Gender and spatial ability and the use of specific labels and diagrammatic arrows in a micro-level chemistry animation

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 83-102

  Falvo, David ^a   Suits, Jerry ^b  

^a DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349607605     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/EC.41.1.d     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
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, (4), 257-271.
3. Bell, J. F. (2001). Investigating gender differences in the science performance of 16-year-old pupils in the UK. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 469-486.
4. Burke, K., Greenbowe, T., & Windschitl M. (1998). Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 1658-1661.
5. Chambers, S. K., & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 107-123.
6. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
7. ChanLin, L. J. (2000). Attributes of animation for learning scientific knowledge. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 228-238.
8. Chuang, Y.-R. (1999). Teaching in a multimedia computer environment: A study of the effects of learning style, gender, and math achievement. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 1, 10. http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/1/10/index.asp http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/ 1999/1/10/index.asp
9. Everitt B. S., & Dunn G. (1991). Applied multivariate data analysis. London: Edward Arnold.
10. Gabel, D. L. (2005). Handbook on science teaching and learning: A project of the National Science Teacher Association. New York: Macmillan.
11. Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M., & Wake, W. (1996). Intelligence: Multiple perspectives. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
12. Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Mahwah, NJ: IEA Publications.
13. Hazari, Z., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors. Science Education, 91, 847-876.
14. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-704.
15. Kelly, R., & Jones, L. (2005). A qualitative study of how general chemistry students interpret features of molecular animations. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
16. Kelly, R. M. (2005). Exploring how animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students' explanations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.
17. Kelly, R. M., & Jones, L. L. (2008). Investigating students' ability to transfer ideas learned from molecular animations of the dissolution process. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 303-309.
18. Kizilkaya, G., & Askar, P. (2008). The effect of an embedded pedagogical agent on the students' science achievement. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 5(4), 208-216.
19. Kleinman, R. W., Griffin, H. C., & Kerner, N. K. (1988). Images in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 303-309.
20. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005a). Multimedia learning of chemistry. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005b). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
22. Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(7), 857-875.
23. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A Meta-Analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.
24. Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 40, pp. 181-248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257-274.
26. Martin, B., & Tversky, B. (2003). Segmenting ambiguous events. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society Meetings, Boston.
27. Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 3-54.
28. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E., (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377-389.
29. Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Retrieved January 5, 2005, from http://wwww.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/edpsych/external/EDUC-5080/Mayer.pdf
30. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive theory for education: What teachers need to know. In N. M. Lambert & B.L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 353-378). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
31. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multi-media learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390-397.
33. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
34. McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86(5), 889-918.
35. McGivern, R. F., Huston, J. P., Byrd, D., King, T., Siegle, G. J., & Reilly, J. (1997). Sex differences in visual recognition memory: Support for a sex-related difference in attention in adults and children. Brain and Cognition, 34, 323-336.
36. Nakhleh, M. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52-55.
37. Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-509.
38. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
39. Passig, D., & Levin, H. (2000). Gender preferences for multimedia interfaces. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 64-71.
40. Peters, M., Laeng, B., Lathan, K., Jackson, M., Zaiouna, R., & Richardson, C. (1995). A redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse mental rotations test: Different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain and Cognition. 28, 39-58.
41. Riding, R. J., & Egelstaff, D. W. (1983). Sex and personality differences in children's detection of changes in prose passages. Educational Studies, 9, 159-168.
42. Riding, R. J., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style, gender and learning from multimedia materials in 11-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 43-56.
43. Riding, R. J., & Smith, D. M. (1999). Sex differences in the effects of speech rate and repetition on the recall of prose in children. Educational Psychology, 3, 253-260.
44. Riding, R. J., & Vincent, D. J. T. (1980). Listening comprehension: The effects of sex, age, passage structure and speech rate. Educational Review, 32, 259-266.
45. Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997). Students' misconceptions in electrochemistry: Current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(7), 819-823.
46. Sanger, M. J., Phelps, A. J., & Fienhold, J. (2000). Using a computer animation to improve students' conceptual understanding of a can-crushing demonstration. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(11), 1517-1519.
47. Sawrey, B. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 253-254.
48. Suits, J. P., & Lagowski, J. J. (1994). Chemistry problem-solving abilities: Gender, reasoning level and computer-simulated experiments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching in Anaheim, CA, 25 pages (ERIC Document # ED369-656).
49. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Australian Educational Review, 43. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.
50. Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9-31.
51. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
52. Tasker R. (2004). Using multimedia to visualize the molecular world: educational theory into practice. In T. Greenbowe & M. Cooper (Eds.), A chemist's guide to effective teaching (pp. 256-272). New York: Prentice Hall.
53. Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2008). Visualizing the molecular world: Design, evaluation, and use of animations. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education Vol. 3, pp. 103-132). Netherlands: Springer.
54. Tasker, R., Dalton, R., Sleet, R., Bucat, B., Chia, W., & Corrigan, D. (2002). Description of VisChem: Visualising chemical structures and reactions at the molecular level to develop a deep understanding of chemistry concepts. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from Learning Designs Web site: http://www. learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD9/index.html
55. Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial schemas and abstract thought (pp. 79-111). Cambridge: MIT Press.
56. Tversky, B. (2003). Navigating by mind and by body. In C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel, & K. F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial cognition II: Integrating abstract theories, empirical studies, formal methods, and practical applications (pp. 72-79). New York: Springer.
57. Tversky, B. (2005). Visuospatial reasoning. In The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 209-242). In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
58. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
59. Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations: A group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599-604.
60. Voyer, D. (1997). Scoring procedure, performance factors, and magnitude of sex differences in spatial performance. The American Journal of Psychology, 110(2), 259-276.
61. 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(5), 521-534.
62. Wu, H.-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465-492.
63. Xu, J. (2006). Gender and homework management reported by high school students. Educational Psychology, 26, 73-91.
64. Yezierski, E. J., & Birk, J. P. (2006). Misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter: Using animations to close the gender gap. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(6), 954-960.
65. Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2003). Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Applied, 9(2), 88-100.
66. Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
67. 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, (4), 257-271.
68. Bell, J. F. (2001). Investigating gender differences in the science performance of 16-year-old pupils in the UK. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 469-486.
69. Burke, K., Greenbowe, T., & Windschitl M. (1998). Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 1658-1661.
70. Chambers, S. K., & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 107-123.
71. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
72. ChanLin, L. J. (2000). Attributes of animation for learning scientific knowledge. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 228-238.
73. Chuang, Y.-R. (1999). Teaching in a multimedia computer environment: A study of the effects of learning style, gender, and math achievement. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 1, 10. http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/1/10/index.asp http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/ 1999/1/10/index.asp
74. Everitt B. S., & Dunn G. (1991). Applied multivariate data analysis. London: Edward Arnold.
75. Gabel, D. L. (2005). Handbook on science teaching and learning: A project of the National Science Teacher Association. New York: Macmillan.
76. Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M., & Wake, W. (1996). Intelligence: Multiple perspectives. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
77. Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Mahwah, NJ: IEA Publications.
78. Hazari, Z., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors. Science Education, 91, 847-876.
79. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-704.
80. Kelly, R., & Jones, L. (2005). A qualitative study of how general chemistry students interpret features of molecular animations. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
81. Kelly, R. M. (2005). Exploring how animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students' explanations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.
82. Kelly, R. M., & Jones, L. L. (2008). Investigating students' ability to transfer ideas learned from molecular animations of the dissolution process. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 303-309.
83. Kizilkaya, G., & Askar, P. (2008). The effect of an embedded pedagogical agent on the students' science achievement. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 5(4), 208-216.
84. Kleinman, R. W., Griffin, H. C., & Kerner, N. K. (1988). Images in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 303-309.
85. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005a). Multimedia learning of chemistry. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
86. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005b). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
87. Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(7), 857-875.
88. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A Meta-Analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.
89. Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 40, pp. 181-248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
90. Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257-274.
