Abstract
This study aimed to examine the effects of embedding multimodal representation instruction within writing to learn tasks on students’ understanding of scientific concepts and scientific writing. Participants of this study were seventy-seven 8th grade students in three pre-existing classes in Korea. Three classes were divided into a treatment group receiving three steps of instruction encouraging the using of multimodal representations in their scientific writing and a control group that did not receive the instruction. Analysis of student writing and understanding of scientific concepts indicated that the treatment group showed a better ability to produce effective scientific writing with multimodal representations than the control group. The students of the treatment group were better at utilizing and embedding multimodal representations in writing than those of the control group. In addition, benefit for classes that received the instruction on embedding multimodal representations related to understanding of scientific concepts was also noted.
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
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2006). Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden. European Journal of Physics, 27(3), 553–560.
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 27–49. doi:10.1002/tea.20265.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122–128.
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354–367.
Hand, B., Prain, V., & Yore, L. (2001). Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning. Studies in Writing, 7, 105–129.
Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on Year 10 biology students’ understandings of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35(4), 343–373.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2007). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education. Netherlands: Springer.
Kozma, R. B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.
Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.
McDermott, M. A. (2009). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation on student construction of chemistry knowledge. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa, USA.
Murcia, K. (2010). Multi-modal representations in primary science: What’s offered by interactive whiteboard technology. Teaching Science, 56(1), 23–29.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Postek, B. (2008). Learning chemistry using multiple external representations. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Netherlands: Springer.
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 179–201.
Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing of learning to learn in science: Implication for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969–983.
Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscription: Toward a theory of representing as a social practice. Review of Education Research, 68, 35–59.
Spiro, R., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix, & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tytler, R. (2007). School innovation in science: A model for supporting school and teacher development. Research in Science Education, 37, 189–216.
Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2006). Learning junior secondary science through multi-modal representations. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(1), 87–107.
Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—Empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 291–314.
Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nam, J., Cho, H. (2016). Examining the Impact of Multimodal Representation Instruction on Students’ Learning of Science. In: Hand, B., McDermott, M., Prain, V. (eds) Using Multimodal Representations to Support Learning in the Science Classroom. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16449-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16450-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)