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

Hakan Akçay; Hasan Ozgur Kapıcı; Behiye Akçay

doi:10.17275/per.20.42.7.3

EN

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

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.

Keywords

multiple representations, images, visuals, science textbooks

Thanks

Thanks a lot to the MoNE and Tuna publishers for allowing us to use some example illustrations from the middle school science textbooks published by them.

References

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.
Ahtineva, A. (2005). Textbook analysis in the service of chemistry teaching. Universitas Scientiarum, 10, 25-33.
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computer & Education, 33, 131-152.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
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.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
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.
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.
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.

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.
Çelik Koyuncu, A., Tiryaki, N., Kavas, B., & Salmaner, V. (2002). İlköğretim fen bilgisi 8 ders kitabı [Eighth grade science textbook]. Ankara: 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.
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 textbooks and press articles about science and technology. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 189-2016.
European Commission Ethics and Gender. (2012). She figures 2012: Gender in research and innovation. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/she-figures-2012_en.pdf
Geske, A., & Geske, R. (2010, July). Content of textbooks: One of the factors affecting fourth-grader science achievements in TIMMS. Paper presented at the 4th IEA International Research Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2011). Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 5-14.
Güngör, B., Dökme, İ., Ülker, S., Yıldıran, F. N., Aydınlı, R., & Baş, B. (2002). İlköğretim fen bilgisi 6 ders kitabı [Sixth grade science textbook]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basım Evi.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world.” In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 189-212). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hatzinikita, V., Dimopoulos, K., & Christidou, V. (2008). PISA test items and school textbooks related to science: A textual comparison. Science Education, 92(4), 664-687.
Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts.” In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 641-668). New York: Longman.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-705.
Johnstone, A. H. (2007). Science education: We know the answers, let’s look at the problems. Proceedings of the 5th Greek Conference Science Education and New Technologies in Education, 1, 1-11.
Kapıcı, H. O., & Savascı-Acıkalın, F. (2015). Examination of visuals about particulate nature of matter in Turkish middle school science textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 518-536.
Kerkhoven, A. H., Russo, P., Land-Zandstra, A., Saxena, A., & Rodenburg, F. J. (2016). Gender stereotypes in science education resources: A visual content analysis. PloS One, 11(11), 1-13.
Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure Up? Findings from project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.
Khine, M. S., & Liu, Y. (2017). Descriptive analysis of the graphic representations of science textbooks. European Journal of STEM Education, 2(3), 1-15.
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.
Liu, Y., & Khine, M. S. (2016). Content analysis of the diagrammatic representations of primary science textbooks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(8), 1937-1951.
Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, (pp. 253-284). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 611-623.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012). TIMMS 2011international results in reading. Amsterdam: TIMMS International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Nakiboğlu, C. (2009). Deneyimli kimya öğretmenlerinin ortaöğretim kimya ders kitaplarını kullanımlarının incelenmesi [Examination on expert chemistry teachers’ secondary school chemistry textbook usage]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 10(1), 1-10.
Nyachwaya, J. M., & Wood, N. B. (2014). Evaluation of chemical representations in physical chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 720-728.
Opfermann, M., Schmeck, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). Multiple representations in physics and science education-Why should we use them?” In D. F. Treaguts, R. Duit, and H. E. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple representations in physics education (pp. 1-22). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford Science Publications.
Papageorgiou, G., Amariotakis, V., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (2017). Visual representations of microcosm in textbooks of chemistry: Constructing a systematic network for their main conceptual framework. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18, 559-571.
Pinto, R., & Ametller, J. (2002). Students’ difficulties in reading images. Comparing results from four national research groups. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 333-341.
Postigo, Y., & López-Manjón, A. (2019). Images in biology: Are instructional criteria used in textbook image design? International Journal of Science Education, 41(2), 210-229.
Pozzer Ardenghi, L., & Roth, W. (2004, April). Students’ interpretation of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, CA.
Pozzer, L. L., & Roth, W. (2003). Prevalence, function and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089-1114.
Shehab, S. S., & BouJaoude, S. (2017). Analysis of the chemical representations in secondary Lebanese chemistry textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 797-816.
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.
Taber, K. S. (2009). Learning at the symbolic level. In J. K. Gilbert, & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Models and modelling in science education: Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 75-109). Netherlands: Springer.
Taş, U. E., Arıcı, Ö., Ozarkan, H. B., & Özgürlük, B. (2016). PISA 2015 ulusal raporu [National report of PISA 2015]. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of National Education.
Tsui, C.-C., & Treagust, D. F. (2013). Introduction to multiple representations: Their importance in biology and biological education. In D. F. Treagust, & C.-Y. Tsui (Eds.), Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 3-18). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tuncel, E. (2017). Ortaokul fen bilimleri 7 ders kitabı [Seventh grade science textbook]. Ankara: Tuna Matbaacılık Mevsim Yayıncılık.
UNESCO. (2018). Women in science. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs51-women-in-science-2018-en.pdf
Upahi, J. E., & Ramnarain, U. (2019). Representations of chemical phenomena in secondary school chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20, 146-159.
van den Ham, A.-K., & Heinze, A. (2018). Does the textbook matter? Longitudinal effects of textbook choice on primary school students’ achievement in Mathematics? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 133-140.
van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 199-212.
Yeh, Y-F. Y., & McTigue, E. M. (2009). The frequency, variation, and function of graphical representations within standardized state science tests. School Science and Mathematics, 109(8), 435-449.
Yıldırım, A., Özgürlük, B., Parlak, B., Gönen, E., & Polat, M. (2016). TIMMS 2015 ulusal matematik ve fen bilimleri ön raporu 4. ve 8.sınıflar [Pre-report of TIMMS 2015 national mathematics and science 4th and 8th grades]. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of National Education.
Wittrock, M. C. (1989. Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345-376.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Other Fields of Education

