Table Of ContentModels and Modeling in Science Education
Billie Eilam
John K. Gilbert Editors
Science Teachers’
Use of Visual
Representations
Science Teachers’ Use of Visual Representations
Models and Modeling in Science Education
Volume 8
Series Editor
Professor Emeritus John K. Gilbert
The University of Reading and King’s College London, UK
Editorial Board
Professor Mei-Hung Chiu
Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University,
Taiwan
Dr. Gail Chittleborough
Faculty of Education, Deakin University, Australia
Professor Barbara Crawford
Department of Mathematics and Science Education, The University of Georgia, USA
Assoc. Prof. Billie Eilam
Department of Learning, Instruction, and Teacher Education, University of Haifa,
Israel
Professor David Treagust
Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University, Western Australia
Professor Jan Van Driel
ICLON-Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Dr. Rosaria Justi
Faculty of Science, University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
Dr. Ji Shen
Faculty of Science, University of Florida, USA
For further volumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/6931
Billie Eilam (cid:129) John K. Gilbert
Editors
Science Teachers’ Use
of Visual Representations
Editors
Billie Eilam John K. Gilbert
Faculty of Education King’s College London and The University
University of Haifa of Reading
Haifa, Israel Mayford, Woking, UK
ISSN 1871-2983 ISSN 2213-2260 (electronic)
ISBN 978-3-319-06525-0 ISBN 978-3-319-06526-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-06526-7
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014944380
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
T his work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifi cally for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
T he use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Contents
Part I Research into Teaching with Visual Representations
1 The Significance of Visual Representations
in the Teaching of Science ....................................................................... 3
Billie Eilam and John K. Gilbert
2 Teaching and Researching Visual Representations:
Shared Vision or Divided Worlds?......................................................... 29
Shaaron Ainsworth and Len Newton
Part II Teachers’ Selections, Construction,
and Use of Visual Representations
3 Representing Visually: What Teachers Know
and What They Prefer ............................................................................ 53
Billie Eilam , Yael Poyas , and Rachel Hashimshoni
4 Slowmation: A Process of Explicit Visualization .................................. 85
John Loughran
5 Secondary Biology Teachers’ Use of Different
Types of Diagrams for Different Purposes ............................................ 103
Yang Liu , Mihye Won , and David F. Treagust
6 Teaching Stoichiometry with Particulate Diagrams – Linking
Macro Phenomena and Chemical Equations ....................................... 123
Maurice Man Wai Cheng and John K. Gilbert
v
vi Contents
Part III Teachers’ Use of Visual Representations
in Culturally-Diverse Classrooms
7 Teachers’ Thoughts on Visualisations in Diverse
Cultural Settings: The Case of France and Pakistan ........................... 149
Erica de Vries and Muhammad Ashraf
8 The Implications of Culture
for Teachers’ Use of Representations .................................................... 171
Bruce Waldrip , Franco Rodie , and Sutopo Sutopo
9 The Interplay Between Language and Visualization:
The Role of the Teacher .......................................................................... 195
Liliana Mammino
10 Visualizations in Popular Books About Chemistry .............................. 227
John K. Gilbert and Ana Afonso
Part IV Teachers Supporting Student Learning
from Visual Representations
11 Teachers Using Interactive Simulations
to Scaffold Inquiry Instruction in Physical Science Education .......... 249
David R. Geelan and Xinxin Fan
12 Transformed Instruction: Teaching in a Student-Generated
Representations Learning Environment ............................................... 271
Orit Parnafes and Rotem Trachtenberg-Maslaton
13 The Laboratory for Making Things: Developing Multiple
Representations of Knowledge ............................................................... 291
Jeanne Bamberger
Part V Overview
14 Developing Science Teachers’ Representational
Competence and Its Impact on Their Teaching ................................... 315
John K. Gilbert and Billie Eilam
Index ................................................................................................................. 331
