263

Notes

Preface

1. Lori L. DiGisi and John B. Willett, ‘What high school biology teachers say about their textbook use: A descriptive study’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

Vol. 32, No. 1 (1995), 123–142.

Introduction

1. John Berger, Ways of Seeing (London: Penguin Books, 1972), at 10.2. Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through

Society (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987).3. Frances K. Aldrich and Linda Sheppard, ‘Graphicacy: The fourth “R”?’, Primary

Science Review, Vol. 64, No. 1 (2000), 8–11.4. Pierre Bourdieu, ‘The practice of reflexive sociology (The Paris workshop)’, in Pi-

erre Bourdieu and Loïc J. D. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 216–260.

5. Greg Myers, ‘Every picture tells a story: Illustrations in E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiol-

ogy’, in Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (eds), Representation in scientific prac-

tice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 231–265, at 244.6. Michael Lynch, ‘Laboratory space and the technological complex: An investigation

of topical contextures’, in S. Leigh Star (ed), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and

Politics in Science and Technology (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press 1995), 226–256, at 255, emphasis in the original.

7. See, for example, Richard E. Mayer and Richard B. Anderson, ‘The instructive ani-mation: Helping students build connection words and pictures in multimedia learn-ing’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 4 (1992), 444–452.

8. Wolfgang Schnotz, E. Picard and A. Hron, ‘How do successful and unsuccessful learners use texts and graphics?’, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1993), 181–199.

9. Latour op. cit. note 2, at 258.

264 Notes

10. Ken Morrison, ‘Some researchable recurrences in discipline-specific inquiry’, In D. T. Helm, W. T. Anderson, A. J. Meehan, & Anne W. Rawls (eds), The Interactional

Order: New Directions in the Study of Social Order (New York: Irvington, 1989), 141–158, at 145.

11. Morrison, op. cit. note 10, at 147.

Chapter 1

1. Michel Foucault, Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison (Paris: Gallimard, 1975).

2. An interesting collection of such studies were published in the collection Represent-

ing as Scientific Practice. Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (eds), Representing as

Scientific Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990).3. Henry A. Giroux, Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education

(New York: Routledge, 1992), at 244.4. See, for example, Jacques Bertin, Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks,

Maps (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983); Fernande St. Martin, Semiot-

ics of Visual Language (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990; and Edward R. Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 1983).

5. See, for example, Gaea Leinhardt and coworkers (1990). There are now researchers, including Valerie Walkerdine, who approach mathematical knowing as social prac-tice, thereby de-centering attention from the grey matter ‘between the ears and un-derneath the skull’ to the individual’s interactions with the social and material world. Gaea Leinhardt, Orit Zaslavsky and Mary K. Stein, ‘Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 60, No. 1 (1990), 1–64; Valerie Walkerdine, The Mastery of Reason (London: Rout-ledge, 1988).

6. Howard Wainer, ‘Understanding graphs and tables’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1992), 14–23, at 18.

7. Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through

Society (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987), at 258.8. Umberto Eco defines a sign as a segmentation of matter pointing to and expressing

something other than itself. Signs include letters, words, texts, pictures, drawings, and graphs. For the literary Sherlock Holmes, even the positioning of some objects, a piece of hair on a sofa or the barking of a dog at night were signs referring him to some object, event, or phenomenon. In the mathematics education literature, the no-tion of ‘symbol’ is often used in the same sense as ‘sign’ in the semiotics literature. Umberto Eco, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984).

9. Bruce Wake, ‘Best bang for education buck debated at school board’, Peninsula

News Review, 11 December 1998, at 2.

Notes 265

10. As outlined below, in the perspective taken here, signs and texts are mutually consti-tutive to the phenomena they signify. Reality therefore does not lie behind the text but squarely in the context, that is, what goes with (Lat. co-, con-, com-) and is re-quired by the text. See, for example, Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Soli-

darity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).11. Willard Van Orman Quine, From Stimulus to Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1995), at 48.12. Jon Barwise, ‘On the circumstantial relation between meaning and content’, In Um-

berto Eco, Marco Santambrogio and Patrizia Violi (eds), Meaning and Mental Rep-

resentations (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), 23–39.13. Semiotic research in general takes the existence of the sign for the individual as un-

problematic. Valerie Walkerdine is one of those who make the distinction by noting that for two people an expression such as ‘no more’ may be the same signifier (seg-mentation of matter) but a different sign. Valerie Walkerdine, ‘Redefining the sub-ject in situated cognition theory’, in David Kirshner and James A. Whitson (eds), Situated Cognition (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997), 57–70.

14. Reader might be interested in reflecting on the deep epistemological implications arising from the contrast of Karen’s statement, ‘This is a clogged pipe’ as a descrip-tor (interpretant) of a wiggle, and the caption ‘This is not a pipe’ in René Magritte’s painting of a pipe. This painting was the topic of a famous essay of the same name by Michel Foucault. Michel Foucault, This is not a Pipe, trans. and ed. J. Harkness (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).

15. Eric Livingston, An Anthropology of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995).

16. Wolff-Michael Roth and G. Michael Bowen, ‘Complexities of graphical representa-tions during lectures: A phenomenological approach’, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1999), 235–255.

17. Studies on the interpretation of graphs do not ascertain whether students are familiar with the phenomena nor, for these matters with translating between graph and phe-nomena, or with the conventions regulating the use of particular graphical sign ele-ments.

18. Wolff-Michael Roth, Michelle K. McGinn and G. Michael Bowen, ‘How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scien-tific representation practices’, Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1998), 25–48.

19. Such examples can be found, for example, in John Clement, ‘The concept of varia-tion and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing’, Focus on Learning Problems in

Mathematics, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1989), 77–87.20. See, for example, Paul Ricœur, From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, II

trans. K. Blaney and J. B. Thompson (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press,1991).

21. See, for example, Winfried Nöth, Handbook of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).

266 Notes

22. Because any phenomenon is ‘captured’ in one sign form or another, because all of our reflective knowledge requires representations, signs therefore only point to other signs. Constructivists come to the same conclusion: because we do not have access to the world as such but only to our descriptions of it, one sign can only refer to an-other. In a post-modern reading, we can therefore never escape con/text.

23. Barwise, op. cit. note 12.24. Jenny Preece and Claude Janvier, ‘A study of the interpretation of trends in multiple

curve graphs of ecological situations’, School Science and Mathematics, Vol. 92, No. 6 (1992), 299–306.

25. Giroux, op. cit. note 3, at 243.26. Elinor Ochs, Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and Lan-

guage Socialization in a Samoan Village (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), at 16.

Chapter 2

1. Wolff-Michael Roth, Toward an Anthropology of Graphing: Semiotic and Anthro-

pological Perspectives (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003).

2. Bertin provides an extensive overview of those aspects most frequently considered. See Jacques Bertin, Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983).

3. Greg Myers, ‘Every picture tells a story: Illustrations in E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiol-

ogy’, in Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (eds), Representation in Scientific Prac-

tice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 231–265, at 238.4. Françoise Bastide, ‘The iconography of scientific texts: principles of analysis’, in

Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (eds), Representation in Scientific Practice

(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 187–229.5. Wolff-Michael Roth, ‘Emergence of graphing practices in scientific research’, Jour-

nal of Cognition and Culture, (in press).6. Bastide, op. cit. note 4, at 208.7. Eric Livingston, An Anthropology of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University

Press, 1995), at 55.8. Robin S. Reid and James E. Ellis, ‘Impacts of pastoralists on woodlands in South

Turkana, Kenya: Livestock mediated tree recruitment’, Ecological Applications, Vol. 5 (1995), 978–992, at 987.

9. D. E. Moody, ‘Evolution and the textbook structure of biology’, Science Education, No. 80, Vol. 4 (1996), 395–418.

10. Roth, op. cit. note 1.11. Sylvia S. Mader, Inquiry into Life 4th ed. (Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, 1985), at

504.12. Mader, op. cit. note 11, at 504.

Notes 267

13. Raymond F. Oram, Biology: Living systems 4th ed. (Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merril, 1983), at 649.

14. Oram, op. cit. note 13, at 82.15. Oram, op. cit. note 13, at 649.16. See G. Michael Bowen, Wolff-Michael Roth and Michelle K. McGinn, ‘Interpreta-

tions of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: towards a social practice view of scientific representation practices’, Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, Vol. 36, No. 9 (1999), 1020–1043.17. William A. Andrews, B. Jennifer Andrews, D. A. Balconi and N. J. Purcell, Discov-

ering Biological Science (Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada, 1983), at 568–570.

18. Andrews et al., op. cit. note 17, at 568–570.19. See, for example, Wolff-Michael Roth, G. Michael Bowen and Domenico Mas-

ciotra, ‘From thing to sign and “natural object”: Toward a genetic phenomenology of graph interpretation’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 27, No. 4 (2002), 327–356.

20. Jay L. Lemke, ‘Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text’, in J. R. Martin and R. Veel (eds), Reading Science (London: Routledge, 1998), 87–113.

21. T. Piersma, J. van Gils and P. de Goeij, ‘Holling’s functional response model as a tool to link the food-finding mechanism of a probing shorebird with its spatial dis-tribution’, The Journal of Animal Ecology, 64 (1995), 493–504, at 497.

Chapter 3

1. See, for example, Jean Lave, Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture

in Everyday Life (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1988).2. Wolff-Michael Roth, Kenneth Tobin and Kenneth Shaw ‘Cascades of inscriptions

and the re-presentation of nature: How numbers, tables, graphs, and money come to re-present a rolling ball’, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 19, No. 10 (1997), 1075–1091.

3. In Descartes’ Error, Antonio Damasio provides evidence from neurological studies that individuals with particular forms of brain damage continue to do well on intelli-gence tests, tests involving considering alternative actions, and tests of social skills, but utterly fail in making decisions in everyday situations. That is, knowledge dis-played in testing situation is not the same as practical knowledgeability. See Antonio Damasio, Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (New York: HarperCollins, 2000).

4. G. Michael Bowen designed and taught the unit together with Wolff-Michael Roth, who conducted the research in the classroom, designed and administered tests, videotaped lessons, conducted interviews, transcribed recordings, and analyzed the data.

268 Notes

Chapter 4

1. An ecotone is defined as an ecological community of mixed vegetation created by the overlap of adjoining communities; it is usually a belt rather than an abrupt line. For example, the floodplains of the Amazon River are sometimes interpreted as eco-tones between upland and rivers, and sometimes they are viewed as specific ecosys-tems. But there is still a lot of controversy over the ecotone concept, in part because boundaries cannot be easily delineated.

2. Bruno Latour, Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).

3. John Law and Michael Lynch, ‘Lists, field guides, and the descriptive organization of seeing: Birdwatching as an exemplary observational activity’, in Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (eds), Representation in Scientific Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 267–299.

4. In Roth, Bowen, and McGinn (1999) and Pozzer and Roth (2003), we provide de-tailed analyses of the different types of inscriptions used in high school textbooks and, in the former article, compare it to the types of inscription found in scientific journals. See also chapter 2. Lilian L. Pozzer and Wolff-Michael Roth, ‘Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks’, Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 40, No. 9 (2002), 1089–1114; Wolff-Michael Roth, G. Michael Bowen and Michelle K. McGinn, ‘Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 36, No. 9 (1999), 977–1019.

5. The frequencies of these four functions among a total of 148 inscriptions were: decorative (n = 8 [5.4 percent]), illustrative (n = 52 [35.1 percent]), explanatory (n = 42 [28.4 percent]), and complementary functions (n = 46 [31.1 percent]).

6. George Lakoff provides examples of a category that are nearer the center, and there-fore more prototypical for a category versus those that are nearer the peripheries of two categories, and therefore more problematic in their assignment to one or the other. See George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories

Reveal about the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).7. Multimedia such as web pages allow different ways of accessing images, for exam-

ple by making available a ‘button’ linked to an image so that the reader can, if de-sired, make the image appear in a new window, which itself may be moved around the monitor.

