Making visible does not automatically make knowledge understandable: Teaching materials, semiotic mediation, and learning inequalities
Hacer visible no equivale a hacer comprensible: materiales pedagógicos, mediación semiótica e inequidades de aprendizajeArticle Sidebar
Main Article Content
Background: Pedagogical materials constitute a ubiquitous infrastructure in educational processes; however, their availability or aesthetic design does not, in themselves, guarantee the comprehension of knowledge. Their effectiveness is fundamentally contingent upon the cognitive and semiotic processes involved in their interpretation. Objective: This study aims to analyze the relationship between pedagogical materials, semiotic mediation, cognitive processing, and educational inequity through a theoretical-documentary lens. Methodology: An integrative review of a theoretical-documentary nature was conducted, examining 30 academic publications with verifiable DOIs. The studies were selected based on their contribution to four analytical axes: multiple representations and multimodality; multimedia learning and cognitive load; appropriation and self-regulation; and curriculum, school communication, and inequity. Results: The findings demonstrate that pedagogical materials fulfill epistemic, guiding, and normative functions by selecting information, organizing attentional patterns, and establishing criteria for academic understanding. Effective comprehension requires students to recognize the function of representations, articulate sign systems, distinguish surface-level features from conceptual relationships, and transform their interaction with materials into intellectual construction. When these processes remain implicit, they can exacerbate inequalities in knowledge access. Conclusions: The efficacy of pedagogical materials depends not on their quantity or sophistication, but on the explicit instruction of their conventions of use. To foster more equitable learning, this study proposes strengthening explicit semiotic mediation based on clear purposes, coordination between representations, reflexive explanation, and interpretive feedback.
Introducción: Los materiales pedagógicos constituyen una infraestructura habitual de los procesos educativos; sin embargo, su disponibilidad o diseño atractivo no garantizan por sí mismos la comprensión de los saberes. Su efectividad depende de los procesos cognitivos y semióticos implicados en su interpretación. Objetivo: Analizar la relación entre materiales pedagógicos, mediación semiótica, procesamiento cognitivo e inequidad escolar desde una perspectiva teórico-documental. Metodología: Se desarrolló una revisión integrativa de carácter teórico-documental sobre 30 publicaciones académicas con DOI verificable. Los estudios fueron seleccionados según su aporte a cuatro ejes de análisis: representaciones múltiples y multimodalidad, aprendizaje multimedia y carga cognitiva, apropiación y autorregulación, y currículo, comunicación escolar e inequidad. Resultados: Los hallazgos evidencian que los materiales pedagógicos cumplen funciones epistémicas, orientadoras y normativas, al seleccionar información, organizar formas de atención y establecer criterios de comprensión escolar. La comprensión efectiva requiere que los estudiantes reconozcan la función de las representaciones, articulen sistemas de signos, diferencien elementos superficiales de relaciones conceptuales y transformen la interacción con los materiales en construcción intelectual. Cuando estos procesos permanecen implícitos, pueden generarse desigualdades en el acceso al conocimiento. Conclusiones: La eficacia de los materiales pedagógicos no depende de su cantidad o sofisticación, sino de la enseñanza explícita de sus convenciones de uso. Se propone fortalecer una mediación semiótica explícita basada en propósitos claros, coordinación entre representaciones, explicación reflexiva y retroalimentación interpretativa para favorecer aprendizajes más equitativos.
Downloads
Article Details
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2–3), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748016200106
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088307313177
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Schooling in capitalist America revisited. Sociology of Education, 75(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090251
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active–constructive–interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.58.3.c43481778r528qw4
Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students: A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 231–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x
Hansen, J., & Richland, L. E. (2020). Teaching and learning science through multiple representations: Intuitions and executive functions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(4), Article ar61. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-11-0253
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 446–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01150.x
Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7
Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2003). Cultural capital in educational research: A critical assessment. Theory and Society, 32(5–6), 567–606. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RYSO.0000004951.04408.B0
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600718294
Rau, M. A. (2017). Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing STEM learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 717–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9365-3
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0844-0
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15430421TIP4102_2