Multiple theoretical lenses as an analytical strategy in researching group discussions

References

• Airey, J., and C. Linder. 2009. “A Disciplinary Discourse Perspective on University Science Learning: Achieving Fluency in a Critical Constellation of Modes.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (1): 27–49. doi:10.1002/Tea.20265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, K. T. 2009. “Applying Positioning Theory to the Analysis of Classroom Interactions: Mediating Micro-Identities, Macro-Kinds, and Ideologies of Knowing.” Linguistics and Education 20 (4): 291–310. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.08.001.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. 2012. “Science Students’ Classroom Discourse: Tasha’s Umwelt.” Research in Science Education 42 (2): 233–259. doi:10.1007/s11165-010-9195-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berge, M. 2011. Group Work and Physics: Characteristics, Learning Possibilities and Patterns of Interaction. Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Berge, M., and A. T. Danielsson. 2013. “Characterising Learning Interactions: A Study of University Students Solving Physics Problems in Groups.” Research in Science Education 43 (3): 1177–1196. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9307-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berge, M., A. T. Danielsson, and Å. Ingerman. 2012. “Different Stories of Group Work: Exploring Problem Solving in Engineering Education.” NorDiNa 8 (1): 3–16.
   Google Scholar
• Berge, M., and A. Weilenmann. 2014. “Learning about Friction: Group Dynamics in Engineering Students' Work with Free Body Diagrams.” European Journal of Engineering Education 39 (6): 601–616. doi:10.1080/03043797.2014.895708.
   Google Scholar
• Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., and D. Clarke. 2015. Theoretical Issues in Mathematics Education: An Introduction to the Presentations. In The Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 579–583). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Booth, S., and M. Hultén. 2003. “Opening Dimensions of Variation: An Empirical Study of Learning in a Web-Based Discussion.” Instructional Science 31 (1/2): 65–86.10.1023/A:1022552301050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrego, M., and J. Bernhard. 2011. “The Emergence of Engineering Education Research as an Internationally Connected Field of Inquiry.” Journal of Engineering Education 100 (1): 14–47.10.1002/jee.2011.100.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, D. 2010. “A Less Partial Vision: Multi-theoretic Research into Science Classrooms.” In European Conference for Educational Research. Helsinki, Finland, August 25-28, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, D., L. H. Xu, J. Arnold, L. H. Seah, C. Hart, R. Tytler, and V. Prain. 2011. “Multi-Theoretic Approaches to Understanding the Science Classroom.” In ESERA 2011: ebook Proceedings of the ESERA 2011 Conference: Science Learning and Citizenship, 1–15. European Science Education Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, R. 1999. “Representation Construction, Externalised Cognition and Individual Differences.” Learning and Instruction 9 (4): 343–363.10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00051-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, B., and R. Harré. 1999. “Positioning and Personhood.” In Positioning Theory : Moral Contexts of Intentional Action, edited by Rom Harre and Luk van Langenhove, 32–52. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Derry, S. J., R. D. Pea, B. Barron, R. A. Engle, F. Erickson, R. Goldman, R. Hall, et al. 2010. “Conducting Video Research in the Learning Sciences: Guidance on Selection, Analysis, Technology, and Ethics.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 19 (1): 3–53. doi:10.1080/10508400903452884.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emanuelsson, J., and F. Sahlström. 2008. “The Price of Participation: Teacher Control versus Student Participation in Classroom Interaction.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 52 (2): 205–223. doi:10.1080/00313830801915853.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Even, R., and B. B. Schwarz. 2003. “Implications of Competing Interpretations of Practice for Research and Theory in Mathematics Education.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 54 (2/3): 283–313.10.1023/B:EDUC.0000006166.50134.7a
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, D., S. Allison, H. Coombes, J. Case, and C. Linder. 2006. “Using Variation to Enhance Learning in Engineering.” International Journal of Engineering Education 22 (1): 102–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. 2000. “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. 2003. “Pointing as Situated Practice.” In Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, edited by Sotaro Kita, 217–241. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Lawrence & Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Greiffenhagen, C. 2008. “Video Analysis of Mathematical Practice? Different Attempts to “Open up” Mathematics for Sociological Investigation.” Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 9 (3).
   Google Scholar
• Hamza, K. M., and P.-O. Wickman. 2013. “Supporting Students’ Progression in Science: Continuity between the Particular, the Contingent, and the General.” Science Education 97 (1): 113–138. doi:10.1002/sce.21042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harré, R., and F. M. Moghaddam. 2003. The Self and Others : Positioning Individuals and Groups in Personal, Political, and Cultural Contexts. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Harré, R., F. M. Moghaddam, T. P. Cairnie, D. Rothbart, and S. R. Sabat. 2009. “Recent Advances in Positioning Theory.” Theory & Psychology 19 (1): 5–31. doi:10.1177/0959354308101417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harré, R., and L. van Langenhove. 1999. Positioning Theory : Moral Contexts of Intentional Action. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hestenes, D., M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer. 1992. “Force Concept Inventory.” The Physics Teacher 30: 141–153.10.1119/1.2343497
   Google Scholar
• Hodkinson, P., G. Biesta, and D. James. 2008. “Understanding Learning Culturally: Overcoming the Dualism between Social and Individual Views of Learning.” Vocations and Learning 1 (1): 27–47. doi:10.1007/s12186-007-9001-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingerman, Å., M. Berge, and S. Booth. 2009. “Physics Group Work in a Phenomenographic Perspective -Learning Dynamics as the Experience of Variation and Relevance.” European Journal of Engineering Education 34 (4): 349–358.
