Abstract
This chapter reports on a study which explored how teachers could identify gaps in their students’ conceptual understanding, and facilitate students’ use of both appropriate content vocabulary and visual representations to communicate scientific concepts through the use of science notebooks. The study pilots a framework that was developed for assessing, through students’ artefacts, the extent to which students’ conceptual understanding, specific content vocabulary, and the ability to show relationships between concepts were made explicit. Implications are discussed, with attention given to refinements of the framework.
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
References
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49.
Allison, E., & Goldston, M. J. (2018). Modern scientific literacy: A case study of multiliteracies and scientific practices in a fifth grade classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(3), 270–283.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Scotter, P. V, Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & N. Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. A report prepared for the Office of Science Education, National Institutes of Health. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Danielsson, K., & Selander, S. (2016). Reading multimodal texts for learning – a model for cultivating multimodal literacy. Designs for Learning, 8(1), 25–36.
Edwards, N. (2015). Multimodality in science education as productive pedagogy in a PGCE programme. Perspectives in Education, 33(3), 159–176.
English Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS). (2011). Whole school approach to effective communication. Retrieved from http://www.elis.moe.edu.sg/professional-learning/subject-literacy.
Hargrove, T. Y., & Nesbit, C. (2003). Science notebooks: Tools for increasing achievement across the curriculum. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED482720).
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science. Literacy and discursive power. London: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Ho, M. L. C., Nelson, M. E., & Mueller-Wittig, W. (2011). Design and implementation of a student-generated virtual museum in a language curriculum to enhance collaborative multimodal meaning-making. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1083–1097.
Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Klein, P. D., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). Multimodal literacies in science: Currency, coherence and focus. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 87–92.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London, New York: Arnold.
Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.
Lim, F. V. (2018). Developing a systemic functional approach to teach multimodal literacy. Functional Linguistics., 5, 13.
Lim, F. V., O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., & E, M. K. L. (2015). Teaching visual texts with multimodal analysis software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 915–935.
Lim, F. V., & Tan, K. Y. S. (2018). Developing multimodal literacy through teaching the critical viewing of films in Singapore. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy., 63(3), 291–300.
Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K., Sandiford, C., & Unsworth, L. (2017). Functional grammatics. London, New York: Routledge.
Marquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modelling the water cycle. Science Education, 90(2), 202–226.
McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2013). Improving scientific literacy through multimodal communication: Strategies, benefits and challenges. School Science Review, 97(359), 15–20.
Mills, K. A., & Unsworth, L. (2017). Multimodal literacy. In Online Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved from http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.232.
Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843–1866.
Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2010). Representing science literacies: An introduction. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 1–3.
Reed, M. (2012). Science notebooks: Improving students’ conceptual and scientific practices. Paper submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Science Education. Montana: Montana State University.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M. & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Looking into students’ science notebooks: What do teachers do with them? CSE Technical Report 562. Los Angeles, CA: Centre for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing, University of California.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tang, K. S., Tan, S. C., & Yeo, J. (2011). Students’ multimodal constructs of the work-energy concept. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1775–1804.
Tang, K. S., Ho, C., & Putra, G. B. S. (2016). Developing multimodal communication competencies: A case of disciplinary literacy focus in Singapore. In B. Hand, M. McDermott, & V. Prain (Eds.), Using multimodal representations to support learning in the Science classroom (pp. 135–158). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Tang, K. S. (2015). Reconceptualising science education practices from new literacies research. Science Education International., 26(3), 307–324.
Towndrow, P. A., Nelson, M. E., & Yusuf, W. F. B. M. (2013). Squaring literacy assessment with multimodal design: An analytic case for semiotic awareness. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(4), 327–355.
Unsworth, L. (2014). Investigating point of view in picture books and animated movie adaptations. In K. Mallam (Ed.), Picture books and beyond: Ways of reading and discussing multimodal texts (pp. 92–107). Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association of Australia.
van Leeuwen, T. (2017). Multimodal literacy. Viden om Læsning [Knowledge About Reading], 21, 14–21.
Yeo, J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2017). The role of representations in students’ explanations of phenomena in physics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. E. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple representations in physics education (pp. 255–287). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Noorhafidzah Shaffi, Amy Tan Li-Xian, Wong Choo Lat supported by Chew Mun Wai of Ang Mo Kio Primary School for their invaluable support and contribution to this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ho, C., Lim, F.V. (2020). Assessing Conceptual Understanding in Primary Science Through Students’ Multimodal Representations in Science Notebooks. In: Teo, T.W., Tan, AL., Ong, Y.S. (eds) Science Education in the 21st Century. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5155-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5155-0_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-5154-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-5155-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)