Conceptual blending as a tool for analyzing group discourse

Hoehn, Jessica R.; Finkelstein, Noah D.; Gupta, Ayush

doi:10.1119/perc.2016.pr.033

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, we value individual ideas as well as collective negotiated meanings. In our prior work, we focused on collective reasoning and considered a blended ontology constructed within a group of students to be socially distributed [9,31]. While the present study focuses on individual responses, we consider an individual's learning as a social process-individual cognitive processes are mediated by social tools (e.g., language) [32] as well as other people and their use of tools [33,34].…”

Section: Situated Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the combination of two or more input ontologies, new meaning emerges to describe a new kind of entity entirely. This structure is based on Fauconnier and Turner's theory of conceptual blending [37] applied to ontologies [9,31]. A blended ontology of a photon might include describing the photon as being localized but that the position depends on a wave interference pattern.…”

Section: Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Investigating the dynamics of ontological reasoning across contexts in quantum physics

Hoehn

Gifford

Finkelstein

2019

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ontologies students use-their conceptions about the nature of entities-impact the way they learn physics and reason through physics problems. We investigate students' capacities for flexible use of ontologies in a modern physics context, focusing on students' reasoning around two quantum entities (photons and electrons) for three canonical topics in introductory quantum physics (double slit experiment, Mach-Zehnder interferometer, and quantum tunneling). We present a description of a full framework to describe and distinguish between different kinds of dynamic ontologies. The framework identifies possible ontological structures in individual reasoning episodes, three of which we identify in our data set: unitary (applying a single stable ontology), parallel (switching back and forth between multiple ontologies), and blended (constructing a novel ontology by blending two or more input ontologies). These different ontological structures are applied to the specific ontologies used (e.g., wave or particle) for the specific entity (e.g., photon or electron). We demonstrate the utility of the framework by coding individual responses from a representative sample of an introductory modern physics course to an array of written and multiple-choice questions on homework, exams, and pre-and postsurveys. We present and explore the patterns of use of ontologies across the three topical contexts and these various modalities. We demonstrate that students use a variety of ontologies and ontological structures across entities and topic areas, even when not explicitly prompted to do so. In addition to providing evidence of students' capacities for flexible use of ontologies, we find that the wording and framing of the question prompts impact students' use of ontologies. Expanding on the aggregate data, we engage in analysis of a few notable examples to demonstrate how the wording, framing, and content of prompts can intersect to collectively impact students' use of ontologies and ontological structures.

show abstract

Section: Situated Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the dynamics of ontological reasoning across contexts in quantum physics

Hoehn

Gifford

Finkelstein

2019

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of our prior work has provided evidence for the dynamic nature of ontologies [6,25]. Coming from a resources perspective, we treat ontologies as flexible structures that can be cued in certain contexts and that a reasoner can move between or construct in the moment.…”

Section: Ontologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coming from the sociocultural perspective that considers collective discourse as a cognitive tool, we take conceptual blending beyond the analysis of an individual's cognition and describe collectively constructed blends [25]. That is, we model group conversations as conceptual blends, paying attention to shared meaning around ontologies for quantum entities as constructed by the group.…”

Section: Conceptual Blendingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One line of thought suggests a stable view of ontological structure including a notion of ontological correctness [16,[20][21][22], and another framework posits a more flexible ontological structure, describing dynamic movement between ontologies on the part of both students and experts [23,24]. There is mounting evidence [6,19,25] for the latter (dynamic) perspective. We provide further evidence, arguing from our data that underlying ontological structures and movements between them can be flexible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Students’ flexible use of ontologies and the value of tentative reasoning: Examples of conceptual understanding in three canonical topics of quantum mechanics

Hoehn

Finkelstein

2018

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of a research study on student reasoning in quantum mechanics, we examine students' use of ontologies, or the way students' categorically organize entities they are reasoning about. In analyzing three episodes of focus group discussions with modern physics students, we present evidence of the dynamic nature of ontologies, and refine prior theoretical frameworks for thinking about dynamic ontologies. We find that in a given reasoning episode ontologies can be dynamic in construction (referring to when the reasoner constructs the ontologies) or application (referring to which ontologies are applied in a given reasoning episode). In our data, we see instances of students flexibly switching back and forth between parallel stable structures as well as constructing and negotiating new ontologies in the moment. Methodologically, we use a collective conceptual blending framework as an analytic tool for capturing student reasoning in groups. In this research, we value the messiness of student reasoning and argue that reasoning in a tentative manner can be productive for students learning quantum mechanics. As such, we shift away from a binary view of student learning which sees students as either having the correct answer or not.

show abstract

Quantitative measures of equity in small groups

Archibeque¹,

Genz²,

Franklin³

et al. 2018

2017 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the utility of two qualitative measures of equity. Our data are videos of groups of first-generation and Deaf or hard-of-hearing students in a pre-matriculation university program designed to help them persist in STEM fields by developing their metacognitive practices. We analyze video data of students in small groups trying to accomplish various tasks. We analyze how groups engage with proposed ideas (inchargeness) and create a space of open sharing (civility). By capturing different aspects of each group, these measures combine to help our understanding of what an equitable group could look like.

show abstract

Conceptual blending as a tool for analyzing group discourse

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Investigating the dynamics of ontological reasoning across contexts in quantum physics

Investigating the dynamics of ontological reasoning across contexts in quantum physics

Students’ flexible use of ontologies and the value of tentative reasoning: Examples of conceptual understanding in three canonical topics of quantum mechanics

Quantitative measures of equity in small groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About