   Google Scholar
• Ingerman, Å., C. Linder, and D. Marshall. 2009. “The Learners’ Experience of Variation: Following Students’ Threads of Learning Physics in Computer Simulation Sessions.” Instructional Science 37 (3): 273–292. doi:10.1007/s11251-007-9044-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, A. Y., and L. A. Mazzei. 2013. “Plugging One Text into Another: Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 19 (4): 261–271. doi:10.1177/1077800412471510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson, B., F. Marton, and L. Svensson. 1985. “An Approach to Describing Learning as a Change between Qualitatively Different Conceptions.” In Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change, edited by L. H. West and A. L. Pines, 233–257. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kobayashi, S. 2014. “Learning Dynamics in Doctoral Supervision.” PhD diss., University of Copenhagen.
   Google Scholar
• Koschmann, T., and A. Zemel. 2009. “Optical Pulsars and Black Arrows: Discoveries as Occasioned Productions.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 18 (2): 200–246.10.1080/10508400902797966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Langenhove, L., and R. Harré. 1999. “Introducing Positioning Theory.” In Positioning Theory : Moral Contexts of Intentional Action, edited by Rom Harre and Luk van Langenhove, 14–31. Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815355
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Linder, C., and D. Fraser. 2006. “Using a Variation Approach to Enhance Physics Learning in a College Classroom.” The Physics Teacher 44 (9): 589–592.10.1119/1.2396777
   Google Scholar
• Lindwall, O., and G. Lymer. 2008. “The Dark Matter of Lab Work: Illuminating the Negotiation of Disciplined Perception in Mechanics.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 17 (2): 180–224.10.1080/10508400801986082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo, M. L. 2014. “Learning Study, Variation Theory and Catering for Individual Differences: The Hong Kong Experience.” In Realising Learning: Teachers’ Professional Development through Lesson and Learning Study, edited by K. Wood and S. Sithamparan, 122–147. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• MacBeth, D. 2004. “The Relevance of Repair for Classroom Correction.” Language in Society 33 (5): 703–736. doi:10.1017/S0047404504045038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marton, F. 2015. Necessary Conditions of Learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marton, F., and S. Booth. 1997. Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Marton, F., and M. F. Pang. 2006. “On Some Necessary Conditions of Learning.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 15 (2): 193–220. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marton, F., and A. Tsui. 2004. Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Melander, H., and F. Sahlström. 2009. “In Tow of the Blue Whale.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (8): 1519–1537. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellingsæter, M. S. 2014. “Engineering Students’ Experiences from Physics Group Work in Learning Labs.” Research in Science & Technological Education 32 (1): 21–34. doi:10.1080/02635143.2013.853033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meltzer, D. E., and K. Manivannan. 2002. “Transforming the Lecture-Hall Environment: The Fully Interactive Physics Lecture.” American Journal of Physics 70 (6): 639–654. doi:10.1119/1.1463739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pang, M. F., and F. Marton. 2003. “Beyond “Lesson Study”: Comparing Two Ways of Facilitating the Grasp of Some Economic Concepts.” Instructional Science 31 (3): 175–194.10.1023/A:1023280619632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie, S. M. 2002. “Student Positioning within Groups during Science Activities.” Research in Science Education 32 (1): 35–54. doi:10.1023/A:1015046621428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M., S. M. Ritchie, P. Hudson, and V. Mergard. 2011. “A Study of Laughter in Science Lessons.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48 (5): 437–458. doi:10.1002/Tea.20412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runesson, U. 2006. “What is It Possible to Learn? On Variation as a Necessary Condition for Learning.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50 (4): 397–410. doi:10.1080/00313830600823753.
   Google Scholar
• Ryve, A., M. Larsson, and P. Nilsson. 2013. “Analyzing Content and Participation in Classroom Discourse: Dimensions of Variation, Mediating Tools, and Conceptual Accountability.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 57 (1): 101–114. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.628689.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahlström, F. 2009. “Conversation Analysis as a Way of Studying Learning—An Introduction to a Special Issue of SJER.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 53 (2): 103–111. doi:10.1080/00313830902757543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sfard, A. 1998. “On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One.” Educational Researcher 27 (2): 4–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X027002004.
   Google Scholar
• Suri, H., and D. Clarke. 2009. “Advancements in Research Synthesis Methods: From a Methodologically Inclusive Perspective.” Review of Educational Research 79 (1): 395–430.10.3102/0034654308326349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ten Have, P. 2007. Doing Conversation Analysis. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803932
   Google Scholar