Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attitudes of Biology Teachers Towards Learner-Generated External Visual Representations

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

Abstract

Several studies have shown that learner-generated external visual representations (LGVRs) play a vital role for learning scientific concepts and processes. However, we know little about teachers’ reasoning as to why and how to implement LGVR activities in their teaching. Thus, the purpose of our study is to determine why teachers let their students construct visual representations in biology, what benefits they see in these activities, and how they encounter difficulties that show up while students draw. We adopted the theoretical framework of the theory of planned behavior and the three-component model of attitudes to gain insights into teachers’ reasoning when it comes to LGVR activities. According to this framework, we focused our analysis on five constructs (the attitude towards the behavior with its affective, behavioral, and cognitive component, the perceived behavioral control, and the subjective norm) and conducted interviews with six pre-service teachers and seven in-service biology teachers. We found that the first four constructs of our theoretical framework, but not the subjective norm, have a substantial influence on the teachers’ intention to utilize LGVR activities in class. It became clear that teachers mainly focus on the construction of realistic pictures, whereas learner-generated abstract pictures play a minor role. Besides this, we achieved an informative insight into teachers’ reasoning about the use or non-use of drawings in specific classroom situations (e.g., diagnosis, assessment).

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Both terms can therefore be distinguished from the more pleasure-driven activity of drawing which primarily takes place in art classes. Nonetheless, in science education, the term drawing is often used for the sake of simplicity, even if we rather mean learner-generated external visual representations.

  2. The duration differs between the federal states of Germany. The teacher training in Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland, where the interviewed teachers and pre-service teachers work, is 18 months long.

References

  • Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: automaticity in goal-directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predicting behavior from actions in the past: repeated decision making or a matter of habit? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1355–1374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01681.x .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achieve. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2–3), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2006). Behavioral interventions based on the theory of planned behavior. Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.intervention.pdf

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: from cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed., reprint). Mapping social psychology. Maidenhead: Open Univ. Press. Retrieved from http://reference-tree.com/book/attitudes-personality-and-behaviour?utm_source=gbv&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=collaboration

  • Ajzen, I. (2015). The theory of planned behavior: a bibliography: 1985–2015. Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/aizen/tpbrefs.html

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000116 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alias, M., Gray, D. E., & Black, T. R. (2002). Attitudes towards sketching and drawing and the relationship with spatial visualisation ability in engineering students. International Education Journal, 3(2), 165–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). The Australian curriculum: Science Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/download/f10

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borsum, W. (1987). Die Schülerzeichnung im Sachunterricht (Drawing by students in science lessons). Unterricht Biologie, 11(123), 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12. Retrieved from http://publications.cmec.ca/science/framework/. Retrieved from http://publications.cmec.ca/science/framework/

  • Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9(4), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00051-6 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education. (2013). Science programmes of study: key stages 1 and 2. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study.

  • Dikmenli, M. (2010). Misconceptions of cell division held by student teachers in biology: a drawing analysis. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(2), 235–247.

    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 

  • DiSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: an introduction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00051-7 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Döring, N., Bortz, J., & Pöschl, S. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften (Research methods and evaluation in social and human sciences) (5th ed.). Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilam, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (Eds.). (2014). Science teachers’ use of visual representations. Models and modeling in science education. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Models and modeling in science education (Vol. 1. Visualization in Science Education, pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Eilam, B. (2014). Developing science teachers’ representational competence and its impact on their teaching. In B. Eilam & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Models and modeling in science education. Science teachers’ use of visual representations (pp. 315–329). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropengießer, H. (1987). Mikroskopisches Sehen und Zeichnen (Microscopy and drawing). Unterricht Biologie, 12(129).

  • Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., & Krüger, D. (2012). Biologiedidaktik in Übersichten (Teaching biology. An overview.). Hallbergmoos: Aulis-Verl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701413401 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1067–1104). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jong, T. d. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killermann, W., Hiering, P., & Starosta, B. (2013). Biologieunterricht heute: Eine moderne Fachdidaktik (Teaching biology today: a contemporary approach.) (15.th ed.). Donauwörth: Auer.

  • KMK. (2005). Kultus Minister Konferenz: Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz (Hrsg.): Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (National curriculum for teaching biology in secondary school). München: Wolters Kluwer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köse, S. (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: using drawings as a research method. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3(2), 283–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Models and modeling in science education (Vol. 1. Visualization in Science Education, pp. 121–145). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2009). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publ.

  • Krüger, D., & Riemeier, T. (2014). Die qualitative Inhaltsanalyse—Eine Methode zur Auswertung von Interviews (The qualitative content analysis—a method for the evaluation of interviews). In D. Krüger, I. Parchmann, & H. Schecker (Eds.), Methoden in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung (Research methods in science education) (pp. 133–145). Berlin: Springer Spektrum.

  • Kuckartz, U. (2007). Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten (Introduction to the Computer-aided Analysis of Qualitative Data) (3.th ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

  • Lerner, N. (2007). Drawing to learn science: legacies of Agassiz. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 37(4), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.2190/W478-M151-4425-GP03 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leutner, D., & Schmeck, A. (2014). The generative drawing principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbooks in psychology. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 433–448). New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.022 .

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maio, G. R., & Haddock, G. (2010). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (Qualitative content analysis: basics and techniques) (11.th ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.

  • Messner, H., & Reusser, K. (2000). Die berufliche Entwicklung von Lehrpersonen als lebenslanger Prozess (The professional development of teachers as a lifelong process). Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 18, 157–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • MfBWWK. (2014). Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Weiterbildung und Kultur (Hrsg.): Lehrpläne für die Naturwissenschaftlichen Fächer für die weiterführenden Schulen in Rheinland-Pfalz. Biologie, Chemie, Physik. Klassenstufe 7 bis 9/10 (Science curriculum for secondary school). Mainz.

