International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2023, Vol. 19(2) 152-172

The Examination of Representations in Primary School Science Textbooks from the Perspective of Multimodal Genre Analysis

Elif Güven Demir

pp. 152 - 172   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2023.534.10   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2210-19-0004.R1

Published online: April 01, 2023  |   Number of Views: 64  |  Number of Download: 224


Abstract

This study conducted a genre analysis to determine the representations in primary school science textbooks. Multiple representations in textbooks indicate multimodality. This study adopted a multimodal genre analysis approach to review the multiple representations in textbooks within the framework of the “scientific” genre. The sample consisted of two primary school textbooks taught to third and fourth graders within the scope of “the science” course in the 2021-2022 academic year. The data were gathered based on document analysis and analyzed using content analysis. Frequency and percentage were used for analysis. The results show that the most common representations in the textbooks are photographs and iconic diagrams. The third-grade textbook has more representations than the fourth-grade textbook. The representations in the textbooks are primarily associated with the scientific genres “explanation” and “information report.” Of the scientific genres in the textbooks, photographs are primarily used in “information report,” “explanation,” and “narration.” Iconic diagram representation is preferred in “experimental,” “argumentative,” and “technical procedure.” Certain representations are predominantly used in the textbooks, indicating that the textbooks lack a diversity of representations. In addition, the scientific genres are underrepresented in the textbooks, suggesting that the textbooks underutilize the advantages offered by different types of representations. We recommend that textbooks should be enriched with representations and scientific genres.

Keywords: Genre Analysis, Multimodality, Representation, Science, Textbook


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Demir, E.G. (2023). The Examination of Representations in Primary School Science Textbooks from the Perspective of Multimodal Genre Analysis . International Journal of Progressive Education, 19(2), 152-172. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2023.534.10

Harvard
Demir, E. (2023). The Examination of Representations in Primary School Science Textbooks from the Perspective of Multimodal Genre Analysis . International Journal of Progressive Education, 19(2), pp. 152-172.

Chicago 16th edition
Demir, Elif Guven (2023). "The Examination of Representations in Primary School Science Textbooks from the Perspective of Multimodal Genre Analysis ". International Journal of Progressive Education 19 (2):152-172. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2023.534.10.

References
  1. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Barış, G., Üner, S., & Akkuş, H. (2020). Madde ve doğası konusunda fen bilimleri ders kitaplarında yer alan temsillerin incelenmesi [Conference presentation abstract]. 2nd International Conference on Science, Mathematics, Entrepreneurship and Technology Education, Bursa. http://www.fmgtegitimikongresi.com/dosyalar/files/%C3%96zetler%20kitab%C4%B1%20V2.pdf [Google Scholar]
  3. Bastide, F. (1990). The iconography of scientific texts: Principles of analysis. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp.187-230). MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bateman, J. (2014). Genre in the age of multimodality: Some conceptual refinements for practical analysis. In P. Evangelisti Allori, J. Bateman, & V. K. Bhatia (Eds), Evolution in genre. Emergence, variation, multimodality (pp. 237-269). Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bayir, E., & Kahveci̇, S. (2022). Ortaokul fen bilimleri ders kitaplarının bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından incelenmesi [Examination of secondary school science textbooks in terms of levels of inquiry- based teaching method]. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 11(1), 1295 - 1326. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1026825 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Bergqvist, A., & Chang Rundgren, S.-N. (2017). The influence of textbooks on teachers’ knowledge of chemical bonding representations relative to students’ difficulties understanding. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(2), 215-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1295934 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2010). Changing text: a social semiotic analysis of textbooks. Designs for Learning, 3(1-2), 10-29. http://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.26 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Bryce, N. (2013). Textual features and language demands of primary grade science textbooks: The call for more informational texts in primary grades. In M. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks, Evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 101-120). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  10. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182-197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.182 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Coleman, J. M., & Dantzler, J. A. (2016). The frequency and type of graphical representations in science trade books for children. Journal of Visual Literacy, 35(1), 24-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051144X.2016.1198543 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. Devetak, I., & Vogrinc, J. (2013). The criteria for evaluating the quality of the science textbooks. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks: evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 3-15). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4168-3_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. 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, 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025006310503 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Dimopoulos, K., Koulaidis, V., & Sklaveniti, S. (2005). Towards a framework of socio-linguistic analysis of science textbooks: The Greek case. Research in Science Education, 35(2), 173-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-8162-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Donovan, C., & Coleman, J. (2018). Teaching teachers: The language of science in the reading and writing of student scientists. Science and Children, 56. 49-57. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/sc18_056_01_62 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Dressman, M. (2019). Multimodality and language learning. In M. Dressman & R. W. Sandler (Eds.), The handbook of informal language learning (pp. 39-55). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119472384.ch3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Duruk, Ü., & Akgün, A. (2020). Bilimin doğası bileşenlerinin fen bilimleri ders kitaplarında temsil edilme durumu [Representation of Nature of Science Components Across Secondary School Science Textbooks]. Amasya Education Journal, 9(2),. 196 - 229 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ecevi̇t, T., Alagöz, S., Özkurt, N., & Köylü, Ü. K. (2022). İlkokul 3. ve 4. sınıf fen bilimleri ders kitaplarındaki etkinliklerinin bilimsel süreç, yaşam ve mühendislik tasarım becerilerini kazandırması açısından incelenmesi [Investigation of the activities in elementary school 3rd and 4th grade science course books in terms of achieving scientific process, life and engineering design skill]. Trakya Journal of Education, 12(2), 743 - 758. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.934470 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Edens, K. M., & Potter, E. F. (2001). Promoting conceptual understanding through pictorial representation. Studies in Art Education, 42(3), 214-233. https://doi.org/10.2307/1321038 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Eroğlu Doğan, E., Eki̇nci̇, R., & Doğan, D. (2020). Fen bilimleri ders kitapları ile ilgili yapılan çalışmaların incelenmesi [Examination of the studies related to science textbooks]. Journal of the Human and Social Sciences Researches, 9(5), 3479-3499. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.734864 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Evagorou, M., Erduran, S., & Mäntylä, T. (2015). The role of visual representations in scientific practices: From conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to ‘seeing’ how science works. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0024-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Foster, D., & Russell, D. R. (2002). Writing and learning in cross-national perspective: transitions from secondary to higher education. National Council of Teachers of English, 1111 W. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED463557 [Google Scholar]
  23. Green, C., & Green, S. (2000). Assessment of literacy in the text level strand of the national literacy framework at key stage two: issues surrounding genre and gender [Conference Presentation]. European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburg. https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/109662-assessment-of-literacy-in-the-test-level-strand-of-the-national-literacy-framework-at-key-stage-two-issues-surrounding-genre-and-gender.pdf [Google Scholar]