91. Martin, B., & Tversky, B. (2003). Segmenting ambiguous events. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society Meetings, Boston.
92. Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 3-54.
93. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E., (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377-389.
94. Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Retrieved January 5, 2005, from http://wwww.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/edpsych/external/EDUC-5080/Mayer.pdf
95. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive theory for education: What teachers need to know. In N. M. Lambert & B.L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 353-378). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
96. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multi-media learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
97. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390-397.
98. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
99. McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86(5), 889-918.
100. McGivern, R. F., Huston, J. P., Byrd, D., King, T., Siegle, G. J., & Reilly, J. (1997). Sex differences in visual recognition memory: Support for a sex-related difference in attention in adults and children. Brain and Cognition, 34, 323-336.
101. Nakhleh, M. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52-55.
102. Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-509.
103. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
104. Passig, D., & Levin, H. (2000). Gender preferences for multimedia interfaces. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 64-71.
105. Peters, M., Laeng, B., Lathan, K., Jackson, M., Zaiouna, R., & Richardson, C. (1995). A redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse mental rotations test: Different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain and Cognition. 28, 39-58.
106. Riding, R. J., & Egelstaff, D. W. (1983). Sex and personality differences in children's detection of changes in prose passages. Educational Studies, 9, 159-168.
107. Riding, R. J., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style, gender and learning from multimedia materials in 11-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 43-56.
108. Riding, R. J., & Smith, D. M. (1999). Sex differences in the effects of speech rate and repetition on the recall of prose in children. Educational Psychology, 3, 253-260.
109. Riding, R. J., & Vincent, D. J. T. (1980). Listening comprehension: The effects of sex, age, passage structure and speech rate. Educational Review, 32, 259-266.
110. Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997). Students' misconceptions in electrochemistry: Current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(7), 819-823.
111. Sanger, M. J., Phelps, A. J., & Fienhold, J. (2000). Using a computer animation to improve students' conceptual understanding of a can-crushing demonstration. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(11), 1517-1519.
112. Sawrey, B. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 253-254.
113. Suits, J. P., & Lagowski, J. J. (1994). Chemistry problem-solving abilities: Gender, reasoning level and computer-simulated experiments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching in Anaheim, CA, 25 pages (ERIC Document # ED369-656).
114. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Australian Educational Review, 43. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.
115. Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9-31.
116. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
117. Tasker R. (2004). Using multimedia to visualize the molecular world: educational theory into practice. In T. Greenbowe & M. Cooper (Eds.), A chemist's guide to effective teaching (pp. 256-272). New York: Prentice Hall.
118. Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2008). Visualizing the molecular world: Design, evaluation, and use of animations. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education Vol. 3, pp. 103-132). Netherlands: Springer.
119. Tasker, R., Dalton, R., Sleet, R., Bucat, B., Chia, W., & Corrigan, D. (2002). Description of VisChem: Visualising chemical structures and reactions at the molecular level to develop a deep understanding of chemistry concepts. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from Learning Designs Web site: http://www. learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD9/index.html
120. Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial schemas and abstract thought (pp. 79-111). Cambridge: MIT Press.
121. Tversky, B. (2003). Navigating by mind and by body. In C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel, & K. F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial cognition II: Integrating abstract theories, empirical studies, formal methods, and practical applications (pp. 72-79). New York: Springer.
122. Tversky, B. (2005). Visuospatial reasoning. In The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 209-242). In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
123. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
124. Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations: A group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599-604.
125. Voyer, D. (1997). Scoring procedure, performance factors, and magnitude of sex differences in spatial performance. The American Journal of Psychology, 110(2), 259-276.
126. 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(5), 521-534.
127. Wu, H.-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465-492.
128. Xu, J. (2006). Gender and homework management reported by high school students. Educational Psychology, 26, 73-91.
129. Yezierski, E. J., & Birk, J. P. (2006). Misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter: Using animations to close the gender gap. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(6), 954-960.
130. Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2003). Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Applied, 9(2), 88-100.