Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do We Need Arrows in Representing an Energy Pyramid?

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Arrows are recognized as efficient visual elements in conveying location, direction, connection, and process because the shape is thought to have an immediate, common sense impact on viewers. However, the results of our prior quantitative study did not support the assumed effects of arrows in reading energy pyramid diagrams. The current study utilized an integrated cognitive semiotics framework and a 5-phase interview to compare the interpretations of energy pyramid diagrams with or without arrows in controlled contexts. Grade 7 students (N = 18) with 3 levels of prior knowledge were randomly assigned to an experimental group (with arrows) or a control group (without arrows). Results suggested that arrows elicited more functional interpretations and confirmed that arrows could invite thematic meanings more efficiently. However, the finding that low prior knowledge participants had difficulty interpreting thematic meanings and generated misinterpretations suggests that prior knowledge plays a role in making meaning from diagrams. Considerations of the research methods and suggestions for pedagogy are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ametller, J., & Pinto, R. (2002). Students’ reading of innovative images of energy at secondary school level. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 285–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S.-H., Fang, C.-H., Yao, H., Hsu, K.-C., & Lee, T.-Y. (2013). Science and technology 2. Tainan: Han-Lin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. P., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92, 848–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 113–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilam, B. (2013). Possible constraints of visualization in biology: Challenges in learning with multiple representations. In D. F. Treagust & C.-Y. Tsui (Eds.), Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 55–74). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2010). External visual representations in science learning: The case of relations among system components. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2335–2366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

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

  • Ge, Y.-P., Unsworth, L., Wang, K.-H., & Chang, H.-P. (2018). Image design: Helping students build coherent meaning by explicit visual cues. In K.-S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education (pp. 237–258). Netherlands: Springer.

  • Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 446–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiser, J., & Tversky, B. (2006). Arrows in comprehending and producing mechanical diagrams. Cognitive Science, 30, 581–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesidou, S., & Duit, R. (1993). Students’ conceptions of the second law of thermodynamics: An interpretive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. R. (2010). How different variants of orbit diagrams influence student explanations of the seasons. Science Education, 94, 985–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2000). Grade 1–9 curriculum guidelines. Taipei: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, P., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 690–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tippett, C. D. (2016). What recent research on diagrams suggests about learning with rather than learning from visual representations in science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(5), 725–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1158435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express great gratitude for the assistance of Dr. Larry Yore and Ms. Shari Yore for their valuable and constructive suggestions on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education and Human Potentials Development, National Dong Hwa University, No. 1, Sec. 2, Da Hsueh Rd. Shoufeng, Hualien, 97401, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Yun-Ping Ge & Hsiuting Yang

Authors
  1. Yun-Ping Ge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hsiuting Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yun-Ping Ge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ge, YP., Yang, H. Do We Need Arrows in Representing an Energy Pyramid?. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 17, 1301–1316 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9929-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9929-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation