 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 11, Issue 1,
Foreword (Jun., 2010) John K. GILBERT The role of visual representations in the learning and teaching of science: An introduction
|
|
|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 11, Issue 1,
Foreword (Jun., 2010) John K. GILBERT The role of visual representations in the learning and teaching of science: An introduction
|
A way forward: Research and development needed
The field of research into visualization has, perhaps quite naturally, been dominated by cognitive psychologists. Their collective address to the complex issues involved has been to conduct tightly designed ‘control’ experiments based on the manipulation of specific ‘variables’ and often to use undergraduate psychology students as the subjects for these experiments. In particular, the assessment instruments that have been developed are only available under the supervision of a qualified psychologist, which fatally restricts their use in everyday classrooms.
The outcome of these circumstances has been the acquisition of ‘knowledge’ that is not transferable to an understanding of the messy world of the everyday learning of established knowledge by science students. As a consequence, there has been little if any development work into ways of improving the deployment or development (dependent on where one stands on the nature v. nurture issue) of metavisual capability in ordinary science classrooms. The opportunities for major research and development work in respect of established knowledge and ordinary science education are legion. Here are a few of the most pressing questions that must be addressed:
1. What are the codes of interpretation for all the major modes and forms of representation?
2. What do these codes tell us about the explanatory scope and limitations of these mode s and form?
3. how might the modes/forms best be combined in the teaching of key issues and skills in science?
4. how might students’ metavisual capabilities be efficiently and effectively developed?
5. how can students’ progress in displaying/developing metavisual competence be validly assessed by science teachers in the course of their work?
6. What implications do the answers to these questions have for the design and conduct of both science teaching and the conduct of science teacher education?
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Maurice Cheng and Rosaria Justi for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.
