Towards an analysis of visual images in school science textbooks and press articles about science and technology

Research in Science Education

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 189-216

  Dimopoulos, Kostas ^a   Koulaidis, Vasilis ^b,c   Sklaveniti, Spyridoula ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE AEGEAN   (Greece)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS   (Greece)

^c Educational Research Center   (Greece)

Author keywords

Classification; Formality; Framing; Press articles; School science textbooks; Visual images

Indexed keywords

EID: 4344659254     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1025006310503     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Amann, K., & Knorr Cetina, K. (1990). The fixation of (visual) evidence. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 85-122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Amettler, J., & Pinto, R. (2002). Students' reading of innovative images of energy at secondary scool level. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 285-312.
3. Bader, R. (1990). How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: A case study. Journalism Quarterly, 67(1), 88-96.
4. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
5. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor and Francis.
6. Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media: Alternative routes in scientific communication. London: Routledge.
7. Bybee, R. (1997). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Graber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy (pp. 37-68). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education (IPN).
8. Colin, P., Chauvet, F., & Viennot, L. (2002). Reading images in optics: Students' difficulties and teachers' views. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 313-332.
9. De Vos, W., & Reiding, J. (1999). Public understanding of science as a separate subject in secondary schools in The Netherlands. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 711-719.
10. Elliott, W., & Rosenberg, W. L. (1987). Media exposure and beliefs about science and technology. Communication Research, 14(2), 164-188.
11. Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.
12. Gross, A. (1996). The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Halliday, M. A. K. (1996). On the language of physical science. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 54-68). London: The Falmer Press.
14. Hansen, A., Cottle, S., Negrine, R., & Newbold, C. (1998). Mass communication research methods. London: Macmillan Press.
15. Hornig Priest, S. (1995). Information equity, public understanding of science and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 39-54.
16. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Jacobi, D. (1999). Le communication scientifique: Discours, figures, modeles (Science communication: Discourse, figures, models). Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
18. Jacobi, D., & Schiele, B. (1989). Scientific imagery and popularized imagery: Differences and similarities in the photographic portraits of scientists. Social Studies of Science, 19(4), 731-753.
19. Koulaidis, V., Dimopoulos, K., & Matiatos, S. (in press). Science and technology centers as 'Texts.' Proceedings of the ninth learning conference, Beijing, University of Beijing, July, 2002.
20. Koulaidis, V., Dimopoulos, K., & Sklaveniti, S. (2002). Analysing the texts of science and technology: School science textbooks and daily press articles in the public domain. In M. Kalantzis, G. Varnava-Skoura, & B. Cope (Eds.), Learning for the future (pp. 209-240). Sydney, NSW: Common Ground.
21. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2000). Knowledge, identity, pedagogy pedagogic discourse and the representational environments of education in late modernity. Linguistics and Education, 11 (1), 7-30.
22. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of the visual design. London and New York: Routledge.
23. La Follette, M. C. (1990). Making science our own: Public images of science, 1910-1955. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Nafferton, UK: Studies in Education Ltd.
26. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-64.
27. Lemke, J. L. (1993). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
28. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87-113). London and New York: Routledge.
29. Lemke, J. L. (2002). Notes on multimedia and hypertext. Online at: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/ hypermodality/travels-app.htm
30. Lijnse, P. L., Eijkelhof, M. C., Klaasen, W. J. M., & Scholte, R. L. J. (1990). Pupils' and mass-media ideas about radioactivity. International Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 67-78.
31. Lynch, M. (1985). Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science, 15(1), 37-66.
32. Lynch, M. (1990). The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 153-186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Messaris, P. (1994). Visual 'literacy': Image, mind and reality. Oxford, UK: West-View Press.
34. Meyrowitz, J. (1986). Television and interpersonal behaviour: Codes of perception and response. In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world (pp. 253-272). New York: Oxford University Press.
35. Miller, T. (1998). Visual persuasion: A comparison of visuals in academic texts and the popular press. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 29-46.
36. Myers, G. (1990a). Writing biology: The social construction of popular science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
37. Myers, G. (1990b). Every picture tells a story: Illustrations in E. O. Wilson's socio-biology. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 231-265). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Myers, G. (1995). Words and pictures in a biology textbook. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 113-126). Paris: TESOL.
39. Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.
40. Phillips L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader's world meets the world on paper. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317-327.
41. Pinto, R., & Ametller, J. (2002). Students' difficulties in reading images: Comparing results from four national research groups. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 333-341.
42. 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.
43. Roth, W. M., & Laweless, D. (2002). Science, culture and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86(3), 368-385.
44. Trumbo, J. (1999). Visual literacy and science communication. Science Communication, 20(4), 409-425.
45. Veel, R. (1998). The greening of school science: Ecogenesis in secondary classrooms. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 114-149). London and New York: Routledge.