Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 38, Issue 7, 2001, Pages 821-842

  Wu, Hsin Kai ^a   Krajcik, Joseph S ^a   Soloway, Elliot ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035445513     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.1033     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Barnea, N., & Dori, Y.J. (1996). Computerized molecular modeling as a tool to improve chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Science, 36, 629-636.
2. Barnea, N., & Dori, Y.J. (1999). High-school chemistry students' performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 257-271.
3. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64-66.
4. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students' visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, July, 117-120.
5. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1988). Theories, principles and laws. Education in Chemistry, May, 89-92.
6. Berger, C., Walton, C., Jones, T., & Wurman, P. (1995). The Event Recorder (Version 5.6). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.
7. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom setting. Journal of Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
8. Carter, C.S., LaRussa, M.A., & Bodner, G.M. (1987). A study of two measures of spatial ability as predictors of success in different levels of general chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Education, 24(7), 645-657.
9. Clark, J.M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149-210.
10. Copolo, C.F., & Hounshell, P.B. (1995). Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 295-305.
11. Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In E.G. Lagemann & L.S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in Education Research: Problems and Possibilities (pp. 289-298). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
12. Crouch, R.D., Holden, M.S., & Samet, C. (1996). CAChe molecular modeling: A visualization tool early in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(10), 916-918.
13. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittroc (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan Press.
14. Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233-248). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15. Gabel, D., & Sherwood, R. (1980). The effect of student manipulation of molecular models on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(1), 75-81.
16. Gabel, D.L., Samuel, K.V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 695-697.
17. Griffiths, A.K., & Preston, K.R. (1992). Grade-12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611-628.
18. Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509-534.
19. Harrison, A.G., & Treagust, D.F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352-381.
20. Heubel-Drake, M., Finkel, L., Stern, E., & Mouradian, M. (1995). Planning a course for success. The Science Teacher, 62, 18-21.
21. Hoffmann, R., & Laszlo, R. (1991). Representation in chemistry. Angewandte Chemie, 30, 1-16.
22. Jackson, S., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '98 Conference proceedings, Los Angeles.
23. Johnstone, A.H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-705.
24. Johnstone, A.H., & Letton, K.M. (1990). Investigating undergraduate lab work. Education in Chemistry, 28, 81-83.
25. Keig, P.F., & Rubba, P.A. (1993). Translation of representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 883-903.
26. Kozma, R.B. (2000). Students collaborating with computer models and physical experiments. In C. Hoadley (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 314-322). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
27. Kozma, R.B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143.
28. Kozma, R.B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949-968.
29. Kozma, R.B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In R.G.S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, & H. Mandel (Eds.), International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 41-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Krajcik, J.S. (1991). Developing students' understanding of chemical concepts. In S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yeany, & B.K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science: International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 117-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Krajcik, J.S., Simmons, P.E., & Lunetta, V.N. (1988). A research strategy for the dynamic study of students' concepts and problem solving strategies using science software. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(2), 147-155.
32. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translation among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 4-13, 22.
34. Mayer, R.E., & Anderson, R.B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444-452.
35. Narayanan, H.N., & Hegarty, M. (1998). On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48, 267-301.
36. Nye, M.J. (1993). From chemical philosophy to theoretical chemistry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
37. O'Connor, E.A. (1997). Students' use of atomic and molecular models in learning chemistry. Unpublished dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York.
38. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Perkins, D.N., Crismond, D., Simmons, R., & Unger, C. (1995). Inside understanding. In J.L.S.D.N. Perkins, M.M. West, & M.S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 70-91). New York: Oxford University Press.
40. Pribyl, J.R., & Bodner, G.M. (1987). Spatial ability and its role in organic chemistry: A study of four organic courses. Journal of Research in Science Education, 24(3), 229-240.
41. Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Diego, CA: Jossey Bass.
42. Seddon, G.M., & Eniaiyeju, P.A. (1986). The understanding of pictorial depth cues, and the ability to visualize the rotation of three-dimensional structures in diagrams. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4(1), 29-37.
43. Shubbar, K.E. (1990). Learning the visualization of rotations in diagrams of three dimensional structures. Research in Science and Technological Education, 8(2), 145-154.
44. Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K.E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for human computer interaction in the 21st century. Interactions, 1, 36-48.
45. Soloway, E., Jackson, S.L., Klein, J., Quintana, C., Reed, J., Spitulnik, J., Stratford, S.J., Studer, S., Eng, J., & Scala, N. (1996). Learning theory in practice: Case studies of learner-centered design. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '96 Conference proceedings, Vancouver, British Columbia.
46. Talley, L. (1973). The use of three-dimensional visualization as a moderator in the higher cognitive learning of concepts in college level chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Education, 10(3), 263-269.
47. Tuckey, H., Selvaratnam, M., & Bradley, J. (1991). Identification and rectification of student difficulties concerning three-dimensional structures, rotation, and reflection. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(6), 460-464.
48. Williamson, V.M., & Abraham, M.R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 521-534.