Learning from and through representations in science

Second International Handbook of Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 145-155

  Waldrip, Bruce ^a   Prain, Vaughan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BALLARAT   (Australia)

^b LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012878678     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_12     Document Type: Chapter

References (65)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). the functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131-152.
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
3. Ainsworth, S. (2008a). How do animations influence learning?. In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction: Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 37-67). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
4. Ainsworth, S. (2008b). How should we evaluate multimedia learning environments. In J.-F. Rouet, R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Understanding multimedia Documents. New York: Springer.
5. Ainsworth, S. (2008c). The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhlel (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191-208). New York: Springer.
6. Ainsworth, S., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17, 286-303.
7. Australian Academy of Science (2007). Primary Connections. www.science.org.au/primary connections. Accessed 10.3.2007.
8. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-609.
9. Brooks, M. (2005). Drawing as a unique mental development tool for young children: Interpersonal and intrapersonal dialogues. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood Education, 6, 80-91.
10. Carolan, J., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science, 54 (1), 18-23.
11. Cook, M. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90, 1073-1091.
12. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343-363.
13. Danish, J. A., & Enyedy, N. (2006). Negotiated representational mediators: How young children decide what to include in their science representations. Science Education, 90, 1-35.
14. De Vries, E. (2006). Students' construction of external representations in design-based learning situations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 213-227.
15. diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293-331.
16. Dove, J. E., Everett, L. A., & Preece, P. F. W. (1999). Exploring a hydrological concept through children's drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 485-497.
17. Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2008). Learning with multiple representations: Extending multimedia learning beyond the lab. Learning and Instruction, 18, 368-378.
18. Eisner, E. W. (1997). Cognition and representation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 349-354.
19. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404-421.
20. Gan, Y., & Scardamalia, M. (2008, April). Drawing out ideas: An investigation of drawings generated by students to advance their understanding of optics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
21. Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction:Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 13-32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
22. Giere, R., & Moffatt, B. (2003). Distributed cognition: Where the cognitive and the social merge. Social Studies of Science, 33, 301-310.
23. Gilbert, J. (2005). Visualisation in science education. New York: Springer.
24. Gilbert, J., Reiner, M., & Nakhlel, M. (2008). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. New York: Springer.
25. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313-331.
26. Gobert, J., & Clement, J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 39-53.
27. Goolkasian, P., & Foos, P. W. (2002). Presentation format and its effect on working memory. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1096-1105.
28. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361-368.
29. Hackling, M. W. & Prain, V. (2005). Primary Connections: Stage 2 research report. Canberra, Australia: Australian Academy of Science.
30. Hand, B. (Ed.). (2007). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the Science Writing Heuristic. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
31. Hayes, D., Symington, D., & Martin, M. (1994). Drawing during science activity in the primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 265-277.
32. Jewitt, C (2007). A multimodal perspective on textuality and contexts. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 15, 275-289.
33. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53, 5-18.
34. Katz, G. L. (1998) What can we learn from Reggio Emilia? In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education (pp. 19-40). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
35. Klein, P. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 143-178.
36. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226.
37. Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 33-47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
38. Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257-274.
39. Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (Eds.). (2008) Learning with animation: Research and application. Cambridge University PressNew York:.
40. Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
41. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of students interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53 (3), 35-45.
42. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
43. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
44. Peirce, C.S. (1931-1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1-8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, & Arthur W Burks [Eds.], Vols. 1-6; Arthur W. Burks [Eds.], Vols. 7-8).
45. Pilot, A., Meijer, M.R., & Bulte, A.M.W. (2009). Determining structure-property relations as explicit rules with meso-level links between macro-and micro representations; A conceptual analysis of context-based tasks as an escape from normal science education. In John K Gilbert, and David Treagust. Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer.
46. Ploetzner, R., Lippitsch, S., Galmbacher, M., Heuer, D., & Scherrer, S. (2008, online). Students' difficulties in learning from dynamic visualisations and how they may be overcome. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 56-65.
47. Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in school science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 179-201
48. Prain, V. (2009). Researching effective pedagogies for developing the literacies of science: Some theoretical and practical considerations. In M. Shelley, L. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 151-168). New York: Springer.
49. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing and learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 609-626.
50. Rahm, J. (2004). Multiple modes of meaning-making in a science center. Science Education, 88, 223-247.
51. Ritchie, S., Rigano, D., & Duane, A. (2008). Writing an ecological mystery in class: Merging genres and learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 143-166.
52. Roberts, D. (1996). Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: The potential role of teacher communities: A response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry, 26, 417-431.
53. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
54. Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. (2003). External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 117-123.
55. Schwartz, D & Heiser, J. (2006). Spatial representations and imagery in learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 283-298). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227-237.
57. Treagust, D. F. (1995). Enhancing students' understanding of science using analogies. In B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Teaching and learning in science: The constructivist classroom (pp. 44-61). Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Brace.
58. Tytler, R., Peterson, S., & Prain. V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: Learning science literacy through a particle representation. Teaching Science, 52 (1), 12-17.
59. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
60. Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning- making resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5 (1), 55-76.
61. Van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 199-212.
62. Van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 575-602.
63. Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 129-140.
64. Waldrip, B. & Prain, V. (2006). Changing representations to learn primary science concepts. Teaching Science, 54 (4), 17-21.
65. Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2006). Learning junior secondary science through multimodal representation. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11, 86-105.