nach oben

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Erschienen in:

01.11.2011

Elementary Teachers’ Use of Graphical Representations in Science Teaching

verfasst von: Julianne M. Coleman, Erin M. McTigue, Laura B. Smolkin

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Teacher Education | Ausgabe 7/2011

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to obtain data on United States K-5 elementary school teachers’ self-reported instructional practices with graphical representations. Via an electronic survey, 388 elementary teachers, from throughout the US, reported about their teaching of the interpretation and the production of graphics within science. The main findings indicate that: (1) pointing to or referring to graphical representations in books (92% of respondents) was the most frequently used instructional practice across the disciplines and grade levels; (2) five of nine graphical representations (over 90%) were more frequently used in science instruction than in other content areas, and (3) students’ graphical productions involving drawings, labeling, and oral and written explanations were very infrequent. The findings indicate that while teachers may tacitly use graphics within science instruction, they may not be explicitly teaching about this visual form of communication.

Vorheriger Artikel The Psychometric Evaluation of a Three-Dimension Elementary Science Attitude Survey

Nächster Artikel Exploring a Science Teacher’s Uncertainty with Integrating Engineering Design: An Action Research Study

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The function of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2/3), 131–152.CrossRef

American Association for Advancement of Science, P. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, S. E., & Gansneder, B. M. (1995). Using electronic mail surveys and computer-monitored data for studying computer-mediated communication systems. Social Science Computer Review, 13(1), 33–46.CrossRef

Anning, A. (1997). Drawing out ideas: Graphicacy and young children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 219–239.CrossRef

Baumann, J. F., Hoffman, J. V., Duffy-Hestor, A., & Ro, J. M. (2000). The First R yesterday and today: U.S. elementary reading instruction practices reported by teachers and administrators. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 338–377.CrossRef

Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65–83.CrossRef

Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from text. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 14–21.

Chapman, L. H. (2005). Status of elementary art education: 1997–2004. Studies in Art Education, 46(2), 118–137.

Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., & Moreo, P. J. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax, and web survey methods. International Journal of Market Research, 43, 441–552.

Commeyras, M., & De Groff, L. (1998). Literacy professionals’ perspectives on professional development and pedagogy: A United states survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(4), 434–472.CrossRef

Cooney, T., Cummins, J., Foots, B., Flood, J., Goldston, M. J., Gholston-Key, S., et al. (2006a). See learning in a whole new light: Volume 1 (Grade K Teacher’s Edition). Illinois: Pearson Education.

Cooney, T., Foots, B., Flood, J., Goldston, M. J., Gholston-Key, S., Lapp, D., et al. (2006b). See learning in a whole new light: Volume 1 (Grade 3 Teacher’s Edition). Illinois: Pearson Education.

Couper, M. P., Traugott, M. W., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web survey design and administration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464–494.CrossRef

Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Doblin, J. (1980). A structure for nontextual communication. In P. Kolers, M. Wrolstad, & H. Bouma (Eds.), The processing of visible language (Vol. 2, pp. 89–111). New York: Plenum Press.

Duke, N., & Malette, M. (2004). Literacy research methodologies. New York: Guilford Press.

Freitas, C. A. (2007). Talked images: Examining the contextualised nature of image use. Pedagogies, 2, 151–164.

Goodman, N. (1968). The languages of art. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2006). Moving from border crossing to convergences of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 101–107.CrossRef

Hannus, M., & Hyona, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123.CrossRef

Henderson, G. (1999). Learning with diagrams. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45(2), 17–25.

Hubisz, J. L. (2000). Report on a study of middle school physical science texts. The Physics Teacher, 39, 304–309.CrossRef

Hunter, B., Crismore, A., & Pearson, P. D. (1987). Visual displays in basal readers and social science textbooks. In D. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration: Vol. 2. Instructional issues (pp. 116–135). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522–549.CrossRef

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

Kurkjian, C., & Livingston, N. (2005). Learning to read and reading to learn: Informational series books. Reading Teacher, 58, 592–600.CrossRef

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Leu, D. J. (2000). Our children’s future: Changing the focus of literacy and literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 53, 424–430.

Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (Eds.). (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Martins, I. (2002). Visual imagery in school science texts. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 73–90). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McTigue, E. M. (2009). Does multimedia theory extend to middle school students? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 143–153.CrossRef

Mishra, P. (1999). The role of abstraction in scientific illustrations: Implications for pedagogy. Journal of Visual Literacy, 19(2), 139–158.

