What recent research on diagrams suggests about learning <i>with</i> rather than learning <i>from</i> visual representations in science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The move from learning science from representations to learning science with representations has many potential and undocumented complexities. This thematic analysis partially explores the trends of representational uses in science instruction, examining 80 research studies on diagram use in science. These studies, published during 2000–2014, were located through searches of journal databases and books. Open coding of the studies identified 13 themes, 6 of which were identified in at least 10% of the studies: eliciting mental models, classroom-based research, multimedia principles, teaching and learning strategies, representational competence, and student agency. A shift in emphasis on learning with rather than learning from representations was evident across the three 5-year intervals considered, mirroring a pedagogical shift from science instruction as transmission of information to constructivist approaches in which learners actively negotiate understanding and construct knowledge. The themes and topics in recent research highlight areas of active interest and reveal gaps that may prove fruitful for further research, including classroom-based studies, the role of prior knowledge, and the use of eye-tracking. The results of the research included in this thematic review of the 2000–2014 literature suggest that both interpreting and constructing representations can lead to better understanding of science concepts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".