Elementary Teachers’ Use of Graphical Representations in Science Teaching
Julianne M. Coleman • Erin M. McTigue • Laura B. Smolkin
Published online: 15 July 2010
The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2010
Abstract The purpose of this study was to obtain data on United States K-5 elementary school teachers’ self-reported instructional practices with graphical representations. Via an electronic survey, 388 elementary teachers, from throughout the US, reported about their teaching of the interpretation and the production of graphics within science. The main findings indicate that: (1) pointing to or referring to graphical representations in books (92% of respondents) was the most frequently used instructional practice across the disciplines and grade levels; (2) five of nine graphical representations (over 90%) were more frequently used in science instruction than in other content areas, and (3) students’ graphical productions involving drawings, labeling, and oral and written explanations were very infrequent. The findings indicate that while teachers may tacitly use graphics within science instruction, they may not be explicitly teaching about this visual form of communication.
Keywords Visual literacy _ Graphics _ Science elementary _ Multiliteracies
Iconography comes upon us like a thief in the night—powerful and remarkably efficacious, yet often so silent that we do not detect the influence. Pictorial imagery catches us unawares because, as intellectuals, we are trained to analyze text and to treat drawings or photographs as trifling adjuncts. Thus, while we may pore over our words and examine them closely for biases and hidden meanings, we often view our pictures as frills and afterthoughts, simple illustrations of a natural reality or crutches for those who need a visual guide. We are most revealed in what we do not scrutinize (Gould, cited in Mishra 1999).
Visual representation has played a role in scientific communication since the
fifteenth century (Mishra 1999), and its place in the development of scientific
knowledge is increasingly acknowledged (e.g., Lynch and Woolgar 1990; National
Research Council [NRC] 2007). Science textbooks, a key element of science
instruction in the United States (Weiss et al. 2001) have become increasingly
graphics-laden (Martins 2002; Moss 2001; Roseman et al. 1999; Walpole 1998–
1999), and we are just beginning to learn how children approach such illustrated
science texts (Hannus and Hyona 1999; McTigue 2009; Stylianidou et al. 2002;
Walpole 1998–1999). A recent study examining released state science test items in
the United States, indicate that 52% of questions contain graphics and 79.5% of the
included graphics contain information that is essential to correctly answering the
question (Yeh and McTigue 2009). Moreover, teachers are advised and/or expected
to address graphical representations and models of various types in their science
instruction (e.g., American Association for Advancement of Science [AAS] 1993;
NRC 1996, 2007; Stylianidou et al. 2002). However, with the exception of a very
few studies (e.g., Smolkin and Donovan 2004), there is little known about what
elementary teachers actually do with graphics in their science instruction. The study
described in this paper represents a starting point for the examination of elementary
teachers’ pedagogical use (or nonuse) of visual and graphical information in
elementary science teaching. It seeks as well to understand whether teachers view
graphics, in Gould’s (Mishra 1999) words as, ‘‘frills and afterthoughts’’ or whether
they use them in ways that increase children’s abilities in scientific communications.
This work provides insights into the role of visual communication within
elementary science classrooms.
Within the following section which reviews the related literature that guided the
creation of our survey, we begin with the larger picture to summarize research on the
classification of graphics and on the use of graphics within the field of science. Next,
we summarize information on students’ abilities with graphics. Finally, we summarize
current teaching standards and resources for educators in teaching graphics.
Review of Related Literature
Organizational Schemes for Graphical Representations
Determining exactly what defines a graphical representation is not an easy task. In
order to ask teachers about their use of graphics, we needed to provide operational
definitions to insure that we were effectively communicating. Numerous theorists
and researchers (e.g., Doblin 1980; Hunter et al. 1987; Kress and van Leeuwen
1996) have attempted to create typologies for visual representations; this has led to a
flurry of confusing terminology. Confusing terminology limits potential communication
and advancement of graphics. Some individuals distinguish between
figurative and non-figurative representations (e.g., Doblin 1980; Petterson 2002),
with non-figurative representations including labels, letters, and verbal descriptions;
as opposed to figurative representations that rely upon pictures, schematics, and
various symbols. Within the studies typically concerned with figurative representations,
one important and helpful distinction (Doblin 1980; Goodman 1968; Vekeri
2002), is the separation of visual depictions into notational and non-notational
representations. Non-notational representations (what many would consider
pictures—paintings, drawings, photos) provide a complex, polysemic visual field
that mimics reality; notational representations seek to reduce reality in some way to
produce ‘‘a one-to-one correspondence between elements and their referents’’
(Vekeri 2002, p. 263). Vekiri suggested that within this notational world, there exist
four graphical categories: diagrams, maps, graphs (line, bar, and pie), and charts
(which would include both matrices and graphic organizers of various types). For
the purposes of this paper, we will focus upon notational representations.
Visual Representations in Science Instruction
Due to the abstract nature of many science principles (e.g., gravity), graphical
representations can play a powerful role in illustrating and explicating science to
novices by making concepts more concrete through the use of visual examples. For
example, in science, awareness of scale can be simply too large (e.g., continental
drift) or too small (e.g., bacteria) to observe in public elementary school classrooms
and teachers must rely on visual depictions of the target. Additionally, the
organization of elementary schools and the certification of elementary teachers
results in most elementary school science being taught by generalist teachers in
classrooms ill-equipped with scientific tools.
Historically, within the realm of science teaching, visual aspects have maintained a
minor role relative to written and oral/verbal forms of communication (Walker 1993;
Trumbo 1999). Through a meta-analysis of the use of graphics in schools, Winn
(1987, 1994) concluded that relatively little attention was given to the visual form of
communication. He termed this pattern of favoring the written word over the visual
form in schools as a verbal bias and he warned that this neglect of visual processing
could result in students failing to fully develop their abilities in visual processing (Leu
2000). As such, students may come to disregard graphics, rather than exploiting them
to their full communicative potential (Schnotz et al. 1993). The situation of students
disregarding graphics is problematic if we recognize the importance of graphics in
scientific communications (e.g., AAS 1993; Lemke 1990).
Children’s Abilities with Science-Related Visual Representations
Although there is relatively little research on children’s comprehension of scientific
graphical representations as compared with adults’ comprehension, what is known
suggests that the effective use of graphics must to be taught. We consider the
‘‘effective use of graphics’’ to be multifaceted and include being able to read a
graphic; to locate specific information within a graphic; to a create graphics to
organize information; and to communicate to others through the use of graphics.
Within the realm of interpreting graphics, Hannus and Hyona (1999), after working
with 10 year olds, suggested that science texts would benefit from specific verbal
cues, added into the textbase that provide guidance of how and when, to examine
the referent graphic. McTigue (2009), experimenting with such verbal cues
embedded in the textbase (e.g., look at the diagram now to examine the direction of
the bloodflow within the body), found them to be more effective with middle school
students who had higher levels of background knowledge. Her findings supported
those of Stylianidou et al. (2002), who conducted interviews with middle-schoolaged
children and documented the difficulties experienced by these students in
comprehending the graphics found in typical science textbook material. They
concluded that teachers ‘‘need to spend time and effort talking through the meaning
of the images’’ (p. 257). This conclusion, that instruction and experiences with
scientific models are essential to children’s interpretational development, has
recently been reinforced by the National Research Council (2007) as well as current
cognitive developmental research (e.g., Szechter and Liben 2004).
Teaching Expectations of the Science Education Community
The merit of multimodal communication in science has been affirmed through the
development of graphical learning goals in science by two important organizations
in the United States. The American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) sponsored Project 2061 and its companion report, Benchmarks for Science
Literacy (1993); the National Research Council (NRC), a part of the National
Academies, produced the National Science Education Standards (NSES). As
summarized in the following two sections, both organizations convey the
expectation that teachers will be instructing children in graphical literacy.
Benchmarks for Science Literacy
According to the Benchmarks for Science Literacy, in kindergarten through grade 2,
students are expected to create drawings of a target object or concept and correctly
represent the salient features. By the end of fifth grade, students are expected to
create sketches that explain either ideas or procedures as well as make use of
numerical data to describe and/or compare objects or events. By the end of eighth
grade, students are expected to be proficient in both the interpretation and
production of simple tables and graphs, which includes identifying relationships;
they are also to comprehend text materials that contain a variety of graphs,
diagrams, charts and tables, and symbols of science.
National Science Education Standards
NSES also reflects an emphasis on communication. For example, within the
‘‘Science as Inquiry’’ strand for K-4 students, communication about investigations
and supplying explanations, seen as fundamental abilities in scientific inquiry, are to
be delivered in three modes: oral, written, and graphical (drawn). This attention to
drawing is reinforced, for example, in discussions of the physical science standards
for this grade range: ‘‘initial sketches and single-word descriptions lead to
increasingly more detailed drawings and richer verbal descriptions’’ (NRC 1996,
p. 123). NSES also emphasizes attention to drawing within earth and space science
content standards, recommending that children draw sketches of the moon and that
older children in this age range can learn to search for patterns of meaning by
‘‘recording data and making graphs and charts’’ (p. 126). As children progress into
middle schools, NSES standards increase expectations for children’s use of graphic
representations. Students, as they progress from grades five through eight, are
expected to use ‘‘the language of science’’ which includes ‘‘writing, labeling
drawings, completing concept maps, developing spreadsheets, and designing
computer graphics’’ (NRC 1996, p. 144). It is clear from these documents, then,
that teachers are expected to include a visual component in their teaching of science.
NRC’s (2007) recent volume, Taking science to school, continues to stress the
importance of instruction: ‘‘development [in graphical skills] is significantly
enhanced by prior knowledge, experience, and instruction (p. 159, emphasis
added).