Chapter 5

1. Reviews of this literature in anthropology, linguistics, and education are provided in Wolff-Michael Roth, ‘Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning’, Review of Edu-

cational Research, Vol. 71, No. 4 (2002), 365–392; Wolff-Michael Roth, ‘Gesture-

Notes 269

speech phenomena, learning and development’, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 38, No. 4 (2003), 249–263.

2. Jay L. Lemke, ‘Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text’, in J. R. Martin and R. Veel (eds), Reading Science (London: Routledge, 1998), 87–113.

3. Charles Goodwin, ‘Professional vision’, American Anthropologist, Vol. 96, No. 4 (1994), 606–633.

4. Wolff-Michael Roth, G. Michael Bowen and Michelle K. McGinn, ‘Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecol-ogy journals’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 36, No. 9 (1999), 977–1019.

Chapter 6

1. John Berger, Ways of Seeing (London: Penguin Books, 1972), at 10.2. See, for example, Lucy A. Suchman and Brigitte Jordan, ‘Interactional troubles in

face-to-face survey interviews’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85 (1990), 232–244; Wolff-Michael Roth and Yew Jin Lee, ‘Interpreting unfa-miliar graphs: A generative, activity-theoretic model’, Educational Studies in

Mathematics (in press).3. On of the studies in our research team showed how environmentalists used the same

photograph to show (a) how a particular creek had been modified and devastated by human practices and (b) how some citizens in the community are already taking care and monitoring the creek. See Stuart Lee and Wolff-Michael Roth, ‘How ditch and drain become a healthy creek: Representations, translations and agency during the re/design of a watershed’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 3 (2001), 315–356.

4. For examples of such studies see Schoultz, Säljö and Wyndhamn or Ueno and Ari-moto. One of the studies in our research group was explicitly designed to investigate the different ways in which graphicacy was contextualized, both in the experience of the participating physicists, on which they drew to elaborate potential referents, and the interview itself, to which the participants were oriented, and which mediated the responses they provided. See Roth and Lee, op. cit. note 2; Jan Schoultz, Roger Säljö and Jan Wyndhamn, ‘Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children’s un-derstanding of elementary astronomy’, Human Development, Vol. 44, No. 1 (2001), 103–118; Naoki Ueno and N. Arimoto, ‘Learning physics by expanding the metac-ontext of phenomena’, The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative

Human Cognition, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1993), 53–63.

270 Notes

Chapter 7

1. See, for example, Wolff-Michael Roth, Carolyn Woszczyna and Gilian Smith, ‘Af-fordances and constraints of computers in science education’, Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, Vol. 33, No. 10 (1996), 995–1017.2. The reader in this study refers to the interpreter of a given inscription. We analyze

the interpreting work required to get the point of an inscription, e.g., Boyle’s law for figure 7.1, in a perspective of the researcher or the author, but by making us unfa-miliar with the inscription.

3. Semantics is the interpretation or meaning of a sentence, word, etc. (The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2001). In this chapter, we refer to semantic model as a model that is used to analyze the work of interpreting an inscription.

4. Wolff-Michael Roth and Reinders Duit, ‘Emergence, flexibility, and stabilization of language in a physics classroom’, Journal for Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 40, No. 9 (2003), 869–897.

5. Jacques Derrida, Limited Inc (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

Chapter 8

1. See, for example, Yehudit J. Dori and Mira Hameiri, ‘Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbol, macro, micro, and process as-pects’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 40, No. 3 (2003), 278–302.

2. See, for example, Dorothy L. Gabel, ‘Research on problem solving: Chemistry’, in Dorothy L. Gabel (ed), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning

(New York: Macmillan Publishing Company), 301–326.3. Shimshon Novick and Joseph Nussbaum, ‘Junior high school pupils’ understanding

of the particulate nature of mater: An interview study’, Science Education, Vol. 62, No. 3 (1978), 273–281.

Chapter 9

1. Michael Lynch, ‘Method: measurement—ordinary and scientific measurement as ethnomethodological phenomena’, in Graham Button (ed), Ethnomethodology and

the Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 77–108.2. Paul Ricœur, From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, II, trans. K. Blaney and

J. B. Thompson (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1991).3. Gregory Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind (New York: Ballantine, 1972).4. Jeremy Roschelle, ‘Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change’, The

Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1992), 235–276.5. See, for example, Kathryn Henderson, ‘Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases:

Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engi-neering’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 16, No. 4 (1991), 448–473;

Notes 271

Karin Knorr-Cetina and Klaus Amann, ‘Image dissection in natural scientific in-quiry’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, No. 3 (1990), 259–283.

273

Bibliography

Aldrich, Frances K. and Linda Sheppard, ‘Graphicacy: The Fourth 'R'?’, Primary Science

Review, Vol. 64, No. 1 (2000), 8–11.Andrews, William A., B. Jennifer Andrews, D. A. Balconi and N. J. Purcell, Discovering

Biological Science (Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada, 1983).Barwise, Jon, ‘On the circumstantial relation between meaning and content’, In Umberto

Eco, Marco Santambrogio and Patrizia Violi (eds), Meaning and Mental Represen-

tations (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), 23–39.Bastide, Françoise, ‘The iconography of scientific texts: principles of analysis’, in Mi-

chael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (eds), Representation in Scientific Practice (Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 187–229.

Bateson, Gregory, Steps to an Ecology of Mind (New York: Ballantine, 1972).Berger, John, Ways of Seeing (London: Penguin Books, 1972).Bertin, Jacques Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps (Madison, WI: Uni-

versity of Wisconsin Press, 1983).Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘The practice of reflexive sociology (The Paris workshop)’, in Pierre

Bourdieu and Loïc J. D. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 216–260.

