• Winnie W. M. SoEmail author


Data collection, organization, and analysis are indispensable means of seeking solutions during the process of inquiry. Representations (called inscriptions by some educators) including graphs, tables, photographs, and equations are powerful ways of arranging and displaying data in visual form. This study aims to analyze quantitatively the use of representations by Key Stage 2 (KS2) students in extra-curricular science inquiry projects. The reports from 145 science inquiry projects entries in a primary science exhibition in Hong Kong were studied. A total of 22 projects were awarded Outstanding; 46 were awarded Merit; and 77 were awarded Consolation by the exhibition judges using well-established scoring rubrics and procedures. The ability to use different types of representations and the representational practices were studied across the three award classes. Levels of abstraction and functionality (constructing, interpreting, reasoning, and presenting) were determined for the representation types and practices demonstrated in the reports. The findings indicate that the highest level projects (judged Outstanding) tended to exhibit a higher frequency and more diverse use of representations. In addition, the three award levels also displayed different patterns of representational practices.

Key words

extra-curricular informal environments inquiry primary representational practices representations science learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V. & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arsenault, D. J., Smith, L. D. & Beauchamp, E. A. (2006). Visual inscriptions in the scientific hierarchy: Mapping the “Treasures of science”. Science Communication, 27(3), 376–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D. T. & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowen, G. M. & Roth, W.-M. (2002). Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions. Research in Science Education, 32, 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowen, G. M. & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buttemer, H. (2006). Inquiry on board! Science and Children, 44(2), 34–39.Google Scholar
  7. Charlesworth, R. & Lind, K. K. (2010). Math and science for young children (6th ed.). New York: Delmar Learning.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Curriculum Development Council (CDC). (2002a). General studies for primary schools curriculum guide (primary 1–primary 6). Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  10. Curriculum Development Council (CDC). (2002b). Key learning area curriculum guide (primary 1–secondary 3)—Science education. Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  11. Fanjoy, L. P., MacNeill, A. L. & Best, L. A. (2012). The use of diagrams in science: An examination of trends in articles published in science between 1880 and 2010. In P. T. Cox, B. Plimmer & P. J. Rodgers (Eds.), Diagrams (pp. 303–305). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R. & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and inscriptional implications. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Han, J. & Roth, W.-M. (2007). Chemical inscriptions in Korean textbooks: Semiotics of macro and microworld. Science Education, 90(2), 173–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kindfield, A. C. H. & Singer-Gabella, M. (2010). Inscriptional practices in undergraduate introductory science courses: A path toward improving prospective K-6 teachers’ understanding and teaching of science. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(3), 58–88.Google Scholar
  15. Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Co-constructing inscription and thought. In E. Amsel & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 167–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Lunsford, E., Melear, C. T., Roth, W.-M., Perkins, M. & Hickok, L. G. (2007). Proliferation of inscriptions and transformations among preservice science teachers engaged in authentic science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 538–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marti, E., Garcia-Mila, M., Gabucio, F. & Konstantinidou, K. (2011). The construction of a double-entry table: A study of primary and secondary school students’ difficulties. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26, 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Minogue, J., Wiebe, E., Madden, L., Bedward, J. & Carter, M. (2010). Graphically enhanced science notebooks. Science and Children, 48(3), 52–55.Google Scholar
  19. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  20. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  21. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nitz, S., Ainsworth, S. E., Nerdel, C. & Precht, H. (2014). Do student perceptions of teaching predict the development of representational competence and biological knowledge? Learning and Instruction, 14, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pozzer, L. L. & Roth, W.-M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1089–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pozzer-Ardenghi, L. L. & Roth, W.-M. (2010). Toward a social practice perspective on the work of reading inscriptions in science texts. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 228–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 3–24). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Romberg, T., Carpenter, T. & Kwako, J. (2005). Standards based reform and teaching for understanding. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Mathematical inscriptions and the reflexive elaboration of understanding: An ethnography of graphing and numeracy in a fish hatchery. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(2), 75–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roth, W.-M., Pozzer-Ardenghi, L. & Han, J. Y. (2005). Critical graphicacy: Understanding visual representation practices in school science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Archibald, A. B. & Roberson-Nay, R. (2002). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. American Psychologist, 57, 749–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Johnston, J. & Archibald, A. B. (2000). Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science, 30(1), 70–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. So, W. M. W. (2003). Learning science through investigations: An experience with Hong Kong primary school children. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 175–200.Google Scholar
  32. So, W. M. W. (2006, June). Inquiry into primary pupils’ science projects: Implication for design of inquiry learning. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 7(1), Article 3. Retrieved from
  33. So, W. M. W., & Cheng, M. H. M. (2001, December). Developing scientific literacy for student teachers through active learning. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 2(2), Article 3. Retrieved from
  34. So, W. M. W., & Zhong, M. (2006). Primary science inquiry activities: Promoting the development of children’s scientific thinking. Journal of Basic Education, 15(1), 59–75.Google Scholar
  35. So, W. M. W., & Zhong. M. (2009). Myths of science: How children know about science in inquiry projects. The International Journal of Science in Society, 1(2), 31–44.Google Scholar
  36. So, W. W. M. (2013). Connecting mathematics and science in primary science inquiry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 385–406.Google Scholar
  37. Sutopo & Waldrip, B. ( 2013). Impact of a representational approach on students’ reasoning and conceptual understanding in learning mechanics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9431-y.
  38. Tippett, C. D. (2011). Exploring middle school students’ representational competence in science: Development and verification of a framework for learning with visual representations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
  39. Trowbridge, L., Bybee, R. & Powell, J. (2004). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Wainer, H. (2005). Understanding graphs and tables. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Graphic discovery: A trout in the milk and other visual adventures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Waldrip, B., Prain, V. & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. White, B. Y. & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all learners. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wu, H. K. & Krajcik, J. S. (2006a). Exploring middle school students’ use of inscriptions in project-based science classrooms. Science Education, 90(5), 852–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wu, H. K. & Krajcik, J. S. (2006b). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders’ use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 63–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yore, L. D. & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: Plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency [Special issue]. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.D3-1/F-36, Department of Science and Environmental StudiesThe Hong Kong Institute of EducationTai PoHong Kong

Personalised recommendations