Abstract
To demonstrate the various constraints related to visual representations in biology learning and instruction, this chapter discusses the outcomes of four empirical studies carried out in Israel on the uses of static visualization in biology as well as data from classroom observations of Israeli elementary and junior high school biology students and teachers and from textbooks. I review the challenges involved in using illustrative or decorative representations, models, representations of processes, referents of different size and temporal scales, representations on the classroom board, and the danger of erroneously transferring knowledge about representations to visualizations with supposedly similar features. The chapter may promote teachers’ and policy makers’ critical awareness of visual representations, which if not appropriately designed and implemented will create student difficulties and misconceptions. It should also contribute toward the development of relevant learning materials and the resolution of some of these teaching challenges.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
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.Computer & Education, 33(2/3), 131–152.
Ainsworth, S., Matuk, C. F., Uttal, D. H., & Rosengren, K. (2010). Learning to understand the tree of life. InProceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 221–226). Chicago: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations.Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70–87.
Blackwell, W. H., Powell, M. J., & Dukes, G. H. (2003). The problem of student acceptance of evolution.Journal of Biological Education, 37(2), 58–67.
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(7), 861–882.
Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1996). Patterns of conceptual change in evolution.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 407–431.
Deregowski, J. B. (1989). Real space and represented space: Cross cultural perspectives.Behavioral and Brain Science, 12, 51–119.
Eilam, B. (2002). Strata of comprehending ecology: Looking through the prism of feeding relations.Science Education, 86, 645–671.
Eilam, B. (2007).Temporal scales and plants growth: Nine graders’ perceptions. Unpublished manuscript.
Eilam, B. (2012a). System thinking and feeding relations: Learning with a live ecosystem model.Instructional Science, 40(2), 213–239.
Eilam, B. (2012b).Teaching, learning, and visual literacy: The dual role of visual representation in the teaching profession. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Eilam, B., & Ben-Peretz, M. (2010). Revisiting curriculum inquiry: The role of visual representations.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(6), 751–774.
Eysink, T. H. S., de Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kolloffel, B., Opfermann, M., & Wouters, P. (2009). Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: An analysis across instructional approaches.American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1107–1149.
Grotzer, T. A., & Basca, B. B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding?Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 16–29.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1994). Young children’s naïve theory of biology.Cognition, 50, 171–188.
Hegarty, M. (2004). Diagrams in the mind and in the world: Relations between internal and external visualization. In A. Blackwell, K. Mariott, & A. Shimojima (Eds.),Diagrammatic representation and inferences: Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 2980, pp. 88–102). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61.
Jones, M. G., & Taylor, A. R. (2009). Developing a sense of scale: Looking backward.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 460–475.
Jones, M. G., Tretter, T., Taylor, A., & Oppewal, T. (2008). Experienced and novice teachers’ concepts of spatial scale.International Journal of Science Education, 30(3), 409–429.
Liu, X., & Lesniak, K. (2006). Progression in children’s understanding of the matter concept from elementary to high school.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 320–347.
Maes, A., Foesenek, K., & Hoogwegt, H. (2008). Visual health communication: Why and how do literate and low literate South Africans differ in their understanding of visual health messages? In P. Swanepoel & H. Hoeken (Eds.),Adaptive health communication to cultural needs: Optimizing documents in South African health communication on HIV/AIDS prevention (pp. 151–170). Amsterdam: Benjamines.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005).The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preferences.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 833–846.
Molinari, G., & Tapiero, I. (2007). Integration of new domain-related states and events from texts and illustrations by subjects with high and low prior knowledge.Learning and Instruction, 17, 304–321.
Rapp, D. N., & Kurby, C. A. (2008). The “ins” and “outs” of learning: Internal representations and external visualizations. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.),Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (Section A, pp. 29–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Reed, S. K. (2010).Thinking visually. New York/Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis Group/Psychology Press.
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.),The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, A., Pendarvis, M. P., & Baldwin, B. (1997). The relationships between college zoology students’ beliefs about evolutionary theory and religion.Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30, 118–125.
Sivan, A., Orvi, N., Kave, D., & Abulafia, N. (1992).Chapters on feeding in humans and plants. Jerusalem: Maalot (in Hebrew).
Spiro, R. J., Feltovitch, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.
Tversky, B. (2005). Functional significance of visuospatial representations. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.),Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 1–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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
Eilam, B. (2013). Possible Constraints of Visualization in Biology: Challenges in Learning with Multiple Representations. 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_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4192-8_4
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)