Do student perceptions of teaching predict the development ofrepresentational competence and biological knowledge?

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 31, Issue , 2014, Pages 13-22

  Nitz, Sandra ^a,d   Ainsworth, Shaaron E ^b   Nerdel, Claudia ^c   Prechtl, Helmut ^a,e  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^d HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Assessment; Instructional quality; Representational competence; Students' perceptions of teaching practices

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892475537     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Ainsworth S.E. DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 2006, 16(3):183-198.
2. Ainsworth S.E., Prain V., Tytler R. Drawing to learn in science. Science 2011, 333(6046):1096-1097.
3. Baumert J., Blum W., Brunner M., Dubberke T., Jordan A., Klusmann U., et al. Professionswissen von Lehrkräften, kognitiv aktivierender Mathematikunterricht und die Entwicklung von mathematischer Kompetenz (COACTIV): Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente (Materialien aus der Bildungsforschung Nr. 83) 2009, Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, Berlin, Germany.
4. Baumert J., Kunter M., Blum W., Brunner M., Voss T., Jordan A., et al. Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal 2010, 47(1):133-180. 10.3102/0002831209345157.
5. Canham M., Hegarty M. Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction 2010, 20:155-165. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.014.
6. Clausen M. Unterrichtsqualität - Eine Frage der Perspektive? 2002, Waxmann, Münster, Germany.
7. De Jong R., Westerhof K.J. The quality of student ratings of teacher behavior. Learning Environments Research 2001, 4:51-85. 10.1023/A:1011402608575.
8. Eilam B. Teaching, learning, and visual literacy: The dual role of visual representation in the teaching profession 2012, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
9. Fauth B., Decristan J., Rieser S., Klieme E., Büttner G. Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction 2014, 29:1-9. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001.
10. Fraser B.J. Science learning environments: assessment, effects and determinants. International handbook of science education 2003, 527-564. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. B.J. Fraser, K.G. Tobin (Eds.).
11. Gilbert J.K. Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. Visualization in science education 2005, 9-27. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. J.K. Gilbert (Ed.).
12. Greeno J.G., Hall R. Practicing representations: learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan 1997, 78:361-367. 10.2307/20405797.
13. Hand B., Prain V., Lawrence C., Yore L.D. Awriting in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education 1999, 21:1021-1035. 10.1080/095006999290165.
14. Hox J.J. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
15. Hubber P., Tytler R., Hastam F. Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education 2010, 40:5-28. 10.1007/s11165-009-9154-9.
16. Hu L.-t., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1999, 6(1):1-55. 10.1080/10705519909540118.
17. Kattmann U. Texte. Fachdidaktik biologie 2008, 357-366. Aulis-Verlag Deubner, Köln, Germany. 8th ed. H. Gropengiesser, U. Kattmann (Eds.).
18. Kohl P.B., Finkelstein N.D. Effect of instructional environment on physics students' representational skills. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 2006, 2:1-19. 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010102.
19. Kozma R. The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13:205-226. 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X.
20. Kozma R., Chin E., Russell J., Marx N. The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2000, 9:105-143. 10.1207/s15327809jls0902_1.
21. Kozma R., Russell J. Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1997, 34:949-968. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199711)34:9<949::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-U.
22. Kozma R., Russell J. Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence. Visualizations in science education 2005, 121-146. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. J.K. Gilbert (Ed.).
23. Krajcik J.S., Sutherland L.M. Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science 2010, 328:456-459. 10.1126/science.1182593.
24. Kress G., Jewitt C., Ogborn J., Tsatsarelis C. Multimodal teaching and learning: Rhetorics of the science classroom 2001, Continuum, London, England.
25. Kunter M., Baumert J. Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research 2006, 9:231-251. 10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7.
26. Kunter M., Baumert J., Köller O. Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction 2007, 17:494-509. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.002.
27. Lemke J.L. Talking science: Language, learning, and value 1990, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ.
28. Lemke J.L. The literacies of science. Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice 2004, 33-47. International Reading Association, Arlington, VA. E.W. Saul (Ed.).