Bowen, G. Michael, Wolff-Michael Roth and Michelle K. McGinn, ‘Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: towards a social practice view of scientific representation practices’, Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, Vol. 36, No. 9 (1999), 1020–1043.Clement, John, ‘The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing’, Fo-

cus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1989), 77–87.Damasio, Antonio, Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (New

York: HarperCollins, 2000).Derrida, Jacques, Limited Inc (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).DiGisi, Lori L. and John B. Willett, ‘What high school biology teachers say about their

textbook use: A descriptive study’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1995), 123–142.

274 Bibliography

Foucault, Michel, Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison (Paris: Gallimard, 1975)., This is not a Pipe, trans. and ed. J. Harkness (Berkeley: University

of California Press, 1983).Gabel, Dorothy L., ‘Research on problem solving: Chemistry’, in Dorothy L. Gabel (ed),

Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company), 301–326.

Giroux, Henry A., Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education

(New York: Routledge, 1992).Goodwin, Charles, ‘Professional vision’, American Anthropologist, Vol. 96, No. 4

(1994), 606–633.Henderson, Kathryn, ‘Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication,

conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering’, Science, Tech-

nology, & Human Values, Vol. 16, No. 4 (1991), 448–473.Knorr-Cetina, Karin and Klaus Amann, ‘Image dissection in natural scientific inquiry’,

Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, No. 3 (1990), 259–283.Lakoff, George, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the

Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).Latour, Bruno, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Soci-

ety (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987)., La clef de Berlin et autres leçons d’un amateur de sciences (Paris:

Éditions la Découverte, 1993)., Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).Lave, Jean, Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life

(Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1988).Law, John and Michael Lynch, ‘Lists, field guides, and the descriptive organization of

seeing: Birdwatching as an exemplary observational activity’, in Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (eds), Representation in Scientific Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 267–299.

Leinhardt, Gaea, Orit Zaslavsky and Mary K. Stein, ‘Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 60, No. 1 (1990), 1–64.

Lemke, Jay L., ‘Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text’, in J. R. Martin & R. Veel (eds), Reading Science (London: Routledge, 1998), 87–113.

Livingston, Eric, An Anthropology of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995).

Lynch, Michael, ‘Laboratory space and the technological complex: An investigation of topical contextures’, in S. Leigh Star (ed), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Poli-

Bibliography 275

tics in Science and Technology (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press1995), 226–256.

, ‘Method: measurement—ordinary and scientific measurement as ethnomethodological phenomena’, in Graham Button (ed), Ethnomethodology and

the Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 77–108.Lynch Michael and Steve Woolgar (eds), Representing as Scientific Practice (Cam-

bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990).Mader, Sylvia S., Inquiry into Life 4th ed. (Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, 1985).Mayer, Richard E. and Richard B. Anderson, ‘The instructive animation: Helping stu-

dents build connection words and pictures in multimedia learning’, Journal of Edu-

cational Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 4 (1992), 444–452.Moody, D. E., ‘Evolution and the textbook structure of biology’, Science Education, No.

80, Vol. 4 (1996), 395–418.Morrison, Ken, ‘Some researchable recurrences in discipline-specific inquiry’, In D. T.

Helm, W. T. Anderson, A. J. Meehan, & Anne W. Rawls (eds), The Interactional

Order: New Directions in the Study of Social Order (New York: Irvington, 1989), 141–158.

Myers, Greg, ‘Every picture tells a story: Illustrations in E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology’, in Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (eds.), Representation in Scientific Practice

(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 231–265.Nöth, Winfried, Handbook of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).Novick, Shimshon and Joseph Nussbaum, ‘Junior high school pupils’ understanding of

the particulate nature of mater: An interview study’, Science Education, Vol. 62, No. 3 (1978), 273–281.

Ochs, Elinor, Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and Language

Socialization in a Samoan Village (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).Oram, Raymond F., Biology: Living Systems 4th ed. (Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merril,

1983).Piersma, T., J. van Gils and P. de Goeij, ‘Holling’s functional response model as a tool to

link the food-finding mechanism of a probing shorebird with its spatial distribution’, The Journal of Animal Ecology, Vol. 64 (1995), 493–504.

Pozzer, Lilian L. and Wolff-Michael Roth, ‘Prevalence, function, and structure of photo-graphs in high school biology textbooks’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 40, No. 9 (2002), 1089–1114.

Preece, Jenny and Claude Janvier, ‘A study of the interpretation of trends in multiple curve graphs of ecological situations’, School Science and Mathematics, Vol. 92, No. 6 (1992), 299–306.

Quine, Willard Van Orman, From Stimulus to Science (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1995).

276 Bibliography

Reid, Robin S. and James E. Ellis, ‘Impacts of pastoralists on woodlands in South Tur-kana, Kenya: Livestock mediated tree recruitment’, Ecological Applications, Vol. 5 (1995), 978–992.

Ricœur, Paul, From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, II trans. K. Blaney and J. B. Thompson (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1991).

Rorty, Richard, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

Roschelle, Jeremy, ‘Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change’, The

Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1992), 235–276.Roth, Wolff-Michael, ‘Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning’, Review of Educa-

tional Research, Vol. 71, No. 4 (2002), 365–392., ‘Gesture-speech phenomena, learning and development’, Educa-

tional Psychologist, Vol. 38, No. 4 (2003), 249–263., Toward an Anthropology of Graphing: Semiotic and Anthropologi-

cal Perspectives (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003)., ‘Emergence of graphing practices in scientific research’, Journal of

Cognition and Culture, (in press).Roth, Wolff-Michael and G. Michael Bowen, ‘Complexities of graphical representations

during lectures: A phenomenological approach’, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1999), 235–255.

Roth, Wolff-Michael, G. Michael Bowen and Domenico Masciotra, ‘From thing to sign and “natural object”: Toward a genetic phenomenology of graph interpretation’, Sci-

ence, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 27, No. 4 (2002), 327–356.Roth, Wolff-Michael, G. Michael Bowen and Michelle K. McGinn, ‘Differences in

graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecol-ogy journals’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 36, No. 9 (1999), 977–1019.

