Advertisement

An Experienced Science Teacher’s Metavisualization in the Case of the Complex System of Carbon Cycling

  • Jung-Yi Hung
  • Hsin-Yi ChangEmail author
  • Jeng-Fung Hung
Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Science teachers use a large number of visual representations and models in science classes to guide students to understand complex phenomena and to learn to conduct scientific inquiry. Fluent formation and use of visual representation involves metavisualization, which is a process related to metacognition and visualization. However, what kinds of knowledge and skills are involved and interact during successful metavisualization need further research. Moreover, teachers’ metavisualization should be a focus of research since teachers play a mediating role in guiding students to become proficient performers of visualization in science. Therefore, in this study, we investigated how an experienced science teacher performed metavisualization via qualitative data collection techniques including think-aloud tasks and a follow-up retrospective interview. We identified the relevant knowledge and skills that were involved in the teacher’s metavisualization. Moreover, by focusing on the interaction among the knowledge and skills, we observed three aspects of the teacher’s performance that were salient to her metavisualization, including the use of metavisual strategies, judgement criteria, and the encountered critical points. Drawing upon previous perspectives and this study’s findings, we propose a model of metavisualization by extending an existing model for further research. The findings also provide insight into teacher professional development programs.

Keywords

Visualization Metavisualization Strategy Critical point Judgement criteria 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Kao-Chi Hsu for help with the data collection. This material is based upon work supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under grant MOST103-2511-S-003-070-MY5. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. This work was also financially supported by the "Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences" of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) from the Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan.

Authors’ Contributions

Jung-Yi Hung participated in the data collection and data analysis. Hsin-Yi Chang collaborated with Jung-Yi Hung by participating in the data analysis, and assertion, framework, and model generation processes. Jeng-Fung Hung helped with the data analysis. All the authors jointly conceived of this study, and participated in its design and wrote the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.All the authors claim that none of the material in the manuscript has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere.