29. Lipowsky F., Rakoczy K., Pauli C., Drollinger-Vetter B., Klieme E., Reusser K. Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students' understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem. Learning and Instruction 2009, 19:527-537. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.001.
30. Lowe R., Schnotz W., Rasch T. Aligning affordances of graphics with learning task requirements. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2011, 25:452-459. 10.1002/acp.1712.
31. Lüdtke O., Robitzsch A., Trautwein U., Kunter M. Assessing the impact of learning environments: how to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2009, 34:120-131. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001.
32. Lüdtke O., Trautwein U., Kunter M., Baumert J. Reliability and agreement of student ratings of the classroom environment: a reanalysis of TIMSS data. Learning Environments Research 2006, 9:215-230. 10.1007/s10984-006-9014-8.
33. Merzyn G. Acomparison of some linguistic variables in fifteen science texts. Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes 1996, 361-369. Falmer Press, London, England. G. Welford, J. Osborne, P. Scott (Eds.).
34. Mortimer E., Scott P. Analysing discourse in the science classroom. Improving science education 2000, 127-143. Open University Press, Buckingham, PA. R. Millar, J. Leach, J. Osborne (Eds.).
35. Nitz S., Nerdel C., Prechtl H. Die Verwendung von Fachsprache im Biologieunterricht: Entwicklung eines Erhebungsinstruments. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften 2012, 18:117-139.
36. Nitz, S., Prechtl, H., and Nerdel, C. (in press). Survey of classroom use of representations: development, field test and multilevel analysis. Learning Environments Research.
37. Norris S.P., Phillips L.M. How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education 2003, 87:224-240. 10.1002/sce.10066.
38. Prain V., Waldrip B.G. An exploratory study of teachers' and students' use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education 2006, 28:1843-1866. 10.1080/09500690600718294.
39. Schnotz W. Sign systems, technologies, and the acquisition of knowledge. Multimedia learning: Cognitive and instructional issues 2001, 9-29. Pergamon, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. J.-F. Rouet, J. Levonen, A. Biardeau (Eds.).
40. Schroeder S., Richter T., McElvany N., Hachfeld A., Baumert J., Schnotz W., et al. Teachers' beliefs, instructional behaviors, and students' engagement in learning from texts with instructional pictures. Learning and Instruction 2011, 21:403-415. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.001.
41. Scott P. Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: a Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education 1998, 32:45-80. 10.1080/03057269808560127.
42. Seidel T., Shavelson R.J. Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: the role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research 2007, 77(4):454-499. 10.3102/0034654307310317.
43. Snijders T., Bosker R. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling 1999, Sage, London, England.
44. Stieff M. Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2011, 48:1137-1158. 10.1002/tea.20438.
45. Stieff M., Hegarty M., Deslongchamps G. Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays. Cognition and Instruction 2011, 29:123-145. 10.1080/07370008.2010.507318.
46. Taskin V., Bernholt S. Students' understanding of chemical formulae: a review of empirical research. International Journal of Science Education 2012, 1-29. 10.1080/09500693.2012.744492.
47. Tytler R., Prain V., Peterson S. Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education 2007, 37:313-331. 10.1007/s11165-006-9028-3.
48. Van Meter P., Aleksic M., Schwartz A., Garner J. Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2006, 31:142-166. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.001.
49. Van Meter P., Garner J. The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review 2005, 17:285-325. 10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3.
50. Wagner W., Göllner R., Helmke A., Trautwein U., Lüdtke O. Construct validity of student perceptions of instructional quality is high, but not perfect: dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent assessments. Learning and Instruction 2013, 28:1-11. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.003.
51. Waldrip B.G., Prain V., Carolan J. Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education 2010, 40:65-80. 10.1007/s11165-009-9157-6.
52. Wellington J., Osborne J. Language and literacy in science education 2001, Open University Press, Buckigham, PA.
53. Wu H.-K., Puntambekar S. Pedagogical affordances of multiple external representations in scientific processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2012, 21(6):754-767. 10.1007/s10956-011-9363-7.
54. Yore L.D., Hand B. Epilogue: plotting a research agenda for multiplerepresentations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education 2010, 40:93-101. 10.1007/s11165-009-9160-y.
55. Yore L.D., Pimm D., Tuan H.-L. The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2007, 5:559-589. 10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4.