Contributors
Ana Afonso Department of Education , University of Minho , Minho , Portugal
Shaaron Ainsworth L earning Sciences Research Institute, School of Education,
Jubilee Campus University of Nottingham , Nottingham , UK
Muhammad Ashraf Laboratory of Educational Sciences , Université Grenoble
Alpes , Grenoble , France
Jeanne Bamberger Music Department , UC-Berkeley , Berkeley , CA , USA
Maurice Man Wai Cheng Division of Science, Mathematics and Computing
Education , University of Hong Kong , Pokfulam, Hong Kong , China
Billie Eilam Faculty of Education , University of Haifa , Haifa , Israel
Xinxin Fan School of Education , The University of Queensland , Brisbane , QLD ,
Australia
David R. Geelan School of Education and Professional Studies , Griffi th University
Gold Coast , Southport , QLD , Australia
John K. Gilbert Kings’s College London and The University of Reading , Mayford,
Woking , UK
Rachel Hashimshoni Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art , Herzliya , Israel
Yang Liu Science and Mathematics Education Centre , Curtin University , Perth ,
WA , Australia
John Loughran Department of Education , Monash University , Clayton , VIC ,
Australia
Liliana Mammino Department of Chemistry , University of Venda , Thohoyandou ,
South Africa
Len Newton Learning Sciences Research Institute, School of Education , Jubilee
Campus University of Nottingham , Nottingham , UK
vii
viii Contributors
Orit Parnafes Ben-Gurion University of the Negev , Beer Sheva , Israel
Yael Poyas D epartment of Graduate Studies, O ranim, College of Education, Q iryat
Tivon , Israel
Franco Rodie Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development ,
Solomon Islands
Sutopo Sutopo State University of Malang , Malang, Indonesia
Rotem Trachtenberg-Maslaton Ben-Gurion University of the Negev , Beer Sheva ,
Israel
David F. T reagust Science and Mathematics Education Centre , Curtin University ,
Perth , WA , Australia
Erica de Vries Laboratory of Educational Sciences , Université Grenoble Alpes ,
Grenoble , France
Bruce Waldrip Faculty of Education , University of Tasmania , Launceston ,
Australia
Mihye Won Science and Mathematics Education Centre , Curtin University , Perth ,
WA , Australia
Part I
Research into Teaching with Visual
Representations
1.1 Introduction
The two chapters in this part provide the backdrop against which research studies
into key aspects of the practicalities of teaching with visualizations are subsequently
presented.
In the fi rst of them, Eilam and Gilbert (this volume, Chap. 1 ) justify attention
being paid to visualizations and identify the themes that make research into science
teachers’ use of visualizations a matter of great importance. The central role of
models in scientifi c methodology is assumed and visualization is identifi ed as a key
component in the creation and employment of all models. This emphasis is gaining
ever- greater importance as the ways in which visualizations can be presented with
the aid of computers become more accessible and intellectually more powerful, this
leading to their heightened role in teaching. The bulk of the chapter is devoted to
identifying the myriad factors that may control the effectiveness of that teaching.
First, teachers may have, like many of their students, ‘alternative conceptions’ of the
central concepts of science. Where this occurs, the visualizations accompanying
them will be, at best, inaccurate and, at worst, misleading to their students. Second,
the fragmentation of ideas in the typical school science curriculum, a very common
event, means that the relationships between visualizations of the many component
concepts in that curriculum will lack a necessary coherence across and between
them. Third, teachers’ prior knowledge about visualizations as such will, in the
absence of previous systematic professional development activities, probably be
defi cient in some respects. Teachers may well only have a partial knowledge of the
conventions that govern the nature of the different types of visualization and the
codes of relationship to what they represent (the referents). In particular, teachers
may lack an overt awareness of the intellectual demands of the learning tasks that
they have to address. These will be governed by the natures of the referents involved
and the implications of whether they are: concrete or abstract; explicitly or implic-
itly identifi ed. Also, are the events in which these referents are involved: simple or
complex; linear or cyclic in nature; have a clear directionality or are they in
