Multimedia and Understanding: Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 34, Issue 9, 1997, Pages 949-968

  Kozma, Robert B ^a   Russell, Joel ^b  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b OAKLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000031681     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199711)34:9<949::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-U     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 1000-1003.
2. Bodner, G. (1991). I have found you an argument. Journal of Chemical Education, 68, 385-388.
3. Bodner, G. (1996). The role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. Paper appearing in New Initiatives in Chemical Education, an On-Line Symposium, URL: http://www. inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Topic/Chemistry/ChemConference/ChemConf96/Bodner/ Paper2. html
4. Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
5. Crosland, M. (1962). Historical studies in the language of chemistry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.
8. Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Glaser, R. (1982). Instructional psychology: Past, present, and future. American Psychologist, 37, 292-305.
10. Glaser, R. (1989). Expertise and learning: How do we think about instructional processes now that we have discovered knowledge structures? In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 269-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Glaser, R., & Chi, M. (1988). Overview. In M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise, (pp. xv-xxviii). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Herron, D. (1990). Research in chemical education: Results and directions. In M. Gardner, J. Greeno, F. Reif, A. Schoenfeld, A. diSessa, & E. Stage (Eds.), Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 31-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Hoffmann, R. (1995). The same and not the same. New York: Columbia University Press.
14. Hoffmann, R., & Laszlo, R. (1991). Representation in chemistry. Angewandte Chemie, 30, 1-16.
15. Illman, D. (1994). Multimedia tools gain favor for chemistry presentations. Chemical and Engineering News, 72, 34-40.
16. Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179-212.
17. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (1997). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory. (Tech. Rep.). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
18. Kozma, R., Russell, J., Johnston, J., & Dershimer, C. (1990). College students' understanding of chemical equilibrium. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
19. Kozma, R.B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In S. Vosniadou, R. Glaser, E. DeCorte, & H. Mandel (Eds.), International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 41-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Krajcik, J. (1991). Developing students' understanding of chemical concepts. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany, & B. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 117-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Larkin, J. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.
23. Lavoisier, A. (1965). Elements of chemistry (R. Kerr, Trans.). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1789)
24. Lythcott, J. (1990). Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 248-252.
25. Nakhleh, M. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191-196.
26. Nurrenburn, S., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508-510.
27. Olson, J., & Biolsi, K. (1991). Techniques for representing expert knowledge. In K.A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 240-285). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Pickering, M. (1990). Further studies on concept learning versus problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 254-255.
29. Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations. New York: Vintage.
30. Russell, J., & Kozma, R. (1994). 4M:Chem - multimedia and mental models in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 669-670.
31. Russell, J., Kozma, R., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 330-334.
32. Sawyer, B. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 253-254.
33. Shavelson, R., Carey, N., & Webb, N. (1990). Indicators of science achievement: Options for a powerful policy instrument. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 692-697.
34. Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
35. Smith, K., & Metz, P. (1996). Evaluating student understanding of solution chemistry through microscopic representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 233-235.
36. Yarroch, W. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 449-459.