Skip to main content

Assessing Conceptual Understanding in Primary Science Through Students’ Multimodal Representations in Science Notebooks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Science Education in the 21st Century

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

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielsson, K., & Selander, S. (2016). Reading multimodal texts for learning – a model for cultivating multimodal literacy. Designs for Learning, 8(1), 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, N. (2015). Multimodality in science education as productive pedagogy in a PGCE programme. Perspectives in Education, 33(3), 159–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science. Literacy and discursive power. London: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. D., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). Multimodal literacies in science: Currency, coherence and focus. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 87–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London, New York: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, F. V. (2018). Developing a systemic functional approach to teach multimodal literacy. Functional Linguistics., 5, 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K., Sandiford, C., & Unsworth, L. (2017). Functional grammatics. London, New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modelling the water cycle. Science Education, 90(2), 202–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2013). Improving scientific literacy through multimodal communication: Strategies, benefits and challenges. School Science Review, 97(359), 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2010). Representing science literacies: An introduction. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. S. (2015). Reconceptualising science education practices from new literacies research. Science Education International., 26(3), 307–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, T. (2017). Multimodal literacy. Viden om Læsning [Knowledge About Reading], 21, 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Ho .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics