interligand distance achieved with the tetrahedral configuration versus a square planar configuration. (77) Crowder, E. M. Gestures at Work in Sense-Making Science Talk. J. Learn. Sci. 1996, 5, 173−208. (78) Engle, R. A.; Conant, F. R. Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom. Cognit. Instr. 2002, 20, 399−483. (79) Roschelle, J. Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change. J. Learn. Sci. 1992, 2, 235−276. (80) Roth, W.-M.; Tobin, K. Redesigning an “Urban” Teacher Education Program: An Activity Theory Perspective. Mind, Cult., Act. 2002, 9, 108−131. (81) Smith, J. P.; DiSessa, A. A.; Roschelle, J. Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition. J. Learn. Sci. 1994, 3, 115−163. (82) Gillespie, R. J. The Electron-Pair Repulsion Model for Molecular Geometry. J. Chem. Educ. 1970, 47, 18−23. (83) The instructor of Peter’s general chemistry class created the two-handed trigonal bipyramidal gesture to demonstrate the vertices and edges of the solid polyhedral model from which the PF5 shape gets its name. Students were instructed to enact the gesture during class. (84) Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2013. (85) Cooper, M. M.; Grove, N.; Underwood, S. M.; Klymkowsky, M. W. Lost in Lewis Structures: An Investigation of Student Difficulties in Developing Representational Competence. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 869−874.

a Materially Structured Environment. Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.Phys. Educ. Res. 2013, 9, 020105. (43) Furió, C.; Calatayud, M. L. Difficulties with the Geometry and Polarity of Molecules: Beyond Misconceptions. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 36−41. (44) Kelly, R. M.; Barrera, J. H.; Mohamed, S. C. An Analysis of Undergraduate General Chemistry Students’ Misconceptions of the Submicroscopic Level of Precipitation Reactions. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 87, 113−118. (45) Tuckey, H.; Selvaratnam, M.; Bradley, J. Identification and Rectification of Student Difficulties Concerning Three-Dimensional Structures, Rotation, and Reflection. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 460− 464. (46) Williamson, V. M.; Lane, S. M.; Gilbreath, T.; Tasker, T.; Ashkenazi, G.; Williamson, K. C.; Macfarlane, R. D. The Effect of Viewing Order of Macroscopic and Particulate Visualizations on Students’ Particulate Explanations. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 979−987. (47) Chiu, M.-H.; Wu, H.-K. The Roles of Multimedia in the Teaching and Learning of the Triplet Relationship in Chemistry. In Multiple Representations in Chemical Education; Gilbert, J. K., Treagust, D. F., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp 251−283. (48) Kozma, R. B.; Russell, J. Multimedia and Understanding: Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34, 949−968. (49) Stieff, M. Connected ChemistryA Novel Modeling Environment for the Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 489−493. (50) Tasker, R.; Dalton, R. Research into Practice: Visualisation of the Molecular World Using Animations. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2006, 7, 141−159. (51) Mondada, L. Multimodal Resources for Turn-Taking: Pointing and the Emergence of Possible Next Speakers. Discourse Stud. 2007, 9, 194−225. (52) Wells, B.; Macfarlane, S. Prosody as an Interactional Resource: Turn-Projection and Overlap. Lang. Speech 1998, 41, 265−294. (53) Jefferson, G. Error Correction as an Interactional Resource. Lang. Soc. 1974, 3, 181−199. (54) Coffey, J. E.; Hammer, D.; Levin, D. M.; Grant, T. The Missing Disciplinary Substance of Formative Assessment. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 1109−1136. (55) Levin, D. M.; Hammer, D.; Coffey, J. E. Novice Teachers’ Attention to Student Thinking. J. Teach. Educ. 2009, 60, 142−154. (56) Koschmann, T.; LeBaron, C. Learner Articulation as Interactional Achievement: Studying the Conversation of Gesture. Cognit. Instr. 2002, 20, 249−282. (57) Maskiewicz, A. C.; Winters, V. A. Understanding the CoConstruction of Inquiry Practices: A Case Study of a Responsive Teaching Environment. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 429−464. (58) Stewart, B.; Amar, F.; Bruce, M. Challenges and Rewards of Offering Peer Led Team Learning (PLTL) in a Large General Chemistry Course. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2007, 67, 31−36. (59) Bernard, H. R. Research Methods in Anthropology, 4th ed.; AltaMira Press: Oxford, UK, 2006. (60) Brugman, H.; Russel, A. Annotating Multimedia/Multimodal Resources with ELAN. In Proceedings of LREC 2004, Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation; Lino, M. T., Xavier, M. F., Ferreira, F., Costa, R., Silva, R., Eds.; European Language Resources Association: Paris, France, 2004. (61) Koschmann, T. Conversation Analysis and Collaborative Learning. In The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning; Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., O’Donnell, A., Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2013; pp 149−167. (62) Streeck, J.; Mehus, S. Microethnography: The Study of Practices. In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction; Fitch, K. L., Sanders, R. E., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, 2005; Vol. 3, pp 381−404. (63) Erickson, F. Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In Handbook of Research on Teaching; Wittrock, M. C., Ed.; MacMillan: New York, 1985; pp 119−161. 21



Article

(86) Grove, N. P.; Cooper, M. M.; Rush, K. M. Decorating with Arrows: Toward the Development of Representational Competence in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 844−849. (87) Harrer, B. W.; Scherr, R. E.; Wittmann, M. C.; Close, H. G.; Frank, B. W. Elements of Proximal Formative Assessment in Learners’ Discourse about Energy. AIP Conf. Proc. 2012, 1413, 203−206. (88) Hammer, D.; Goldberg, F.; Fargason, S. Responsive Teaching and the Beginnings of Energy in a Third Grade Classroom. Rev. Sci. Math. ICT Educ. 2012, 6, 51−72. (89) Cooper, M. M.; Klymkowsky, M. Chemistry, Life, the Universe, and Everything: A New Approach to General Chemistry, and a Model for Curriculum Reform. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1116−1112. (90) Schultz, D.; Duffield, S.; Rasmussen, S. C.; Wageman, J. Effects of the Flipped Classroom Model on Student Performance for Advanced Placement High School Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (9), 1334−1339. (91) Mahalingam, M.; Schaefer, F.; Morlino, E. Promoting Student Learning through Group Problem Solving in General Chemistry Recitations. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (11), 1577−1581. (92) Lyon, D. C.; Lagowski, J. J. Effectiveness of Facilitating SmallGroup Learning in Large Lecture Classes: A General Chemistry Case Study. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (11), 1571−1576. (93) Fasching, J. L.; Erickson, B. L. Group Discussions in Chemsitry Classroom and the Problem-Solving Skills of Students. J. Chem. Educ. 1985, 62 (10), 842−846. (94) Yezierski, E. J.; Bauer, C. F.; Hunnicutt, S. S.; Hanson, D. M.; Amaral, K. E.; Schneider, J. P. POGIL Implementation in Large Classes: Strategies for Planning, Teaching, and Management. In Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL); Moog, R. S., Spencer, J. N,, Eds.; ACS Symposium Series: Washington, DC, 2008; pp 60−71.

22


Paying Attention to Gesture when Students Talk Chemistry

Recommend Documents