Analysis of diagrams in the kinetic gas theory materials in high school physics textbooks: a content analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31980/ripe.v2i2.32Keywords:
Kinetic gas theory, Physics textbooks, Content analysisAbstract
The theory of gas kinetics material studies objects that are abstract in nature. Therefore, its learning requires visual representations capable of visualizing these abstract objects, one of which is diagrams. The presence of diagrams in high school physics textbooks is considered important to aid the learning process. This research aims to determine the distribution of diagram categories, trends in diagram usage, and teachers’ perceptions of diagram usage in the Theory of Gas Kinetics material in high school physics textbooks with a descriptive quantitative research design. The research results show the distribution of diagram categories with the highest percentage in each analyzed book being the glossary image category, accounting for an overall percentage of 45%. The usage trends of each diagram category tend to fluctuate from year to year. Based on the findings of this research, teachers’ perceptions of diagram usage in the Theory of Gas Kinetics material have three main themes: diagrams are important as learning aids to make lessons more interesting and to represent the identity of science, especially physics; the use of diagrams depends on teachers’ needs; and diagrams help students understand the text and present physics concepts more specifically.
References
Abed, Eman Rasmi, and Mohammad Mustafa Al-Absi. 2015. Content analysis of jordanian elementary textbooks during 1970-2013 as case study. International education studies 8 (3): 159–166.
Arsenault, Darin J, Laurence D Smith, and Edith A Beauchamp. 2006. Visual inscriptions in the scientific hierarchy: mapping the “treasures of science”. Science Communication 27 (3): 376–428.
Badmus, Olalekan Taofeek, and Loyiso C Jita. 2022. Pedagogical implication of spatial visualization: a correlate of students’ achievements in physics. Journal of Turkish Science Education 19 (1): 97–110.
Bryce, Nadine. 2013. Textual features and language demands of primary grade science textbooks: the call for more informational texts in primary grades. In Critical analysis of science textbooks: evaluating instructional effectiveness, 101–120. Springer.
Butcher, Kirsten R. 2006. Learning from text with diagrams: promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of educational psychology 98 (1): 182.
Cheng, Maurice MW, and John K Gilbert. 2014. Students’ visualization of metallic bonding and the malleability of metals. International Journal of Science Education 36 (8): 1373–1407.
Cox, Sue. 2005. Intention and meaning in young children’s drawing. International Journal of Art & Design Education 24 (2): 115–125.
Danish, Joshua A, and Noel Enyedy. 2007. Negotiated representational mediators: how young children decide what to include in their science representations. Science Education 91 (1): 1–35.
Guo, Daibao, Shuai Zhang, Katherine Landau Wright, and Erin M McTigue. 2020. Do you get the picture? a meta-analysis of the effect of graphics on reading comprehension. AERA Open 6 (1): 2332858420901696.
Harper, David. 2011. Choosing a qualitative research method. Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners, 83–97.
Hegarty, Mary, Patricia A Carpenter, and Marcel Adam Just. 1991. Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts.
Holliday, William G, and Garth Benson. 1991. Enhancing learning using questions, adjunct to science charts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28 (6): 523–535.
Houts, Peter S, Cecilia C Doak, Leonard G Doak, and Matthew J Loscalzo. 2006. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient education and counseling 61 (2): 173–190.
Hwang, Wu-Yuin, Nian-Shing Chen, Jian-Jie Dung, and Yi-Lun Yang. 2007. Multiple representation skills and creativity effects on mathematical problem solving using a multimedia whiteboard system. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 10 (2): 191–212.
Kress, Gunther, and Theo Van Leeuwen. 2020. Reading images: the grammar of visual design. Routledge.
Krueger, Richard A. 2014. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage publications.
LaDue, Nicole D, Julie C Libarkin, and Stephen R Thomas. 2015. Visual representations on high school biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics assessments. Journal of science education and technology 24:818–834.
Liu, Yang, and David F Treagust. 2013. Content analysis of diagrams in secondary school science textbooks. In Critical analysis of science textbooks: evaluating instructional effectiveness, 287–300. Springer.
Lynch, Michael. 1990. The externalized retina: selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. representation in scientific practice. m. lynch and s. woolgar. cambridge massachussetts.
Mayer, Richard E, and Valerie K Sims. 1994. For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of educational psychology 86 (3): 389.
McTigue, Erin M, and Scott W Slough. 2010. Student-accessible science texts: elements of design. Reading Psychology 31 (3): 213–227.
Muspratt, Sandy, and Peter Freebody. 2013. Understanding the disciplines of science: analysing the language of science textbooks. In Critical analysis of science textbooks: evaluating instructional effectiveness, 33–59. Springer.
Pappas, C. C. 2006. The information book genre: its role in integrated science literacy research and practice. Reading research quarterly 41 (2): 226–250.
Poerwanti, Endang. 2008. Standar penilaian badan standar nasional pendidikan (BNSP)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
