Abstract
This study investigated the impact on chemistry learning of the degree to which students embedded or integrated multiple modes of representation in end of unit writing-to-learn activities. A multi-case study approach utilizing quasi-experimental methodology involving intact high school chemistry classes taught by two different teachers was employed. Approximately half of the classes for each teacher were designated treatment classes and students in these classes participated in specific classroom activities designed to encourage the use of strategies to embed multiple modes within text in student writing. Control classes did not participate in these activities. All classes with the same teacher participated in identical end of unit writing tasks followed by identical end of unit assessments. Writing tasks and end of unit assessments were teacher designed and were therefore unique to each setting. Data from each teacher was initially analyzed independently to explore characteristics of student writing and student performance on end of unit assessments. This was followed by cross case analysis. Analysis of quantitative data indicated that for the first teacher (n = 70 students), treatment classes significantly outperformed control classes on two different measures of writing characteristics during a first unit of study, two measures of writing for the second unit, and three categories of end of unit instruction for the second unit. For the second teacher (n = 95), treatment classes outperformed control classes on two writing characteristics and three end of unit assessment categories during the only unit of study assessed. In addition, at both sites, significant positive correlations were found between all writing characteristic measurements and end of unit assessment performance. These results not only support the use of multimodal writing-to-learn tasks as a pedagogical tool to improve chemistry learning, but specifically suggest benefit when multiple modes are effectively linked within these tasks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2006). Necessary conditions for learning? Modes of representation and the disciplinary discourse of university science. Retrieved from http://www2.hik.se/dokument/humsam/engelska/jaresearch/multimod.pdf.
Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry‐based approach known as thecience writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765.
Alvermann, D. (2004). Multiliteracies and self-questioning in the service of science learning. In Saul, W. (ed.) Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hllsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bernsen, N. (1993). A research agenda for modality theory. Unpublished manuscript.
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195.
Clark, J., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331.
Eliam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2008). Learning with multiple representations: Extending multimedia learning beyond the lab. Learning and Instruction, 18, 368–378.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122–128.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.
Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–159). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Gunduz, S. (2006). Comparing student understanding of quantum physics when embedding multimodal representations into two different writing formats: Presentation format vs. summary report format. Science Education, 90(6), 1092–1112.
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. (2009). Writing for different audiences: effects on high-school students’conceptual understanding of biology. Learning & Instruction, 19(4), 354–367.
Hand, B., Prain, V., & Yore, L. (2001). Studies in writing, Vol. 7. In G. Rijlaarsdam, P. Tynjala, L. Mason & K. Lonka (Eds.) Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory into practice (pp. 105–129). Dordrecth, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Holliday, W., Yore, L., & Alvermann, D. (1994). The reading-science writing-learning connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877–893.
Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270.
Klein, P. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 143–178.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.
Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.
Mayer, R. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
McDermott, M. & Hand, B. (2008). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representing information in writing to learn activities on student construction of chemistry knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association conference, Brisbane, Australia.
McDermott, M. & Hand, B. (2010). Exploring the impact of embedding multiple modes of representing science information in varied classroom settings. Paper accepted for presentation as part of a paper set on writing-to-learn activities at Annual Conference of National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Philadelphia.
Mertler, C., & Vannatta, R. (2002). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pineda, L., & Garza, G. (2000). A model for multimodal reference resolution. Computational Linguistics, 26(2), 139–193.
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 179–201.
Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2006). Science and literacy. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: Issues and practice. Association of Educators of Science Teachers.
Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969–983.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227–237.
Sweller, J., Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.
Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published resea simplified methodology. Retrieved from: http://www.learningaudit.com/white_papers/effect_sizes/Effect_Sizes_pdf4.pdf.
Thompson, B., Diamond, K., McWilliam, R., Snyder, P., & Snyder, S. (2005). Evaluating the quality of evidence from correlational research for evidence-based practice. Exceptional Children, 71, 181–194.
Wittrock, M. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87–95.
Wittrock, M. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.
Yore, L., & Treagust, D. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy: Empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 291–314.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A
Multimodal writing task: lesson focused on connecting alternative modes with text
Overview
A full understanding of any science concept would likely require a “multimodal” understanding of the concept in that the student would be able to represent their understanding using an assortment of modes and the student would be able to effectively link these multiple representations together to create a well integrated and cohesive piece of communication. The ultimate intent of this lesson is to help students recognize that when utilizing modes other than text along with text to communicate about a scientific concept, there are strategies and techniques that can be employed to improve the overall cohesiveness of the written communication. In this lesson, students will be given the opportunity to explore common sources of communication about science to observe not only how different modes are utilized to describe science ideas but also to identify strategies that are utilized to link the different modes (including text) together. The lesson will culminate in the production of an assessment matrix that can be utilized to evaluate how well any piece of written communication has integrated multiple modes of representation.
Outline
The lesson should be implemented in the classroom in a manner that fits with the overall progression of the course. In that sense, the lesson should be tailored to meet the specific needs of the specific classroom it is employed in. However, analysis of previous attempts to utilize lessons of this type have indicated that greater effectiveness in impacting student writing and ultimately student understanding are achieved when all of the following components are present:
Student assessment of unimodal (text only) communication
Students can be given a text only description of the topic or concept that will be discussed in the next unit of study. Ask students to analyze the description in terms of what aspects of the communication are effective and how could the effectiveness be improved if the intent of the author is to instruct the reader about the new science concept. In the course of this discussion, ideally, students will recognize that use of other ways to represent information (pictures, diagrams, graphs, tables, etc.) can be helpful. It is often beneficial to have a text only description that is fairly difficult in terms of reading level and heavy in new vocabulary so that most students will be unable to completely grasp the understanding from the description alone.
Student identification of multimodal usage and strategies to link modes
Once students have indicated that science communication is enhanced through the use of modes other than text along with text, students should be given the opportunity to use common sources of science information to find examples of multimodal use and examples of strategies to link modes together. Textbooks, science magazines, websites, or newspaper articles can be provided for this component of the lesson. Ask students to list all modes other than text used in the sources they observe. Discussion about these modes is an appropriate time to discuss naming of the modes. For example, students may disagree on what makes a diagram different than a picture (often students decide that a diagram has labels while a picture does not). While it is not necessary to come to agreement on what constitutes each mode, it is usually easier in future discussions if some sort of consistent naming system is used.
The other main factor of this lesson component is for students to identify strategies that authors use to link different modes together. Common strategies that are often identified include placing modes other than text near text that refers to them, complete textual descriptions of modes in the text, captions added to modes other than text, and the modes that are designed by the author (rather than simply copied from another source). The goal is for students to develop as thorough a list as possible of common rhetorical strategies utilized by authors to tie all modes together. Again, discussion about the usefulness of different strategies is encouraged.
Student creation of assessment matrix
The culminating activity for this lesson is the production of a student generated matrix for assessing any piece of written communication for how well different modes are integrated and the level of cohesiveness of the entire product. The particular format of the matrix is not critical, rather, the core issue is that students utilize the ideas about modal use and strategies to link modes that they developed in part 2 to create a practical assessment tool. An example of a student checklist created as a part of earlier lessons is included in this packet. Students will utilize this matrix to self analyze their own writing and potentially, depending on how further lessons are structured, to analyze written communication by other authors.
Student opportunities to practice using assessment matrix
It is often helpful if students are given the opportunity to utilize the newly created assessment tools from part 3 to authentically examine science communication. Students can review the sources they observed in part 2 or other sources. Websites describing science content may be projected for the entire class to see and each student can assess using the matrix. Discussion following this component is often focused on both the practical use of the matrix and the relative necessity or benefit of different strategies students have identified as important. In some cases, at this point in the lesson, students have been asked to create multimodal products and after exchanging with a peer, assess the products. An effective strategy if consecutive units using multimodal writing tasks are used is to have students analyze peers’ work from the first unit using the matrix as a review during the second unit.
Appendix B
Summary of teacher developed assessments
Case one
Unit one topic: classification and separation of matter.
Multiple choice
Type | Number |
|---|---|
States of matter | 5 |
Physical/chemical Properties | 3 |
Physical/chemical changes | 5 |
Classification of matter | 11 |
Separation | 1 |
Extended response
-
Q1. You find a bucket containing salt, sand, flour, and nickel filings in your garage. You find another bucket that appears to have two layers of liquid in it. First, make a claim about what type of matter is present in each and how you could support your claim with evidence. Second, explain how you would go about separating these items.
-
Q2. Your little brother just mixed two unknown powders together. Your parents are concerned that he may have caused a chemical reaction. What evidence would indicate to you that a chemical reaction had taken place? Why? If you are attempting to determine the identity of the unknown product, what type of properties would be most helpful in making this determination? Why?
-
Q3. Identify each of the underlined phrases in the following account of a laboratory procedure as either a chemical or physical change. Explain your answer:
-
The unknown substance was tested to determine its properties. First, a sample was ground up finely with a mortar and pestle. Next, samples were dissolved in water and other solvents. A Bunsen burner was lighted and some of the pure chemical was placed into a test tube and heated gently until it melted. Because the heating was too rapid, the test tube cracked and the experiment was repeated. Heating was continued this time until the substance boiled. Some fumes of the boiling substance reacted with oxygen in the air to form a white powder.
-
Q4. Explain why it is not correct to say “Distilled water is one of the purest elements used in lab work”.
-
Q5. It is often said that we are facing an “energy crisis” in this country and that if we are not careful, we will eventually use up our energy resources. However, in chemistry, we talk about the “Conservation of Energy”. Explain how both of these statements can be true.
Unit two topic: atomic structure and periodic table
Multiple choice
Type | Number |
|---|---|
Properties of atoms | 10 |
History of models of atom | 7 |
Ions/isotopes | 2 |
Electron configuration | 8 |
Extended response
-
Q1. Discuss three people who were instrumental in helping us understand what the structure of an atom was like. Include as many experiments and laws or relationships as you can.
-
Q2. Choose two different elements in the periodic table that have at least a 50 proton difference. For each, tell how many protons, neutrons, and electrons are in a neutral, most common isotope. Then, explain what you would change to create an ion and an uncommon isotope of each. How would you write the name of the ion and the uncommon isotope?
-
Q3. Explain what the average atomic mass on the periodic table tells you about the relative abundance of the different isotopes of an element. Give examples from the periodic table.
-
Q4. Describe our current view of the area of the atom that holds the electrons. What scientific findings helped develop this view and how do we describe the location of electrons in an atom?
-
Other questions
-
Electron configuration: students determine electron configuration for selected elements.
-
Atomic structure: students use periodic table to determine number of protons, neutrons, electrons, and the mass of different elements.
Case two
Unit one topic: periodic trends and periodic table
Multiple choice
Type | Number |
|---|---|
Periodic trends and organization | 24 |
History of periodic table | 1 |
Characteristics of groups/families | 5 |
Atomic structure | 5 |
Review | 13 |
Extended response
-
Q1. My grandma does not know why the Periodic Table cannot be arranged in a nice organized manner like a box. Please explain to her why the table has the shape that it does and how this relates to our understanding of the atom.
-
Q2. Pick any three elements that belong to different groups that we discussed in the periodic table and describe as much about each one as you can based on the group it belongs to.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McDermott, M.A., Hand, B. The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing tasks on high school students’ chemistry understanding. Instr Sci 41, 217–246 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9225-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9225-6