Moline, S. (1995). I see what you mean. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishing.

Moline, S. (2006). I see what you mean. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://k-8visual.info/.

Moss, G. (2001). To work or play? Junior age nonfiction as objects of design. Reading, 35, 106–110.CrossRef

National Center for Educational Statistics (2001). Fast response survey system, survey of classes that serve children prior to kindergarten in public schools: 2000–2001. U.S. Department of Education.

National Education Association, The (2006). National teacher day spotlights key issues facing profession: NEA addresses top five teaching trends and outlines ‘portrait of american teacher’. Retrieved April 4, 2006, from http://www.nea.org/app/search/performSearch.do.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Newton, L. D., Newton, D. P., Blake, A., & Brown, K. (2002). Do primary school science books for children show a concern for explanatory understanding? Research in Science and Technological Education, 20, 227–240.CrossRef

Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3, 227–238.CrossRef

Petterson, R. (2002). Information design: An introduction. Philadelphia: John Benjamin.

Pozzer-Ardenghi, L. L., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Making sense of photographs. Science Education, 89, 219–241.CrossRef

Roseman, J., Kesidou, S., Stern, L., & Caldwell, A. (1999). Heavy books light on learning: AAAS project 2061 evaluates middle grades science textbooks. Science Books and Films, 35, 243–247.

Roth, W.-M., & McKinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68, 35–59.

Schnotz, W., Picard, E., & Hron, A. (1993). How do successful and unsuccessful learners use text and graphics? Learning and Instruction, 3, 181–199.CrossRef

Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2004). Improving science instruction with information books: Understanding mulitmodal presentations. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 190–208). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. G. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 191–203.CrossRef

Stone, T. L., Adams, S., & Morioka, N. (2006). Color design workbook: A real-world guide to using color in graphic design. Gloucester, MA: Rockport.

Stylianidou, F., Ormerod, F., & Ogborn, J. (2002). Analysis of science textbook pictures about energy and pupils’ readings of them. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 257–283.CrossRef

Szechter, L. E., & Liben, L. S. (2004). Parental guidance in preschoolers’ understanding of spatial-graphic representations. Child Development, 75, 869–885.CrossRef

Trumbo, J. (1999). Visual literacy and science communication. Science Communication, 20, 409–425.CrossRef

Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Vekeri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays? Educational Psychology, 14(3), 261–312.CrossRef

Walker, R. (1993). Finding a silent voice for the researcher: Using photographs in evaluation and research. In M. Schratz (Ed.), Qualitative voices in educational researcher. London: Falmer Press.

Walpole, S. (1998–1999). Changing texts, changing thinking: Comprehension demands of new science textbooks. The Reading Teacher, 52, 358–369.

Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

Wheeler, A. E., & Hill, D. (1990). Diagram-ease. Why children misinterpret diagrams. The Science Teacher, 57, 58–63.

Winn, W. (1987). Charts, graphs, and diagrams in educational materials. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration (Vol. 1, pp. 152–198). Harrisonburg, VA: R. R. Donnelley & Sons.

Winn, W. (1994). Contributions of perceptual and congnitive processes to the comprehension of graphics. In W. Schnotz & R. W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (Vol. 108, pp. 1–27). New York: North-Holland.CrossRef

Yeh, Y., & McTigue, E. (2009). The frequency, variation, and function of graphical representations within standardized state science tests. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 435–450.CrossRef

Yun, G. W., & Trumbo, C. W. (2000). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail and web form. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1), 1–15.

Titel: Elementary Teachers’ Use of Graphical Representations in Science Teaching
verfasst von: Julianne M. Coleman
Erin M. McTigue
Laura B. Smolkin
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2011
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Teacher Education / Ausgabe 7/2011
Print ISSN: 1046-560X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1847
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9204-1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2011

Erratum to: Using Socioscientific Issues in Primary Classrooms

Cognitive and Attitudinal Predictors Related to Line Graphing Achievement among Elementary Pre-service Teachers

The Psychometric Evaluation of a Three-Dimension Elementary Science Attitude Survey

Exploring a Science Teacher’s Uncertainty with Integrating Engineering Design: An Action Research Study

Observed Implementation of a Science Professional Development Program for K-8 Classrooms

Epistemological Predictors of “Self Efficacy on Learning Biology” and “Test Anxiety Related to Evaluation of Learning on Biology” for Pre-service Elementary Teachers