Assistance for Teachers’ Graphical Practices in Science Instruction
Beyond the Benchmarks and Standards, teachers have other textual sources that
encourage them to include graphical representations in science instruction. These
include teachers’ manuals accompanying textbooks and trade publications.
Perhaps because of their own notable insecurities regarding their science teaching
abilities (Weiss et al. 2001), elementary teachers have relied heavily on textbooks
for their science instruction, with 85% of fifth through eighth grade teachers
typically employing a single textbook for their instruction, while 64% of
kindergarten through fourth grade teachers use a science textbook. Recent research
(e.g., Carneiro and Freitas, cited in Freitas 2007) suggests that, among textbooks,
teachers favor graphics-heavy volumes over those with fewer pictures.
Although science textbooks frequently are attacked in terms of comprehensibility
and accuracy of representation (e.g., Best et al. 2005; Hubisz 2000; Kesidou and
Roseman 2002), they nonetheless provide guidance for teachers’ use of graphics in
science instruction. For example, in a recent Scott Foresman kindergarten teachers’
manual, teachers are instructed to have children create a class mural for their living
things unit. In line with NSES and Benchmark suggestions, teachers are told that
each child can draw and then label (or dictate, depending on abilities) the names and
needs of various living things (Cooney et al. 2006a, b, p. 25).
In addition to ideas in textbooks, trade publishing houses that focus on teachers
have produced texts to support the incorporation of visual representations. In our
work with teachers, to provide a common language with which to discuss graphics,
we have focused on one of the only currently available teacher texts regarding
visual literacy: the Stenhouse offering, I see what you mean (Moline 1995). This
simply-presented text, by Australian educator Moline, has been continuously
available for teachers for more than a decade and provides additional support
through an inexpensive video as well as a related website (Moline 2006). Moline’s
typology of graphics (see Table 1) is congruent and supported by more recent
research in the field, such as Vekeri (2002).
These categories of graphical
communication are made more explicit for teachers through numerous examples of
children’s work. Although this text does not reach the level of depth such as the
work in semiotics by Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996) or Roth’s theory of
representation through inscription (e.g., Roth and McKinn 1998), it provides a
framework for static graphics (e.g., flow charts) with familiar vocabulary.
Use of Graphics and the Role of Visual Literacy in Elementary Science
Teaching
Although the corpus is limited, studies reporting teachers’ graphical practices
suggest that when teaching science, teachers may not be guiding children
particularly well in terms of graphical interpretations (obviously a problem
throughout all science instruction, not just graphical interpretation). For example,
when observing primary grade teachers reading aloud from a science trade book,
which displayed a multi-graphic layout including a cross-sectional diagram and a
map, Smolkin and Donovan (2004) found that teachers rarely guided the students
through navigation of the multiple graphics. Instead, teachers focused students’
attention on just the most salient graphic—a single map and did not address the
meaning of the cross-sectional diagram at all.
What actually occurs today in elementary science classrooms regarding the
teaching of graphical representations is unknown. Due to the rapidly changing and
increasing emphasis on visual and graphical communication (Pozzer-Ardenghi and
Roth 2005), current research is needed to determine how much and in what manner
teachers are actually using graphics within their teaching. For our research, we
posed the following questions:
(1) What types of graphical representations are used most frequently by K-5
elementary teachers in science compared to the other content areas?
(2) Within science instruction, do teachers report particular types of graphical
representations as used more frequently than others?
(3) What science teaching practices and activities related to the interpretation of
graphical representations do teachers report as frequently used across the K-5
grade levels?
(4) What teaching practices and activities involving the production of graphical
representations do teachers report as frequently used across the elementary
grades?
Method
Participants
We chose a national sample to give breadth to our survey and to eliminate specific
patterns of instruction that might be associated with particular state standards. To
obtain a random sampling of K-5 elementary teachers across the United States, we
employed the services of an educational marketing firm based in Northern Virginia.
This firm compiles national databases of teachers for the specific uses of educational
research and marketing; former customers include the International Reading
Association. The information in the database has been gathered voluntarily from
school districts across the United States.
The sampling parameters set for this study included classroom teachers in
kindergarten through fifth grades.
Although sixth grade has been commonly
considered as elementary school, current trends find sixth grade classes located in
middle schools where teaching is far more departmentalized; this departmentalization
would have prohibited our determining whether teachers were more inclined to
use graphics in science instruction instead of other subjects in their curricula.
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2001), 65% of
elementary schools include kindergarten through grade five.
