Illustration characteristics regarding visual representations of microcosm in textbooks of chemistry: Evolving a systemic network
Abstract
The illustration characteristics of 221 visual representations (VRs) of submicroscopic particles in nine Greek secondary chemistry school textbooks from the last three decades were analyzed. This analysis was done to develop a taxonomy that could help science teachers and curricula designers evaluate the efficacy of such characteristics on student learning. The sample was quantitatively divided into three distinct time periods and analyzed qualitatively using the phenomenographic method through an inductive approach. The “unit of analysis†was every VR of submicroscopic particles together with its caption. Qualitative analysis revealed characteristics such as the type of VR, the way of expression, the signs used, the dimensions represented, the text included, and the complexity of the VR. Quantitative analysis revealed the effect of time on the characteristics. The taxonomy provides an integrated view of VRs illustration characteristics that could help in realizing the multiple ways in which the meaning of a VR could be interpreted, whereas it can also contribute to future appropriate design and use of such VRs toward a better science curriculum.References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A-P. (2008). Representations of Nature of Science in High School Chemistry Textbooks over the Past Four Decades. Journal of Research of Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855.
Åkerlind, G.S. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 321–334.
Albertazzi, L. (2013). Handbook of experimental phenomenology: visual perception of shape, space and appearance. New York: Wiley.
Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215-241.
Avramiotis, S., Aggelopoulos, V., Kapelonis, G., Sinigalias, P., Spantidis, D., Trikaliti, A., & Filos, G. (2007). Chemistry: B’ Gymnasium. Athens: OEDB.
Barta, N. S., & Stille, J. R. (1994). Grasping the concepts of stereochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(1), 853-855.
Billings, E. M., & Klanderman, D. (2000). Graphical Representations of Speed: Obstacles Preservice K-8 Teachers Experience. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 440–450.
Bliss, J., Monk, M., & Ogborn, J. (1983). Qualitative Data Analysis for Educational Research: a guide of systemic networks (1st ed.). London: Croom Helm.
Boo, H. K. (1998). Students’ understandings of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Education, 35(5), 569–581.
Cheng, M. C., Chou, P. I., Wang, Y. T., & Lin, C. H. (2015). Learning Effects of a Science Textbook Designed with Adapted Cognitive Process Principles on Grade 5 Students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(3), 467-488.
Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847–1868.
Cook, Μ. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091.
Corradi D. M. J., Elen, J., Schraepen, B., & Clarebout, G. (2014). Understanding possibilities and limitations of abstract chemical representations for achieving conceptual understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 715–734.
Devetak, I., & Vogrinc, J. (2013). The Criteria of Evaluating the Quality of the Science Textbooks. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical Analysis of Science Textbooks: Evaluating Instructional Effectiveness (pp. 3-15). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Dimopoulos, K., Koulaidis, V., & Sklaveniti, S. (2003). Towards an analysis of images in school science textbooks and press articles about science and technology, Research in Science Education, 33(2), 189-216.
Eliam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2010). External Visual Representations in Science Learning: The case of relations among system components, International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2335-2366.
Frassari, T., & Drouka-Liapati, P. (1993). Chemistry: B’ Gymnasium. Athens: OEDB.
Georgiadou, T., Kafetzopoulos, K., Provis, N., Spyrelis, N., & Xiniadis. D. (1998). Chemistry: C’ Gymnasium. Athens: OEDB.
Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. In Gilbert, J.K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.) Visualization in science education (pp. 3–24). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The role of visual representations in the learning and teaching of science: An introduction. Asia-Pacific forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1-19.
Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, Ch. (2011). Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 5-14.
Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057–1073.
Han, J., & Roth, W-M. (2006). Chemical Inscriptions in Korean Textbooks: Semiotics of Macro and Microworld. Science Education, 90(2), 173-201.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is Science Difficult to Learn? Things are Seldom What They Seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949-968.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom, London: Bloomsbury.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Liodakis, S., Gakis, D., Theodoropoulos, D., Theodoropoulos, P., & Kallis, A. (2011). Chemistry: A’ Lyceum. Athens: OEDB.
Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography - A research approach investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-49.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Article 20. Retrieved 7 June 2019 from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204 .
Niaz, M., & CoÅŸtu, B. (2009). Presentation of Atomic Structure in Turkish General Chemistry Textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(3), 233-240.
Noh, T., & Scharmann, L.C. (1997). Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on students' conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 199-217.
Nyachwaya, J. M., & Gillaspie, M. (2016). Features of representations in general chemistry textbooks: a peek through the lens of the cognitive load theory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 58-71.
Nyachwaya, J. M., & Wood, N. B. (2014). Evaluation of chemical representations in physical chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 720-728.
Onwu, G. O., & Randall, E. (2006). Some aspects of students’ understanding of a representational model of the particulate nature of matter in chemistry in three different countries. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(4), 226-239.
Papageorgiou, G., Amariotakis, V., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (2017). Visual representations of microcosm in textbooks of chemistry: Constructing a systemic network for their main conceptual framework. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 559 - 571.
Patrick, D. M., Carter, G. & Wiebe, N. E. (2005). Visual Representations of DNA Replication: Middle Grades Students’ Perceptions and Interpretations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 353-365.
Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Roth, W-M. (2003). Prevalence, Function, and Structure of Photographs in High School Biology Textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089-1114.
Rodrıguez, M. A., & Niaz, M. (2004). A Reconstruction of Structure of the Atom and Its Implications for General Physics Textbooks: A History and Philosophy of Science Perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), 409-424.
Roth, W-M., Bowen, G. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Differences in Graph-Related Practices between High School Biology Textbooks and Scientific Ecology Journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 977-1019.
Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997). Common student misconceptions in electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic, and concentration cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 377–398.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Toward an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101–120.
Shehab, S. S., & BouJaoude, S. (2017). Analysis of the Chemical Representations in Secondary Lebanese Chemistry Textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 797–816.
Slough, S. W., McTigue, E. M., Kim S., & Jennings, S. K. (2010). Science Textbooks' Use of Graphical Representation: A Descriptive Analysis of Four Sixth Grade Science Texts. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 301-325.
Souza, Ap. F. D. K., & Porto. A. (2012). Chemistry and Chemical Education through Text and Image: Analysis of Twentieth Century Textbooks Used in Brazilian Context. Science and Education, 21(5), 705-727.
Spiliotopoulou-Papantoniou, V., Karantanou, A., Panagiotakopoulos, C., & Koustourakis, G. (2009). Visual representations of internet in Greek school textbooks and students’ experiences. Education and Information Technologies, 14(3), 205-227.
Stinner, A. (1992). Science textbooks and science teaching: From logic to evidence. Science Education, 76(1), 1–16.
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “tripletâ€. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179-195.
Tartre, L. A. (1990). Spatial orientation skill and mathematical problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 216-229.
Theodoropoulos, P., Papatheofanous, P., & Sideri, F. (2010). Chemistry: C’ Gymnasium. Athens: OEDB.
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.
Tsui, C-Y. & Treagust, D. F. (2013). Introduction to Multiple Representations: Their Importance in Biology and Biological Education. In D. F. Treagust & C.-Y. Tsui (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Biological Education (pp. 3-18). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden., M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 250-270.
Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting Understanding of Chemical Representations: Students’ Use of a Visualization Tool in the Classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
Wu, H.-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3). 465–492.
Yore, L. D., Craig, M. T., & Maguire, T. O. (1998). Index of science reading awareness: An interactive–constructive model, test verification, and grades 4–8 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 27–51.
