Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Second International Handbook of Science Education pp 145–155Cite as

Learning From and Through Representations in Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE,volume 24))

Abstract

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.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   429.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17, 286–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Academy of Science (2007). Primary Connections. www.science.org.au/primaryconnections. Accessed 10.3.2007.

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, J., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science, 54(1), 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, E. (2006). Students’ construction of external representations in design-based learning situations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 213–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2008). Learning with multiple representations: Extending multimedia learning beyond the lab. Learning and Instruction, 18, 368–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. W. (1997). Cognition and representation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 349–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Giere, R., & Moffatt, B. (2003). Distributed cognition: Where the cognitive and the social merge. Social Studies of Science, 33, 301–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. (2005). Visualisation in science education. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J., Reiner, M., & Nakhlel, M. (2008). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goolkasian, P., & Foos, P. W. (2002). Presentation format and its effect on working memory. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1096–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackling, M. W. & Prain, V. (2005). Primary Connections: Stage 2 research report. Canberra, Australia: Australian Academy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B. (Ed.). (2007). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the Science Writing Heuristic. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, D., Symington, D., & Martin, M. (1994). Drawing during science activity in the primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt, C (2007). A multimodal perspective on textuality and contexts. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 15, 275–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Klein, P. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 143–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (Eds.). (2008) Learning with animation: Research and application. Cambridge University PressNew York:.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in school science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 179–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing and learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 609–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahm, J. (2004). Multiple modes of meaning-making in a science center. Science Education, 88, 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (1996). Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: The potential role of teacher ­communities: A response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry, 26, 417–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. (2003). External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tytler, R., Peterson, S., & Prain. V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: Learning science literacy through a particle representation. Teaching Science, 52(1), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldrip, B. & Prain, V. (2006). Changing representations to learn primary science concepts. Teaching Science, 54(4), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Monash University (Gippsland Campus), Churchill, VIC, 3842, Australia

    Bruce Waldrip

  2. Faculty of Education, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC, 3552, Australia

    Vaughan Prain

Authors
  1. Bruce Waldrip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vaughan Prain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Waldrip .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Science & Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, West Australia, Australia

    Barry J. Fraser

  2. The Graduate Centre, City University of New York, New York, 10016-4309, New York, USA

    Kenneth Tobin

  3. Ctr. Mathematics & Science Education, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd., Kelvin Grove, 4059, Queensland, Australia

    Campbell J. McRobbie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Waldrip, B., Prain, V. (2012). Learning From and Through Representations in Science. In: Fraser, B., Tobin, K., McRobbie, C. (eds) Second International Handbook of Science Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation