Critical features of visualizations of transport through the cell membrane-an empirical study of upper secondary and tertiary students' meaning-making of a still image and an animation

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 223-246

  Rundgren, Carl Johan ^a   Tibell, Lena A E ^a  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Life science education; Multimodal learning; Phenomenography; Variation theory; Visualization; Water transport

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952290843     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-009-9171-1     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Abell, S., & Smith, D. (1994). Analytical induction. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 473-487.
2. Agre, P., Preston, G. M., Smith, B. L., Jung, J. S., Raina, S., Moon, C., et al. (1993). Aquaporin CHIP: The archetypal molecular water channel. American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology, 265(4), 463-476.
3. Ainsworth, S. (1999). A functional taxonomy of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2/3), 131-152.
4. Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
5. Campbell, A. M., & Heyer, L. J. (2007). Discovering genomics, proteomics, and bioinformatics (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Pearson Education, Benjamin Cummings.
6. Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of expert's characteristics. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 21-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Cook, M., Carter, G., & Wiebe, E. N. (2008). The interpretation of cellular transport graphics by students with low and high prior knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 239-261.
8. De Groot, B. L., & Grubmüller, H. (2001). Plenary talks. Science, 294, 2353-2357.
9. Fettiplace, R., & Haydon, D. A. (1980). Water permeability of lipid membranes. Physiological Reviews, 60(2), 510-550.
10. Gilbert, J. K. (ed). (2005). Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
11. Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (2008). Introduction. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
12. Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.). (2008b). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
13. Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 249-279.
14. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.
15. King, L. S., & Agre, P. (1996). Pathophysiology of the aquaporin water channels. Annual Review of Physiology, 58, 619-648.
16. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226.
17. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143.
18. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121-146). Dordrecht: Springer.
19. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.
20. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
21. Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177-189.
22. Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157-176.
23. Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students' achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 273-292.
24. Marton, F. (2006). Sameness and difference in transfer. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 501-537.
25. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Marton, F., & Tsui, A. (eds). (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Menger, F. M., Zana, R., & Lindman, B. (1998). Portraying the structure of micelles. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(1), 115.
28. Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51-66.
29. Rundgren, C.-J. (2006). Att börja tala 'biokemiska'-betydelsen av metaforer och hjälpord för meningsskapande kring proteiner. Nordina. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1(5), 30-42.
30. Sanger, M. J., Brecheisen, D. M., & Hynek, B. M. (2001). Can computer animations affect college biology students' conceptions about diffusion and osmosis? The American Biology Teacher, 63(2), 104-109.
31. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and model integration. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
33. Schönborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2006). The importance of visual literacy in the education of biochemists. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 34(2), 94-102.
34. Schönborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2008). A model of factors determining students' ability to interpret external representations in biochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 193-232. doi: 10. 1080/09500690701670535.
35. Schönborn, K. J., Anderson, T. R., & Grayson, D. J. (2002). Student difficulties with the interpretation of a textbook diagram of immunoglobulin G (IgG). Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 30(2), 93-97.
36. Tasker, R. F., & Dalton, R. M. (2006). Research into practice: Visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 141-159.
37. Tasker, R. F., & Dalton, R. M. (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 (pp. 103-131). Dordrecht: Springer.
38. Tieleman, D. P., Marrink, S. J., & Berendsen, H. J. C. (1997). A computer perspective of membranes: molecular dynamics studies of lipid bilayer systems. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 1331, 235-270.
39. Tversky, B., Morrison, J.-B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
40. Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation of the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57, 247-262.
41. Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 5821-5842.