The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter

Science Education

Volumn 94, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 73-94

  Chang, Hsin Yi ^a   Quintana, Chris ^a   Krajcik, Joseph S ^b  

^a NATIONAL KAOHSIUNG NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951988793     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20352     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Abraham, M. R.,Grzybowski, E. B., Renner, J.W.,&Marek, E. A. (1992).Understandings andmisunderstandings of eighth graders of Fve chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 105-120.
2. Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of Fve chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 147-165.
3. Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students' understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 305-316.
4. Appling, J. R., & Peake, L. C. (2004). Instructional technology and molecular visualization. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 361-365.
5. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41,317-337.
6. Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. (1996). Computerized molecular modeling as a tool to improve chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 36, 629-636.
7. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students' visualization of a chemical reaction: Research work pinpoints student difFculties in understanding chemical reactions. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117-120.
8. Buckley, B. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 895-935.
9. Buckley, B., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the role of representations and expressed models in building mental models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 105-122). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
10. Chandler, P. (2004). Commentary: The crucial role of cognitive processes in the design of dynamic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 353-357.
11. Chang, H.-Y., & Quintana, C. (2006). Student-generated animations: Supporting middle school students' visualization, interpretation and reasoning of chemical phenomena. In Proceedings of the 7th InternationalConference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 71-77). International Society of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN.
12. Chang, H.-Y., Scott, L. A., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Chemation: Classroom impact of a handheld chemistry modeling and animation tool. In A. Druin, J. P. Hourcade, & S. Kollet (Eds.), Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children 2004: Building a Community (pp. 119-120). New York: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc.
13. Chiu,M.-H., Chou, C.-C.,&Liu, C.-L. (2002). Dynamic processes of conceptual change: Analysis of constructing mental models of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 688-712.
14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
15. Driver, R. (1985). Beyond appearances: The conservation of matter under physical and chemical transformations. In R. Driver (Ed.), Children's ideas in science (pp. 145-169). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
16. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science. New York: Routledge.
17. Gabel, D. (1993). Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 193-197.
18. Gabel, D.,&Samuel, K. V. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature ofmatter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 695-697.
19. 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, 75-81.
20. Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C.W. (1992). Students' conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 277-299.
21. Hubscher-Younger, T., & Narayanan, N. H. (2003). Dancing hamsters and marble statues: Characterizing student visualizations of algorithms. Paper presented at the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, San Diego, CA.
22. Kozma, R. B. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding chemistry. In M. Jacobsen & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 11-46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Kozma, R. B. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226.
24. Kozma, R. B. (n.d.). Representation and language: The case for representational competence in the chemistry curriculum. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.marygrove.edu/faculty/sscribner/Supplements/Kozma.html
25. 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, E. D. Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 41-60).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Krajcik, J. (1991). Developing students' understanding of chemical concepts. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 117-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D. (1993). Changing middle school students' conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 249-270.
28. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511-544). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. 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.
30. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 87-99.
31. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Harris, C. J., Scott, L. A., Krajcik, J., &Marx, R.W. (2003). Using backward design to create standards based middle school inquiry-oriented chemistry curriculum and assessment materials. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
32. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 35-45.
33. Nakhleh,M. B. (1992).Why some students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191-196.
34. Nakhleh,M. B., Samarapungavan, A., & Saglam, Y. (2005).Middle school students' beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 581-612.
35. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36. Osborne, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children's conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 825-838.
37. Rieber, L. P. (1990). Animation in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38, 77-86.
38. Rohr, M., & Reimann, P. (1998). Reasoning with multiple representations when acquiring the particulate model of matter. In M.W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 41-66). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
39. Roschelle, J. (2003).Keynote paper:Unlocking the learning value ofwireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 260-272.
40. Rotbain, Y.,Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2006). Effect of bead and illustrations models on high school students' achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 500-529.
41. Russell, J., Kozma, R. B., 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.
42. Sanger, M. J. (2000).Using particulate drawings to determine and improve students' conceptions of pure substances and mixtures. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 762-766.
43. Schank, P., & Kozma, R. B. (2002). Learning chemistry though the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21, 253-279.
44. Schwarz, C.V.,&White, B.Y. (2005).Metamodeling knowledge:Developing students' understanding of scientiFc modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 165-205.
45. Soloway, E., Grant, W., Tinker, R., Jeremy, R., Mills, M., Resnick, M., et al. (1999). Science in the palms of their hands. Communications of the ACM, 42(8), 21-27.
46. Stavridou, H.,&Solomonidou, C. (1998). Conceptual reorganization and the construction of the chemical reaction concept during secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 205-221.
47. Tinker, R. (n.d.). Molecular dynamics in education. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from http://www.concord.org/publications/detail/
48. Treagust, D. F., & Chittleborough, G. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-speciFc instructional methods and activities (Vol. 8, pp. 239-267). New York: JAI Press.
49. Vermaat, H., Kramers-Pals, H., & Schank, P. (2003). The use of animations in chemical education. In Proceedings of the International Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 430-441). Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.
50. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
51. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientiFc inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331-370). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
52. Wu, H.-K., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Exploring middle school students' use of inscriptions in project-based science classrooms. Science Education, 90, 852-873.
53. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821-842.
54. Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 449-459.