Abstract
This chapter explores a type of external representation used widely in biology instruction but rarely in physics and chemistry (Griffard, Decoding of visual narratives used in university biology. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA, 2010a). Complex process diagrams are static images composed of pictures, icons, and symbols that represent a dynamic biological system or process involving numerous structures interacting at multiple levels of organization in a temporal sequence and thus can be considered as multiple external representations (MERs). Deconstruction of such diagrams reveals how graphic designers layer shapes, color, arrows, and text and use devices such as shading, telescoping, and distortions of scale to represent the many structures interacting in that process. Because of the information demands of such representation, graphic designers “reduce chaos” (D. Mikhael, personal communication, May 30, 2010) with respect to number, position, color, and prominence of icons and symbols, requiring learners to correctly infer the implicit meanings imbedded among the explicit elements of the diagram. Such inference may require special dimensions of representational competence. Research findings on how premedical students decoded information-dense process diagrams identified procedural skills and habits used by successful biology learners, which inform several recommendations for teaching with complex process diagrams. The ubiquity of these diagrams in university biology teaching and research suggests that such diagrams present unique pedagogical challenges.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2–3), 131–152.
Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191–208). New York: Springer.
Campbell, N., Reece, J., Urry, L., Cain, M., Wasserman, S., Minorsky, P., et al. (2008). Biology (8th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson.
Catley, K. M., Novick, L. R., & Shade, C. K. (2010). Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 861–882. doi:10.1002/tea.20384.
Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. (1988). The nature of expertise. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, M., Carter, G., & Wiebe, E. N. (2008). The interpretation of cellular transport graphics by students with low and high prior knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 239–261. doi:10.1080/09500690601187168.
Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 59–74. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.002.
Crow, D. (2003). Visible signs. Lausanne, Switzerland: AVA.
Dahmani, H. R., Schneeberger, P., & Kramer, I. M. (2009). Analysis of students’ aptitude to provide meaning to images that represent cellular components at the molecular level. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 226–238. doi:8/3/226 [pii] 10.1187/cbe.09-03-0023.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Fantini, B. (2006). Of arrows and flows. Causality, determination, and specificity in the central dogma of molecular biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 28(4), 567–593.
Goodsell, D. S., & Johnson, G. T. (2007). Filling in the gaps: Artistic license in education and outreach. PLoS Biology, 5(12), e308. doi:07-PLBI-E-2742 [pii] 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050308.
Griffard, P. B. (2010, April). Decoding of visual narratives used in university biology. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Halverson, K. L., Abell, S. K., Friedrichsen, P. M., & Pires, J. C. (2009, April). Testing a model of representational competence applied to phylogenetic tree thinking. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Conference, Garden Grove, CA.
Kindfield, A. C. H. (1993). Biology diagrams: Tools to think with. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(1), 1.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–146). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83(1), 33–54.
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
McMurray, J., & Fay, R. (2008). Chemistry (5th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson.
Noble, I., & Bestley, R. (2005). Visual research. Lausanne, Switzerland: AVA.
Novick, L. R., Shade, C. K., & Catley, K. M. (2011). Linear versus branching depictions of evolutionary history: Implications for diagram design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 536–559.
Paley, W. (2008). Rich data representation: Sophisticated visual techniques for ease and clarity. In G. Stapleton, J. Howse, & J. Lee (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (Vol. 5223, pp. 2–3). Berlin, Germany/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Pozzer, L., & Roth, W. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089–1114.
Scheiter, K., Wiebe, E., & Holsanova, J. (2008). Theoretical and instructional aspects of learning with visualizations. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 67–88). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Schönborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2006). The importance of visual literacy in the education of biochemists. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 34(2), 94–102.
Schönborn, K. J., Anderson, T. R., & Grayson, D. J. (2002). Student difficulties with the interpretation of a textbook diagram of immunoglobulin G (Igg). Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 30(2), 93–97.
Schooler, J., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 122, 166–166.
Takayama, K. (2005). Visualizing the science of genomics. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 217–252). Dortrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 111–135. doi:10.1023/a:1023685706290.
Tufte, E. (1997). Visual explanations. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tversky, B., Zacks, J., Lee, P., & Heiser, J. (2000). Lines, blobs, crosses and arrows: Diagrammatic communication with schematic figures. Theory and Application of Diagrams, Proceedings, 1889, 221–230.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Griffard, P.B. (2013). Deconstructing and Decoding Complex Process Diagrams in University Biology. In: Treagust, D., Tsui, CY. (eds) Multiple Representations in Biological Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4192-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4192-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4191-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4192-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)