Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp 1409–1431 | Cite as

What Images Reveal: a Comparative Study of Science Images between Australian and Taiwanese Junior High School Textbooks

  • Yun-Ping Ge
  • Len Unsworth
  • Kuo-Hua WangEmail author
  • Huey-Por Chang
Article

Abstract

From a social semiotic perspective, image designs in science textbooks are inevitably influenced by the sociocultural context in which the books are produced. The learning environments of Australia and Taiwan vary greatly. Drawing on social semiotics and cognitive science, this study compares classificational images in Australian and Taiwanese junior high school science textbooks. Classificational images are important kinds of images, which can represent taxonomic relations among objects as reported by Kress and van Leeuwen (Reading images: the grammar of visual design, 2006). An analysis of the images from sample chapters in Australian and Taiwanese high school science textbooks showed that the majority of the Taiwanese images are covert taxonomies, which represent hierarchical relations implicitly. In contrast, Australian classificational images included diversified designs, but particularly types with a tree structure which depicted overt taxonomies, explicitly representing hierarchical super-ordinate and subordinate relations. Many of the Taiwanese images are reminiscent of the specimen images in eighteenth century science texts representing “what truly is”, while more Australian images emphasize structural objectivity. Moreover, Australian images support cognitive functions which facilitate reading comprehension. The relationships between image designs and learning environments are discussed and implications for textbook research and design are addressed.

Keywords

Image design Science textbooks Comparative study Classificational image 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to Azing Chen, Colleen Foelz, Hsun-Fei Yang, Laxic Hsiao, Pixabay, Yin-Hsun Yang, Wanyu Tseng, Wikimedia, and all the publishers for the permission of copyright involved in this publication.