Opting for the Electronic Survey
Various studies have promoted the use of electronic or Web-based surveys as a
viable way to conduct research (e.g., Couper et al. 2001). We elected to use an
electronic mode for several reasons primarily because of the costs incurred by
printing (Cobanoglu et al. 2001). Given the importance of color as a distinguishing
feature in many of the images we sought to examine (e.g., Stone et al. 2006; Tufte
1990) and given the length of the survey with all images embedded, printing costs
seemed prohibitive. Although some research suggests that overall response rates for
e-mail surveys are somewhat lower than paper and pencil surveys (Anderson and
Gansneder 1995), some studies have had response rates as high as 70% (Yun and
Trumbo 2000). There has been some suggestion that, given concerns with lower
response rates for web surveys, a key issue in interpretation of results will be sample
representativeness (Dillman 2000). Concerned that our response rate might also be
limited, we sampled a substantive portion of the population, hoping minimally to
produce a representative sample. To this end, we gathered descriptive information to
compare to nationally reported demographics.
Demographics of Respondents
We were informed that 5,000 electronic survey questionnaires were sent to
prospective participants across the United States. Of the 405 returned surveys, 388
were usable. The response rate was low; however, the respondents represented a fairly
even distribution across the elementary grades: kindergarten teachers represented
17.5% of the response sample, first grade teachers 14.9%, second grade teachers
18.3%, third grade teachers 18%, fourth grade teachers 20.3% and fifth grade 17.5%.
As described above, to further address sample representativeness, we conducted an
analysis of the information regarding their demographics and education. The majority
of the respondents identified themselves as female (91.9%); 8.1% of the respondents
were male. Nationally, 91% of elementary teachers are female and 8% are male
(National Education Association 2006) which does not differ significantly from the
percentages obtained in this study (x2 = 0.05, p = 0.82). In fact, the proportion of
males to females in this study is statistically identical to the national percentages of
males to females (National Education Association 2006). When asked about their
educational level, over half (56.7%) the teachers indicated they held a master’s degree
or higher. There is no statistically significant difference in the proportion of
respondents holding a master’s degree or higher in the sample and the proportion
nationally (x2 = 0.002, p = 0.96) as reported by the National Education Association
(2006).
The majority of the other respondents held a bachelor’s degree (43.3%) and
4.4% held a specialist’s degree of some type.
Only one respondent (.3%) indicated
having a doctoral degree. The concordance between the sample in this study and the
national percentages is especially important to help establish representativeness of the
sample, given a possible low response rate. Comparing the population in this study to
national statistics for education level (x2 = 0.002, p = 0.96) and gender (x2 = 0.05,
p = 0.82), the used sample in this study suggests it is representative of elementary
teachers across the United States. Due to the principles of computer generated random
sampling, we did not deem it necessary to calculate the geographical locations of the
teachers.
Materials
Development of the Survey Instrument
In developing the survey, we established three major research domains: Teacher
Demographics and Education, School and Student Demographics, and Teacher
Instructional Practices. We were strongly influenced by two literacy survey studies,
research conducted by Baumann et al. (2000) and by Commeyras and De Groff
(1998). The Bauman et al. study has been identified as an exemplary model of survey
research involving literacy (Duke and Malette 2004), and we determined to replicate
and/or modify appropriate aspects of this survey as we constructed this instrument.
Teacher Demographics and Education: For the first domain, we designed nine
survey items to obtain information about the participants’ educational background,
teaching background, and gender. In particular, this domain included the adaptation
of Baumann’s et al.’s survey items and question stems.
School and Student Demographics: For the second domain, we designed six survey
items to obtain information about the types of students in the participants’
classrooms, the types of communities in which the participants’ schools were
located, and the size of the schools where the participants worked. We again
adapted survey items utilized in the Baumann et al. study and included modified
aspects of the Commeyras and De Groff (1998) study because of its similarities in
research design and general procedures. These modified aspects related to question
stems, question formats, and to the order in which the survey items were presented.
Teacher Instructional Practices For the third domain of the survey, we relied upon
Moline’s (1995) classification system (See Table 1) as the basis for the construction
of the survey items for reasons we have noted earlier. This domain consisted of two
parts. The first part contained the survey items, which focused upon the different
types of graphical representations and the frequency with which they were used in
each of the typical content areas in elementary classrooms: reading, math, social
studies, and science. We were most interested in the reports of frequent use because
research (e.g., Ainsworth 1999) indicates that students need multiple exposures to
graphical representations to fully exploit their potential and because research
additionally indicates that repeated practice will likely lead to idea retention (Brown
et al. 1981). The second part of this domain consisted of questions regarding the
various instructional practices and activities that teachers may or may not have used
involving graphical representations. Part Two of the domain, Teacher Instructional
Practices, then, gathered information regarding the frequency (frequently, sometimes,
rarely, never) with which participants used different instructional activities
and practices involving graphical representations in science. In our conceptualization
of teaching practices involving graphical representations in science, we recognized
that messages, whether text or graphic, must be interpreted to be comprehended.
Survey Construction
The survey was constructed at the online survey website, (A text version of this
survey can be found in the ‘‘Appendix’’). This on-line format allowed us to provide
full color exemplars of each target graphical representation, which would have been
cost prohibitive in a paper and pencil survey.
Pilot Testing
Two pilot tests were run, the first among a sample of former and current classroom
teachers and the second among a sample of educational researchers and methodologists.
Revisions from this feedback included (1) revising the wording of several
questions, (2) reordering the items presented in Teachers’ Instructional Practice
domain, (3) addressing several technical issues, and (4) modifying the estimated
completion time. This process was important to establishing content validity.
Data Collection Procedures
Our first step in data collection was to send an e-mail message to the individuals on the
random sample list of general elementary teachers supplied by the educational
marketing firm to request their participation in the survey. Directions for participation
in the survey, including the URL ink to the survey, were incorporated in that first
e-mail message and prospective participants were informed that they had 1 week to
participate in the survey. Three weeks later, we sent a follow-up e-mail message again
requesting participation in the survey to those who had not yet completed it. Once the
follow-up email was sent, prospective participants had an additional 7 days to
complete the survey. The on-line survey was closed after the 7 days and was no longer
available to the participants. In total, the on-line survey was available to prospective
participants for two-one-week periods, a total of 14 days. According to the
educational marketing firm, this is standard practice for the use of online surveys,
although a longer time period may result in greater response rates.
Data Analysis
The data analysis in this study consisted of two phases. The first phase was
completed by the on-line survey company, SurveyMonkey.com.
As participants
completed the survey, their responses were collected by the online survey software
data collection tool, which computes basic statistical analyses and reports response
rates by survey items as well as frequencies by survey items.
During the second phase, the data was exported from SurveyMonkey.com and
imported into SPSS. Incomplete surveys were removed from further analysis. Within
SPSS, statistical analyses were performed. The data was analyzed using simple
descriptive statistics (e.g., summary statistics by survey items and frequencies).
Results
Graphics Use in Science Instruction
Table 2 reports teachers’ responses to the question about their use of graphical
types, frequency, and the discipline within which teachers were most likely to use
particular graphics. Of the 14 graphical representations contained in the survey,
eight were reported by teachers across the grades as more frequently used in science
instruction than in the content areas of social studies, math, or reading/language arts
instruction. These included flow diagrams (96.7% of respondents reporting their
usage in science), picture glossaries (94.6%), cross-section diagrams (92.5%), web
diagrams (92.3%), cutaway diagrams (92.1%), tables (87.9%), tree diagrams (81%),
and scale diagrams (78.2%). Five of these eight graphical representations were
reported as used in science instruction by more than 90% of survey participants.
Teacher Practices for Assisting Children in Interpreting Graphics
Table 3 reports teachers’ practices designed to develop children’s ability to interpret
graphics. We begin this section by noting grade level trends in terms of graphical
interpretations. For virtually all queries, kindergarten and first grade teachers
provided very different responses in terms of frequency of use than third through
fifth grade teachers. Second grade teachers’ responses were sometimes similar to
kindergarten and first grade teachers, and, at other times, more resembled the upper
grade teachers’ responses. These grade level differences are particularly notable for
Items 3 (internal structures), 5 (explaining hidden processes from analytic
diagrams), 6 (written text from graphical representations), and 8 (captions for
graphical representations).
Pointing
The most frequently used instructional practice was the teacher pointing to the
graphical representations in the text (65% overall of respondents indicated that they
engaged in this behavior). This practice is reported as frequently used by
kindergarten teachers (26% of the time) and first grade teachers (38.6%). However,
the use of this practice of pointing is more evident in the older grades: second
(80.4%).third (86.5%) fourth (74.6%) and fifth (72.6%) grade teachers.
Tables
The second most frequently used graphical practice was the interpretation of
tables, with 45% of all teachers reporting having children link information in
cells, row headings, and column headings to interpret graphical meaning. Again,
kindergarten (14.5%) and first grade (34.9%) teachers reported using this practice
less often than their upper grade peers. A higher percentage of third grade
teachers (60.7%) reported this as a frequent practice than teachers at any other
grade level.
Analytic Diagrams
The third most commonly reported practice for interpretation relates specifically to
Moline’s (1995) analytical diagram category, which includes cutaways and crosssections,
with 33% of all teachers reporting having children explain internal and
external structures. Attention to interpreting these analytical diagrams increases
across the elementary grades, from a low of 3.6% of kindergarten teachers to a high
of 46% of fifth grade teachers reporting this as a frequently used practice. However,
when cutaways depict hidden processes, such as the workings of a steam engine, as
opposed to the naming of internal and external structures, teachers reported having
students explain those processes far less regularly. Only 17% of all teachers
indicated they did so frequently, while 47% indicated that they did so rarely or
never.
Teacher Practices for Assisting Children in Producing Graphics
Table 4 presents results for teachers’ practices related to the production of graphics.
Unlike practices related to interpretation of graphics (Table 3), there is less grade
level variation. Of note, drawing and labeling graphical representations (frequently
used by on only 6% of respondents) is a far less common practice in kindergarten
through second grades than in third through fifth grades.