  24. Güvendi̇, M. F. (2021). İlkokul fen bilimleri ders kitaplarında yer alan kültürel ögelerin incelenmesi [Examination of cultural elements in primary school science textbooks]. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi, 19(42), 9-37. https://doi.org/10.34234/ded.895236 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Hatzinikita, V., Dimopoulos, K., & Christidou, V. (2008). PISA test items and school textbooks related to science: A textual comparison. Science Education, 92, 664-687. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20256 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1996). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 641-668), Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hiippala, T. (2014). Multimodal genre analysis. In C. D. Maier & S. Norris (Eds.), Interactions, images and texts: a reader in multimodality (pp. 111-123). de Gryuter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511175.111 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Hildebrand, G. M. (1996). Writing in/forms science and science learning [Conference Presentation] the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. St. Louis. United States. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED393694.pdf [Google Scholar]
  29. İnaltekin, T., & Göksu, V. (2019). A research on visual learning representations of primary and secondary science textbooks in Turkey. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(6), 51-65. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.215.4   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Jong, T. de, Ainsworth, S., Dobson, M., Hulst, A. van der, Levonen, J., Reimann, P., Sime, J. A., Someren, M. van, Spada, H., & Swaak, J. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology based learning environments. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, & H. P. A. Boshuizen (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9-40). Pergamon Elsevier. https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/acquiring-knowledge-in-science-and-mathematics-the-use-of-multipl [Google Scholar]
  31. Kapıcı, H. Ö., & Savaşcı-Açıkalın, F. (2015). Examination of visuals about the particulate nature of matter in Turkish middle school science textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 518-536. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00032G [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Keogh, B., Naylor, S., & Wilson, C. (1998). Concept cartoons: A new perspective on physics education. Physics Education, 33(4), 219-224. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/33/4/009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Khine, M., & Liu, Y. (2017). Descriptive analysis of the graphic representations of science textbooks. European Journal of STEM Education, 2(3), 06. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/81285 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Kıvanç, Z., & Aydin, A. (2021). 7. sınıf fen bilimleri ders kitabında kimya kavramlarına yönelik analojilerin tespiti [Determination of analogies for the chemistry concepts in the 7 th grade science textbook]. Journal of Turkish Chemical Society Section C: Chemistry Education, 6(1),93-196. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.895226 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Koutsikou, M., Christidou, V., Papadopoulou, M., & Bonoti, F. (2021). Interpersonal meaning: verbal text–image relations in multimodal science texts for young children. Education Sciences, 11(5), 245. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050245 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Köse, M. (2021). Ortaokul fen bilimleri ders kitaplarının ölçme ve değerlendirme açısından incelenmesi [Analysis of secondary school science textbooks in terms of measurement and evaluation]. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 23(2), 316-334. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.738444 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Köse, M. (2022). Fen bilimleri ders kitaplarındaki analojilerin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of analogies in science textbooks]. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 11(1), 112-126. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.955701 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kurnaz, M. A., Çevi̇k, E. E., & Bayri̇, N. G. (2016). Fen ve teknoloji ders kitaplarındaki gösterim türleri arası geçişlerin incelenmesi [Investigation of transitions between multiple representations in the science textbooks]. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 5(3), 31-47. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.321405 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903253916 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  44. Liu, Y., & Khine, M. S. (2016). Content analysis of the diagrammatic representations of primary science textbooks. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(8). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1288a [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Liu, Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2013). Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text.Content analysis of diagrams in secondary school science textbooks. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks: Evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 287-300). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4168-3_14 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300480 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Mills, K. A., & Unsworth, L. (2017). Multimodal literacy. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education (pp.1-29). Oxford University Press. https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/89v27/multimodal-literacy [Google Scholar]
  48. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Fishbein, B., Foy, P., & Moncaleano, S. (2021). Findings from the TIMSS 2019 problem solving and inquiry tasks. Boston College. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/psi/ [Google Scholar]
  49. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Olson, J. F., &  Preuschoff, C. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: Findings form IEA’s trend in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. [Google Scholar]
  50. Myers, G. (1990). Every picture tells a story: Illustrations in E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp.235-269). MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Newton, L., Newton, D., Blake, A., & Brown, K. (2002). Do primary school science books for children show a concern for explanatory understanding? Research in Science & Technological Education, 20, 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514022000030471 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. Novick, L. R. (2006). The importance of both diagrammatic conventions and domain-specific knowledge for diagram literacy in science: The hierarchy as an illustrative case. In D. Barker-Plummer, R. Cox, & N. Swoboda (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 1-11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11783183_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Nur’graha, D. Z. M., & Hermawan, B. (2020). What do the pictures say in a science textbook?. In 4th International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (ICOLLITE 2020) (pp. 164-171). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar]
