Objective

To what extent do Australian, Melanesian, and Indonesian teachers’ culture, practices and beliefs influence their use of representations?

Theoretical Framework

While there are problems in generalizing across cultures, we will argue that there is a range of culturally related issues that need to be considered when using representations in different cultures. These issues include societal status, gender, ownership and relationships, teaching approaches, societal expectations, life experiences and linking to student lives.

Respect for societal positioning is very important in Melanesian and Indonesian society. The status of children’s families as well as their gender can influence how students perceive the quality of teaching and how they respond in class. Male teachers are afforded more respect and are more likely to be seen as authoritarian and expert. These perceptions can influence how the teacher presents learning material, particularly how they use representations.

Waldrip, Timothy and Wilikai  (2007) illustrate the need for teachers to explain concepts and principles using stories and experience the students are familiar with before explaining the ‘similarities and differences between their local understanding and what their books actually mean’. This idea links to the need for students to have an understanding in their own language, the ideas linked to their past experiences and then, as Roberts (1996) implies, a discussion on how it relates to the canonical understandings.

Student Generated Representational Research

The process of active construction of learning in the classroom contributes more to quality learning than does interpretation of canonical representations found in authoritative sources (e.g. textbook, web, videos, etc.) utilized by the teacher. As Tytler, Prain, Hubber and Waldrip (2013) point out, the act of constructing a representation focuses students’ attention on the representation and can constrain students thinking to the essential aspects or key features of the representations (Bransford & Schwartz, 1998). It provides students with a sense of agency in learning and an active opportunity to publicly display and justify their understandings. This view requires teachers to make judgments about the quality of student-developed representations and then facilitating the ongoing dialogue between students and also with their teacher about the robustness of any claim coming from the representation. It pressurizes the teacher to have an in-depth understanding of the content and an understanding of what is appropriate pedagogically for enhancing student understanding.

The emerging new area of research into representations investigates the value of student-generated representations to promote understanding in science ( Waldrip, Prain & Carolan, 2010). In this perspective, students learn to use material and symbolic tools to think scientifically, incorporating both new and old technologies (diSessa, 2004; Greeno & Hall, 1997; Prain & Waldrip, 2006). We agree with Kozma and Russell (2005) that representations can function as conceptualizing and reasoning tools, rather than just as means for knowledge display. It implies the need for learners to use their own representations. A representational approach to learning means students being able to state claims, reflect on what is appropriate evidence, as well as critique and modify the representation and then refine both initial reasoning and representation. 

Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking Transfer: A Simple Proposal with Multiple Implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100. diSessa, A.A. (2004). Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and instruction, 22(3), 293-331. Greeno, J.G., & Hall, R.P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (5), 361-368. Kozma, R. & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.) Visualization in Science Education. Springer, 121-145. Prain, V., & Waldrip, B.G. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts primary science. International Journal of Science, Education, 28(15), 1843–1866. Roberts, D. (1996). Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: The potential role of teacher communities: A response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry 26 (4),417-431. Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B.G. (Eds). Constructing Representations to Learn in Science. Sense Publishers. Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2006). Learning Junior Secondary Science Through Multi-Modal Representation, Electronic Journal of Science Education 11 (1), 86-105. Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40, 65–80. Waldrip, B.G. & Prain, V. (2008). An exploratory study of teachers’ perspectives about using multi-modal representations of concepts to enhance science learning. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(1), 5-24. Waldrip, B.G., Timothy, J.T., & Wilikai, W. (2007). Pedagogical Principles in Negotiating Cultural Conflict: A Melanesian Example. International Journal of Science Education. 29(1), 101-122.