Multiple Representations in Physics and Science Education – Why Should We Use Them?

This chapter provides an overview of different models and theories on learning with multiple representations and outlines their importance for physics education. We distinguish between internal and external multiple representations. The latter refer to any combination of visible representations such as pictures, text, graphs, and tables. Physics can be seen as a visual subject and such external representations have an unquestionable relevance in physics education and are described in theories such as the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, the Integrated Model of Text and Picture Comprehension, and the DeFT framework for learning with multiple representations. Each theory is discussed in this chapter. The benefits of instructional design for learning, that is, the nature of such representations and how they are combined with each other are moderated by individual learner characteristics, some of which are described in the next part of the chapter. The final emphasis on internal representations refers to the way in which external representations are translated into internal mental models: an example used is the Theory of Choreographies of Teaching which closes the chapter.

[1]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: An Integrated Model of Text and Picture Comprehension , 2005 .

[2]  Holger Horz,et al.  Multimedia: How to Combine Language and Visuals , 2008 .

[3]  John Sweller,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Redundancy Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[4]  Edward F. Redish,et al.  Analyzing Problem Solving Using Math in Physics: Epistemic Framing Via Warrants , 2009 .

[5]  Scotty D. Craig,et al.  Animated Pedagogical Agents in Multimedia Educational Environments: Effects of Agent Properties, Picture Features, and Redundancy , 2002 .

[6]  S. Ainsworth The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Multiple Representation Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2014 .

[7]  Bruce K. Britton,et al.  Students' Conceptual Frameworks: Consequences for Learning Science , 2012 .

[8]  T. Gog The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning , 2014 .

[9]  S. Ainsworth DeFT: A Conceptual Framework for Considering Learning with Multiple Representations. , 2006 .

[10]  J. Sweller Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load , 2010 .

[11]  P. V. Meter,et al.  The Promise and Practice of Learner-Generated Drawing: Literature Review and Synthesis , 2005 .

[12]  Detlev Leutner,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Generative Drawing Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2014 .

[13]  John Sweller,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[14]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect , 2014 .

[15]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning , 2020, Multimedia Learning.

[16]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Introduction: Macro, Submicro and Symbolic Representations and the Relationship Between Them: Key Models in Chemical Education , 2009 .

[17]  D. Treagust,et al.  Students’ Learning Strategies With Multiple Representations: Explanations of the Human Breathing Mechanism , 2014 .

[18]  Paul Ginns Meta-Analysis of the Modality Effect. , 2005 .

[19]  F. Hesse,et al.  When are powerful learning environments effective? The role of learner activities and of students’ conceptions of educational technology , 2004 .

[20]  Detlev Leutner,et al.  The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations - Evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[21]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pre-training, and modality principles. , 2005 .

[22]  R. Mayer,et al.  Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. , 2010 .

[23]  Andra A. DiSessa Inventing Graphing: Meta­ Representational Expertise in Children , 1991 .

[24]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Measuring Student Attitude and Knowledge in Technology-Rich Biology Classrooms , 2014 .

[25]  Paul Ginns Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects , 2006 .

[26]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[27]  Shaaron E. Ainsworth,et al.  Drawing to Learn in Science , 2011, Science.

[28]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: Frontmatter , 2001 .

[29]  R. Mayer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage: A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 1998 .

[30]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Signaling as a Cognitive Guide in Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[31]  T. Höffler Spatial Ability: Its Influence on Learning with Visualizations—a Meta-Analytic Review , 2010 .

[32]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  Commentary: Towards an Integrated View of Learning from Text and Visual Displays , 2002 .

[33]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The functions of multiple representations , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[34]  Jan L. Plass,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Multimedia Learning in Second Language Acquisition , 2005 .

[35]  David J. Gilmore,et al.  Comprehension and Recall of Miniature Programs , 1984, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[36]  H. Tabbers,et al.  Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: effects of modality and cueing. , 2004, The British journal of educational psychology.

[37]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning : Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity, and Temporal Contiguity Principles , 2005 .

[38]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory , 2020, Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies.

[39]  Per Morten Kind,et al.  An empirical-mathematical modelling approach to upper secondary physics , 2008 .

[40]  John Sweller,et al.  The Redundancy Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[41]  W. Schnotz,et al.  The role of decorative pictures in learning , 2013 .

[42]  Richard Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[43]  D. Leutner,et al.  Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis , 2007 .

[44]  Detlev Leutner,et al.  Cognitive load and instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[45]  Bruce K. Britton,et al.  Explaining Science Concepts : A Teaching-With-Analogies Model , 1991 .

[46]  Philip Scott,et al.  A case study analysing the process of analogy‐based learning in a teaching unit about simple electric circuits , 2004 .

[47]  A. Paivio Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach , 1986 .

[48]  Chi-Yan Tsui,et al.  Introduction to Multiple Representations: Their Importance in Biology and Biological Education , 2013 .

[49]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Cognitive processes in well‐defined and ill‐defined problem solving , 1995 .

[50]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[51]  R. Mayer,et al.  For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. , 1994 .

[52]  R. Mayer,et al.  Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms , 2007 .

[53]  Slava Kalyuga The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Prior Knowledge Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[54]  J. Sweller Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning , 2005, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[55]  J. Baumert,et al.  Kognitionspsychologische Aspekte eines Kompetenzmodells zur Text-Bild-Integration , 2012 .

[56]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Toward a theoretical account of strategy use and sense-making in mathematics problem solving , 1994 .

[57]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[58]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The effects of self‐explaining when learning with text or diagrams , 2003 .

[59]  Lloyd J. Rieber Computers Graphics and Learning , 1994 .

[60]  Timothy A. Hays,et al.  Spatial Abilities and the Effects of Computer Animation on Short-Term and Long-Term Comprehension , 1996 .

[61]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction , 1999 .

[62]  R. Mayer,et al.  A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in Working Memory , 1998 .