To What Extent Do Teachers of Gifted Students Identify Inner and Intermodal Relations in Knowledge Representation?

Davut Gül, Bayram Costu

Abstract


Gifted students get bored of reading authoritative and descriptive multimodal texts. They need coherent, explanatory, and interactive texts. Moreover, because of the pandemic, gifted students took courses online, and teachers had to conduct their lessons on digital online tools with multimodal representations. They posted supplementary teaching materials as multimodal texts to the students. Hence, teachers of gifted students should pay attention to inner and intermodal relations to meet the needs of gifted students and support their learning experience. The research aims at examining to what extent teachers of gifted students identify inner and intermodal relations because before designing these relations, the teacher should recognize these types of relations. The educational descriptive case study was applied. Six experienced primary school teachers were involved. The data were analyzed via content analysis. The results showed that teachers just identified the primitive level of inner and intermodal relations. The conclusion can be drawn that several educational design research should be increased to construct professional development courses for teachers about this issue. Learning and applying inner and intermodal relations are crucial for teachers of gifted students, in addition to having curiosity, they have a high cognitive level in different areas, thus they demand advanced forms of multimodal texts.


Keywords


Gifted Education; Multimodality; Intra-Text Cohesion; Intermodal Relations; Online Teaching

Full Text:

PDF

References


Airey, J., & Linder, C., (2017). Social semiotics in university physics education. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. E. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple representations in physics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_5

Andersen, M. F., & Munksby, N. (2018). Didactical Design Principles to Apply When Introducing Student-Generated Digital Multimodal Representations in the Science Classroom. Designs for Learning, 10(1), 112-122. DOI: 10.16993/dfl.100

Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Text genre as a factor in the formation of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 403–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20063

Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195. DOI: 10.1177/0741088307313177

Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2003). Learning biology through research papers: A stimulus for question asking by high-school students. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 2(4), 266–274. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.02-12-0062.

Chan, E. (2010). Integrating visual and verbal meaning in multimodal text comprehension: Towards a model of inter-modal relations. In S. Dreyfus, S. Hood, & M. Stenglin (Eds.), Semiotic margins: Meaning in multimodalities (pp. 144–167). London: Continuum International Publishing Group. DOI: 10.1007/s13384-011-0023-y

Chan, E., & Unsworth, L. (2011). Image-language interaction in online reading environments: Challenges for students’ reading comprehension. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38 (2), 181–202. DOI: 10.1007/s13384-011-0023-y

Daly, A., & Unsworth, L. (2011). Analysis and comprehension of multimodal texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(1), 61–80.

Daniel, K. L., Bucklin, C. J., Leone, E. A., & Idema, J. (2018). Towards a Definition of Representational Competence. In Towards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education (pp. 3-11). Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319- 89945-9_1

Danielsson, K. (2013). Multimodal literacy i klassrummet. Möjligheter och begränsningar [Multimodal literacy in the classroom. Possibilities and constraints]. In Skjelbred, D., & Veum (red.), Literacy i læringskontekster. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 120– 136.

Danielsson, K., & Selander, S. (2016). Reading Multimodal Texts for Learning--A Model for Cultivating Multimodal Literacy. Designs for learning, 8(1), 25-36. http://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.72

Davis, A. G., Rimm, S. B., and Siegle, D. (2014). Education of Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education Limited.

Eilam, B., Poyas, Y., & Hashimshoni, R. (2014). Representing visually: What teachers know and what they prefer. In B. Eilam & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers’ use of visual representations (pp. 53–83). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-06526-7_3

Forey, G., & Polias, J. (2017). Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English. In A.Llinares & T.Moton (Eds.), Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.47.09for

Gillies, R. M., Carroll, A., Cunnington, R., Rafter, M., Palghat, K., Bednark, J., & Bourgeois, A. (2016). Multimodal representations during an inquiry problem-solving activity in a Year 6 science class: A case study investigating cooperation, physiological arousal and belief states. Australian Journal of Education, 60(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944116650701

Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (p. 19–50). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

He, Q., & Forey, G. (2018). Meaning-making in a secondary science classroom: A systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis. In K. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 183–202). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_12

Housond, A. M. (2016). Gifted Characteristics and the Implications for the Curriculum. In K. R. Stephens & F. A. Karnes (Eds.), Introduction to Curriculum Design in Gifted Education (pp. 12-20). Prufrock Press.

Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about the force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40, 5–28. doi:10. 1007/s11165-009-9154-9

Jaipal, K. (2010). Meaning-making through multiple modalities in a biology classroom: A multimodal semiotics discourse analysis. Science Education, 94(1), 48–72. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20359

Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267. DOI: 10.3102/0091732X07310586

Keles, N. (2016). Investigating the effect of science writing heuristic approach on students’ learning of multimodal representations across 4th to 8th-grade levels.

Kloser, M. (2013). Exploring high school biology students; engagement with more and less epistemologically considerate texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1232–1257. doi:10.1002/tea.21109

Kloser, M. (2016). Alternate text types and student outcomes: An experiment comparing traditional textbooks and more epistemologically considerate texts. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2477–2499. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1249532

Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Psychology Press.

Marquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modeling the water cycle. Science Education, 90(2), 202–226. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20100

McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2010). A secondary reanalysis of student perceptions of non-traditional writing tasks over a ten year period. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 518-539. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20350

McNamara, D., Ozuru, Y., & Floyd, R. (2011). Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers’ prior knowledge. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 229–257.

Meneses, A., Escobar, J. P., & Véliz, S. (2018). The effects of multimodal texts on science reading comprehension in Chilean fifth-graders: text scaffolding and comprehension skills. International Journal of Science Education, 40(18), 2226-2244. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1527472

Mishra, C., Clase, K. L., Bucklin, C. J., & Daniel, K. L. (2018). Improving Students’ Representational Competence through a Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience. In Towards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education (pp. 177-201). Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-89945-9_9

Murcia, B. K. (2010). Multi-modal representations in primary science : What’s offered by interactive whiteboard technology. 56(1), 23–30.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm.

Nicolaidou, I., Kyza, E. A., Terzian, F., Hadjichambis, A., & Kafouris, D. (2011). A framework for scaffolding students’ assessment of the credibility of the evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 711–744. doi:10.1002/tea.20420

Norris, S. P., Stelnicki, N., & de Vries, G. (2012). Teaching mathematical biology in high school using adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 42, 633–649. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-011-9215-8

Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and instruction, 19(3), 228- 242. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003

Patron, E., Wikman, S., Edfors, I., Johansson‐Cederblad, B., & Linder, C. (2017). Teachers’ reasoning: Classroom visual representational practices in the context of introductory chemical bonding. Science Education, 101(6), 887-906. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21298

Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 313–319. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-008-9111-z

Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2751–2773. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.626462

Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (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. DOI: 10.1080/09500690600718294

Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2010). Representing science literacies: An introduction. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 1–3. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-009-9153-x

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2014). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Rimm, S., Siegle, D., & Davis, G. (2018). Education of the gifted and talented (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Roseman, J. E., Stern, L., & Koppal, M. (2010). A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 47–70. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20305

Sánchez, E., García, R., & Bustos, A. (2016). Does rhetorical competence moderate the effect of rhetorical devices on the comprehension of expository texts beyond general comprehension skills? Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-016-9684-2

Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice Routledge, 10, 11.

Scheid, J., Müller, A., Hettmannsperger, R., & Schnotz, W. (2018). Representational competence in science education: From theory to assessment. In Towards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education (pp. 263-277). Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-89945-9_13

Sivle, A. D., & Uppstad, P. H. (2018). Reasons for relating representations when reading digital multimodal science information. Visual Communication, 17(3), 313-336. DOI: 10.1177/1470357218763330

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. DOI:10.1002/sce.21099

Tang, K. S., & Moje, E. B. (2010). Relating multimodal representations to the literacies of science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 81-85. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-009-9158-5

Tang, K. S., Won, M., & Treagust, D. (2019). Analytical framework for student-generated drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 41(16), 2296-2322. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2019.1672906

Townsend, D., Brock, C., & Morrison, J. D. (2018). Engaging in vocabulary learning in science: The promise of multimodal instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 328-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1420267

Tolppanen, S., Rantaniitty, T., McDermott, M., Aksela, M. & Hand, B. (2013). Effectiveness of a Lesson on Multimodal Writing in Science Education. LUMAT, 1(5), 503-522. DOI: 10.31129/lumat.v1i5.1087

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2011). An introduction to the Integrated Curriculum Model. In J. VanTassel- Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (2nd ed., pp. 9–32). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Uccelli, P., Barr, C., Dobbs, C., Phillips Galloway, E., Meneses, A., & Sánchez, E. (2015a). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 1077–1109. doi:10.1017/S014271641400006X

Uccelli, P., Phillips Galloway, E., Barr, C., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. (2015b). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356. doi:10.1002/rrq.104

Unsworth, L., & Chan, E. (2009). Bridging multimodal literacies and national assessment programs in literacy. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32(3), 245–257.

Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328(5977), 453–456. DOI: 10.1126/science.1182594

Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65–80. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-009-9157-6

Wilson, R. E., & Bradbury, L. U. (2016). The pedagogical potential of drawing and writing in a primary science multimodal unit. International Journal of Science Education, 38(17), 2621-2641. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1255369

Zhao, S., Djonov, E., & vanLeeuwen, T. (2014). Semiotic technology and practice: A multimodal social semiotic approach to PowerPoint. Text and Talk, 34(3), 349–375. DOI: 10.1515/text-2014-0005

Zhao, F., Schnotz, W., Wagner, I., & Gaschler, R. (2020). Texts and pictures serve different functions in conjoint mental model construction and adaptation. Memory & Cognition, 48(1), 69-82.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.53400/mimbar-sd.v8i1.31333

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Copyright (c) 2021 Mimbar Sekolah Dasar

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

View Mimbar Sekolah Dasar Stats