Roth, Wolff-Michael and Reinders Duit, ‘Emergence, flexibility, and stabilization of lan-guage in a physics classroom’, Journal for Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 40, No. 9 (2003), 869–897.

Roth, Wolff-Michael and Yew Jin Lee, ‘Interpreting unfamiliar graphs: A generative, ac-tivity-theoretic model’, Educational Studies in Mathematics (in press).

Roth, Wolff-Michael, Michelle K. McGinn and G. Michael Bowen, ‘How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices’, Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1998), 25–48.

Roth, Wolff-Michael, Kenneth Tobin and Kenneth Shaw ‘Cascades of inscriptions and the re-presentation of nature: How numbers, tables, graphs, and money come to re-

Bibliography 277

present a rolling ball’, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 19, No. 10 (1997), 1075–1091.

Roth, Wolff-Michael, Carolyn Woszczyna and Gilian Smith, ‘Affordances and con-straints of computers in science education’, Journal of Research in Science Teach-

ing, Vol. 33, No. 10 (1996), 995–1017.Schnotz, Wolfgang, E. Picard and A. Hron, ‘How do successful and unsuccessful learners

use texts and graphics?’, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1993), 181–199.Schoultz, Jan, Roger Säljö and Jan Wyndhamn, ‘Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and

children’s understanding of elementary astronomy’, Human Development, Vol. 44, No. 1 (2001), 103–118.

St. Martin, Fernande, Semiotics of Visual Language (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).

Suchman, Lucy A. and Brigitte Jordan, ‘Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey in-terviews’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85 (1990), 232–244.

Tufte, Edward R., The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (Cheshire, CT: Graph-ics Press, 1983).

Ueno, Naoki and N. Arimoto, ‘Learning physics by expanding the metacontext of phe-nomena’, The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cog-

nition, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1993), 53–63.Wainer, Howard, ‘Understanding graphs and tables’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 21,

No. 1 (1992), 14–23.Wake, Bruce, ‘Best bang for education buck debated at school board’, Peninsula News

Review, 11 December 1998.Walkerdine, Valerie, The Mastery of Reason (London: Routledge, 1988).

, ‘Redefining the subject in situated cognition theory’, in David Kirshner and James A. Whitson (eds), Situated Cognition (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997), 57–70.

279

Index

Achievement, 65, 76, 77, 79, 240Aesthetics, 93Ambiguity, xxvi, 42, 114, 250Analogy, xxiv, 11, 19, 166, 167, 172,

175, 176, 185, 188, 189, 194, 195, 197, 206, 207, 249

Anthropological, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxviii, 34, 217, 241, 247, 248, 249

Anthropologist, 2Anthropology, xxi, 1, 51Anthropomorphization, 205, 207Appreciation, ix, 133Approach: anthropological, xxiv, 34,

248; deficit, 13, 216; generate-and-test, 73; hegemonic, 187; psychological, 247

Appropriation, xxiii, xxv, 51Arithmetic, 67Art, 4, 22, 200, 254, 255Artificial intelligence, 183Attention, xii, xxiv, 1, 21, 23, 32, 36,

38, 39, 48, 50, 52, 88, 102, 103, 104, 115, 118, 122, 130, 141, 142, 144, 148, 149, 154, 157, 158, 161, 178, 184, 190, 203, 207, 237, 238, 257, 258

Attribution, 2, 23, 192, 248Audience, 22, 39, 40, 46, 109, 110, 111,

113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 191

Authentication, xvii, 33, 52, 85, 90, 102, 152, 203, 204

Bar chart, 29, 41Best-fit, 29, 34, 49, 66, 68, 73, 81, 82Bible, 256Body: movement, 109, 112; orientation,

xxvi, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120, 122, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132; position, 116, 130, 131

Bootstrapping, 18

Cartesian, xvi, 1, 19, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 39, 49, 50, 260

Cartoon, 192, 208Chart, ix, xi, 6, 70, 218Cognition, xxii, xxiii, 2, 248; ability,

xxi, xxii; deficiency, 4, 21, 25, 247; development, xxii, 247; operation, xxii; processing, xxii

Communication, xi, xii, 1, 31, 40, 43, 87, 109, 112, 113, 193, 194, 238

Community, xvi, xxiii, xxv, 3, 6, 18, 24, 50, 51, 52, 55, 66, 79, 80, 96, 133, 142, 194, 198, 200, 211, 214, 220, 241, 242, 247, 248, 256; of practice, 51

Competence, xii, xxi, xxiv, xxv, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 18, 19, 22, 25, 27, 34, 39, 45, 51, 52, 55, 56, 82, 240, 247, 248, 249, 250, 258

280 Index

Computer, ix, xi, xxviii, 3, 18, 87, 164, 167, 191, 203, 217, 218, 219, 220, 224, 232, 237, 238, 239, 240; animation, 203; display, 219, 220, 237, 238, 240; environment, 159; monitor, 164, 232; simulation, 218; visualization, 31

Concept, xxii, xxiv, xxvii, 2, 33, 39, 56, 91, 92, 93, 99, 110, 112, 116, 129, 130, 131, 141, 159, 176, 190, 191, 198, 220, 221, 224, 232, 234, 236, 251, 253, 256, 258, 259, 260; conceptual consistency, xxv; map, 238

Concernful activity, 216Constructivism: radical, 251; social,

251Context, xii, xiv, xv, xvi, xx, xxii, xxvi,

2, 4, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 27, 31, 32, 35, 42, 45, 55, 56, 61, 67, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 119, 122, 128, 129, 131, 139, 141, 146, 149, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 172, 185, 238, 239, 258; con-text, 78, 79, 81, 89; contextualization, xx, 35, 65, 78, 96, 115; co-text, xxvii, 85, 198; descriptive, xv; historical, 6; scientific, 27

Convention, 2, 4, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 66, 149, 150, 184, 185, 194, 197, 200, 201, 203, 211, 214, 215, 222; classical, 183, 208; cultural, 18, 161, 171, 191