Synthetic Diagrams
The two practices teachers reported using frequently when having children produce
graphics both fall into Moline’s (1995) category of synthetic diagrams (making
connections among parts; flow diagrams and tree diagrams).
Forty-two percent of all
teachers reported having students organize information into meaningful sequences
(graphical example was a flow diagram). Although this instructional activity was
less frequently reported as used by kindergarten (21.6%) and first grade (34.9%)
teachers, approximately half of the teachers of the upper elementary grades (third
grade, 54.5%), fourth grade (46.8%), fifth grade (53.8%) reported this as a frequent
practice.
The second most frequently reported practice for producing graphics also
involves a synthetic diagram, in this case, organizing information hierarchically in
tree diagrams. Again, approximately half of third (49.1%), fourth (48.3%), and fifth
(52.3%) grade teachers reported having their students create such diagrams
frequently. Overall, 41% of all teachers report this as a frequent practice in
graphical production.
Drawing and Labeling Details
The least frequently employed productive practice was drawing and labeling details
of a graphical representation. Whereas 6% of teachers using this practice frequently,
73% of respondents indicated that they rarely or never did so.
Discussion
Teacher Practices with Graphics
Grade Level Differences
Although one might naturally expect an increase in work with graphics across the
elementary grades, our results do suggest some concerns for kindergarten and first
grade. Fewer than five percent of these teachers reported employing cutaways and
cross-sections to explain hidden processes. This finding suggests that explanations
of how things work in the world are not commonly occurring in these early
childhood grades. Current high quality information books written for young children
books share the common trait of containing complex graphics including cutaways
(Kurkjian and Livingston 2005). If teachers are not addressing the use of such
graphics then they are likely not reading such informational books, or they are
disregarding such graphics. Considering teachers’ low self confidence for science
teaching (e.g., Weiss et al. 2001), this finding may not be surprising, but it does
suggest that the groundwork for explanations, critical in science education (NRC
1996, 2007) is not being laid. For example, while kindergarten students may not be
ready to understand a cutaway representation of a brain, they can understand and
produce cutaways that are more concrete—such as considering the inside and
outside structure of an apple. Practice with this type of representation will prepare
them for more complex versions of cutaways and cross-section.
Pointing
By far, teachers’ most commonly reported instructional graphical practice (92%
reported doing so frequently or sometimes) is pointing at them in books. This
reinforces the findings of Weiss et al. (2001) survey showing the high presence of
text materials used in U.S. elementary school science instruction and brings into
question the numbers of teachers actually engaging in discovery related practices.
The use of graphics would depend greatly on the approach of teaching science.
If
science instruction is text-based, with students predominantly reading about science,
then students would need to be able to interpret graphics but would have less
impetus to produce graphics. In a more inquiry based approach, which replicates real
science, then students would need to interpret and produce graphics in order to
organize and communicate their findings. Unfortunately, some interpretations of
‘‘hands-on’’ and ‘‘inquiry based’’ science teaching over-rely on the doing of science
rather than the thinking about science. In such cases, the misinterpretation of ‘‘inquiry
based’’ science does replicate real science because students do not frequently engage
in talking, reading, writing and drawing about science (Hand and Prain 2006).
While pointing at diagrams does draw children’s attention to them and create
some awareness, research suggests this is an insufficient instructional practice.
Peeck (1993), reviewing established research findings on pictorial representations,
indicated that simply drawing students’ attention to pictures does little to support
the processing of the representations. Given these findings, Peek’s advice was that
instructors ‘‘tell the student to do something with the illustration’’ (p. 235) and
suggested that related tasks yield an examinable product, such as having students
label features in an illustration. Stern et al. (2003) paralleled Peeck’s stance,
positing that simply viewing graphics does not grant the learner a deeper
understanding of graph design. Any learning derived from the particular graphic
will remain situated in the particular text, not transferred to other texts. In contrast,
when actively creating a graphic (a practice 73% of teachers indicated they rarely or
seldom offered for students, see below), learners build awareness of the conventions
of graphics and can apply this knowledge to a novel graphic (Moline 1995; Wheeler
and Hill 1990).
One potential reason for the high frequency of pointing is that teachers can
determine to which aspects of the graphical representation they will attend (as in the
Smolkin and Donovan (2004) example noted earlier in this paper). It is possible,
given teachers’ low confidence in their science knowledge (Weiss et al. 2001), that
pointing enables teachers to address only those aspects of the graphical representation
with which they themselves feel comfortable.
Drawing and Labeling
Although Peeck (1993) and Stern et al. (2003) suggested creating graphics to
increase student understanding, the results of our study indicate that production
through drawing was an infrequent graphical practice (never or rarely done, 73% of
responding teachers). This finding is particularly odd in light of the benchmarks and
standards which specifically encourage such practices.
We have pondered why drawing and labeling appears to be an uncommon practice.
One possibility relates to teachers’ own understanding or a lack of awareness of the
importance of drawing as a form of communication (verbal bias); another relates to
their own ease, or comfort, with drawing. Anning (1997) has commented that for
teachers, ‘‘drawing is a minor mode of communication, certainly secondary to writing
and speech ….Indeed in many classrooms drawing is more likely to be caught than
taught’’ (p. 219). Anning’s assertions are echoed in survey data examined by
Chapman (2005). Chapman noted, ‘‘course requirements in art are minimal for
[elementary] teachers’’ (p. 120). Reviewing a 2002 survey by NCES, Chapman
indicated that only about 10% of elementary classroom teachers have strong
qualifications and interests in art. Whatever the cause of infrequent drawing, its lack
suggests that children are not engaging in the creation of visual records seen by AAS
and NRC as important to science understanding.
Reports of low frequency of use in labeling drawings may also be linked to other
findings regarding writing as a mode of explanation. When asked if they had
children convert graphical information into written texts, 49% of the respondents
indicated that they never or rarely did so. When asked if they had students create
captions, which is generally seen as involving less writing than a ‘‘text,’’ the
percentage of teachers indicating they never or rarely did so increased to 63%.
These findings suggest that the teachers’ view of student communications may favor
an oral mode. Our finding that 65% of teachers indicated that they frequently or
sometimes had students explain concepts or objects depicted in graphical
representations lends support to this assumption. However, we also note that only
22% of all teachers reported having their students frequently explain concepts or
objects within graphical representations, while 35% of all teachers indicated that
they rarely or never did so. In short, teachers do not appear to be strongly
promoting, either visually, textually, or orally the production of explanations.
The Content of Explanations
Still, if 65% of the teachers are having their students create oral explanations
frequently or sometimes (as opposed to the little used written or graphical/visual
explanations), the next question becomes: what are children explaining? When we
look at our results, we see a distinction regarding analytic diagrams between having
children ‘‘explain’’ structure and having them explain processes. While 71% of
respondents indicated they frequently or sometimes had children explain (possibly
meaning describe or identify) internal and external structure with cutaways and
cross sections, that percentage drops to 53% for explaining hidden processes
associated with such diagrams. Newton et al. (2002)’s study of elementary teachers
in Years 3 through 6 in British classrooms found very few instances in which
teachers, in their science instruction, focused on causes and reasons for events,
which would have entailed explanations of processes. Instead, teachers’ discourse
focused on facts and descriptions for virtually 40% of total lesson time; explanatory
discourse occurred only 9% of the total lesson time. Causal explanations of
unobservable processes, then, seem to garner less teacher attention than do
‘‘explanations’’ we might more commonly think of as descriptions.
Conclusions
Our examination of U.S. elementary classrooms suggests that, according to selfreport,
teachers are not likely employing graphical representations to their fullest
potential when teaching science. Their instruction in the use of graphics is limited
by both frequency and depth of instruction. There are various reasons why teachers
may not be more explicit in their work with graphical representations. Teachers may
underestimate the complexity of graphical images and therefore feel little need to
explicitly teach the decoding of graphics (Kress and van Leeuwen 1996). They may
not be cognizant of their own learning and, therefore, find it difficult to explain
graphical representations to young learners (Henderson 1999).
Regardless of the reason, this work indicates that elementary teachers associate
particular graphical forms with science instruction but are doing relatively little to
build their students’ ability to interpret or produce these important scientific
communicative skills. In order for students to become scientifically literate, they
need to know the facts, and process of science as well as the ability to effectively
communicate science. Using graphical representations are critical to being
scientifically literate. As such, teachers should not trust that students will tacitly
gain this knowledge but instruction in this area should be explicit and embedded
within authentic science inquiry.
Limitations
Although our intention was to construct a study with high levels of methodological
worthiness, there are certainly limitations to this starting point study. Most notable
was the very low response rate (7.75%). We believe that our use of an external
company for the lists of teachers compounded difficulties in response rate. For
example, the company never reported to us how many of the original 5,000 e-mail
messages bounced back with incorrect addresses. We had no way of knowing
exactly how many individuals received the e-mail message inviting them to
participate. Then, too, we conjectured that many e-mail recipients, having received
the message and being instructed to click on a link to complete the survey, hesitated
to do so because of the heavy amount of virus-associated spam circulating at that
time. Because the company controlled the national sample of teachers, we had no
way to contact them outside of the company’s parameters. However, given that this
study represents a starting point for research on graphical practices in elementary
science teaching, we believe that the representativeness of the sample allows us to
draw some tentative conclusions regarding elementary teachers’ practices with
graphics. Additionally, it would have been informative if we had asked teachers
more general questions about their approach to teaching science. For example, in
inquiry based curriculums, students may be using graphics in more authentic
manners than in textbook driven curriculums. It would provide insight to have more
information about the overall teaching practices. We recommend this for future
research.
