Modelling as an element in scientific methodology and models as the outcome of modelling are both important aspects of the conduct of science and hence of science education. The chapter is concerned with the challenges that students face in understanding the three ‘levels’ at which models can be represented – ‘macro’, ‘sub-micro’, ‘symbolic’ – and the relationships between them. A model can, at a given level, be expressed in ‘external representations’ – those versions physically available to others – and in ‘internal representations’ – those versions available mentally to an individual person. The making of meaning for any such representation is ‘visualization’. It is of such importance in science and hence in science education that the acquisition of fluency in visualization is highly desirable and may be called ‘metavisual capability’ or ‘metavisualization’. Criteria for the attainment of metavisualization are proposed. Two approaches to the ontological categorization of representations are put forward, one based on the purpose which the representation is intended to serve, the other based on the dimensionality – 1D, 2D, 3D – of the representation. For the latter scheme, the requirements for metavisualization are discussed in some detail in terms of its components. General approaches to the development of metavisualization are outlined. Multi-disciplinary teams are needed if the research and development needed to improve visualization in science education is to take place.
- Internal Representation
- Spatial Ability
- Practical Work
- External Representation
- Representational System
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Aberg-Bengtsson, L. (1999). Dimensions of performance in the interpretation of diagrams, tables and maps: some gender differences in the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 36(5), 565–582.
Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science: A guide to recent research and its applications. London: Continuum Press.
Beveridge, M., & Parkins, E. (1987). Visual representation in analogical problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 15(3), 230–237.
Bodner, G. M., & McMillen , T. L. B. (1986). Cognitive restructuring as an early stage in problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 727–737.
Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices amongst pre-service science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063–1088.
Bowen, G. M., Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Towards a social practice view of scientific representational practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1020–1043.
Carr, M., & Oxenham, J. (1985). Model confusion in science. In R. J. Osborne & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Some issues of theory in science education (pp. 81–88). Hamilton, New Zealand: Science Education Research Unit, University of Waikato.
Chittleborough, G., Treagust, D. F., Mamiala, T., & Mocerino, M. (2005). Students’ perception of the role of models in the process of science and in the process of learning. Research in Science and Technology Education, 23(2), 195–202.
Cleveland, W. S. (1985). The elements of graphing data. Monterey, California: Wadsworth.
Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 357–382.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Ferk Savec, V., Vrtacnik, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Evaluating the educational value of molecular structure representations. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in Science Education (pp. 269–298). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemical education research: a look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 548–554.
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Rutherford, M. (2000). Explanations with models in science education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 193–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science:conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 799–822.
Halpern, D. F., & Collaer, M. L. (2005). Sex differences in visuospatial abilities: More than meets the eye. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuo-spatial thinking (pp. 170–212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harre, R. ( 1970). The principles of scientific thinking. London: MacMillan.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 420–429.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in Grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352–381.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Conceptual change using multiple interpretative perspectives: Two case studies in secondary school chemistry. Instructional Science, 29, 45–85.
Hearnshaw, H. (1994). Psychology and displays in GIS. In H. Hearnshaw & D. J. Unwin (Eds.), Visualization in geographic information systems (pp. 193–211). Chichester: Wiley.
Hesse, M. (1966). Models and analogies in science. London: Sheen and Ward.
Hinton, M. E., & Nakhleh, M. B. (1999). Students’ microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions. The Chemical Educator, 4(4), 1–29.
Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 71(256), 33–40.
Huddle, P. A., White, M. D., & Rogers, F. (2000). Using a teaching model to correct known misconceptions in electrochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(1), 104–110.
Ingham, A. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to a changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.
Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers’views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387.
Kosma, R. (2003). The material features if multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.
Kosma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry ; learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.
Kosma, R., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Modelling students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–146). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images:The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.
Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.
Mathewson, J. H. (2006). The visual core of science: Definitions and applications in education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Science education: Major themes in education. (Vol. 3, pp.298–320). London: Routledge.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.
N.R.C. (2006). Learning to think spatially. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nakhleh, M., Polles, J., & Malina, E. (2002). Learningchemistry in a laboratory environment. In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, J. H., &van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp.69–94). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shinamura (Eds.), Metacognition (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Newberry, M. (2002). Pupils’ understanding of diagrams in science: Progression from key stage 3 (11–14 years) and across key stage 4 (14–16 years). Fareham, Hants: Cams Hill School.
Newcombe, N. S., & Learmonth, A. E. (2005). Development of spatial competence. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 213–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart,Winston.
Peters, R. (2006) Chemical equations. Retrieved 15 Sept., 2006, from http://www.wissensdrang.com/auf1ce1.htm
Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 235–240.
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it(2nd ed.). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
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(10), 1089–1114.
Reisberg, D. (1997). Cognition. New York: Norton.
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.
Roth, W.-M., & Welzel, M. (2001). From activity to gestures and scientific language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 103–136.
Taber, K. (2002). Chemical misconceptions –prevention, diagnosis and cure. Volume1: Theoretical background. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., & Venville, G. (1998). Teaching science effectively with analogies: An approach for pre-service and in-service teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18 (85–101), 91.
Tuckey, H., & Selvaratnam, M. (1993). Studies involving three-dimensional visualisation skills in chemistry. Studies in Science Education, 21, 99–121.
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press.
Unsworth, L. ( 2001). Teaching Multiliteracies Across the Curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Editors and Affiliations
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gilbert, J.K. (2008). Visualization: An Emergent Field of Practice and Enquiry in Science Education. In: Gilbert, J.K., Reiner, M., Nakhleh, M. (eds) Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5267-5_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5266-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5267-5