Convergent meaning, 35Co-thematic, 89, 90, 92, 94, 98, 99Culture, xii, xxiv, 2, 18, 22, 26, 47, 79,

106, 161, 192; competence, 97; cultural code, 87, 110

Deconstruction, xxi, xxviii, 22, 92, 158, 240, 241, 248, 251

Decontextualization, xiii, 157, 257Design, 20, 36, 43, 56, 57, 58, 133, 156,

238, 240Detail: background, 86; gratuitous, 27,

86, 144, 145, 157; irrelevant, 106; relevant, 104, 124, 130, 142, 144, 146, 149, 211, 257; right, 114, 122

Dialectic, xxv, xxvii, 4, 7, 15, 17, 20, 113, 154, 197, 211

Discipline, vii, xv, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, 12, 23, 183, 188, 191, 194, 227, 250

Discontinuity, 51, 192Disposition, xii, 101Diversity, xxiDrawing: activity, 213; naturalistic, xi,

27, 49, 87, 160, 168, 169, 171, 257; schematic, 211, 213

Emblem, 49Emotion, 55, 61Enculturation, xii, xvii, 248, 249Epistemic level, 202, 221Epistemology, xvi, xvii, xx, 224, 240,

250, 251; commitment, 232; grounds, 240

Escher, M. C., 27, 254, 255Ethnographer, xxivEthnography, 10Ethnomethodology, xxivExperience: distant, xxvii, 160, 165,

166, 183, 184, 185; lived, xxiii, 27, 69, 86, 88, 89, 160, 164, 166, 180, 183, 184, 251; personal, 2, 184, 192; real, 163; sensory, 197

Expertise, xx, xxv, 18, 114, 220, 243, 246

Foreground, 22, 30, 83, 84, 122, 124, 142, 144, 145, 178, 197

Formalism, 73

Index 281

Framework: theoretical, 33, 45, 50, 51, 220

Generalization, 3, 39, 45, 69, 74, 86, 242

Genre, 35, 89, 90, 94, 98, 198, 211, 215Gesture, x, xxvi, xxviii, 7, 21, 53, 99,

109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 217, 229, 230, 231, 234, 236, 237, 238; deictic, 109, 112, 122, 123, 124, 126, 144, 229; double-armed, 121; iconic, 109, 113, 120, 229, 230, 231, 234; idiosyncratic, 112; imagery, 229; interactive, 112

Hermeneutic phenomenology, 14Hermeneutics, 1, 81Heuristic, 2Histogram, 29Hypothesis, 7, 8, 10, 35, 37, 38, 39, 50,

61, 68, 70, 73, 81, 107, 125, 150, 194, 197, 228, 231, 260

Icon, 219, 232; iconic confusion, 21; iconic feature, 248; iconic relation, xi, 161, 184, 197, 217; iconic similarity, 20

Ideology, xii, 74, 250; scientific, 29, 81Image, 113, 229; eidetic, 81, 87, 240;

mental, 81; visual, 21, 71, 119, 229Indeterminacy, 152Index: indexical word, 130Indoctrination, xii, xiii, xx, 234, 239,

250Induction, 43Interest, 10, 28, 55, 78, 80, 110, 130,

136, 153, 157, 257Interpretant, 15, 16, 17, 194, 196, 221,

222, 225, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 234, 237

Interpretation: alternative, 27, 33, 38, 45; fallibility, 242; infinite number, 85; interpreter, 163, 164; interpretive efforts, 30, 50; interpretive flexibility, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 38, 114; interpretive horizon, 48, 52, 115; normative, 225; proliferation, 140

Intersubjectivity, 38, 52Intertext, 89, 92Intertextuality, 91

Knowledge: abstract, 251; common-sense, 78; cultural, 184; epistemic domain, 220, 221; knowledgeability, vii, xi, xii, 55, 63, 65, 109, 130, 133, 156, 158, 159, 184, 250; linguistic, 22; prior, 134, 139; sociocultural, 22

Language game, 256Latour, B., xxiii, 2, 85Learning environment, xx, 1, 57, 58, 75,

156, 248Literacy: language-oriented, 247;

subject matter, xxvii, 258; verbal, xii, 130

Map, ix, xi, 6, 12, 21, 61, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 81, 91, 94, 116, 170, 232, 234, 239, 240

Mapping, 12, 19, 20, 21, 28, 175, 176, 238, 239

Mathematician, 31, 113, 222Mathematics, xii, xvii, xx, xxiv, xxvi, 1,

3, 23, 55, 56, 65, 66, 77, 78, 112, 207, 211

Mathematization, 29, 49, 57, 60Mental: ability, xxv; deficit, 216Metacognition, xxiii, 248Metaphor, xvii, 19, 49, 112, 113, 217Misconceptions, xxii, 4, 13, 21, 191,

211, 216, 236, 249

282 Index

Model: molecular, 188, 190, 191, 195, 197, 200, 202, 204, 208, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215; semantic, xxvii, 163, 165, 183; semiotic, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 216, 221; theoretical, vii, xvi, 50

Newtonian: microworld, 218, 224; physics, 221, 224, 233, 235, 239

Novice, xv, 124, 207, 214, 224

Objectivism, 251Ontogenesis, 14Ontology, xvii, xix, xxv, 2, 25, 28, 30,

34, 163, 183, 192, 216, 240, 249, 250, 258; gap, 28, 30, 163, 183

Painting, 16, 183, 208Pedagogy, xiii, xvii, xxiv, xxv, 23, 34,

52, 85, 90, 106, 111, 116, 129, 156, 170, 183, 184, 192

Peirce, C. S., 14, 15, 193Perspective, vii, xii, xxiii, xxviii, 10, 23,

45, 63, 76, 79, 81, 88, 96, 109, 124, 149, 150, 171, 173, 187, 188, 192, 198, 204, 207, 214, 222, 226, 227, 230, 240, 241, 247, 248, 249, 250, 260; cross-sectional, 168, 200; epistemological, 224, 254; mathematical, 13, 222; scientific, 86, 237

Phenomenology, xxi, xxiv, 1, 18, 51, 80, 197, 220

Philosophy, xvii, 3, 183Pie chart, 168Politics, vii, xvii, xxiii, xxviii, 23, 55,

187, 233, 240, 241, 247, 248, 250, 255, 256

Postmodern, 2, 15Power: relation, xii, xiiiPraxis, 23, 233, 251; epistemological,

xviii, xx, 251; everyday, 251Prejudice, xii

Presuppose, xi, 7, 197, 214Presupposition, xiii, 22, 197, 201, 202Problem solving, xxii

Reader, xv, xvii, xxi, xxiv, xxvi, xxvii, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 67, 73, 77, 83, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 130, 133, 134, 139, 141, 142, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 179, 180, 183, 184, 185, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 215, 216, 220, 223, 225, 230, 235, 241, 248, 249, 250, 256, 257, 260; initiate, 92, 96, 200, 208, 209; non-initiate, 201

Reading: ability, xxii; alternative, 147; comparative, 10; competent, 6, 10, 34, 248; critical, 22; literal, xiii, 20; problematic, 19, 21; transparent, 14, 15

Reading comprehension, xxiiRealism, 49, 87, 105, 158, 251Reference: indexical, 89, 90, 98, 99,

101, 107, 108, 114, 134, 135, 150, 152, 153, 156, 158, 257

Referent, 6, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 52, 89, 112, 121, 124, 144, 184, 194, 196, 216, 221, 224, 225, 229, 236

Referent-to-sign, xxv, 4Reflexivity, xvi, xvii, xx, 52, 89, 250,

252Reification, 252

Index 283

Relation: Causal, 44, 167; functional, 63, 167; logical, 180; sign-referent, 20, 23, 225

Replica, 193, 210Resource, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xxiii, xxv,

xxvi, 10, 13, 16, 19, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 61, 77, 79, 81, 93, 98, 104, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 119, 124, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139, 142, 144, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 167, 172, 180, 185, 198, 203, 233, 247, 248, 250, 257, 258, 260; complementary, 176; reading, 183; rhetorical, 33; semiotic, xxvi, 89, 98, 109, 110, 116, 122, 124, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 139, 143, 144, 147, 153, 156, 157, 209, 215; visual, 93, 156

Rhetoric, xi, xxiii, 33, 57, 67, 74, 78, 79, 242, 246, 249

Salience, xxviii, 1, 10, 13, 17, 85, 88, 92, 96, 99, 104, 106, 110, 112, 115, 122, 130, 141, 144, 145, 148, 155, 163, 190, 215, 217, 220, 221, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 234, 245, 257, 258

Semantic, xxvii, 23, 163, 165, 183Semiosis, xxviii, 15, 16, 187, 194Semiotics, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, 1, 3,

10, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 88, 89, 98, 109, 110, 112, 116, 122, 124, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 139, 142, 143, 144, 147, 153, 154, 156, 157, 161, 187, 190, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 203, 204, 209, 215, 216, 217, 220, 221, 222, 227, 250; biosemiotics, 193; chemisemiotics, xxviii, 187, 188, 191, 193, 214, 216, 250; framework, xxviii, 4, 19, 187,

190, 220, 227; phytosemiotics, 193; referent, 3; zoosemiotics, 193

Sign, xxv, xxvii, xxviii, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 52, 88, 130, 162, 164, 184, 187, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 200, 204, 208, 211, 215, 217, 218, 220, 221, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 257; arbitrary, 88, 89, 231; assemblage, 88; complex, 2, 14, 21, 23, 187; content, 18; conventional, 208; element, 3, 24; signification, 10, 15, 16, 17, 195; vehicle, 17, 19, 195

Sociology, xi, xiii, 1, 67, 85Structure, xii, xxvi, xxvii, 1, 4, 5, 6, 10,

15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 39, 58, 60, 73, 77, 83, 85, 89, 110, 112, 115, 161, 164, 165, 169, 170, 173, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 190, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 215, 217, 219, 220, 221, 224, 225, 227, 237, 253; element, xxvi, 83, 98, 107, 108; internal, 165; mathematical, 75, 165, 224, 233, 253; mental, 10; perceptual, 7, 110, 162, 163, 174, 179

Theory, vii, xi, xvi, 1, 2, 11, 14, 21, 29, 33, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 130, 187, 188, 191, 192, 194, 197, 214, 216, 220, 224, 236, 238, 255, 260; developmental, 14

Transparency, xv, xxiv, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 18, 52, 113, 129, 132, 160, 161, 179, 213, 248

Typography, 64Typology, 28, 30, 31, 113

World: alternative, 234; circumstantial, 195; microcomputer, 239, 240; microscopic, 172, 176, 189, 190, 192, 194, 197, 201, 204, 207, 218,

284 Index

220, 225, 234, 236, 237, 239, 240; natural, xv, 85; phenomenal, 29, 56, 76, 190, 221, 232, 233, 239; quasi, 195; real, 55, 82, 87, 105, 119, 127,

128, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 173, 175, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 207, 220, 237, 239, 240; target, 195, 197, 215, 216; visual, 247

285

About the authors

Wolff-Michael Roth is Lansdowne Professor of Applied Cognitive Science at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. For the better part of twelve years, he taught science, mathematics, and computer science at the middle and high school levels. Later, already working at the university, he continued teaching science at the ele-mentary level. His research focuses on various aspects of scientific and mathematical cognition and communication from elementary

school to professional practice, including, among others, studies of scientists, technicians, and environmentalists at their work sites. Wolff-Michael Roth teaches doctoral seminars and courses in the analysis of qualitative data. His recent books include Toward an An-

thropology of Science: Semiotic and Activity Theoretic Perspectives, From Articulating

Worlds to Talking Science, and Rethinking Scientific Literacy (with A. C. Barton).

Lilian Leivas Pozzer-Ardenghi is a PhD student in Curriculum Stud-ies, at the Faculty of Education, University of Victoria. She received a licentiate in Biological Sciences (2000) at the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, RS, Brazil, and an MA (2003) from the University of Victoria. As part of her Master of Arts program, she investigated the use of photographs in high school science textbooks and in lectures, and investigated students’ interpretations of photographs. Her current

research interests include gestures in teaching and learning science.

JaeYoung Han is a full-time lecturer of Science Education at Chinju National University of Education in Korea. He studied chemistry edu-cation at Seoul National University, where he also received his Ph.D. He visited University of Victoria during the 2003–04 academic year as a postdoctoral researcher. He was a science teacher for four years in ChungDong High School in Seoul. As a member of Teachers for Exciting Science, he is interested in developing science demonstra-

tions for elementary and secondary students. His research interests are diverse, including semiotics in science education, grouping method by students’ personalities (thesis), small group learning, environmental education, and learning with analogies, discrepant events, and drawings.

Science & Technology Education Library

Series editor: William W. Cobern, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, U.S.A.

Publications1. W.-M. Roth: Authentic School Science. Knowing and Learning in Open-Inquiry

Science Laboratories. 1995 ISBN 0-7923-3088-9; Pb: 0-7923-3307-12. L.H. Parker, L.J. Rennie and B.J. Fraser (eds.): Gender, Science and Mathematics.

Shortening the Shadow. 1996 ISBN 0-7923-3535-X; Pb: 0-7923-3582-13. W.-M. Roth: Designing Communities. 1997

ISBN 0-7923-4703-X; Pb: 0-7923-4704-84. W.W. Cobern (ed.): Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Science Education. An Interna-

tional Dialogue. 1998 ISBN 0-7923-4987-3; Pb: 0-7923-4988-15. W.F. McComas (ed.): The Nature of Science in Science Education. Rationales and

Strategies. 1998 ISBN 0-7923-5080-46. J. Gess-Newsome and N.C. Lederman (eds.): Examining Pedagogical Content Knowl-

edge. The Construct and its Implications for Science Education. 1999ISBN 0-7923-5903-8

7. J. Wallace and W. Louden: Teacher’s Learning. Stories of Science Education. 2000ISBN 0-7923-6259-4; Pb: 0-7923-6260-8

8. D. Shorrocks-Taylor and E.W. Jenkins (eds.): Learning from Others. InternationalComparisons in Education. 2000 ISBN 0-7923-6343-4

9. W.W. Cobern: Everyday Thoughts about Nature. A Worldview Investigation of Impor-tant Concepts Students Use to Make Sense of Nature with Specific Attention toScience. 2000 ISBN 0-7923-6344-2; Pb: 0-7923-6345-0

10. S.K. Abell (ed.): Science Teacher Education. An International Perspective. 2000ISBN 0-7923-6455-4

11. K.M. Fisher, J.H. Wandersee and D.E. Moody: Mapping Biology Knowledge. 2000ISBN 0-7923-6575-5

12. B. Bell and B. Cowie: Formative Assessment and Science Education. 2001ISBN 0-7923-6768-5; Pb: 0-7923-6769-3

13. D.R. Lavoie and W.-M. Roth (eds.): Models of Science Teacher Preparation. Theoryinto Practice. 2001 ISBN 0-7923-7129-1

14. S.M. Stocklmayer, M.M. Gore and C. Bryant (eds.): Science Communication inTheory and Practice. 2001 ISBN 1-4020-0130-4; Pb: 1-4020-0131-2

15. V.J. Mayer (ed.): Global Science Literacy. 2002 ISBN 1-4020-0514-816. D. Psillos and H. Niedderer (eds.): Teaching and Learning in the Science Laboratory.

2002 ISBN 1-4020-1018-417. J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust and J.H. Van Driel (eds.): Chemical

Education: Towards Research-based Practice. 2003 ISBN 1-4020-1112-118. A.E. Lawson: The Neurological Basis of Learning, Development and Discovery.

Implications for Science and Mathematics Instruction. 2003 ISBN 1-4020-1180-619. D.L. Zeidler (ed.): The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Dis-

course in Scientific Education. 2003 ISBN 1-4020-1411-2

Science & Technology Education Library

Series editor: William W. Cobern, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, U.S.A.

20. P.J. Fensham: Defining an Identity. The Evolution of Science Education as a Field ofResearch. 2003 ISBN 1-4020-1467-8

21. D. Geelan: Weaving Narrative Nets to Capture Classrooms. Multimethod QualitativeApproaches for Educational Research. 2003

ISBN 1-4020-1776-6; Pb: 1-4020-1468-722. A. Zohar: Higher Order Thinking in Science Classrooms: Students’ Learning and

Teachers’ Professional Development. 2004ISBN 1-4020-1852-5; Pb: 1-4020-1853-3

23. C.S. Wallace, B. Hand, V. Prain: Writing and Learning in the Science Classroom.2004 ISBN 1-4020-2017-1

24. I.A. Halloun: Modeling Theory in Science Education. 2004 ISBN 1-4020-2139-925. L.B. Flick and N.G. Lederman (eds.): Scientific Inquiry and the Nature of Science.

Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education. 2004ISBN 1-4020-2671-4

26. W.-M. Roth, L. Pozzer-Ardenghi and J.Y. Han: Critical Graphicacy. UnderstandingVisual Representation Practices in School Science. 2005 ISBN 1-4020-3375-3

27. M.J. de Vries: Teaching about Technology. An Introduction to the Philosophy ofTechnology for Non-philosophers. 2005 ISBN 1-4020-3409-1

28. R. Nola and G. Irzik: Philosophy, Science, Education and Culture. 2005ISBN 1-4020-3769-4

29. S. Alsop (ed.): Beyond Cartesian Dualism. Encountering Affect in the Teaching andLearning of Science. 2005 ISBN 1-4020-3807-0

springeronline.com