References
Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The function of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2/3),
131–152.
American Association for Advancement of Science, P. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Anderson, S. E., & Gansneder, B. M. (1995). Using electronic mail surveys and computer-monitored data
for studying computer-mediated communication systems. Social Science Computer Review, 13(1),
33–46.
Anning, A. (1997). Drawing out ideas: Graphicacy and young children. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 7, 219–239.
Baumann, J. F., Hoffman, J. V., Duffy-Hestor, A., & Ro, J. M. (2000). The First R yesterday and today:
U.S. elementary reading instruction practices reported by teachers and administrators. Reading
Research Quarterly, 35(3), 338–377.
Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts:
The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65–83.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from
text. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 14–21.
Chapman, L. H. (2005). Status of elementary art education: 1997–2004. Studies in Art Education, 46(2),
118–137.
Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., & Moreo, P. J. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax, and web survey methods.
International Journal of Market Research, 43, 441–552.
Commeyras, M., & De Groff, L. (1998). Literacy professionals’ perspectives on professional
development and pedagogy: A United states survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(4), 434–472.
Cooney, T., Cummins, J., Foots, B., Flood, J., Goldston, M. J., Gholston-Key, S., et al. (2006a). See
learning in a whole new light: Volume 1 (Grade K Teacher’s Edition). Illinois: Pearson Education.
Cooney, T., Foots, B., Flood, J., Goldston, M. J., Gholston-Key, S., Lapp, D., et al. (2006b). See learning
in a whole new light: Volume 1 (Grade 3 Teacher’s Edition). Illinois: Pearson Education.
Couper, M. P., Traugott, M. W., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web survey design and administration. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464–494.
Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.) . New York: Wiley.
Doblin, J. (1980). A structure for nontextual communication. In P. Kolers, M. Wrolstad, & H. Bouma
(Eds.), The processing of visible language (Vol. 2, pp. 89–111). New York: Plenum Press.
Duke, N., & Malette, M. (2004). Literacy research methodologies. New York: Guilford Press.
Freitas, C. A. (2007). Talked images: Examining the contextualised nature of image use. Pedagogies, 2,
151–164.
Goodman, N. (1968). The languages of art. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2006). Moving from border crossing to convergences of perspectives in language
and science literacy research and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3),
101–107.
Hannus, M., & Hyona, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages
among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123.
Henderson, G. (1999). Learning with diagrams. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45(2), 17–25.
Hubisz, J. L. (2000). Report on a study of middle school physical science texts. The Physics Teacher, 39,
304–309.
Hunter, B., Crismore, A., & Pearson, P. D. (1987). Visual displays in basal readers and social science
textbooks. In D. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration: Vol. 2.
Instructional issues (pp. 116–135). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up?
Findings from project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39,
522–549.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London:
Routledge.
Kurkjian, C., & Livingston, N. (2005). Learning to read and reading to learn: Informational series books.
Reading Teacher, 58, 592–600.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Leu, D. J. (2000). Our children’s future: Changing the focus of literacy and literacy instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 53, 424–430.
Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (Eds.) . (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Martins, I. (2002). Visual imagery in school science texts. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser
(Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 73–90). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
McTigue, E. M. (2009). Does multimedia theory extend to middle school students? Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 34, 143–153.
Mishra, P. (1999). The role of abstraction in scientific illustrations: Implications for pedagogy. Journal of
Visual Literacy, 19(2), 139–158.
Moline, S. (1995). I see what you mean. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishing.
Moline, S. (2006). I see what you mean. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://k-8visual.info/.
Moss, G. (2001). To work or play? Junior age nonfiction as objects of design. Reading, 35, 106–110.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2001). Fast response survey system, survey of classes that
serve children prior to kindergarten in public schools: 2000–2001. U.S. Department of Education.
National Education Association, The (2006). National teacher day spotlights key issues facing profession:
NEA addresses top five teaching trends and outlines ‘portrait of american teacher’. Retrieved April
4, 2006, from http://www.nea.org/app/search/performSearch.do.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades
K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Newton, L. D., Newton, D. P., Blake, A., & Brown, K. (2002). Do primary school science books for
children show a concern for explanatory understanding? Research in Science and Technological
Education, 20, 227–240.
Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3,
227–238.
Petterson, R. (2002). Information design: An introduction. Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
Pozzer-Ardenghi, L. L., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Making sense of photographs. Science Education, 89,
219–241.
Roseman, J., Kesidou, S., Stern, L., & Caldwell, A. (1999). Heavy books light on learning: AAAS project
2061 evaluates middle grades science textbooks. Science Books and Films, 35, 243–247.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
very useful resource to return to when planning lessons
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
clear focus to look at how often and in what way the classroom teacher is using graphics to teach content beyond literacy. How could the 4 listed questions guide fieldwork observations? How could we revise the questions for daily classroom observation?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment