Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Visual Representations on High School Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Assessments

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The pervasive use of visual representations in textbooks, curricula, and assessments underscores their importance in K-12 science education. For example, visual representations figure prominently in the recent publication of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States in Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS, 2013). Although assessments of the NGSS have yet to be developed, most students are currently evaluated on their ability to interpret science visuals. While numerous studies exist on particular visuals, it is unclear whether the same types of visuals are emphasized in all science disciplines. The present study is an evaluation of the similarities and differences of visuals used to assess students’ knowledge of chemistry, earth science, living environment (biology), and physics on the New York State Regents examination. Analysis of 266 distinct visual representations categorized across the four content examinations reveals that the frequency and type of visuals vary greatly between disciplines. Diagrams, Graphs, Tables, and Maps are the most prevalent across all science disciplines. Maps, Cartograms, and Time Charts are unique to the Earth Science examination, and Network Diagrams are unique to the living environment (biology) examination. This study identifies which representations are most critical for training students across the science disciplines in anticipation of the implementation and eventual assessment of the NGSS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth S (2006) DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learn Instr 16(3):183–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop JH (1998) The effect of curriculum-based external exit exam systems on student achievement. J Econ Educ 29(2):171–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruton S, Ong F, Geeting G (2000) Science content standards for California public schools: kindergarten through grade twelve. California Dept. of Education, 721 Capitol Mall, PO Box 944272, Sacramento, CA 94244-2720

  • Cheek Kim A (2013) Exploring the relationship between students’ understanding of conventional time and deep (geologic) time. Int J Sci Educ 35(11):1925–1945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark SC, Libarkin JC, Kortz KM, Jordan SC (2011) Alternative conceptions of plate tectonics held by nonscience undergraduates. J Geosci Educ 59(4):251–262. doi:10.5408/1.3651696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contino J (2012) A case study of the alignment between curriculum and assessment in the New York State Earth science standards-based system. J Sci Educ Technol 22(1):62–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromley JG, Snyder-Hogan LE, Luciw-Dubas UA (2010) Reading comprehension of scientific text: a domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. J Educ Psychol 102(3):687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos K, Koulaidis V, Sklaveniti S (2003) Towards an analysis of visual images in school science textbooks and press articles about science and technology. Res Sci Educ 33:189–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodick J (2012) Supporting students’ cognitive understanding of geological time: a needed “revolution” in science education. Geol Soc Am Spec Papers 486:31–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodick J, Orion N (2003) Cognitive factors affecting student understanding of geologic time. J Res Sci Teach 40(4):415–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodsell DS, Johnson GT (2007) Filling in the gaps: artistic license in education and outreach. PLoS Biol 5(12):e308. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty Mary (2014) Spatial Thinking in Undergraduate Science Education. Spat Cogn Comput 14(2):142–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty M, Canham MS, Fabrikant SI (2010) Thinking about the weather: how display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 36(1):37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jee BD, Gentner D, Uttal DH, Sageman B, Forbus K, Manduca CA, Ormond CA, Shipley TF, Tikoff B (2014) Drawing on experience: how domain knowledge is reflected in sketches of scientific structures and processes. Res Sci Educ, 1–25

  • Kastens KA, Pistolesi L, Passow MJ (2014) Analysis of spatial concepts, spatial skills, and spatial representations of New York state regents earth science examinations. J Geosci Educ 62:278–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozhevnikov M, Motes MA, Hegarty M (2007) Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cogn Sci 31(4):549–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma RB, Russell J (1997) Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. J Res Sci Teach 34(9):949–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liben LS, Kastens KA, Christensen AE (2011) Spatial foundations of science education: the illustrative case of instruction on introductory geological concepts. Cogn Instr 29(1):45–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X, Fulmer G (2008) Alignment between the science curriculum and assessment in selected NY state regents exams. J Sci Educ Technol 17(4):373–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohse GL, Biolsi K, Walker N, Rueler H (1994) A classification of visual representations. Commun ACM 37(12):36–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw KO, Wong SP (1996) Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1(1):30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meisel RP (2010) Teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate biology students. Evol Educ Outreach 3(4):621–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC] (1996) National science education standards. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC] (2012a) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC] (2012b) Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC] (2014) Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • New York State Education Department [NYSED] (1987) History of regents examinations from 1865 to 1987. Retrieved from: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/hsgen/archive/rehistory.htm

  • New York State Education Department [NYSED] (1996) Learning standards for mathematics, science, and technology. Retrieved from: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/sci/ls.html

  • New York State Education Department [NYSED] (2001) Physical setting/earth science core curriculum. Retrieved from: www.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/pub/earthsci.pdf

  • New York State Education Department [NYSED] (2010) Reference tables for physical setting/earth science. Retrieved from: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/resources/home.html#es-trans-11

  • New York State Education Department [NYSED] (2012a) June 2012 chemistry regents exam. Retrieved from: http://www.nysedregents.org/Chemistry/

  • New York State Education Department [NYSED] (2012b) June 2012 earth science regents exam. Retrieved from: http://www.nysedregents.org/EarthScience/

  • New York State Education Department [NYSED] (2012c) June 2012 living environment regents exam. Retrieved from: http://www.nysedregents.org/LivingEnvironment/

  • New York State Education Department [NYSED] (2012d) June 2012 Physics regents exam. Retrieved from: http://www.nysedregents.org/Physics/

  • New York State Education Department [NYSED] (2012e). August 2012 earth science regents exam. Retrieved from: http://www.nysedregents.org/EarthScience/

  • New York State Educatoin Department [NYSED] (2013) New York State education department test development process. Available online at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/teacher/home.html#process (accessed 18 July 2014)

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS

  • Novick LR, Stull AT, Catley KM (2012) Reading phylogenetic trees: the effects of tree orientation and text processing on comprehension. Bioscience 62(8):757–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petcovic HL, Stokes A, Caulkins JL (2014) Geoscientists’ perceptions of the value of undergraduate field education. GSA Today 24:7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schönborn KJ, Anderson TR (2009) A model of factors determining students’ ability to interpret external representations in biochemistry. Int J Sci Educ 31(2):193–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah P, Hoeffner J (2002) Review of Graph Comprehension Research: implications for Instruction. Educ Psychol Rev 14(1):47–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southern Regional Education Board (2007) The changing roles of statewide high school exams. Last Accessed 23 July 14 from: http://publications.sreb.org/2007/07E03_Statewide_Exams.pdf

  • Stieff M (2007) Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learn Instr 17(2):219–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieff M, Ryu M, Dixon B, Hegarty M (2012) The role of spatial ability and strategy preference for spatial problem solving in organic chemistry. J Chem Educ 89(7):854–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Texas Education Agency (2010a) Texas essential knowledge and skills (TEKS), Chapter 112, Subchapter B. Middle School. Last accessed on 23 July 14: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter112/index.html

  • Texas Education Agency (2010b) Texas essential knowledge and skills (TEKS), Chapter 112, Subchapter C. High School. Last accessed on 23 July 14: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter112/index.html

  • The ACT (2013) Retrieved from: content covered by the ACT test. http://www.actstudent.org/testprep/descriptions/scicontent.html

  • Trend R (2009) The power of deep time in geoscience education: linking ‘interest’, ‘threshold concepts’, and ‘self-determination theory’. Studia UBB Geol 54(1):7–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Government Accountability Office (2013) Race to the top: states implementing teacher and principal evaluation systems despite challenges. GAO Highlights, September 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657937.pdf

  • Virginia Department of Education. (2013). Standards of learning (SOL) and testing. Last accessed 23 July 14 from: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/

  • Wai J, Lubinski D, Benbow CP (2009) Spatial ability for STEM domains: aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. J Educ Psychol 101(4):817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu HK, Krajcik JS, Soloway E (2001) Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. J Res Sci Teach 38(7):821–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Sheldon P. Turner, Emily Geraghty Ward, and Scott K. Clark for reviewing early versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL, 60115, USA

    Nicole D. LaDue

  2. Geocognition Research Lab, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Julie C. Libarkin

  3. Department of Zoology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Stephen R. Thomas

Authors
  1. Nicole D. LaDue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie C. Libarkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen R. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole D. LaDue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

LaDue, N.D., Libarkin, J.C. & Thomas, S.R. Visual Representations on High School Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Assessments. J Sci Educ Technol 24, 818–834 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9566-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9566-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation