Abstracts - Earli

a framework for the processes and structures of knowledge acquisition. The CLT on the other handfocuses on the question of how the limited capacity of working memory can be effectively used forthese processes. Thus, it is a capacity theory. Beside these different focuses, both theoreticalframeworks inspired empirical research, which aims at defining instructional conditions underwhich the construction of mental representations is effective without overloading learners’ limitedcognitive capacity. Unfortunately, the results of these studies have often been over-generalized andpromoted as "thumb-rules". To avoid these simplifications it is necessary to analyse more detailedthe conditions of the learning situation, of the learner him- or herself and to gain deeper insight inthe processes of knowledge acquisition on different levels of processing. In the last few years thereis increasing interest in all of these three differentiating approaches: (1) by re-analyzing wellknowninstructional effects under experimentally varied conditions (2) by analyzing interactioneffects between learners aptitudes and treatment conditions (ATI-studies) like prior knowledge orspatial abilities and (3) by collecting data within the learning process through thinking aloudprotocols or dual task performance data.Dyadic versus triadic views on representation, how does semiotics fit in?Erica de Vries, University of Grenoble II, FranceJacques Baille, University of Grenoble II, FranceRecently, in addition to the term "cognitive tools", the term "semiotic tools" has been coinedreferring to mediating role of the computer in learning. Both terms refer to the affordances ofcomputers for the interpretation, construction, and manipulation of symbolic structures presentedon screen. The two terms nevertheless rest on two distinct theoretical perspectives onrepresentations. The prevailing cognitive view can be described as dyadic in two ways: bothinternal and external representations represent objects and phenomena in the real world. Thealternative semiotic view can be described as triadic: upon some sense impression, an idea isevoked in the mind of an individual that corresponds to an entity in the real world. In thiscontribution, we briefly present both perspectives and examine two implications of introducing thetriadic perspective in studies of learning with external representations. The first implicationinvolves taking into account intra-modality variations in external representations, i.e. essentiallydifferent ways of representing the same subject matter within a representational category. Thesecond implication involves establishing learners’ prior knowledge of existing and emergingrepresentational formats, in addition to prior domain knowledge, in learning research.Learning from complementary representations: a disciplinary discourse approachJohn Airey, University of Kalmar, SwedenCedric Linder, Uppsala University, SwedenHow do representations mediate learning of disciplinary concepts? In this paper we explorestudent learning in terms of becoming fluent in a disciplinary discourse. We define disciplinarydiscourse as the complex of representations, tools and activities of a discipline, and discuss howthese components are related by a disciplinary order of discourse. In our study, physicsundergraduates from two Swedish universities were interviewed about their learning experiencesin lectures, using a stimulated recall approach. Since we videoed lectures and took field notes, ourdata best illustrates the representations aspect of disciplinary discourse, i.e. written and oral text,tables, graphs, diagrams, pictures, equations, computer animations, etc. Naturally, we foundinstances where students were not ‘fluent’ in the representations of disciplinary discourse. Oneexample of this can be seen in Fig. 1. Insert figure 1 here Fig. 1. Diagram of a transformer drawnby the lecturer on the whiteboard The majority of students in our study considered this well-known– 482 –