References

  1. Ainsworth, S., & Newton, L. (2014). Teaching and researching visual representations: shared vision or divided worlds? In B. Eilam & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers’ use of visual representations (pp. 29–49). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu, S., Sengupta, P., & Biswas, G. (2014). A scaffolding framework to support learning of emergent phenomena using multi-agent-based simulation environments. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 293–324.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9424-z.
  4. Bergqvist, A., Drechsler, M., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2016). Upper secondary teachers’ knowledge for teaching chemical bonding models. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 298–318.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1125034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2008). An evaluation of a teaching intervention to promote students’ ability to use multiple levels of representation when describing and explaining chemical reactions. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 237–248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9046-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, H.-Y., & Tzeng, S.-F. (2017). Investigating Taiwanese students’ visualization competence of matter at the particulate level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education., 16, 1207–1226.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9834-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, H.-Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2014). Using drawing technology to assess students’ visualizations of chemical reaction processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(3), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. (2008). Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires transforming from one level of representation to another. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 463–482.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9059-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiu, J., & Linn, M. C. (2012). The role of self-monitoring in learning chemistry with dynamic visualizations. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education (pp. 133–163). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3 rd Ed.) (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danusso, L., Testa, I., & Vicentini, M. (2010). Improving prospective teachers’ knowledge about scientific models and modelling: design and evaluation of a teacher education intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 871–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eilam, B. (2015). Promoting preservice teachers’ meta-representational (visual) competencies: the need for a new pedagogy. In C. J. Craig & L. Orland-Barak (Eds.), International teacher education: promising pedagogies (part C). (Advances in research on teaching, Volume 22C) (pp. 65–88) Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  14. Eilam, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). The significance of visual representations in the teaching of science. In B. Eilam & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers’ use of visual representations (pp. 3–28). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Esiobu, O. G., & Soyibo, K. (1995). Effects of concept and Vee mapping under three learning modes on students’ cognitive achievement an ecology and genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(9), 971–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferreira, C., Baptista, M., & Arroio, A. (2011). Visual tools in teaching learning sequences for science education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 37, 48–58.Google Scholar
  17. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  18. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (Vol. 1, pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: an emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization: theory and practice in science education (pp. 3–24). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert, J. K., & Eilam, B. (2014). Developing science teachers’ representational competence and its impact on their teaching. In B. Eilam & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers’ use of visual representations (pp. 315–329). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  23. Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: an introduction (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Sage.Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2007). Science teachers’ knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of a new syllabus on public understanding of science. Research in Science Education, 37(2), 99–122.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9017-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N. (2007) Science Teachers' Knowledge about Teaching Models and Modelling in the Context of a New Syllabus on Public Understanding of Science. Research in Science Education 37 (2):99–122.Google Scholar
  25. Herrlinger, S., Höffler, T. N., & Opfermann, M. (2017). When do pictures help learning from expository text? Multimedia and modality effects in primary schools. Research in Science Education, 47(3), 685–704.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9525-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hofer, B. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9154-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Justi, R. (2009). Learning how to model in science classroom: key teacher’s role in supporting the development of students’ modelling skills. Educación Química, 20(1), 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369–1386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2005). A case study of the development of a beginning chemistry teacher’s knowledge about models and modelling. Research in Science Education, 35(2–3), 197–219.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-7583-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kambouri, M., Salowm Pampoulou, E., Pieridou, M., & Allen, M. (2016). Science learning and graphic symbols: an exploration of early years teachers’ views and use of graphic symbols when teaching science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(9), 2399–2417. ISSN 1305–8223  https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1275a
  33. Koomen, M. H., Weaver, S., Blair, R. B., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2016). Disciplinary literacy in the science classroom: using adaptive primary literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 847–894.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lazarowitz, R., & Penso, S. (1992). High school students’ difficulties in learning biology concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 26(3), 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lin, C.-Y., & Hu, R. (2003). Students’ understanding of energy flow and matter cycling in the context of the food chain, photosynthesis, and respiration. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1529–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Locatelli, S., & Arroio, A. (2014). Metavisual strategy assisting the learning of initial concepts of electrochemistry. Natural Science Education, 1(39), 14–24.Google Scholar
  37. Locatelli, S., & Arroio, A. (2015a). Metavisuali strategy for the build and rebuilding of chemical concepts in the symbolic level with the assistance of image. Natural Science Education, 12(2), 65–74.Google Scholar
  38. Locatelli, S., & Arroio, A. (2015b). Some contributions of metavisualization in chemical education: a new field of research. Research and Practice in Math, Science and Technology Education, 3(4), 573–582.Google Scholar
  39. Locatelli, S., & Arroio, A. (2016). Contributions and limitations of a metavisual strategy from the perspective of students. In J. Lavonen, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto, & K. Hahl (Eds.), Electronic proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science education research: engaging learners for a sustainable future, part 3/3 (Sabine Fechner & Andrée Tiberghien) (pp. 437–442). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki. isbn:978-951-51-1541-6.Google Scholar
  40. Locatelli, S., Ferreira, C., & Arroio, A. (2010). Metavisualization: an important skill in the learning chemistry. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 24, 75–83.Google Scholar
  41. Mansour, N. (2013). Modelling the sociocultural contexts of science education: the teachers’ perspective. Research in Science Education, 43, 347–369.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9269-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Melo-Nino, L. V., Canada, F., & Mellado, V. (2017). Initial characterization of colombian high school physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge on electric fields. Research in Science Education, 47(1), 25–48.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9488-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2014). Curriculum outlines of the 12-year basic education curriculum-the master outline. National Research Council Press, Taipei.Google Scholar
  44. Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. National Academy for Educational Research (NAER). (2016). Curriculum outlines of the 12-year basic education curriculum-natural science (draft). National Academy for Educational Research, Taipei.Google Scholar
  46. National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  47. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts. In And core idea. Washington: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  48. Nichols, K., Stevenson, M., Hedberg, J., & Gillies, R. (2016). Primary teachers’ representational practices: from competency to fluency. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(4), 509–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oliveira, A. W., Rivera, S., Glass, R., Mastroianni, M., Wizner, F., & Amodeo, V. (2014). Multimodal semiosis in science read-alouds: extending beyond text delivery. Research in Science Education, 44(5), 651–673.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9396-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rapp, D. N., & Kurby, C. A. (2008). The ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ of learning: internal representations and external visualizations. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: theory and practice in science education (pp. 29–52). United Kingdom: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2005). Meta-modeling knowledge: developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simons, H. (2015). Interpret in context: generalizing from the single case in evaluation. Evaluation, 21, 173–188.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389015577512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Taber, K. S. (2000). Case studies and generalizability: grounded theory and research in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 469–487.  https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 313–331.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9028-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Uttal, D. H., & O’Doherty, K. (2008). Comprehending and learning from ‘visualizations’: a developmental perspective. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: theory and practice in science education (pp. 53–72). The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2002). Experienced teachers’ knowledge of teaching and learning of models and modelling in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1255–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vijapurkar, J., Kawalkar, A., & Nambiar, P. (2014). What do cells really look like? An inquiry into students’ difficulties in visualising a 3-D biological cell and lessons for pedagogy. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 307–333.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9379-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Waight, N., & Gillmeister, K. (2014). Teachers and students’ conceptions of computer-based models in the context of high school chemistry: elicitations at the pre-intervention stage. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 335–361.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9385-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wada, I., Miyamura, R., Sawada, K., & Morimoto, S. (2015). Analysis of effects of social interaction on metavisualization in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Education, 56(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang, C. Y., & Barrow, L. H. (2011). Characteristics and levels of sophistication: an analysis of chemistry students’ ability to think with mental models. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 561–586.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9180-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: design and methods (1st ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1177–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science Education and Environmental EducationNational Kaohsiung Normal UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  2. 2.Program of Learning Sciences, School of Learning InformaticsNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations