JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Impact of Multimodal Representation-based Lesson on Embeddedness of Multimodal Representation in High School Students' Writing
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
The Impact of Multimodal Representation-based Lesson on Embeddedness of Multimodal Representation in High School Students' Writing
Nam, Jeong-Hee; Lee, Dong-Won; Nam, Young-Ho;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of multimodal representation-based lesson on embeddedness of multimodal representation in high school students' writing. The participants in this study were two groups of second-year science-track students (74 students) at an academic high school in a metropolitan city. One group (41 students) was assigned to the experimental group, the other group (33 students) was assigned to the comparative group. Data analysis showed that the students of the experimental group were better at utilizing and embedding multimodal representations. Thus, the conclusion was drawn that multimodal representation-based lesson had an effect on high school students' embeddedness of multimodal representation.
 Keywords
Multimodal representation;Multimodal representation-based lesson;Embeddedness;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
1.
탐구적 과학 글쓰기 활동이 학생들의 글쓰기에서 나타난 다중 표상에 미치는 영향 및 다중 표상에 대한 학생들의 인식,남정희;박지연;이동원;

대한화학회지, 2012. vol.56. 6, pp.759-767 crossref(new window)
1.
The Impact of the Science Writing Heuristic Approach on Students' Use of Multiple Representations in Science Writing and Students' Recognition about Multiple Representations, Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 2012, 56, 6, 759  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
Paivio, A. Imagery and verbal processes; New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.

2.
Small, M. Y.; Lovett, S. B.; Scher, M. S. Journal of Educational Psychology 1993, 85(3), 520. crossref(new window)

3.
Lemke, J. L. Multimedia semiotics: Genres for science education and scientific literacy. In Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: meaning with power; M. J. Schleppegrell.; M. C. Colombi, Eds.; Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum., 2002.

4.
Roth, W. M.; Bowen, G. M. Linguistics and Education 2000, 10(3), 335.

5.
Hand, B.; Choi, A.; Greenbowe, T.; Schroeder, J.; Bennett, W. Examining the impact of student use of multiplemode representations in constructing science arguments, Annual International Conference of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD, 2008.

6.
McDermott, M. A. The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation on student construction of chemistry knowledge. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa, U.S.A., 2009.

7.
van Someren, M. W.; Reinmann, P.; Boshuizn, H. P. A.; de Jong, T. Learning with Multiple Representations; Elsevier: Oxford, U.K., 1998.

8.
Jewitt, C.; Kress, G.; Ogborn, J.; Charalampos, T. Educational Review 2001, 53(1), 4.

9.
Cho, H. S. The Impact of the Science Writing Heuristic Approach on Students' Use of Multi Modal Representation and Embeddedness in Science Writing; Pusan National University of Education: Korea, 2009.

10.
Lee, D. W. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education 2011, 31(6), 931.

11.
Ainsworth, S. E. Computers & Education 1999, 33, 131. crossref(new window)

12.
Ainsworth, S. E.; Bibby, P. A.; Wood, D. J. Pedagogy and Education 1997, 6(1), 93.

13.
Roth, W. M.; McGinn, M. K. Review of Education Research 1998, 68(1), 35. crossref(new window)

14.
Winn, W. Contributions of perceptual and cognitive processes to the comprehension of graphics. In Comprehension of graphics; W. Schnotz.; R. W. Kulhavy, Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1994; p 3.

15.
Chandler, P.; Sweller, J. Cognition and Instruction 1991, 8(4), 293. crossref(new window)

16.
Kozma, R. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13(2), 205. crossref(new window)

17.
Mayer, R. E. Educational Psychologist 1997, 32(1), 1. crossref(new window)

18.
Mayer, R. E.; Moreno, R. Journal of Educational Psychology 1998, 90(2), 312. crossref(new window)

19.
Mayer, R. E. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13(2), 125. crossref(new window)

20.
Anderson, T.L.; Bodner, G. M. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 2008, 9, 93. crossref(new window)

21.
Bhattacharyya, G.; Bodner, G. M. Journal of Chemical Education 2005, 82(9), 1402. crossref(new window)

22.
Tabachneck, H. J. M.; Leonardo, A. M.; Simon, H. A. How does an expert use a graph? a model of visual and verbal inferencing in economics. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society; A. Ram.; K. Eiselt, Eds.; Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1994; p 842.

23.
Bernsen, N. O. A research agenda for modality theory. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Graphical Representations, Reasoning and Communication; Cox, R.; Petre, M.; Brna, P. and Lee, J., Eds.; World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Edinburgh, 1993; p 43.

24.
Eliam, B.; Poyas, Y. Learning and Instruction 2008, 18(4), 368. crossref(new window)

25.
Pineda, L.; Garza, G. Computational Linguistics 2000, 26(2), 139. crossref(new window)

26.
Tang, K.; Moje, E. Research in Science Education 2010, 40(1), 81. crossref(new window)