  54. Park, J., Chang, J., Tang, K.-S., Treagust, D. F., & Won, M. (2020). Sequential patterns of students’ drawing in constructing scientific explanations: Focusing on the interplay among three levels of pictorial representation. International Journal of Science Education, 42(5), 677-702. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1724351 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. Pelger, S., & Nilsson, P. (2016). Popular science writing to support students’ learning of science and scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 46(3), 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11165-015-9465-Y [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Pinto, R. (2002). Introduction to the Science Teacher Training in an Information Society (STTIS) project. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 227-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110078888 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1548043 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  58. Pozzer-ardenghi, L., & Roth, W. (2004). Students ’ Interpretation of Photographs in High School Biology Textbooks (pp.1-37). National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver. [Google Scholar]
  59. Preston, C. M., Hubber, P. J., & Xu, L. (2022). Teaching about electricity in primary school multimodality and variation theory as analytical lenses. Research in Science Education, 52(3), 949-973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10047-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. Qasim, S. H., & Pandey, S. S. (2017). Content analysis of diagrammatic representations in upper primary science textbooks. International Journal of Research - Granthaalayah, 5(7),474-479. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.838939. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Salloum, S. (2021). Intertextuality in science textbooks: Implications for diverse students’ learning. International Journal of Science Education, 43(17), 2814-2842. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1992530 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  62. Sarıoğlan, A. B., Can, Y., & Gedik, İ. (2016). 6. Sınıf fen bilimleri ders kitabındaki etkinliklerin araştırma-sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımına uygunluğunun değerlendirilmesi [The assessment of the suitability of the activities in 6th grade science coursebooks for inquiry based learning approach]. Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 16(3), 1004-1025. https://doi.org/10.12738/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. Shahi̇npoor, S., & Alpan, G. B. (2021). Evaluation of textbooks in Turkey and Iran: Visual elements, page layout and cover designs. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 8(2), 255-280. doi:10.30900/kafkasegt.931939 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  64. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903256502 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  65. Şantaş, H. K. (2017). Çoklu modsal betimlemelerin kullanımının 5,6,7 ve 8. Sınıf fen bilimleri ders kitapları fizik ve biyoloji konuları için incelenmesi [Unpublished master dissertation]. Akdeniz University. http://acikerisim.akdeniz.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/123456789/3231 [Google Scholar]
  66. Tang, K. S. (2021). Discourse strategies for science teaching and learning: research and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429352171 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  67. Tang, K. S. (2022). Distribution of visual representations across scientific genres in secondary science textbooks: Analysing multimodal genre pattern of verbal-visual texts. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10058-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  68. Tang, K. S., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. B. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education: integrative framework for analyzing representation. Science Education, 98(2), 305-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21099 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  69. Tang, K. S., Park, J., & Chang, J. (2022). Multimodal genre of science classroom discourse: Mutual contextualization between genre and representation construction. Research in Science Education, 52(3), 755-772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09999-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  70. Tang, K. S., & Rappa, N. A. (2020). The role of metalanguage in an explicit literacy instruction on scientific explanation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(7), 1311-1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10121-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  71. Tytler, R., & Prain, V. (2010). A framework for re‐thinking learning in science from recent cognitive science perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 2055-2078. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903334849 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  72. Uluçınar Sağır, Ş., & Soylu, Ü. İ. (2021). Investigation of the nature of science themes in seventh grade science textbooks: Force and energy unit. Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 52, 392-411. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.915828 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  73. Valeiras Jurado, J. (2012). Product presentations: A multimodal genre to be disclosed. Forum de Recerca. Universitat Jaume I. http://hdl.handle.net/10234/77252 [Google Scholar]
  74. Valerias Jurado, J., & Ruiz-Madrid, M. N. (2015). A multimodal approach to product presentations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 252-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  75. Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2019). Science education textbook research trends: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1496-1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613584 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  76. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Open University Press. [Google Scholar]
  77. Xia, S. A. (2020). Genre analysis in the digital era: developments and challenges. ESP Today Journal of English for Specific Purposes at Tertiary Level, 8(1), 141-159. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2020.8.1.7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  78. Yeo, J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2017). The role of representations in students’ explanations of four phenomena in physics: dynamics, thermal physics, electromagnetic induction and superposition. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. E. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple representations in physics education (pp. 255-287). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_12 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  79. Yılmaz, M., Gündüz, E., Çi̇men, O., Karakaya, F., & Aslan, İ. (2021). An analysis of 6th grade science textbooks in terms of scientific content and learning outcomes. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 8(2), 101-122. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.947938 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  80. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., & Wallace, C. S. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347-352. [Google Scholar]