umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Multiple theoretical lenses as an analytical strategy in researching group discussions
Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Science and Mathematics Education. (UMSER)
Göteborgs universitet.
2017 (English)In: Research in Science & Technological Education, ISSN 0263-5143, E-ISSN 1470-1138, Vol. 35, no 1, 42-57 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: In science education today, there is an emerging focus on what is happening in situ, making use of an array of analytical traditions. Common practice is to use one specific analytical framing within a research project, but there are projects that make use of multiple analytical framings to further the understanding of the same data, either in parallel or in sequence.

Purpose: This methodological paper offers a description of using multiple theoretical lenses to address the question ‘What can be learned in groups discussing physics?’ This paper aims to consider and discuss drawbacks and benefits of this design.

Sources of evidence: In our earlier research project, different theories were purposefully applied in a series of stratified analyses on video data of university students solving physics problems. Level one used phenomenography and variation theory, level two used positioning theory, and level three used techniques from conversation analysis.

Main argument: Each lens contributed new information about group work in physics. Partly due to the openness of our initial question and the character of our video data, every lens brought new relevant information to the picture of group work in physics. While the theoretical lenses did not reference the same data, they operated with data from the same social setting. We point out that although our analytical frameworks are not commensurable, our different results are: together they offer a better understanding for group work in physics.

Conclusions: The main benefit was that every level of analysis provided new understandings to create a bigger picture about group work in physics. The order of the analyses was also crucial, since each analysis informed the framing of the next analysis. The biggest drawback was the amount of time and quality of work needed to conduct the analyses.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 35, no 1, 42-57 p.
Keyword [en]
Learning science, multiple theories, video research, group discussions
National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-128158DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2016.1245657ISI: 000394440400003Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84994831231OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-128158DiVA: diva2:1049864
Available from: 2016-11-25 Created: 2016-11-25 Last updated: 2017-05-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Berge, Maria
By organisation
Department of Science and Mathematics Education
In the same journal
Research in Science & Technological Education
Educational Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 87 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf