Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Promoting Scientific Understanding through Animated Multimodal Texts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Learning from Animations in Science Education

Part of the book series: Innovations in Science Education and Technology ((ISET,volume 25))

  • 671 Accesses

Abstract

Science is intrinsically multimodal due to the limitations of verbal language and the need for different ways of explaining scientific processes. Images, mathematical formulas, and academic discourse work interdependently in science explanatory texts making them more challenging to understand than narrative texts for elementary students. Previous research has shown that readers’ prior knowledge and language proficiency mediate reading comprehension, but it is unclear how to include facilitating mechanisms for comprehending science text that involve students’ prior knowledge and academic language skills. This chapter explores how animated multimodal science texts with different types of mediations can scaffold scientific understanding for Chilean fifth graders. Eighty-four students with low comprehension skills were selected from an initial sample of 326 attending medium-low SES Chilean schools. They were divided into three groups, and each group was assigned to a different version of the science text: one without animation, a second with animations that scaffolded scientific concepts, and a third with animations that scaffolded academic language. Academic vocabulary, reading comprehension and science learning were assessed. The group assigned to the non-animated version underperformed significantly compared to both animated versions, but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups with animated versions. Evidence of how the different types of scaffolding helped the student and suggestions on how improve them is presented. Finally, the pedagogical implications of this work for text designers and teachers are discussed, and new lines of research are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (2008). How do animations influence learning? In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction: Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 37–67). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardasheva, Y., Wang, Z., Roo, A. K., Adesope, O. O., & Morrison, J. M. (2018). Representation visuals’ impacts on science interest and reading comprehension of adolescent English learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(5), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1389681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bétrancourt, M., & Chassot, A. (2008). Making sense of animation: How do children explore multimedia instruction? In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 149–164). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bétrancourt, M., & Tversky, B. (2000). Effect of computer animation on users’ performance: A review. Le Travail Humain: A Bilingual and Multi-disciplinary Journal in Human Factors, 63(4), 311–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, N. (2012). What are the roles that children’s drawings play in inquiry of science concepts? Early Child Development and Care, 182(5), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.569542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. (2008). Student’s comprehension of science concepts depicted in textbooks illustration. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S. (2005). Intention and meaning in young children’s drawing. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 24(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2005.00432.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, B., & Palincsar, A. S. (2013). Investigating text–reader interactions in the context of supported etext. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 533–544). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_34

  • Dalton, B., Proctor, P. C., Uccelli, P., Mo, E., & Snow, C. E. (2011). Designing for diversity: The role of reading strategies and interactive vocabulary in a digital reading environment for fifth-grade monolingual English and bilingual students. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1), 68–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X10397872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elosúa, M.-R., García-Madruga, J.-A., Gómez-Veiga, I., López-Escribano, C., Pérez, E., & Orjales, I. (2012). Habilidades lectoras y rendimiento académico en 3° y 6° de primaria: aspectos evolutivos y educativos. Estudios de Psicología, 33(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1174/021093912800676411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2010). The role of language in the learning and teaching of science. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (2nd ed., pp. 135–157). New York, NY: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500339092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, Y.-P., Unsworth, L., & Wang, K.-H. (2017). The effects of explicit visual cues in reading biological diagrams. International Journal of Science Education, 39(5), 605–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1297549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2011). MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(8), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i08

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, J. K., Lawrence, J. F., Mo, E., & Snow, C. E. (2015). Differential effects of a systematic vocabulary intervention on adolescent language minority students with varying levels of English proficiency. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(3), 314–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006914521698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. R. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloser, M. (2013). Exploring high school biology students’ engagement with more and less epistemologically considerate texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1232–1257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloser, M. (2016). Alternate text types and student outcomes: An experiment comparing traditional textbooks and more epistemologically considerate texts. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2477–2499. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1249532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Charalampos, T. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders: Literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J. R., & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In B. K. Britton, A. Woodward, & M. Brinkley (Eds.), Learning from textbooks (pp. 95–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R. (2017). Revisiting field: Specialized knowledge in secondary school science and humanities discourse. Onomázein Número especial LSF y TCL sobre educación y conocimiento, 111–148. https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.sfl.05

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D., Ozuru, Y., & Floyd, R. G. (2011). Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers’ prior knowledge. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 229–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • McTigue, E., & Slough, S. W. (2010). Student-accessible science texts: Elements of design. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903256312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meneses, A., Escobar, J. P., & Véliz, S. (2018). The effects of multimodal texts on science reading comprehension in Chilean fifth-graders: Text scaffolding and comprehension skills. International Journal of Science Education, 40(18), 2226–2244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1527472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meneses, A., Uccelli, P., Santelices, M. V., Ruiz, M., Acevedo, D., & Figueroa, J. (2018). Academic language as a predictor of reading comprehension in monolingual Spanish-speaking readers: Evidence from Chilean early adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016 International results in reading. Resource Document. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/. Accessed July 15th, 2019.

  • Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (2002). Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. International Journal Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 279–315. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özkan, Ö., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, Ö. (2004). Facilitating conceptual change in students’ understanding of ecological concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019642.15673.a3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, A., Roman, D., Friend, M., Osborne, J., & Donovan, B. (2018). Reading for meaning: The foundational knowledge every teacher of science should have. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1416205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751–2773. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.626462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2010). Representing science literacies: An introduction. Research in Science Education, 40, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9153-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos, J. L., & Cuetos, F. (2011). Evaluación de los procesos lectores: PROLEC-SE Manual. Madrid, Spain: TEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 318–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K.-S., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. B. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98(2), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K.-S., & Moje, E. B. (2010). Relating multimodal representations to the literacies of science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9158-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, D., Brock, C., & Morrison, J. D. (2018). Engaging in vocabulary learning in science: The promise of multimodal instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 328–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1420267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Bétrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uccelli, P. (2019). Learning the language for school literacy. In V. Grøver, P. Uccelli, M. L. Rowe, & E. Lieven (Eds.), Learning through language. Towards an educationally informed theory of language learning (pp. 95–109). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316718537.010

  • Uccelli, P., Phillips Galloway, E., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, L. (2004). Comparing school science explanations in books and computer-based formats: The role of images, image/text relations, and hyperlinks. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3), 283–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9157-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. E., & Bradbury, L. U. (2016). The pedagogical potential of drawing and writing in primary science multimodal unit. International Journal of Science Education, 38(17), 2621–2641. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1255369

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Vicerrectoría de Investigación under Grant Proyecto Basal de Centros de Investigación Interdisciplinaria, and ANID/CONICYT, FONDECYT Regular 1190990. The authors would like to thank Diego Urzúa for his work as a research assistant, Iván Orellana, and Ignacio Zamorano for the development of the animated texts and Isidora Rodríguez for her data collection work. Finally, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the students, teachers, and principals who participated in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Maximiliano Montenegro, Alejandra Meneses, Soledad Véliz, José Pablo Escobar & Marion Garolera

  2. ONG Neyün, Santiago, Chile

    María Paz Ramírez

Authors
  1. Maximiliano Montenegro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alejandra Meneses
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Soledad Véliz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. José Pablo Escobar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marion Garolera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. María Paz Ramírez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maximiliano Montenegro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. North Sydney Campus, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Len Unsworth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Montenegro, M., Meneses, A., Véliz, S., Escobar, J.P., Garolera, M., Ramírez, M.P. (2020). Promoting Scientific Understanding through Animated Multimodal Texts. In: Unsworth, L. (eds) Learning from Animations in Science Education. Innovations in Science Education and Technology, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56047-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56047-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56046-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56047-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation