Learning From and Through Representations in Science

  • Bruce Waldrip
  • Vaughan Prain
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 24)


In this chapter, we review the two main current approaches to researching student acquisition of the literacies of science, defined as student capacity to interpret and construct science texts. Researchers have tended to focus on either analysis and construction of expert representations as a basis for investigating factors affecting student learning from interactions with these representations, or on learning outcomes when students, with teacher guidance, generate and justify their own representations. We identify strengths and challenges in each focus as well as future research agendas in this field.


Literacies of science Representations Student learning Science literacy 


  1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). the functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.Google Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth, S. (2008a). How do animations influence learning?. In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction: Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 37–67). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Ainsworth, S. (2008b). How should we evaluate multimedia learning environments. In J.-F. Rouet, R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Understanding multimedia Documents. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ainsworth, S. (2008c). The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhlel (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191–208). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ainsworth, S., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17, 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Australian Academy of Science (2007). Primary Connections. Accessed 10.3.2007.
  8. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.Google Scholar
  9. Brooks, M. (2005). Drawing as a unique mental development tool for young children: Interpersonal and intrapersonal dialogues. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood Education, 6, 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carolan, J., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science, 54(1), 18–23.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, M. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90, 1073–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danish, J. A., & Enyedy, N. (2006). Negotiated representational mediators: How young children decide what to include in their science representations. Science Education, 90, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Vries, E. (2006). Students’ construction of external representations in design-based learning situations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dove, J. E., Everett, L. A., & Preece, P. F. W. (1999). Exploring a hydrological concept through children’s drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 485–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2008). Learning with multiple representations: Extending multimedia learning beyond the lab. Learning and Instruction, 18, 368–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisner, E. W. (1997). Cognition and representation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 349–354.Google Scholar
  19. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gan, Y., & Scardamalia, M. (2008, April). Drawing out ideas: An investigation of drawings ­generated by students to advance their understanding of optics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  22. Giere, R., & Moffatt, B. (2003). Distributed cognition: Where the cognitive and the social merge. Social Studies of Science, 33, 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert, J. (2005). Visualisation in science education. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilbert, J., Reiner, M., & Nakhlel, M. (2008). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gobert, J., & Clement, J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goolkasian, P., & Foos, P. W. (2002). Presentation format and its effect on working memory. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1096–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–368.Google Scholar
  29. Hackling, M. W. & Prain, V. (2005). Primary Connections: Stage 2 research report. Canberra, Australia: Australian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  30. Hand, B. (Ed.). (2007). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the Science Writing Heuristic. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Hayes, D., Symington, D., & Martin, M. (1994). Drawing during science activity in the primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jewitt, C (2007). A multimodal perspective on textuality and contexts. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 15, 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53, 5–18.Google Scholar
  34. Katz, G. L. (1998) What can we learn from Reggio Emilia? In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education (pp. 19–40). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  35. Klein, P. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  38. Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (Eds.). (2008) Learning with animation: Research and application. Cambridge University PressNew York:.Google Scholar
  40. Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of students interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Peirce, C.S. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1–8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, & Arthur W Burks [Eds.], Vols. 1–6; Arthur W. Burks [Eds.], Vols. 7–8).Google Scholar
  45. Pilot, A., Meijer, M.R., & Bulte, A.M.W. (2009). Determining structure-property relations as explicit rules with meso-level links between macro-and micro representations; A conceptual analysis of context-based tasks as an escape from normal science education. In John K Gilbert, and David Treagust. Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Ploetzner, R., Lippitsch, S., Galmbacher, M., Heuer, D., & Scherrer, S. (2008, online). Students’ difficulties in learning from dynamic visualisations and how they may be overcome. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in school science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 179–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prain, V. (2009). Researching effective pedagogies for developing the literacies of science: Some theoretical and practical considerations. In M. Shelley, L. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 151–168). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing and learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rahm, J. (2004). Multiple modes of meaning-making in a science center. Science Education, 88, 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ritchie, S., Rigano, D., & Duane, A. (2008). Writing an ecological mystery in class: Merging genres and learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roberts, D. (1996). Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: The potential role of teacher ­communities: A response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry, 26, 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple ­representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. (2003). External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwartz, D & Heiser, J. (2006). Spatial representations and imagery in learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 283–298). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Treagust, D. F. (1995). Enhancing students’ understanding of science using analogies. In B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Teaching and learning in science: The constructivist classroom (pp. 44–61). Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  58. Tytler, R., Peterson, S., & Prain. V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: Learning science literacy through a particle representation. Teaching Science, 52(1), 12–17.Google Scholar
  59. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 575–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waldrip, B. & Prain, V. (2006). Changing representations to learn primary science concepts. Teaching Science, 54(4), 17–21.Google Scholar
  65. Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2006). Learning junior secondary science through multi-modal representation. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11, 86–105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMonash University (Gippsland Campus)ChurchillAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationLa Trobe UniversityBendigoAustralia

Personalised recommendations