Abstract
The relationship between research and practice is highly controversial and many reports describe a gap between the priorities of educational research and those of teachers. Our research explored the extent of this gap in the specific area of visual representation in science education. To identify research priorities, we searched educational databases in the years 2010–2012 and identified 401 journal papers that addressed visual representation in science education. These were coded in terms of their research questions, representations, research methods and disciplinary domains. In addition, six teachers were interviewed about their use of visual representations in the classroom, their priorities and whether and how they engaged with research. Findings revealed that both researchers and teachers considered visual representation to be extremely important across many aspects of science education. They also discovered many points of overlap in terms of shared interests and questions, in some of the representations mostly frequently referenced, the issue of multiple representations and in some of methodologies used to answer research questions. However, it also showed teachers to have different rationales for using representations, to utilize some representations far more frequently than they were present in research base and to treat as default that teachers mediated representations for students whereas research rarely addressed this issue. One of the solutions frequently proposed when considering the research and practice divide is to encourage and value two-way dialogue between the communities. We hope that in identifying where they converge and diverge, we can help make such conversations more fruitful.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ainsworth, S. (2008). How should we evaluate multimedia learning environments. In J.-F. Rouet, R. Lowe, & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Understanding multimedia comprehension. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-73336-4.
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097. doi:10.1126/science.1204153.
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.
Bates, R. (2002). The impact of educational research: Alternative methodologies and conclusions*. Research Papers in Education, 17(4), 403–408. doi:10.1080/0267152022000031379.
Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics: diagrams, networks, maps (W. J. Berg, Trans.). Madison: University of Madison Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Oxford: Routledge.
Donmez, F. I., Odabasi, H. F., & Erol, O. (2012). Twitter for collaborative professional development. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Austin, Texas, USA.
Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 239–244.
Gooding, D. C. (2004). Cognition, construction and culture: Visual theories in the sciences. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4((3–4)), 551–593.
Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 78–80.
Goswami, D., & Stillman, P. R. (1987). Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1996). Teaching as a research-based profession: Possibilities and prospects. Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture, London.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434.
Hostetter, A., & Alibali, M. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 495–514. doi:10.3758/pbr.15.3.495.
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), 5–28.
Huk, T., Steinke, M., & Floto, C. (2010). The educational value of visual cues and 3D-representational format in a computer animation under restricted and realistic conditions. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 38(5), 455–469.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. doi:10.3102/0013189x033007014.
Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.
Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007). Formal notations are diagrams: Evidence from a production task. Memory & Cognition, 35(8), 2033–2040.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (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.
Levin, B. (2013). To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of Education, 1(1), 2–31. doi:10.1002/rev3.3001.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration: I. Basic research (pp. 51–85). New York: Springer.
Lohse, G. L., Biolsi, K., Walker, N., & Rueler, H. (1994). A classification of visual representations. Communications of the A.C.M, 37(12), 36–49.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(3), 357–382. doi:10.1080/03057640500319065.
Oancea, A., & Furlong, J. (2007). Expressions of excellence and the assessment of applied and practice‐based research. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 119–137. doi:10.1080/02671520701296056.
Olympiou, G., Zacharias, Z., & deJong, T. (2012). Making the invisible visible: Enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41, 1–22.
Ratcliffe, M., Bartholomew, H., Hind, A., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (2004). Science education practitioners’ views of research and its influence on their practice. York: Department of Educational Studies, University of York.
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. Chichester: Wiley.
Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Imhof, B., & Kammerer, Y. (2009). The effects of realism in learning with dynamic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 481–494. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.08.001
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21. doi:10.3102/0013189x031007015.
Torgerson, C. J., & Torgerson, D. J. (2001). The need for randomised controlled trials in educational research. British Journal of Educational Studies, 49(3), 316–328.
Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2009). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316. doi:10.1080/01411920902919257.
Williams, D., & Coles, L. (2007). Teachers’ approaches to finding and using research evidence: An information literacy perspective. Educational Research, 49(2), 185–206. doi:10.1080/00131880701369719.
Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842. doi:10.1002/tea.1033.
Yates, L. (2004). What does good education research look like?: Situating a field and its practices. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International.
