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

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2018, Vol. 14(2) 209-227

Effect of Multi Modal Representations on the Critical Thinking Skills of the Fifth Grade Students

Muhittin Öz & Esra Kabataş Memiş

pp. 209 - 227   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: .R1

Published online: April 25, 2018  |   Number of Views: 364  |  Number of Download: 970


The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of multi modal representations within writing to learn activities on students’ critical thinking. Mixed method was used. The participants included 32 students 5th grade from elementary school. The groups were randomly selected as a control group and the other class was selected as the experimental group. Data collection tools has been Critical Thinking Test (CTT) and writing actives. The students were asked to tell their peers about the subjects in the unit with a writing activity using the summary writing type. The students performed three writing activities, one preparation and two real practice activities, in this process. The most basic dissimilarity between the groups is the request of the use of multimodal representations asked from the students in the experimental group. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficent of the CTT was determined as 0.72. The results of this study show that the use of the multi modal representations in writing to learn activities improved the scientific critical thinking of the students.

Keywords: Writing to learn, multi modal representations, critical thinking

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Oz, M. & Memis, E.K. (2018). Effect of Multi Modal Representations on the Critical Thinking Skills of the Fifth Grade Students. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(2), 209-227. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2018.139.15

Oz, M. and Memis, E. (2018). Effect of Multi Modal Representations on the Critical Thinking Skills of the Fifth Grade Students. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(2), pp. 209-227.

Chicago 16th edition
Oz, Muhittin and Esra Kabatas Memis (2018). "Effect of Multi Modal Representations on the Critical Thinking Skills of the Fifth Grade Students". International Journal of Progressive Education 14 (2):209-227. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2018.139.15.