Reference

  1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B., & Huang, I. T.-C. (1999). Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. The Jounal of Educational Research, 93(1), 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Australia Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). Shape of the Australian curriculum. Retrieved on Dec 12, 2014, from http://www.acara.edu.au/default.asp.
  5. Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view (2nd ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  6. Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  7. Blystone, R. V., & Dettling, B. C. (1990). Visual literacy in science textbooks. In N. S. T. Association (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher—the process of knowing (Vol. 6). Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  8. Bowen, G. M., Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: toward a social practice view of scientific representation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1020–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Catley, K. M., Phillips, B. C., & Novick, L. R. (2013). Snakes and eels and dogs! Oh, my! Evaluating high school students’ tree-thinking skills: an entry point to understanding evolution. Research in Science Education, 43, 2327–2348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavalier-Smith, T. (1998). A revised six-kingdom system of life. Biological Reviews, 73, 203–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, S.-H., Fang, C.-H., Yao, H., Hsu, K.-C., & Lee, T.-Y. (2010). Science and technology 2. Tainan: Han-Lin.Google Scholar
  14. Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: the influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cunningham, C. M., & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive science education. Journal of Reseach In Science Teaching, 35(5), 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  17. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2012). The Australian science curriculum. In G. Venville & V. Dawson (Eds.), The art of teaching science: for middle and secondary schools (pp. 122–135). Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  18. Dwyer, F. M. (1972). The effects of overt responses in improving visually programmed science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9(1), 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ge, Y.-P., Chung, C.-H., Wang, K.-H., Chang, H.-P., & Unsworth, L. (2014). Comparing the images in Taiwanese and Australian science textbooks by grammar of visual design: an example of biological classification. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 22, 109–134.Google Scholar
  20. Glaser, R. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research. American Psychologist, 45, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halliday, M. A. K. (Ed.). (1998). Things and relations: regrammaticizing experience as technical knowledge. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Han, J., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Chemical inscriptions in Korean textbooks: Semiotics of macro- and microworld. Science Education, 90(2), 173–201.Google Scholar
  23. Harrison, A. G. (2001). How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Research in Science Education, 31, 401–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawk, P. (1986). Using graphic organizers to increase achievement in middle school life science. Science Education, 70, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang, T.-C., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. (1998). A cross-national study of perceied classroom environments in Taiwan and western Australian: combining quantitative and qualitative appraoches. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 343–362.Google Scholar
  26. Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ives, B., & Hoy, C. (2003). Graphic organizers applied to higher-level secondary mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(36–5), 1.Google Scholar
  28. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of mutiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images:the grammar of visual design. (2nd ed.). NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Kuhn, T. S. (1972). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago.Google Scholar
  31. Kuo, C.-J. (2010). Science and technology 2. Tainan: Nan-I.Google Scholar
  32. Lee, V. R. (2010a). Adaptations and continuities in the use and design of visual representations in US middle school science textbooks. International Jounal of Science Education, 32(8), 1099–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, V. R. (2010b). How different variants of orbit diagrams influence student explanations of the seasons. Science Education, 94, 985–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lemoni, R., Lefkaditou, A., Stamou, A. G., Schizas, D., & Stamou, G. P. (2013). Views of nature and the human-nature relations: an analysis of the visual syntax of pictures about the environment in Greek primary school textbooks-diachronic considerations. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lin, Y.-C. H., Lee, C.-S., Huang, N.-T., Chang, Y.-T., & Tsai, S. H.-F. (2010). Science and technology 2. Taipei: Kan-Shen.Google Scholar
  37. Liu, Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2013). Content analysis of diagrams in secondary school science textbooks. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science: evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 287–300). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715–726.Google Scholar
  40. Ministry Of Education (2000). Grade 1–9 curriculum guidelines. Retrieved from. http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/New66618445071.doc
  41. Nardelli, D. (2005). Science alive 1 for Victorian essential learning standard. Milton, Australia: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. Nardelli, D., & Stubbs, A. (2008). Big ideas: science 1. Sydney, Australia: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Novick, L. R., & Catley, K. M. (2007). Understanding phylogenies in biology: The influence of a gestalt perceptual principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(4), 197–223Google Scholar
  46. O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. (E. Duckworth, Trans.) New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Pinto’, R., & Ametller, J. (2002). Students’ difficulties in reading images. Comparing results from four national research groups. International Jounal of Science Education, 24(3), 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pozzer, L. L., & Roth, W. M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Jounal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Making sense of photographs. Science Education, 89, 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rickard, G., Burger, N., Clarke, W., Geelan, D., Loveday, D., Monckton, S., Phillips, G., Roberson, P., Spirou, C., & Whalley, K. (2010). Science focus 1. Sydney, Australia: Pearson.Google Scholar
  53. Roth, W. M., Bowen, G. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 977–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stylianidou, F., & Ogborn, F. (2002). Analysis of science textbook pictures about energy and pupils’ readings of them. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tao, Y., Oliver, M., & Venville, G. (2013). A comparison of approaches to the teaching and learning of science in Chinese and Australian elementary classrooms: cultural and socioeconomic complexities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1), 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. (2007). Science teacher background data almanac by science achievement. Retrieved Dec 12, 2014, from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/index.html.
  60. Tsai, C.-C. (1999). "Laboratory expercises help me memorize the scientific truths": a study of eighth graders’ scientific epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities. Science Education, 83, 654–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum—changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 55–76.Google Scholar
  63. Unsworth, L. (2008). Explicating inter-modal meaning-making in media and literary texts: towards a metalanguage of image/language relations. In A. Burn & C. Durrant (Eds.), Media teaching: language, audience, production. London: AATE-NATE and Wakefield Press.Google Scholar
  64. Woese, C., & Fox, G. (1977). Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 74(11), 5088–5090. doi: 10.1073/pnas.74.11.5088. PMC 432104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yang, J.-H., Huang, I. T.C., & Aldridge, J. M. (2002). Investigating factors that prevent science teachers from creating positive learning enviornments in Taiwan. New Jersey: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Changhua University of EducationChanghuaTaiwan
  2. 2.Learning Sciences Institute AustraliaAustralian Catholic UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of PhysicsNational Changhua University of EducationChanghuaTaiwan

Personalised recommendations