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Hakan Akçay
0000-0003-0307-661X
Türkiye

Hasan Ozgur Kapıcı ^*
0000-0001-7473-1584
Türkiye

Behiye Akçay
0000-0002-0546-8759
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 1, 2020

Submission Date

April 15, 2020

Acceptance Date

June 11, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2020 Volume: 7 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.42.7.3

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA28KN23BX

APA

Akçay, H., Kapıcı, H. O., & Akçay, B. (2020). Analysis of the Representations in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks from 2002 to 2017. Participatory Educational Research, 7(3), 192-216. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.42.7.3

AMA

1.Akçay H, Kapıcı HO, Akçay B. Analysis of the Representations in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks from 2002 to 2017. PER. 2020;7(3):192-216. doi:10.17275/per.20.42.7.3

Chicago

Akçay, Hakan, Hasan Ozgur Kapıcı, and Behiye Akçay. 2020. “Analysis of the Representations in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks from 2002 to 2017”. Participatory Educational Research 7 (3): 192-216. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.42.7.3.

EndNote

Akçay H, Kapıcı HO, Akçay B (December 1, 2020) Analysis of the Representations in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks from 2002 to 2017. Participatory Educational Research 7 3 192–216.

IEEE

[1]H. Akçay, H. O. Kapıcı, and B. Akçay, “Analysis of the Representations in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks from 2002 to 2017”, PER, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 192–216, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.17275/per.20.42.7.3.

ISNAD

Akçay, Hakan - Kapıcı, Hasan Ozgur - Akçay, Behiye. “Analysis of the Representations in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks from 2002 to 2017”. Participatory Educational Research 7/3 (December 1, 2020): 192-216. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.42.7.3.

JAMA

1.Akçay H, Kapıcı HO, Akçay B. Analysis of the Representations in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks from 2002 to 2017. PER. 2020;7:192–216.

MLA

Akçay, Hakan, et al. “Analysis of the Representations in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks from 2002 to 2017”. Participatory Educational Research, vol. 7, no. 3, Dec. 2020, pp. 192-16, doi:10.17275/per.20.42.7.3.

Vancouver

1.Hakan Akçay, Hasan Ozgur Kapıcı, Behiye Akçay. Analysis of the Representations in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks from 2002 to 2017. PER. 2020 Dec. 1;7(3):192-216. doi:10.17275/per.20.42.7.3