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to the teachers who agreed to participate in this study and to the editors who allowed us to be so late in submitting this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Coding Rubric
Appendix: Coding Rubric
Code | Definition |
|---|---|
Research question | |
Curriculum material | Discusses a lesson plan, an innovative piece of software, analysis of a textbook etc. Does not report student or teachers use of it, responses to it, etc |
Design | Examines a design choice within a representational format; for example segmentation of an animation or sequenced or simultaneous text or pictures |
Effectiveness | Is a representation effective at teaching something; e.g. do animations help student understand the cardio-vascular system |
Engagement | Is a representation engaging? What are learners affective responses to the representations? |
Individual difference | Individual differences (gender, expertise, spatial ability etc) in students learning with representations or with teachers teaching with representations |
Student practices | This codes refers to what do students do with a representation and also if students have been directed to perform a particular practice; for example, how students coordinate representations or asking learners to self explain a picture. |
Student understanding | Explores what students understand or misunderstand about a topic or representation |
Teacher practices | What do teachers do with a representation? |
Teacher understanding | Explores what teachers understand or misunderstand about a topic or representation |
Test | Explores the way that a representation can be used as an assessment; for example; how useful are concepts maps for assessing student understanding of a topic |
Theory | Research which specially tests, refines or develops a theory of learning or teaching with representations but not one which simply uses a theory to help explain other research. |
Representation | |
Animation | A dynamic representation which is pictorial |
Body | Gesture or whole body enactment and haptic representations |
Diagram | A 2d graphical representation which relies on some abstraction |
Drawing | Self generated graphical representations |
Dynamic geometry | Specific geometry software |
Equation | Any kind of symbolic formula include maths and chemistry |
Graph | Any type of graph, line graph, bar chart, pie chart etc |
Map | Geographical map |
Model | Physical 3d model not digital also using for manipulative |
Multimedia | This term is used when the system is described as multimedia without further specification such as animation + narration. |
Node and link | Any type of node and link representation (e.g. argumentation map, mind map, concept map) |
Number | Numbers in digit form |
Photo | Photorealistic picture |
Picture | Depictive graphical representation (not self generated) |
Narration | Spoken text provided by software not spoken by learners |
Table | All tabular representation |
Talk | Talk by learners |
Text | Written text presented to students |
Video | Dynamic visualisation that is photorealistic |
Visualisation software | Digital visualisation not of the specific types already coded |
Write | Written text constructed by student |
Method | |
Analytic | Expert analysis of an representational practice using a specified approach (e.g. semiotic analysis) |
Assessment | A method based primarily of getting people to answer questions, perform a task (and can include interviewing people as they perform the task) |
Case study | Explores activity in a context and can include a range of methods |
Correlational | Relates two or more variables collected by survey; experiments which reports correlation between process and outcome variables are not coded as correlational |
Description | A description of representation or pedagogy which is likely to be intuitive |
Field expt. | Experiment in a field context and could include quasi-experiments |
Interview | A method based primarily of getting verbal responses to questions without specific emphasis on performing tasks |
Lab expt. | Experiment an artificial context but could include a school setting if it used a lab approach (e.g. not a normal class, students random assignment, learning something not in their course) |
Meta-analysis | Statistical process to combine findings from different studies |
Survey | Surveys students or teachers, not case study as no real description of context; not correlational as not related to other measures |
Domain | |
Astronomy | Study of celestial objects |
Biochemistry | Chemical processes in biological organisms |
Biology | Study of life and living organisms |
Chemistry | Study of the composition, properties and behavior of matter |
Comprehension | When domain is not specified (e.g. reading a complex text) |
Computer science | Approaches to computation includes programming |
Earth science | A broad category for understanding the earth |
Engineering | A broad category for all topics related to understanding machines and structures when no specific information is provided |
Epistemology | Refers to teachers or students beliefs about knowledge |
Maths | A board term for all mathematical topics including algebra, geometry, calculus etc |
Other | Topics such as history, English etc when included in a paper which was also about STEM disciplines |
Pedagogy | When the topic represented was pedagogy rather than the focus of research question |
Physics | Understanding such concepts as matter, force, space and time |
Psychology | Refers to human mental function and behaviour |
Science | When the domain is just described as science |
Stats | Study of the organization, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data |
Technology | Used when the topic is technology without specific information |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ainsworth, S., Newton, L. (2014). Teaching and Researching Visual Representations: Shared Vision or Divided Worlds?. In: Eilam, B., Gilbert, J. (eds) Science Teachers’ Use of Visual Representations. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06526-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06526-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06525-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06526-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)