Abstract
Visualisations gain more and more importance in pedagogical material, in text books and in computer programs. Despite the co-existence of many different types of visualisations or graphical genres, learning research only has taken into account the distinction between text and pictures. The current study aims at unpacking what, at least in learning research, seems to be one single holistic indivisible category of visualisations. The presented approach focuses on teachers’ thoughts on the existence of different types of visualisations and their presumed function in teaching and learning. Ten teachers from two different countries, France and Pakistan, and from two different subject matters, physics and geography, were interviewed. Amongst others, results showed that teachers are confident about student comprehension for generic categories such as tables, line graphs, and maps. However, the transparent nature of hybrid visualisations was called into question. This is an important finding given the fact that technological means have considerably enlarged the spectrum of visualisation possibilities .
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Textbooks
Anwar, M. M. (2009). Geography of the world for class XII. Lahore: White Rose Publishers.
Jalta, J., Joly, J.-F., & Reineri, R. (Eds.). (2004). L’espace Mondial Géographie Te S. Paris: Magnard.
Khattak, M. A., & Khattak, A. A. (2009). Physics for class XII. Peshawar: Spinzer Enterprises Ltd.
Parisi, J.-M. (Ed.). (2002). Physique term S. Paris: Belin.
References
Agency for International Development (Dept. of State), Washington, DC. (2006). Situation analysis of teacher education in Pakistan: Towards a strategic framework for teacher education and professional development. Washington, DC: US Agency for International Development. Information Center, Ronald Reagan Building.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
Airey, J. (2009). Science, language, and literacy: Case studies of learning in Swedish university physics. Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University
Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics: diagrams, networks, maps. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press (Translation by W. J. Berg of “Sémiologie Graphique. Les Diagrammes, les Réseaux, les Cartes” (1967)).
Bertin, J., & Berg, W. J. (2011). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams, networks, maps. Redlands: ESRI Press.
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London/New York:Routledge.
Coleman, J. (2010). Elementary teachers’ instructional practices involving graphical representations. Journal of Visual Literacy, 29, 198–222.
Coleman, J. M., McTigue, E. M., & Smolkin, L. B. (2011). Elementary teachers’ use of graphical representations in science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(7), 613–643.
Cros, F., & Obin, J.-P. (2003). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers, country background report for France. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
De Vries, E. & Lowe, R. (2010). Graphicacy: What does the learner bring to a graphic? Paper presented at the EARLI SIG2 meeting, Tübingen, August 2010.
Directorate General for Schools. (2010). School education in France. Paris: MEN.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.
Duval, R. (1995). Sémiosis et pensée humaine: registres sémiotiques et apprentissages intellectuels. Berne: Peter Lang.
Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art. An approach to a theory of symbols (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Government of Pakistan. (2007). National textbook and learning materials policy and plan of action. Islamabad: Curriculum Wing, Ministry of Education.
Lapostolle, G., & Chevaillier, T. (2011). Teacher training in France in the early 2010s. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 37(4), 451–459.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(1), 65–100.
Lengler, R. & Eppler, M. (2007). Towards a periodic table of visualization methods for management. IASTED Proceedings of the Conference on Graphics and Visualization in Engineering (GVE 2007), Clearwater, Florida. http://www.visual-literacy.org/periodic_table/periodic_table.html. Retrieved 31 May 2013.
Levin, J. R. (1979). On functions of pictures in prose. Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Individualized Schooling, The University of Wisconsin.
Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (Eds.). (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lynd, D. (2007). The education system in Pakistan: Assessment of the national education census. UNESCO, Islamabad.
Khalid, M. (2010). Textbook evaluation in Pakistan: Issue of conformity to the national curriculum guidelines. Bulletin of Education and Research, 32, 15–36.
Marsh, E. E., & White, M. D. (2003). A taxonomy of relationships between images and text. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 647–672.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994). Picture theory. Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
OECD, PISA 2009 Database. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932343342. Retrieved 31 May 2013.
Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 259–203). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. New York: Wiley.
Rastier, F. (2000). On signs and texts: Cognitive science and interpretation. In P. Perron (Ed.), Semiotics as a bridge between the humanities and the sciences (p. 409). New York/Toronto: Legas Press.
Roth, W.-M., Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Young, H. J. (2005). Critical graphicacy: Understanding visual representation practices in school science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sarwar, M., & Hussain, S. (2010). Teacher training in Pakistan: Problems and solutions for student teaching preparatory programs. European Journal of Scientific Research, 46(2), 179–185.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary: Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101–120.
Schwartz, N. H. & Danielson R. W. (2012). What kind of graphic is this? A framework for delineating the graphics in text-graphic research. SIG 2 Learning with text and graphics, European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Grenoble.
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire: Graphics Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1993). Tractatus logico-philosophicus (G. G. Granger, Trans. 1922 ed.). Paris: Gallimard.
World Bank. (2010). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS. Accessed 14 Feb 2013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Vries, E., Ashraf, M. (2014). Teachers’ Thoughts on Visualisations in Diverse Cultural Settings: The Case of France and Pakistan. In: Eilam, B., Gilbert, J. (eds) Science Teachers’ Use of Visual Representations. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06526-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06526-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06525-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06526-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)