Journals / Participatory Educational Research / 2020 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3

Analysis of the Representations in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks from 2002 to 2017

Pages
192–216
Publication Date
2020-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Science textbooks should encourage students to interpret and translate between different representations to enable them accurate knowledge.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Textbooks are one of the primary sources for students to obtain knowledge, so they should present accurate knowledge through textual and visual representations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample consists of 6247 representations from twelve middle school science textbooks (four each of sixth, seventh, and eighth grades) from 2002 to 2017.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Science textbooks should encourage students to interpret and translate between different representations to enable them accurate knowledge.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:multiple representations · images · visuals

Abstract

Textbooks are one of the primary sources for students to obtain knowledge, so they should present accurate knowledge through textual and visual representations. The goal of the current study is to examine the representations in middle school science textbooks based on the diagram coding scheme to find out a general picture of how representations used in the science textbooks over the fifteen years. The sample consists of 6247 representations from twelve middle school science textbooks (four each of sixth, seventh, and eighth grades) from 2002 to 2017. Content analysis was used to analyze the representations in textbooks, which were gathered by document analysis. The representations were evaluated concerning the combination of two main diagram coding schemes. Findings showed that iconic representations are prevalent in middle school science textbooks. There are limited charts, graphs and augmented reality representations in the science textbooks. Furthermore, there are more male representations than female ones, representations are mostly indexed in the main texts, and captions are mainly problematic in middle school science textbooks. The findings based on the two diagrams coding scheme are mainly coherent with each other. Science textbooks should encourage students to interpret and translate between different representations to enable them accurate knowledge.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKÇAY, H., KAPICI, H. O., AKÇAY, B. (2020). Analysis of the Representations in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks from 2002 to 2017. Participatory Educational Research, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3, 192–216. https://ajindex.com/articles/239107

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Brunner, J., Waight, N., Wahbeh, N., Zeineddin, A. A., & Belarmino, J. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in US high school biology and physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 82-120.
  2. Ahtineva, A. (2005). Textbook analysis in the service of chemistry teaching. Universitas Scientiarum, 10, 25-33.
  3. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computer & Education, 33, 131-152.
  4. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
  5. Anagnostopoulou, K., Hatzinikita, V., & Chritidou, V. (2012). PISA and biology school textbooks: The role of visual material. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1839-1845.
  6. Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
  7. Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Wiess, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weiss, A. M. (2012). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. C. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experiences, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  8. Brownlow, S., & Durham, S. (1997). Sex differences in the use of science and technology in children’s cartoons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(2), 103-110.
  9. Cheng, M. M. W., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). Students’ visualization of metallic bonding and the malleability of metals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1373-1407.
  10. Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1874-1868.
  11. Çelik Koyuncu, A., Tiryaki, N., Kavas, B., & Salmaner, V. (2002). İlköğretim fen bilgisi 8 ders kitabı [Eighth grade science textbook]. Ankara:
  12. Milli Eğitim Basım Evi. Demirdöğen, B. (2017). Examination of chemical representations in Turkish high school chemistry textbooks. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 472-499.
  13. Devetak, I., & Vogrine, J. (2013). The criteria for evaluating the quality of the science textbooks. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks (pp. 3-15). Dordrecht: Springer. Dimopoulos, K., Koulaidis, V., & Sklaveniti, S. (2003). Towards an analysis of visual images in school science t