  1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102-1134. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and instruction, 16(3), 183-198. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096-1097. [Google Scholar]
  4. Atila, E., Günel, M. & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). Investigating the effect of using multimodal representations within wiriting-to-learn approach on middle school science achievement. ESERA(European Science Education Research Association ) conference, İstanbul, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, W. P., Barstack, R., Clark, D., Hull, E., Goodman, B., Kook, J., & Weaver, D. (2008). Writing-to-learn in the inquiry-science classroom: Effective strategies from middle school science and writing teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(3), 105-108. [Google Scholar]
  6. Boud, D. (2001). Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. New directions for adult and continuing education, 2001(90), 9-18. [Google Scholar]
  7. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K.,Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F., (2013). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Pegem-A Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  8. Can, A. (2014). SPSS İle Bilimsel Araştırma Sürecinde Nicel Veri Analizi. 2.Baski. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  9. Celuch, K., & Slama, M. (1999). Teaching critical thinking skills for the 21st century: An advertising principles case study. Journal of Education for Business, 74(3), 134-139. [Google Scholar]
  10. CHEN, Y. C., Hand, B., & McDOWELL, L. E. A. H. (2013). The Effects of Writing‐to‐Learn Activities on Elementary Students’ Conceptual Understanding: Learning About Force and Motion Through Writing to Older Peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745-771. [Google Scholar]
  11. Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing Writing, 9(1), 56-75. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science education, 90(6), 1073-1091. [Google Scholar]
  13. Çavdar, G., & Doe, S. (2012). Learning through writing: Teaching critical thinking skills in writing assignments. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(02), 298-306. [Google Scholar]
  14. Çepni, S. (2012). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş. 6. Baskı, Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık. [Google Scholar]
  15. Danish, J. A., & Enyedy, N. (2007). Negotiated representational mediators: How young children decide what to include in their science representations. Science Education, 91(1), 1-35. [Google Scholar]
  16. Demirbağ, M., & Günel, M. (2014). Integrating argument-based science inquiry with modal representations: Impact on science achievement, argumentation and writing skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 373-392. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dixon, F., Cassady, J., Cross, T., & Williams, D. (2005). Effects of technology on critical thinking and essay writing among gifted adolescents. Prufrock Journal, 16(4), 180-189. [Google Scholar]
  18. Doğanay, A., Taş, M. A., & Erden, Ş. (2007). Üniversite öğrencilerinin bir güncel tartışmalı konu bağlamında eleştirel düşünme becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 13(4), 511-546. [Google Scholar]
  19. Duron, R., Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2006). Critical thinking framework for any discipline. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 160-166. [Google Scholar]
  20. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College composition and communication, 28(2), 122-128. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into practice, 32(3), 179-186. [Google Scholar]
  23. Erduran Avcı, D., & Akçay, T. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde yazma etkinlikleri üzerine öğretmen görüşleri. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(2), 48-65. [Google Scholar]
  24. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College composition and communication, 31(1), 21-32. [Google Scholar]
  25. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 32(4), 365-387. [Google Scholar]
  26. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production, 4, 139-164. [Google Scholar]
  27. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of educational psychology, 99(3), 445. [Google Scholar]
  28. Greenstein, G. (2013). Writing is thinking: Using writing to teach science. Astronomy Education Review, 12(1), 010401. [Google Scholar]
  29. Günel ,M., Uzoğlu, M. ve Büyükkasap, E. (2009a). Effects of using writing to learn activities on learning force unit in the primary education level. Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 29 (1), 379-399 [Google Scholar]
  30. Günel, M., Atila, M. E., ve Büyükkasap, E. (2009b). The Impact of Using Multi Modal Representation within writing to Learn Activities on Learning Electricitty Unit at 6th Grade. Elementary Education Online, 8(1), 183-199. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gunel, M., & Yesildag-Hasancebi, F. (2016). Modal Representations and their Role in the Learning Process: A Theoretical and Pragmatic Analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 109-126. [Google Scholar]
  32. Güven, M. & Kürüm, D. (2006). Öğrenme stilleri ve eleştirel düşünme arasındaki ilişkiye genel bir bakış. [Google Scholar]
  33. Haglund, J., Jeppsson, F., & Andersson, J. (2012). Young children's analogical reasoning in science domains. Science Education, 96(4), 725-756. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L. & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students' responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 186-210. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hand, B., Lawrence, C. & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International journal of science education, 21(10), 1021-1035. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hand, B. & Prain, V. (1996). Writing for Learning in Science: A Model for Use within Classrooms. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(3), 23-27. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hand, B. & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing‐to‐learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737-755. [Google Scholar]
  38. Heijltjes, A., Van Gog, T., Leppink, J., & Paas, F. (2014). Improving critical thinking: Effects of dispositions and instructions on economics students' reasoning skills. Learning and Instruction, 29, 31-42. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hoban, G. & Nielsen, W. (2012). Using “Slowmation” to enable preservice primary teachers to create multimodal representations of science concepts.Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1101-1119. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hobson, E. H. & Schafermeyer, K. W. (1994). Writing and critical thinking: Writing-to-learn in large classes. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 58(4), 423-426. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing‐to‐learn Strategies in Secondary School Cell Biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of research in education, 32(1), 241-267. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kabataş Memiş, E. (2015). The effect of using multi modal representation on learning “force and motion” unit of students at 7th grade. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 44(1), 23-40. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education, 78, 160-173. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational researcher, 28(2), 16-46. [Google Scholar]
  46. May, D. B., Hammer, D., & Roy, P. (2006). Children's analogical reasoning in a third‐grade science discussion. Science Education, 90(2), 316-330. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mecit, Ö. (2006). 7E öğrenme evresi modelinin beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme yeteneği gelişimine etkisi. Doktora Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ministry of National Education (2013). Science Lesson (6th, 7th, and 8th grade) Education Program, Ankara, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  49. Özdemir, S. M. (2005). Üniversite öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme becerilerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(3), 297-316. [Google Scholar]
  50. Paul, R. W., & Binker, A. J. A. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA 94928. [Google Scholar]
  51. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83(2), 151-162. [Google Scholar]
  52. Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi‐modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843-1866. [Google Scholar]
  53. Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2010). Representing science literacies: An introduction. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 1-3. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rivard, L. O. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643-670. [Google Scholar]
  56. Schafersman, S. D. (1991). An introduction to critical thinking. Retrieved March,3, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  57. Seferoğlu, S. S., & Akbıyık, C. (2006). Eleştirel düşünme ve öğretimi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(30), 193-200. [Google Scholar]
  58. Semerci, Ç. (2003). Eleştirel düşünme becerilerinin geliştirilmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 28(127), 64-70. [Google Scholar]
  59. Siegel, M., & Carey, R. F. (1989). Critical Thinking: A Semiotic Perspective. Monographs on Teaching Critical Thinking Number 1. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, 2805 E. 10th St., Bloomington, IN 47408. [Google Scholar]
  60. So, W. (2016). Representational Practices in Extra-Curricular Science Inquiry Projects: A Study with Asian Primary Pupils. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 14(1). [Google Scholar]
  61. 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. Science Education, 98(2), 305-326. [Google Scholar]
  62. Tolppanen, S., Rantaniitty, T., McDermott, M., Aksela, M. & Hand, B. (2013). Effectiveness of a Lesson on Multimodal Writing in Science Education. LUMAT, 1(5), 503-522. [Google Scholar]
  63. Vandermensbrugghe, J. (2004). The unbearable vagueness of critical thinking in the context of the Anglo-Saxonisation of education. International Education Journal, 5(3), 417-422. [Google Scholar]
  64. Vieira, R. M., Tenreiro-Vieira, C., & Martins, I. P. (2011). Critical Thinking: Conceptual Clarification and Its Importance in Science Education. Science Education International, 22(1), 43-54. [Google Scholar]
  65. Vieira, R. M., & Tenreiro-Vieira, C. (2016). Fostering scientific literacy and critical thinking in elementary science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 659-680. [Google Scholar]
  66. Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2006). Learning junior secondary science through multi-modal representations. Electronic Journal of Science Education,11(1). [Google Scholar]
  67. Walker, S. E. (2003). Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking. Journal of Athletic Training, 38(3), 263. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wang, J. R., & Lin, S. W. (2008). Examining reflective thinking: A study of changes in methods students’ conceptions and understandings of inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 459-479. [Google Scholar]
  69. Whiley, D., Witt, B., Colvin, R. M., Sapiains Arrue, R., & Kotir, J. (2017). Enhancing critical thinking skills in first year environmental management students: a tale of curriculum design, application and reflection. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41(2), 166-181. [Google Scholar]
  70. Won, M., Yoon, H., & Treagust, D. F. (2014). Students’ learning strategies with multiple representations: Explanations of the human breathing mechanism. Science Education, 98(5), 840-866. [Google Scholar]
  71. Yeşildağ, F. (2009). Modern fizik öğrenmede öğrencilerden çoklu modsal betimlemeleri algılamaları ve modsal betimlemelerle hazırladıkları yazma aktivitelerini değerlendirme sürecinin öğrenmeye etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Erzurum [Google Scholar]
  72. Yore, L. D. (2000) Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 105–122. [Google Scholar]