Exploring the Multimodal Approach in Pre-Service Chemistry Teacher Education: Perspective from Students and Lecturers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v4n4a943Abstract
This study aims to investigate the implementation of a multimodal approach in the learning process and the summative tests of pre-service chemistry teacher education. Data were collected through Google Forms using semi-structured questions. Data were compared with analysis handbooks and summative test documents. The results show that most pre-service chemistry teachers have a multimodal learning style. However, the application of the multimodal approach in chemistry courses has not been extensively implemented due to several challenges. For instance, the time required for preparation can be a significant barrier, as creating and organizing multiple modes of communication can be time-consuming. The complexity of creating media is another challenge, as it requires technical skills and resources. Additionally, the characteristics of students who do not support independent learning can hinder the implementation of a multimodal approach. The most commonly used media in applying the multimodal approach are videos and PowerPoint presentations, supplemented by direct explanations from lecturers. Most of the test techniques used by lecturers were in written form, owing to the difficulties in developing multimodal tests. This study implies an urgent need for the development of multimodal test instruments to accommodate differences in students' learning styles.
Downloads
References
Méndez, V. G., Suelves, D. M., Méndez, C. G., & Mas, J. A. R. L. (2023). Future teachers facing the use of technology for inclusion: A view from the digital competence. Educ Inf Technol, 28, 9305–9323.
Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., Keeffe, M., Lovejoy, V., Mow, L., Sellings, P., Waldrip, B., & Yager, Z. (2013). Personalised learning: Lessons to be learnt. BERJ, 39(4), 654–676.
Stein, P. (2007). Multimodal pedagogies in diverse classrooms: Representation, rights and resources. Routledge.
Archer, A. (2014). Designing multimodal classrooms for social justice. Classroom Discourse, 5(1), 106–116.
Beschorner, B., Colwell, J., Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2018). Using the technology integration planning cycle to prepare pre-service teachers for multimodal instruction. Best Practices in Teaching Digital Literacies (Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation), 9, 13–27.
Holloway, S. M. (2020). The multiliteracies project: Preservice and inservice teachers learning by design in diverse content areas. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 16(3), 1–19.
Yeo, J., & Nielsen, W. (2020). Multimodal science teaching and learning. Learning: Research and Practice, 6(1), 1–4.
Fjørtoft, H. (2020). Multimodal digital classroom assessments. Computers and Education, 152.
Dickmann, T., Opfermann, M., Dammann, E., Lang, M., & Rumann, S. (2019). What you see is what you learn? The role of visual model comprehension for academic success in chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 20(4), 804–820.
Ferreira, J. E. V., & Lawrie, G. A. (2019). Profiling the combinations of multiple representations used in large-class teaching: Pathways to inclusive practices. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 20(4), 902–923.
Lim, F. V., Towndrow, P. A., & Min Tan, J. (2023). Unpacking the teachers’ multimodal pedagogies in the primary English language classroom in Singapore. RELC Journal, 54(3), 729–743.
Wang, S.-P., Chen, Y.-L., & Tseng, W.-T. (2023). Multimodal instruction and mentor-tutoring in an intensive English program. SAGE Open, 13(4).
Gatt, G., & Attard, N. J. (2023). Multimodal teaching methods for students in dentistry: A replacement for traditional teaching or a valuable addition? A three-year prospective cohort study. BMC Medical Education, 23(1).
Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice? AJLL, 33(3), 211–239.
Tang, K., 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.
Beach, R., & O’Brien, D. (2017). Significant literacy research informing English language arts instruction. In Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. xii–29). Routledge.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 43-71). Cambridge University Press.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2019). Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences. In Springer (pp. 1-21).
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
Kiernan, N. A., Manches, A., & Seery, M. K. (2021). The role of visuospatial thinking in students’ predictions of molecular geometry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(3), 626–639.
Bullock, S. (2016). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom by G. Kress, C. Jewitt, J. Ogborn, & C. Tsatsarelis (review). The Canadian Modern Language Review, 72(1), 152–153.
Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The role of visual representations in the learning and teaching of science: An introduction. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1–19.
Ross, J., Curwood, J. S., & Bell, A. (2020). A multimodal assessment framework for higher education. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(4), 290–306.
Achuthan, K., & Murali, S. S. (2017). Virtual lab: An adequate multi-modality learning channel for enhancing students’ perception in chemistry. In Cybernetics and Mathematics Applications in Intelligent Systems: Proceedings of the 6th CSOC2017 (Vol. 574, pp. 419–433).
Smith, A., Leeman-Munk, S., Shelton, A., Mott, B., Wiebe, E., & Lester, J. (2018). A multimodal assessment framework for integrating student writing and drawing in elementary science learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(1), 3–15.
Gundlach, M., Baumann, M., & Engelman, U. M. (2021). How multimodal examinations can increase sustainable student gain by aligning teaching and assessment. Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering, 7(2), 73–76.
Malinta, Q. U. (2020). Kuisioner VARK.
Antoniuk, A. (2019). Learning styles: Moving forward from the myth. CJNSE, 10(2), 85–92.
Costa, R. D., Souza, G. F., Valentim, R. A. M., & Castro, T. B. (2020). The theory of learning styles applied to distance learning. Cognitive Systems Research, 64, 134–145.
Shah, K., Ahmed, J., Shenoy, N., & N, S. (2013). How different are students and their learning styles? Int J Res Med Sci., 1(3), 101-104.
Renuga, M., & Vijayalakshmi, V. (2013). Applying VARK principles to impart interpersonal skills to the students with multimodal learning styles. Life Sci J, 10(2), 2671–2677.
Khanal, L., Shah, S., & Koirala, S. (2014). Exploration of preferred learning styles in medical education using VARK modal. RusOMJ, 3(3), 1–8.
Bucher, H. J., & Niemann, P. (2012). Visualizing science: The reception of PowerPoint presentations. Visual Communication, 11(3), 283–306.
Gordani, Y., & Khajavi, Y. (2020). The impacts of multi-modal PowerPoint presentation on the EFL students’ content knowledge attainment and retention over time. Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 403–417.
Luzón, M. J. (2019). Bridging the gap between experts and publics: The role of multimodality in disseminating research in online videos. Iberica, 37, 167–192.
Schwedler, S., & Kaldewey, M. (2020). Linking the submicroscopic and symbolic level in physical chemistry: How voluntary simulation-based learning activities foster first-year university students’ conceptual understanding. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(4), 1132–1147.
Leeman-Munk, S., Smith, A., Mott, B., Wiebe, E., & Lester, J. (2015). Two modes are better than one: A multimodal assessment framework integrating student writing and drawing. In C. Conati, N. Heffernan, A. Mitrovic, & M. Verdejo (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 205–215). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9112.
Ye, L., Eichler, J. F., Gilewski, A., Talbert, L. E., Mallory, E., Litvak, M., Rigsby, E. M., Henbest, G., Mortezaei, K., & Guregyan, C. (2020). The impact of coupling assessments on conceptual understanding and connection-making in chemical equilibrium and acid-base chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(3), 1000–1012.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Qubahan Academic Journal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.