Advertisement

Towards a Definition of Representational Competence

  • Kristy L. DanielEmail author
  • Carrie Jo Bucklin
  • E. Austin Leone
  • Jenn Idema
Chapter
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 11)

Abstract

Currently, there is not a consensus in science education regarding representational competence as a unified theoretical framework. There are multiple theories of representational competence in the literature that use differing perspectives on what competence means and entails. Furthermore, dependent largely on the discipline, language discrepancies cause a potential barrier for merging ideas and pushing forward in this area. In science, representations are used to display data, organize complex information, and promote a shared understanding of scientific phenomena. As such, for the purposes of this text, we define representational competence as a way of describing how a person uses a variety of perceptions of reality to make sense of and communicate understandings. While a single unified theory may not be a realistic goal, strides need to be taken towards working as a unified research community to better investigate and interpret representational competence. Thus, this chapter will define aspects of representational competence, modes of representations, and the role of a representational competence theoretical framework in science education research and practice.

References

  1. Anderson, K. C., & Leinhardt, G. (2002). Maps as representations: Expert novice comparison of projection understanding. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum, D. A., & Smith, S. D. (2013). Tree thinking: An introduction to phylogenetic biology. Greenwood Village: Roberts.Google Scholar
  3. Baum, D. A., Smith, S. D., & Donovan, S. S. S. (2005). The tree-thinking challenge. Science, 310, 979–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodner, G. M., & Guay, R. B. (1997). The Purdue visualizations of rotations test. The Chemical Educator, 2, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botzer, G., & Reiner, M. (2005). Imagery in physics learning-from physicists practice to naive Students Understanding. In Visualization in science education (pp. 147–168). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cavallo, A. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 625–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clement, J., Zietsman, A., & Monaghan, J. (2005). Imagery in science learning in students and experts. In Visualization in science education (pp. 169–184). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, M. P. (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
  10. Cuoco, A. A., & Curcio, F. R. (Eds.). (2001). The roles of representation in school mathematics. National Council of teachers.Google Scholar
  11. Duchowski, A. T. (2002). A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(4), 455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fabrikant, S. I., & Skupin, A. (2005). Cognitively plausible information visualization. In J. Dykes, A. M. MacEachren, & M.-J. Kraak (Eds.), Exploring Geovisualization. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Ferk, V., Vrtacnik, M., Blejec, A., & Gril, A. (2003). Students understanding of molecular structure representations. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1227–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemistry Education, 76(4), 548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gendron, R. P. (2000). The classification & evolution of caminalcules. American Biology Teacher, 62, 570–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson, J. P., & Hoefnagels, M. H. (2015). Correlations between tree thinking and acceptance of evolution in introductory biology students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 8, 15.Google Scholar
  17. Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualizations in science education (Vol. Vol.1). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregory, T. R. (2008). Understanding evolutionary trees. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1, 121–137.Google Scholar
  19. Halverson, K.L. (2010). Using pipe cleaners to bring the tree of life to life. American Biology Teacher, 74, 223–224. (Associated Lesson Plan: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4304176/ConferencePapers/PipeCleanerLessonPlan.doc).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halverson, K. L. (2011). Improving tree-thinking one learnable skill at a time.Education and Outreach Evolution: Austin, 4(1), 95–106.Google Scholar
  21. Halverson, K. L., & Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Learning tree thinking: Developing a newFramework of Representational Competence. In D. F. Treagust & C.-Y. Tsui (Eds.), Models and Modeling in Science Education, Multiple Representations in Biological Education (Vol. 7, pp. 185–201). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Halverson, K. L., Pires, C. J., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Exploring the complexity of tree thinking expertise in an undergraduate systematics course. Science Education, 95(5), 794–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinton, M. E., & Nakhleh, M. B. (1999). Students microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions. The Chemical Educator, 4(5), 158–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemistry Education, 70(9), 701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (2005). Modelling students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maroo, J., & Halverson, K. L. (2011). Tree-Thinking: A branch of mental rotation. Synergy: Different Entities Cooperating for a Final Outcome, 2(2), 53–59.Google Scholar
  28. Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meir, E., Perry, J., Herron, J. C., & Kingsolver, J. (2007). College students’ misconceptions about evolutionary trees. American Biology Teacher, 69, 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meisel, R. P. (2010). Teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate biology students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(4), 621–628.Google Scholar
  31. Meyer, M. R. (2001). Representation in realistic mathematics education. In A. A. Cuoco (Ed.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (2001 Yearbook) (pp. 238–250). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers in Mathematics.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Novick, L. R., Stull, A. T., & Catley, K. M. (2012). Reading Phylogenetic Trees: The Effects of Tree Orientation and Text Processing on Comprehension. BioScience, 62(8), 757–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peterson, M. P. (1994). Cognitive issues in cartographic visualization. In A. M. MacEachren & D. R. F. Taylor (Eds.), Visualization in Modern Cartography (pp. 27–43). Oxford: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rayl, R. (2015). Implications of Desnoyers’ taxonomy for standardization of data visualization: A study of students’ choice and knowledge. Technical Communication, 62(3), 193–208.Google Scholar
  36. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2008). When an image turns into knowledge: The role of visualization in thought experimentation. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Reiss, M. J., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Students understandings of their internal structure as revealed by drawings. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, & P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education - Past, present, and future (pp. 101–106). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roundtree, A. K. (2013). Computer simulation, rhetoric, and the scientific imagination: How virtual evidence shapes science in the making and in the news. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  40. Simon, H. A., Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., & Simon, D. P. (1989). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. In H. A. Simon (Ed.), Models of thought (Vol. 2, pp. 243–256). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Skupin, A. (2011). Mapping texta. Glimpse Journal, 7, 69–77.Google Scholar
  42. Stieff, M. (2007). Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learning and Instruction, 17, 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stieff, M., & Raje, S. (2010). Expert algorithmic and imagistic problem solving strategies in advanced chemistry. Spatial Cognition & Computations, 10, 53–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tabachneck, H. J. M., Leonardo, A. M., & Simon, H. A. (1994). How does an expert use a graph? A model of visual and verbal inferencing in economics. In Proceedings of the 16th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 842, p. 847).Google Scholar
  45. Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trouche, L. (2005). An instrumental approach to mathematics learning in symbolic calculator environments. In The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators (pp. 137–162). US: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar
  48. Upmeier zu Belzen, A., & Krüger, D. (2010). Model competence in biology class. Journal of Teaching Methods on Natural Sciences, 16, 41–57.Google Scholar
  49. Walter, E. M., Halverson, K. L., & Boyce, C. J. (2013). Investigating the relationship between college students acceptance of evolution and tree thinking understanding. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 6, 26.Google Scholar
  50. Woleck, K. R. (2001). Listen to their pictures: An investigation of children’s mathematical drawings. In The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 215–227). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  51. Zazkis, R., & Liljedahl, P. (2004). Understanding primes: The role of representations. Journal. for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 164–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristy L. Daniel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carrie Jo Bucklin
    • 2
  • E. Austin Leone
    • 3
  • Jenn Idema
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  2. 2.Southern Utah UniversityCedar CityUSA
  3. 3.Oklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations