Research in Science Education

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 65–80 | Cite as

Using Multi-Modal Representations to Improve Learning in Junior Secondary Science

  • Bruce Waldrip
  • Vaughan Prain
  • Jim Carolan


There is growing research interest in both the challenges and opportunities learners face in trying to represent scientific understanding, processes and reasoning. These challenges are increasingly well understood by researchers, including integrating verbal, visual and mathematical modes in science discourse, and making strong conceptual links between classroom experiences and diverse 3D and 2D representations. However, a matching enhanced pedagogy of representation-rich learning opportunities, including their theoretical justification, is much less clearly established. Our paper reports on part of a three-year project to identify practical and theoretical issues entailed in developing a pedagogical framework to guide teacher understanding and practices to maximize representational opportunities for learners to develop conceptual understandings in science.


Representations Mode Science Learning Pedagogy 


  1. Anderberg, E., Svensson, L., Alvegard, C., & Johansson, T. (2008). The epistemological role of language use in learning: a phenomenographic intentional-expressive approach. Educational Research Review, 3, 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple Representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Australian Academy of Science. (2008). Primary connections. Retrieved June 15, 2008, from
  5. Carolan, J., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science, 54, 18–23.Google Scholar
  6. diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ford, M., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Refining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 on theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Newark: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  10. Giere, R., & Moffatt, B. (2003). Distributed cognition: where the cognitive and the social merge. Social Studies of Science, 33, 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gough, A., Beeson, G., Tytler, R., Waldrip, B., & Sharpley, B. (2002). Improving effective science teaching and learning within Australian Schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  12. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–36.Google Scholar
  13. Gunstone, R. (1995). Constructivist learning and the teaching of science. In B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Teaching and learning in science: The constructivist classroom (pp. 3–20). Sydney: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  14. Hackling, M., & Prain. V. (2005). Primary connections. Stage 2 trial: Research report. Australian academy of science.Google Scholar
  15. Hackling, M., Peers, S., & Prain, V. (2007). Primary connections: reforming science teaching in Australian primary Schools. Teaching Science, 55, 12–17.Google Scholar
  16. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40(1).Google Scholar
  18. Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Sàenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215–234). Ottawa: Legas Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Newark: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  22. Lunsford, E., Melear, C., Roth, W. M., Perkins, M., & Hickok, L. (2007). Proliferation of inscriptions and transformations among preservice teachers engaged in authentic science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 538–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peirce, C. (1931). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In Buchler Justus (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (1893-1910) (pp. 98–119). New York: Dover. Reprint 1955.Google Scholar
  25. Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in school science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. G. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1843–1866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberts, D. (1996). Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: the potential role of teacher communities: a response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry, 26, 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning & Instruction, 13, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tytler, R., & Waldrip, B. G. (2002). Improving primary science: schools’ experience of change. Investigating, 18, 23–26.Google Scholar
  32. Tytler, R., Peterson, S., & Prain, V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: learning science literacy through a particle representation. Teaching Science, 52, 12–17.Google Scholar
  33. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2006). Learning junior secondary science through multi-modal representation. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11, 86–105.Google Scholar
  35. Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2007). Using multi-modal representations in junior secondary science. Paper presented at the conference of the European association for research in learning and instruction, Budapest.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash UniversityMonashAustralia
  2. 2.La Trobe UniversityLa TrobeAustralia

Personalised recommendations