Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College Press.

  • 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.

  • Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view (2nd ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

  • Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalier-Smith, T. (1998). A revised six-kingdom system of life. Biological Reviews, 73, 203–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S.-H., Fang, C.-H., Yao, H., Hsu, K.-C., & Lee, T.-Y. (2010). Science and technology 2. Tainan: Han-Lin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research. American Psychologist, 45, 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (Ed.). (1998). Things and relations: regrammaticizing experience as technical knowledge. Beijing: Peking University Press.

  • Han, J., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Chemical inscriptions in Korean textbooks: Semiotics of macro- and microworld. Science Education, 90(2), 173–201.

  • Harrison, A. G. (2001). How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Research in Science Education, 31, 401–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawk, P. (1986). Using graphic organizers to increase achievement in middle school life science. Science Education, 70, 81–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives, B., & Hoy, C. (2003). Graphic organizers applied to higher-level secondary mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(36–5), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of mutiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1972). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago.

  • Kuo, C.-J. (2010). Science and technology 2. Tainan: Nan-I.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715–726.

  • Ministry Of Education (2000). Grade 1–9 curriculum guidelines. Retrieved from. http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/New66618445071.doc

  • Nardelli, D. (2005). Science alive 1 for Victorian essential learning standard. Milton, Australia: Wiley.

  • Nardelli, D., & Stubbs, A. (2008). Big ideas: science 1. Sydney, Australia: Oxford University Press.

  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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), 197–223

  • O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. (E. Duckworth, Trans.) New York: Columbia University Press.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Making sense of photographs. Science Education, 89, 219–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. 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, 227–237.

    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 

  • Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan

    Yun-Ping Ge & Kuo-Hua Wang

  2. Learning Sciences Institute Australia, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia

    Len Unsworth

  3. Department of Physics, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan

    Huey-Por Chang

Authors
  1. Yun-Ping Ge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Len Unsworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kuo-Hua Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Huey-Por Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuo-Hua Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ge, YP., Unsworth, L., Wang, KH. et al. What Images Reveal: a Comparative Study of Science Images between Australian and Taiwanese Junior High School Textbooks. Res Sci Educ 48, 1409–1431 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9608-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9608-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation