MULTIMODAL REPRESENTATIONS ACROSS SCIENTIFIC GENRES: PERSPECTIVES FROM SCIENCE TEACHERS' PRACTICES

Alfredo Padios, Sarah Pascua, Antriman Orleans

Abstract


Multimodal representations have caught science education researchers’ attention due to its immense role in meaning making. While much have been written about this area of research, the interplay between multimodal representations and scientific genres in classrooms is yet to be fully explored.The purpose of this study is to examine multimodal representations across scientific genres from the viewpoints of science teachers.  With Filipino science teachers as respondents, we employed a sequential explanatory mixed methods research design to determine the frequency of occurrence of scientific genres in classrooms as well as the frequency of use of multimodal representations across each scientific genre. First, we administered the questionnaire, analyzed the result then conducted a follow-up interview to determine how and why scientific genres and multimodal representations are utilized. Results revealed that information report and explanation are the genres most utilized by science teachers primarily because they conform to curriculum standards and that these support students’ learning and skills. On the other hand, experimental account and argument genres are used less often largely due to lack of available materials and teacher competence. Across these genres, linguistic-verbal, visual-graphical and gestural-kinesthetic representations are “always” used while material-operational and mathematical-symbolic are used to a lesser extent. More importantly, this study confirms again that science teaching is multimodal mainly to address each student learning needs and make meaning making thus, science learning, easier. Important implications to practice and research are discussed. 


Keywords


genre, multimodal representations, science education, teaching practice

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001

Artun, H., Durukan, A., & Temur, A. (2020). Effects of virtual reality enriched science laboratory activities on pre-service science teachers’ science process skills. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5477–5498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10220-5

Barchard, K. A., & Williams, J. (2008). Practical advice for conducting ethical online experiments and questionnaires for United States psychologists. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1111–1128. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1111

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550

Brenner, P. S., & DeLamater, J. (2016). Lies, damned lies, and survey self-reports? Identity as a cause of measurement bias. Social Psychology Quarterly, 79(4), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272516628298

Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20278

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013176309260

Chiphambo, S. (2012). The role of physical manipulatives in teaching and learning measurement. Learning and Teaching Mathematics. 2012(13), 3-5.

Cope, L. (2015). Math manipulatives: Making the abstract tangible. Delta Journal of Education, 5(1), 10–19.

Daniel, E. (2016). The usefulness of qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in researching problem-solving ability in science education curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(15), 91-100.

Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2010). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016

Edwards, J. R. (2019). Response invalidity in empirical research: Causes, detection, and remedies. Journal of Operations Management, 65(1), 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2018.12.002

Faize, F. A., Husain, W., & Nisar, F. (2017). A critical review of scientific argumentation in science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80353

Fetters, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2017). The journal of mixed methods research starts a new decade: The mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817714066

Gökmen, A., Gürkan, B., & Katircioglu, H. T. (2021). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge and usage level regarding lab equipment and materials. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 15(3), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5448-8_9

Hadji Abas, H., & Marasigan, A. (2020). Readiness of science laboratory facilities of the public junior high school in Lanao Del Sur, Philippines. IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2(2), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3835480

Harris, J., & Porcellato, L. (2018). Opt-out parental consent in online surveys: Ethical considerations. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(3), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618766953

Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<655::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-E

Kalemkus, J., Bayraktar, S., & Çiftçi, S. (2021). Comparative effects of argumentation and laboratory experiments on metacognition, attitudes, and science process skills of primary school children. Journal of Science Learning, 4(2), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v4i2.27825

Kamberelis, G., & Wehunt, M. D. (2012). Hybrid discourse practice and science learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(3), 505–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9395-1

Kapici, H. O., & Akcay, H. (2020). Enhancing pre-service science teachers’ inquiry skills in hands-on and virtual laboratory environments. Themes in ELearning, 13(13), 21–32.

Kayacan, K., & Sonmez Ektem, I. (2019). The effects of biology laboratory practices supported with self-regulated learning strategies on students’ self-directed learning readiness and their attitudes towards science experiments. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 313-323. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.1.313

Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico‐predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052117

Lee, P. H., Andy, C. Y., Wu, C. S., Mak, Y. W., & Lee, U. (2021). Validation of self-reported smartphone usage against objectively-measured smartphone usage in Hong Kong Chinese adolescents and young adults. Psychiatry investigation, 18(2), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2020.0197

Martin, J. (2007). Genre, ideology and intertextuality: A systemic functional perspective. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 2(2), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v2i2.275298

Ngozi, D., & Halima, S. (2015). Inadequate laboratory facilities and utilization: pedagogical hindrance to students’ academic performance in biology in senior secondary certificate examination in Zaria Metropolis, Kaduna State, Nigeria. International Business Research, 8(9), 124-134. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v8n9p124

Niazi, M.-R. K., Asghar, M. A., & Ali, R. (2018). Effect of science laboratory environment on cognitive development of students. Pakistan Journal of Distance and Online Learning, 4(1), 123–134.

Nielsen, W., & Yeo, J. (2022). Introduction to the special issue: Multimodal meaning-making in science. Research in Science Education, 52(3), 751–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10051-z

Nielsen, W., Turney, A., Georgiou, H., & Jones, P. (2020). Working with multiple representations: Preservice teachers’ decision-making to produce a digital explanation. Learning: Research and Practice, 6(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2020.1750673

Nitz, S., Ainsworth, S. E., Nerdel, C., & Prechtl, H. (2014). Do student perceptions of teaching predict the development of representational competence and biological knowledge?. Learning and Instruction, 31, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.003

Nitz, S., Prechtl, H., & Nerdel, C. (2014). Survey of classroom use of representations: Development, field test and multilevel analysis. Learning Environments Research, 17(3), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-014-9166-x

Nordby, M., Knain, E., & Jónsdóttir, G. (2017). Vocational students’ meaning-making in school science – negotiating authenticity through multimodal mobile learning. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 13(1), 52-65. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.2976

Noroña, R. V. (2021). A comparative analysis on the status of laboratory resources and science process skills of grade 11 learners in the schools division of Eastern Samar, Philippines. GNOSI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis, 4(3), 137-147.

Nygård Larsson, P., & Jakobsson, A. (2020). Meaning-making in science from the perspective of students’ hybrid language use. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(5), 811–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09994-z

Passmore, C. M., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535–1554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.577842

Pierson, A. E., Clark, D. B., & Brady, C. E. (2021). Scientific modeling and translanguaging: A multilingual and multimodal approach to support science learning and engagement. Science Education, 105(4), 776–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21622

Preston, C. M., Hubber, P. J., & Xu, L. (2022). Teaching about electricity in primary school multimodality and variation theory as analytical lenses. Research in Science Education, 52(3), 949-973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10047-9

Pun, J. K. H., & Cheung, K. K. C. (2021). Meaning making in collaborative practical work: A case study of multimodal challenges in a Year 10 chemistry classroom. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(1), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1895101

Ramsey, S. R., Thompson, K. L., McKenzie, M., & Rosenbaum, A. (2016). Psychological research in the internet age: The quality of web-based data. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.049

Rocksén, M. (2016). The many roles of “explanation” in science education: A case study. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(4), 837–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9629-5

Serder, M., & Jakobsson, A. (2016). Language games and meaning as used in student encounters with scientific literacy test items. Science Education, 100(2), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21199

Siry, C. (2020). Dialogic pedagogies and multimodal methodologies: Working towards inclusive science education and research. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 6(2), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-BJA10017

Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385–392.

Stern, C., Lizarondo, L., Carrier, J., Godfrey, C., Rieger, K., Salmond, S., ... & Loveday, H. (2021). Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI evidence implementation, 19(2), 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000282

Tang, K. S., & Rappa, N. A. (2021). The role of metalanguage in an explicit literacy instruction on scientific explanation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19, 1311-1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10121-6

Tang, K. S., Jeppsson, F., Danielsson, K., & Bergh Nestlog, E. (2022). Affordances of physical objects as a material mode of representation: A social semiotics perspective of hands-on meaning-making. International Journal of Science Education, 44(2), 179-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.2021313

Tang, K., Tan, S. C., & Yeo, J. (2011). Students’ multimodal construction of the work–energy concept. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1775–1804. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.508899

Tang, K.-S. (2016). The interplay of representations and patterns of classroom discourse in science teaching sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2069–2095. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1218568

Tang, K.-S. (2023). Distribution of visual representations across scientific genres in secondary science textbooks: Analysing multimodal genre pattern of verbal-visual texts. Research in Science Education, 53, 357-375 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10058-6

Tang, K.-S., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. B. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98(2), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21099

Tang, K.-S., Park, J., & Chang, J. (2022). Multimodal genre of science classroom discourse: Mutual contextualization between genre and representation construction. Research in Science Education, 52(3), 755–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09999-1

Tytler, R., & Prain, V. (2010). A framework for re‐thinking learning in science from recent cognitive science perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 2055-2078. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903334849

van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking It: Social desirability response bias in self-report research. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.210155003844269

van Garderen, D., Scheuermann, A., & Poch, A. (2014). Challenges students identified with a learning disability and as high-achieving experience when using diagrams as a visualization tool to solve mathematics word problems. ZDM, 46(1), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0519-1

Van Rooy, W. S., & Chan, E. (2017). Multimodal representations in senior biology assessments: A case study of NSW Australia. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(7), 1237–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9741-y

Volkwyn, T. S., Airey, J., Gregorcic, B., & Heijkenskjöld, F. (2019). Transduction and science learning: Multimodality in the physics laboratory. Designs for Learning, 11(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.118

Williams, M., Tang, K.-S., & Won, M. (2019). ELL’s science meaning making in multimodal inquiry: A case-study in a Hong Kong bilingual school. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-019-0031-1

Yore, L. D., & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: Plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9160-y




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v16i2.55412

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2023 Alfredo Padios, Sarah Pascua, Antriman Orleans



Lisensi Creative Commons
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.