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, NGACBP & CCSSO. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, P., & van Driel, J. (2011). How will we understand what we teach?—primary student teachers’ perceptions of their development of knowledge and attitudes towards physics. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9179-0 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nitz, S. (2012). Fachsprache im Biologieunterricht: Eine Untersuchung zu Bedingungsfaktoren und Auswirkungen (Scientific language in biology instruction: analysis of causes and effects). Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel.

  • Oskamp, S., & Schultz, P. W. (2005). Attitudes and opinions (3.th ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

  • Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2013). Learning through the affordances of representation construction. In R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in science (pp. 67–82). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Quillin, K., & Thomas, S. (2015). Drawing-to-learn: a framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retzlaff-Fürst, C. (2013). Protokollieren, Zeichnen und Mathematisieren (Protocolling, drawing and mathematizing). In H. Gropengießer, U. Harms, & U. Kattmann (Eds.), Fachdidaktik Biologie (9th ed., pp. 312–324). Hallbergmoos: Aulis Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. P. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster and Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, P., & Rogers, A. (2010). Drawing to learn: science, technology, engineering & maths (Vol. 2). Brighton: Centre for Learning and Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland, W. J. McGuire, R. P. Abelson, & J. W. Brehm (Eds.), Attitude organization and change. An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1–14). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., Thillmann, H., Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 872–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019640 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Heiser, J. (2006). Spatial representations and imagery in learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbooks in psychology. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 283–298). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., ..., Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311

  • Spörhase, U. (2010). Zeichnen (Drawing). In U. Spörhase & W. Ruppert (Eds.), Biologie-Methodik: Handbuch für die Sekundarstufe I und II (Methods in biology: handbook for teaching biology in secondary school) (1st ed., pp. 145–153). Berlin: Cornelsen.

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 .

    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 

  • Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 142–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.001 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., Knippenberg, A. v., & Moonen, A. (1998). Habit versus planned behaviour: a field experiment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldrip, B., & Prain, V. (2012). Learning from and through representations in science. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Springer international handbooks of education (Vol. 24. Second International Handbook of Science Education, pp. 145–155). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_12 .

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L. K., Fisk, J. N., & Newman, D. L. (2014). DNA -> RNA: what do students think the arrow means? CBE life sciences education, 13(2), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.CBE-13-09-0188

  • Wu, H.-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10126 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D., & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9160-y .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zint, M. (2002). Comparing three attitude-behavior theories for predicting science teachers’ intentions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 819–844. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10047 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Lena Feld for her contribution and patience with analyzing a part of the interviews for a second time for the purpose of intercoder reliability.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für naturwissenschaftliche Bildung (Institute for Science Education), Universität Koblenz-Landau, Fortstraße 7, 76829, Landau, Germany

    Christian Alexander Scherb & Sandra Nitz

Authors
  1. Christian Alexander Scherb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra Nitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Alexander Scherb.

Additional information

Note

Our coding system, containing main categories, root categories, categories, subcategories, coding rules, and examples of coded text passages, can be downloaded here:

https://www.uni-koblenz-landau.de/de/landau/fb7/inb/download/.

Appendix. Interview guidelines with question categories (translated)

Appendix. Interview guidelines with question categories (translated)

C = cognitive component, B = behavioral component, A = affective component, S = subjective norm, P = perceived behavior control.

  1. (A)

    How many years have you already been teaching (including your mandatory post-graduate teacher training)?

  2. (B)

    Which school subject or subjects do you teach besides biology?

  1. (1)

    C.1: In the lessons mathematics, art and biology, drawings are made. Please state, from your point of view, the characteristics of the biological drawing in lessons.

  2. (2)

    S.2: Do you think that it is expected from you as a teacher in the subject biology to enable the students to develop comprehensive drawing competencies?

  3. (3)

    B.1: In which specific situations in lessons do you let the students draw?

  4. (4)

    C.5: What are the reasons for the use of drawings?

  5. (5)

    A.1: If you think back to your time at school and your course of studies, how did you feel about drawing and drawing exercises?

  6. (6)

    A.2: During your own time at school and your course of studies, did you like drawing by yourself?

  7. (7)

    C.3: Which abilities do the students acquire in your opinion through frequent drawing in lessons over the course of time?

  8. (8)

    C.4: What difficulties can occur during drawing, both on the part of the students and on the part of the teachers?

  9. (9)

    P.1: Is it possible for you to avoid those kinds of problems? If so, how?

  10. (10)

    C.6: What success do you expect when you let the students draw in lessons?

  11. (11)

    B.3: For what purpose do you use drawings in lessons?

  12. (12)

    B.2: Do you use drawings in order to assess or to diagnose the performances of the students?

  13. (13)

    S.1: What do your colleagues think about drawing?

  14. (14)

    B.5: What criteria do you consider when assessing drawings?

  15. (15)

    C.2: What competences do the students gain through drawing by the end of school, from your point of view?

  16. (16)

    B.4: How high do you estimate the frequency of your use of drawing per class per school year (across all classes) on average?

  17. (17)

    P.2: How do you face problems that occur in connection with the use of drawing in lessons?

  18. (18)

    A.3: “Either you hate it or you love it.” This statement or similar statements are often made by students in botany or zoology internships regarding drawings to be made. What do you think about that?

  19. (19)

    B.6: In the left diagram you see a light-microscopic picture of a preparation, and beside that two drawings of the same preparation. Which assessment criteria would you use in this specific example?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scherb, C.A., Nitz, S. Attitudes of Biology Teachers Towards Learner-Generated External Visual Representations. Res Sci Educ 50, 2533–2558 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9792-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9792-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation