Understanding Students` Conception of Plate Tectonics by
analyzing Speech and Gestures
Many structures and processes related to geoscience cannot be perceived directly because of
their spatial and temporal dimensions (CONRAD, BASTEN & FELZMANN, 2014). According to the
theory of experientialism (LAKOFF & JOHNSON, 1980; JOHNSON, 1987; LAKOFF & JOHNSON,
1999), they can only be understood on an imaginary level. Especially for topics, which can
only be understood with the help of metaphors and analogies, embodied conceptions are
adequate source domains in order to foster scientific correct conceptions (NIEBERT, MARSCH &
TREAGUST, 2012). According to this, theory of experientialism should play a key role for the
development of teaching strategies for geoscience topics. Nevertheless, there has been little
research in geoscience education to date using the theory of experientialism systematically
(BASTEN, CONRAD & FELZMANN, 2013). In the research project being presented, the theoretical
framework is based on the theory of experientialism. The model of educational reconstruction
(DUIT, GROPENGIESSER, & KATTMANN, 2005; REINFRIED, 2007) was used to develop didactical
guidelines for teaching plate tectonics in geography class.
Students` conceptions of plate tectonics have been investigated by using qualitative interviews
(WITZEL & REITER, 2012). I analyzed these interviews with a combination of qualitative
content analysis (KRÜGER & RIEMEIER, 2014), systematic metaphor analysis (SCHMITT, 2005;
NIEBERT, 2010) and systematic analysis of gesture (MÜLLER, 1998; HERRERA & RIGGS, 2013).
By these means, I could identify students` central conceptions as well as the source domains
used by students to construct these conceptions. In addition, I examined the central term
`Platte´ (Engl. `plate´) using cognitive linguistic analysis in order to identify difficulties using
the basis category ‘plate’ as a source domain for understanding tectonic plates. For scientific
clarification, three textbooks (GROTZINGER, JORDAN, PRESS &SIEVER, 2008; TARBUCK &
LUTGENS, 2009; FRISCH & MESCHEDE, 2011) and one scientific paper (HÖINK, JELINEK &
LENARDIC, 2011) were analyzed with a combination of qualitative content analysis and
systematic metaphor analysis. The comparison of scientific and learners’ perspectives led to the
development of educational guidelines for teaching plate tectonics with a focus on the activation
of eligible embodied sources (NIEBERT et al., 2012).
The lecture focusses on the investigation of students`perspectives. Key results of the interviews
will be presented as well as the methodology of analyzing students` speech and gestures.
Additional educational guidelines for teaching plate tectonics effectively will be presented.
References
BASTEN, T., CONRAD, D. & FELZMANN, D. (2013). Erfahrungsbasiertes Verstehen. In: BÖHN, D.
& OBERMAIER, G. (Ed.), Wörterbuch der Geographiedidaktik. Braunschweig, 66 - 67.
CONRAD, D., BASTEN, T. & FELZMANN, D. (2014). Verstehen auf der Grundlage von Erfahrungen
– wie mithilfe der Theorie des erfahrungsbasierten Verstehens typische Lernschwierigkeiten in
geowissenschaftlichen Kontexten interpretiert und prognostiziert werden können. In: Zeitschrift
für Geographiedidaktik, 42 (4) (accepted)
DUIT, R., GROPENGIESSER, H. & KATTMANN, U. (2005). Towards science education that is
relevant for improving practice. The model of Educational Reconstruction. In: Fischer, H. (Ed.),
Developing standards in research on science education. London, 1 - 9.
FRISCH, W., MESCHEDE, M. (42011). Plattentektonik, Kontinentalverschiebung und
Gebirgsbildung. Darmstadt.
GROTZINGER, J., JORDAN, T.H., PRESS, F. & SIEVER, R. (52008). Press/Siever.
Allgemeine Geologie. Berlin, Heidelberg.
HERRERA, J. & RIGGS, E. (2013). Relating Gestures and Speech: An analysis of students`
conceptions about geological sedimentary processes. In: International Journal of Science
Education, 35 (12), 1979 - 2003.
HÖINK, T., JELINEK, M. & LENARDIC, A. (2011). Viscous coupling at the
lithosphereasthenosphere boundary. In: Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 12, Q0AK02,
1 - 17.
KRÜGER, D. & RIEMEIER, T. (2014). Die qualitative Inhaltsanalyse – eine Methode zur
Auswertung von Interviews. In: KRÜGER, D., PARCHMANN, I. & SCHECKER, H. (Ed.),
Methoden in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung. Berlin, Heidelberg, 133 - 146.
MÜLLER, C. (1998). Redebegleitende Gesten. Kulturgeschichte – Theorie- Sprachvergleich.
Berlin.
NIEBERT, K., MARSCH, S. & TREAGUST, D.F. (2012). Understanding Needs Embodiment:
A Theory-Guided Reanalyses of the Role of Metaphors and Analogies in Understanding Science.
In: Science Education, 96 (5), 849 - 877
JOHNSON, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind. Chicago.
LAKOFF, G., JOHNSON, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago.
LAKOFF G., JOHNSON, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York
REINFRIED, S. (2007). Educational Reconstruction – A Key to Progress in Geoscience Teaching
and Learning. In: Geographie und ihre Didaktik, 35 (3), 232 - 243.
SCHMITT, R. (2005). Systematic Metaphor Analysis as a Method of Qualitative Research. In:
The Qualitative Report 10 (2), 358 - 394. Internet: http://www.nova.edu/aaaa/QR102/schmitt.pdf (14.07.2014)
TARBUCK, E. & LUTGENS, F. (2009). Allgemeine Geologie. München.
WITZEL, A. & REITER, H. (2012). The problem-centred interview. London.