A taxonomy of cognitive image functions for science curriculum materials: identifying and creating ‘performative’ visual displays

References

• Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2–3), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is – or might be – the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X025009006
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1988.11076050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyer, C., Delgado, C., Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Investigating teacher learning supports in high school biology curricular programs to inform the design of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 977–998. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs, A., Burns, J. E., Daniel, L., Ezrailson, C., Feather, R., Horton, P., McCarthy, T., Ortleb, E., Snyder, S. L., Werwa, E., National Geographic Society, Janulaw, A., Parsekian, P., & Madrazo, G. (2000). Glencoe science voyages: Exploring the life, earth, and physical sciences (North Carolina edition). Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Blystone, R. V., & Dettling, B. C. (1990). Visual literacy in science textbooks. In M. B. Rowe (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher – the process of knowing (pp. 19–40). National Science Teachers Association.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? (design brief). Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
   Google Scholar
• Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013176309260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, M.-C., Chou, P.-I., Wang, Y.-T., & Lin, C.-H. (2015). Learning effects of a science textbook designed with adapted cognitive process principles on grade 5 students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(3), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9471-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• DiGiuseppe, M. (2014). Representing nature of science in a science textbook: Exploring author-editor-publisher interactions. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1061–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.840405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Franklin Institute. (2018). Virtual reality at the museum. Retrieved April 10, 2019 from https://www.fi.edu/exhibit/virtual-reality-museum
   Google Scholar
• Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: An illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33(3), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/33/3/657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ge, Y.-P., Unsworth, L., & Wang, K.-H. (2017). The effects of explicit visual cues in reading biological diagrams. International Journal of Science Education, 39(5), 605–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1297549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99–129). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (2008). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0987
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hite, R. L., Jones, M. G., Childers, G. M., Ennes, M., Chesnutt, K., Pereyra, M., & Cayton, E. (2019). Investigating potential relationships between adolescents’ cognitive development and perceptions of presence in 3-D, haptic-enabled, virtual reality science instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(3), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9764-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knain, E. (2015). Scientific literacy for participation: A systemic functional approach to analysis of school science discourses. Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd edition ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, V. R. (2010). Adaptations and continuities in the use and design of visual representations in US middle school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1099–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903253916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenzner, A., Schnotz, W., & Müller, A. (2013). The role of decorative pictures in learning. Instructional Science, 41(5), 811–841. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43575400, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9256-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(4), 195–232. https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1084933069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, J. R. (1979). On functions of pictures in prose. Report from the project on studies in language: Reading and communication. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Individualized Schooling. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED186847
   Google Scholar
• Levin, J. R. (1981). Pictures as prose-learning devices. Research and Development Center for Individualized Schooling. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED209660.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Levin, J. R., & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In B. K. Britton, A. Woodward, & M. Binkley (Eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice (pp. 95–113). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Magnusson, S., Krajcik, L., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Marquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modeling the water cycle. Science Education, 90(2), 202–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology and Research Development, 43(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Visual rhetoric in advertising: Text-interpretive, experimental, and reader-response analyses. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/209549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meneses, A., Escobar, J.-P., & Véliz, S. (2018). The effects of multimodal texts on science reading comprehension in Chilean fifth-graders: Text scaffolding and comprehension skills. International Journal of Science Education, 40(18), 2226–2244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1527472
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, K. R., & Levine, J. (2008). Prentice Hall biology. Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, R. R. (2012). Reading the graphics: What is the relationship between graphical reading processes and student comprehension? Reading and Writing, 25(3), 739–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9298-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyachwaya, J. M., & Gillaspie, M. (2016). Features of representations in general chemistry textbooks: A peek through the lens of the cognitive load theory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00140D
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, S., & Chen, Y. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. (2014). How imagery models interpretation: The classification of image function. 13th annual Hawaii international conference on arts and humanities conference proceedings, January 10–13, 2015. Louisville, KY: University of Louisville Center for Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods. http://textimage.org/indices/pdf/How-Imagery-Models.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. (2016). Schemes for integrating text and image in the science textbook: Effects on comprehension and situational interest. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(6), 1365–1385. http://textimage.org/indices/pdf/Schemes-for-Integrating.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. (2017). How to do things with pictures: The experience of challenging imagery in visual media. Dialectic, 1(2), 14–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/dialectic.14932326.0001.202
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. (2019a). The production of narrative through static imagery: Examples from a peculiar medieval illustration. Visual Communication, 18(2), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1470357217749998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. O. (2019b). Aspects of visual metaphor: An operational typology of visual rhetoric for research in advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 67–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1447760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson, R. (1998). Image functions in information design. The 30th annual conference of the International visual Literacy Association, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281810640_4_Information_Design-Image_Design
   Google Scholar
• Pettersson, R. (2013). Information design 3: Image design. International Institute for Information Design. https://www.iiid.net/PublicLibrary/Pettersson-Rune-ID3-Image-Design.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prain, V., Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representation in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701824249
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9340-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2007). Cascades of inscriptions and the re-presentation of nature: How numbers, tables, graphs, and money come to re-present a rolling ball. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1075–1091. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0950069970190906
   Google Scholar
• Russell, J. W., Kozma, R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 330–334. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed074p330 https://doi.org/10.1021/ed074p330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 45(2), 185–213. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
   Google Scholar
• Slough, S. W., & McTigue, E. M. (2013). Development of the graphical analysis protocol (GAP) for eliciting the graphical demands of science textbooks. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks: Evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 17–30). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4168-3_2
   Google Scholar
• Slough, S. W., McTigue, E. M., Kim, S., & Jennings, S. K. (2010). Science textbooks’ use of graphical representation: A descriptive analysis of four sixth grade science texts. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903256502
   Google Scholar
• Tang, K.-S. (2016). The interplay of representations and patterns of classroom discourse in science teaching sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2069–2095. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1218568
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, K.-S., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. B. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98(2), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, K.-S., Won, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2019). Analytical framework for student-generated drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 41(16), 2296–2322. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1672906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trefil, J., Calvo, R. A., Cutler, K., Carnine, D., Carnine, L., Miller, S., Steely, D., & Vachon, V. (2005). Mcdougal Littell science, grade 8 (North Carolina edition). McDougal Littell.
   Google Scholar
• Van Mulken, M., Le Pair, R., & Forceville, C. (2010). The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3418–3430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261–312. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016064429161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodward, A. (1993). Do illustrations serve an instructional purpose in U. S. Textbooks? In B. K. Britton, A. Woodward, & M. Binkley (Eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice (pp. 115–134). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy – empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar